Document DD6kDGz4E3xJ0Na5pxQwGXeno

II,' 'ii.;:!1;?//''-- S2Yr;:d GGiWkTtOGM-1 o,:- i.Mm it <! ;; U '? 0 0 iO i? 12 ?3 i?< .,-r ( i '6 I Ii- *r : r' i; ! 4 I 21 : 22 |i i`w i\Cr31lO?'i f * C* % ' BEST AVAILABLE COPY : ,v.? k c.;: .Gxvcsui-.E '/.-a A.Vptr-iTOS Dik.i.', .-c ^ ?* .*?r >v?.*y** Coiifcjrcinoa keen j3 IC/itGi-dcipar crv/'ni--.-?. Aud.-.-lc-r ).i.vrt 3.2tb S Co:mt::.tui:.ion N. hashingcon, D. C. Tuasfiiiy, March 3/4, 1S72 'i-j**". a1 a - oi rt.It3.od aiatv.or ciuv.a on j'or rahnarj.ng :o. 'xr-ci\li*c. to rofc.lco, at 3.0 o'clock a. if., , Fuc sd.?.y :-i `V.:. R. C!^i: .0 -C , J ?.: cc c-: t r-ilioitor: GitD. . i'j/.'.v.ctor. O;*'.:.-'-. - o': ;. '~C.c.GG.-k ;-a S <0 C ED X W-G S - cofcOLEKS :, 7. tfciiilc many of >C:U-*here already : ' havff'baeu able to ac.vuv.o>:'ats on''-hi / G .,tv/itc]f of ycur appearances; ' ,' --a* it. Lrth.ur-h,. GoJ.dborg, .-I m a, Hearing exam.- ; ' '.j; /' ~^ '* I .in'er iii the Office, of iranriiig Srcuniners,, Uni tat' Stated Depart- of Lator, and X have been desiignated to conduct this' s. /"* * lfor tho jyorp&sjss.' of rule nicking by the Secretary of * ! i-nbo:: uc.dvr the eccuyutiphu.1 Safety and Health Act, ! 1:.'v: vill hii'-ro' conference-! fh5.s norninc in which wa l cillu-lcnpt.-tc la;/ ..down, s&ae of the ground rules and take and j ,,* * 'i kapr.vx^utplicati'oiiu, if there are any, for .the changing of vh-.- r.ij`-a -of for the presentation of oral testimonyv> I ? jL*Vne sfsy that under the announcement /which published in the Pederal register on January 12, *1972, .-.rjy.y was scheduled af 10:00.a.m. this naming, and I c l.;r`d < .-.. yovv attention to 'fitle 29, Labor, published-in { }; I i1 . -.r.t tt-, /*<, 17.0, of the S'ocleral Register fi which provides i- r< rv `. ; jraking .<h-?>.::iagsr shall.'he informal and lcgisla- X? t-r-e. ton mice also provide that there is an : r >..y ver croot'-ev-anination cn .essential natters. I.' -';.V'-: hiV/e * verv long agenda, of persons' who" wish. ! .-I a;.v: x'vz. l vi.i.j. uffora the opportunity for cros3-3Jcanina o re.-.;/e-itiei points, hut I ask you if such occasion - \v. :<: w.:.- tines whether it is really i ,L nb.UJl i'.i.vi: c:;'::?::* c.iayc. nation- take'plac'd. & r M' ^ / j'nether pnipit has developed An the course. o this'"* >An:j'f. ptbconfejciice discussionsand that in that a number ! - > he prr-i iws who tax* apjp oaring-^herS intend to read into the t/d ;?ire truants which are already in writing*'. Kow/ you/kero arfced to . appear this morning with !i.c.ufhu copies: of any4 nhatomants which you wish to ..place in .record tso.that they could be distributed tie other persons. a*- ... , 'JUSrVCiyf; Oil fc.'icVl was to cut clown on- cross-examination and Iso affords another opportunity for shortening this hear-? . *" . 1 j- *" there As. 'really no point in reading a written docu- into the record if''that written document, can be presented made pert of the-'record,., so I as): any of these who are hare ..c-.ye already been afforded time on the .schedule who intend iy to road 5 docunsht into the record, that they seriously i th::-oitermate of offering that' at the opening of the incf a ." an exhibit which will he made part of the record ..-V-'-h v:i .i >x . if:ford id the^ sane weight in the dej.ibera-/' : y-vich <>.; in to., the malting of the rule on the asbestos as oral '*:e?;timoiiy will be afforded. l-h:. b^Gregorio, are there any matters:'you wish to-' --- * *v '.Vi.,.this time? " 0?: Gr-'iSjOPIC^. Mr. Eramirer, perhaps it may be x':. ir ray thaS vY" anticipate the hearing * to proceed mote 4 >v f:ollov/t: ' This afternoon Xy&uurao' the Hearing .r.'uiij-.sr will havv soma opening remarks, then Mr.' Sonnneii/ llrvctor-o:? the Office of Standards, will have. some opening "v;; end will .introduce certain exhibits/'or would offdr :o.; v'.h'.. jjorcl ri' ,1 . exhibits which X b.opa should need no o'ii iii.r/ion bec.-sun they ,ra mostly /Terex copies or other kind xv copieu of documents-which aro in the possession of most, I `ipci. of the participants, arid then I may "say that the exhib- ti covislst mostlys of copies of .the petition for the' promulga- ion =.ci? a temporary emergency standards, copies of temporary rycr-cy standards, copies "of the`notice of this proceeding, i.' V >Lof. the HIOSH criteria, copies of the recommendations . ,, ~ the Advisory Committee appointed in connection with this :'2;;cl.ir:v', and soma of the copies of documents, which, I p-int t - should not" be controversial. And after that I hope *vr are ready to begin the presentations by interested xxtArrxsHR' emDBsfts j Fine. '.o.v, exhibits will be marked by number in the order r .receipt and at this point 7. would say to Mr, Scanhell w- rJ.: h you may mark jour exhibits , because they will be cnu coming'in. / * would think, however, * that it might be well to v.. ~ iT.ur numbering with 2, end we will make a copy of the - ow..vf ]i*.va,:irci published in the Federal Register as , . | . * .y*M Vi s Exhibit: 1. &*tr. DoGregerio, could you -got wo two copies of that ' +' *-' for that purpose? - Htf MR. BE GREGORIO: Yaa, sir. - EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All exhibits will be received * in duplicate. - -/* Now, at this point I have before me a tentative list 3 of the order of appearance which conforms to the notification which you received in letters from me as,to the time that you would appear. --Certain changes have already been inade and X will go through the list a3 X have it now. If you are here when your name is: called and you" wish a change to be made, please rise , at that time, identify yourself and tell us what the change is. If you sire not here, I will assume that you are agreeable with the scnedule.... Mr. Soahnell will go on first. There will then be a short presentation by. a Mr. Daniel Mackiborki. This will be fallotted by Dr. Nicholson. Wo then have scheduled a.*Mr. Taylor, who I under-- stand represents the American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organisations. Mr. Taylor has requested that he go f on later in the week. And Mr. Neumann, who is scheduled for Friday-afternoon, has rermasted the opportunity to go on this afternoon. If ^V: i-v*.1':. fc 1 <,.# > ' j\J .. , 1 > " .< / /-v* ; /*' "4 w xfi .7. : `6 /. * 3 4 5 7 ,/ 8 9 10 11 12 Mr.,Neumann, I will switch you at' this time, with Mr. Taylor and you will go on this afternoon following Dr. Nichol- t:' son's presentation. MR. '^SUMANN:, Thank you very much. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Neumann will bo followed by m\.` V Dr. Wolfe, and that will conclude the witnesses appearing this afternoon. ' - -. , For tomorrow morning, Mr. Gross will be the opening witness.' Sir?" ..... - / . ,- f./' MR. WODKA: Do you have Mr. Mazzocchi scheduled for this afternoon? MR. DE GREGORIO: This morning it appeared there was | ' 34 a notice of appearance sent to us which apparently was mis- j ' 15- placed anci I tentatively agreed, subject to the approval that ! - 1G there is time this afternoon for their presentation, and I cer- i 17 tairly agree that they should have their presentation this ' ' i, . HT , 19 afternoon if there is time. " EXAMINER .GOLDBERG: - Who is the gentleman who will 20 appear? " i 21 MR. WODKA: Mr. Mazzocchi, M-a-z-z-o-c-c-h-i. . ' 2?. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Mazzocchi will come on then 23 , following Dr. Wolfe this afternoon. MR. WODKA: Thank you. 1L EXAMINER GOLDBERG: We go back to tomorrow morning. , d,/* We will start at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. The first witness will be fir. Gross, lie will be followed by Dr. .Cooper-and Mr. 3 ,-Holaday; .Mr. Holmes and Mr. Pay. 4 MR. ROYER: Mr. Pay has agreed to switch places 5 with Mr. Sheelcler and Mr. Royer, who are on tomorrow afternoon (5 Would you please make that switch? ? EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Yes, the change has been made. 8 Now it is possible to put another witness oii tomor 9 row because I-lr, Gross informs me that rather than the hour'he 10 has been allocated he will require only a maximum of twenty 11 minutes. 12 Is there anyone who is scheduled for later who 13 wishes to go oh tomorrow morning instead? 14 MR. SUMWALT; Mr. Examiner, my name is Sumwalt and 15 I was scheduled originally, I -believe, Friday the 17th. As 16 much as I would enjoy sitting here and listening t6 the 17 comments, I would prefer to coxae on as soon as you can find 13 o)i opening. 19 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: How much time will you require? 20 MR. SUMWALT: May I ask you a question? 21 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Certainly. 22 MR. SUMWALT: I am a little confused and I hope 23 possibly you can help me out. I would like to abide your 24 recommendation and seriously consider it. We have already 215 submitted our.testimony to the office of the Secretary.and if i 6 j' ' 4 ruro.'.ng vliao taiag sno'.vfchiy, v:a would seriously I =Oii_v.opc :i.jr4ns >y-''fhone that,. -7. ropreseat. have done tint- ^i T ::J;v.Xd iiJ;c -fe>~nsecrtain what is the fcoo5.es that we would vv fc-fc.-d fco:fcacjfcify ciw '* ... '' >' ' . _ ,-vv'' . -y. v,' ; " ' 1` am under Ui.V` 5.nipvess.ion fcuf.fc the only document is wh>eh appeared in the .Tedotfal Rogicfcory`which appeared in; v.eteral ft.;cfistj; on *Tanuary 12 am ;a proposed so.fc.-of rule ! i up6a which wo made our comments. I Sift::a that time, however, srici Mr, Attorney thare Lcr.t-d & me:, wnt ago veu state that. comments would-be ;iod ii 7 understand you correctly, on the criteria 1 v-',. aii-o the reccmviendaticns of fcha Advisory Committee to,;, ..l-v-r-.sticy, ^.11 of which I was under the impression tintil '* -* w had /;o riehfc to comment on since it has not j i ; " / ` ~ V / ..' :iy question therefore, Mr. Examiner, is will we bs i .vi.cd 'co ecrcr-entv.pon the recommendations of the Advisory ' S- ;vce to the Secretary? I ' ' ...'"' %a$!-Vv*LK GoiDTjEItG: Mr, DeGregorio, can you help U3 ; *'..** I , f * .' . I M?... GI:i';G01tIC: , I'Jr. Exominor, this proceeding v/as'-'j 1 ..xi by th:-5 publication of an Interim Emergency Standard,j t 'Jv'iuy that' r. "notice cf some proposed rules. Following j , ntlo:' of the 'doti.ee, we did have recommendations'of i -V /' * { ,<fc\ ' , -.0'. .'...o C-j-. r.1./tto-rj- ainJ ',i~i also did have or did receive rv ;'w . `v*..v , ;./v /V . . .. ''*"V?.'* ri.'`T vv'vi ocgml-iints in connection with the piroros ;:d ruins as Xnl?.i?shi* d on .Vanunry-.-i'^. li ij75*. | t j 2n a *^:tv- to bo 'tsciiniacl aiout it# i'.hs reoir^tinda** i !., tic-Ai.j of .-eh-.? iiU*;:.Mory Cwniittee and the. .t-JIOSK packaga also, ^ *( . il'.y writhe-.?, conrn&nts v;er*i all with regard ho the proposed .-ups', "j paople suggested a change one way or the other,.j- /*"' I y * *' j. cl*. 1 have no intention to be technical and I have no objection! ho any views or any com&ients bhxng expressed .on the.. reeamer.da-| J- : \or.c. oi' the Adviwovy Committee or on the recommendations of l:XO.S or of the written presentations of other interested per- j I % } 1 ii Does that answer yo.ir question? Mil. sy:ivi?J:T: Yes it doss, sir. rI *\' 1 l *Zhear Mr# ExaraAnory 2 v;oul<2 appreciate getting on as * "; \ r* . uvly tor-irrow as I cun. ' .-v i i j ATiXh!i?:iiR CvOLDDBKG: Row we will get back to my, I C ; i.:; tion.: iinv; much time will you be taking? P*lbeen minutes. ) l . tI!. ...... SttiMltfSlV' GOLDBSaG: Mr. Sumgait, I am,.putting.-you on | %. . . .. c :i the iu;;t witness for tomorrow morning. v> | MR. SvMIvAT.O?: 'i*hank you, sir. . i GCLDBEnGi We row get to tomorrow afternoon, ( - f. v: I* :'j>\ X;i. : ~ r.first Mr. 'Jrooks. Yes, .vir? f m /-- ' ft .. ; / : . v./-' '' '``.`Jt-vIJ ' /' 1 " ' :" i .+' . ;i, k*^^ ; .? . \-,, r. V ' ; io MR. SWETONIC: I am Mr. Swetonic, who is appearing ft,*"' 2 with Mr. Pay. X would just mention thatOr. Wild who is on ' 3 ^ . this list will not appear to- testify. He is the third repre-'' sentative of the Asbestos Information Association. s EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Does Dr. Wild appear on the list Q you gave me, Mr. DeGregorio? 7 MR. DE GREGORIO: I do not see the name. 8 fr- May, I ask who signed the notice of Appearance? ,' ... 1 / " ' 9 , MR. SWETONIC: Mr. Fay. - "to MR. DE GREGORIO: Mr. Fay is on the Notice. It is A tl 12 ..13 in the morning, the last person.. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: We already made a switch for " Mr... Pay. 14 ,MR; BV7ETONIC: All right, ho problem. I " 1(5 EXAMINER GOLDBERG': To get back to the afternoon of March 15, tomorrow; first Mr. Brooks. , I .Mil". BROOKS: The witness will be Dr. Lain Tetrick; I. 1' I Dr. Lain Tetrick, M.D. Would it be possible as you see that docket to move Dr . Tetrick earlier? I think he'will take not more than 15 .,,. minutes. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: He will be the first one on tomorrow afternoon right after lunch. MR. BROOKS: Do you see any other opportunities at l 25 this time? 1I ....... 1 *1 >/V 1.1 .. v'-' *' EXAMINER GOLDBERG:` llo'; Tdo'iibtTv`Uowever,. if. Dr; ' Totrick is in the bear'ng room tomorrow morning and 'some time should develop/ I would be happy to.put him on. Second, tomorrow afternoon, Mr.Marsh. MR. MARSH: Yea, sir. That is satisfactory with us. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: That was a pleasant^ word, sir. Thank you. V. - * -N,. * Tomorrow afternoon, Mr. Fay, Mr. Padden. '" , MR,. PADDENr - Mr. Examiner, my comments .are in writing and can be submitted for the record. . 'c EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Why don't you do that at the opening.'of ..the hearing' this., .afternoon? /'-' * v '\ ` ; ' We have Mr. Fay, Mr. Paaden will not testify,, and we have a Mr. Leonard, a Mr. Luxon, L-u-x-o-n -- MR. scannell: Mr. Goldberg,,Mr... Luxon is from thev/-'( . United Kingdom and wo have not heard as to when he will-arrive 5.n the United States, if in fact he will at all. "'`-'EXi^ilNER'-GOLDBERd'rx iai.--righfc>v.tiieu^-"you'.s' ,` We will hold that time for him for tomorrow after noon. If he does not appear, he does not appear. And finally for tomorrow afternoon, I have Mr. `Rawlings of Union Carbide. MR. JOHNSON: Would it be at all possible to have that 15 minutes on Thursday, sif? EXAMINER GOLDBERG: You are? MR. JOHNSON: 1' am Mr* Johnson, and I work with Mr.- Raw lings . EXAMINER GOLDBERG: You would rather switch to s . ' <s' Thursday from tomorrow afternoon? - MR. JOHNSON;, i'es sir, anytime at all. EXAtilNER GOLDBERG: Let's go through Thursday and see how it develops and remind me'if I forget. ' We now go to Thursday morning, March 16. First we have ke. Fundsack; MR. PDRDSACK: Mr. Examiner, I am Mr. Pundsack. We' have a group of witnesses who are scheduled to appear ,on Thurs ' V day and I wonder if I might have your permission to have those witnesses appear in the following order: J. P. Jobe, J-o-b-re; Dr. G. W. Wright, W- r-i~g-h-t; Dr. J. C. MacDonald, M-a-c- D-o-n-a~l-d; Dr. T. H. Davison, D-a-v~i-s-o-n; Mr. E. M. Fehner, F-e-n-n-e-r; myself* P; L. Pundsack, P-u-n-d-s-a-c-k; t- P and Mr. H. B. Moreno, M-o-r-e-n-o. I think the names of all of these were submitted in ray correspondence with your office. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: What will be the total time that these seven people will take? ^ MR. PUNDSACK: These seven people will complete .- - ` --' . /* /' their testimony in two hours and fifteen minutes. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Will each of them testify as to, . t different matters, or will it be of a cumulative nature? .3 4 3 6 7 Q ,9 10 n iz 13 14 15 16 MR, rund&AOK: They will testify to, different matters .\.'V . -V V,' V ` but the testimony flows,_together -as a whole. EXAMINER GOLDBERG; Well, we are not going to upset, your scenario* v MR\MARSH: Sir, I mu .John Marsh. I didn't realize you wanted the nam*?. .es of the persons who would te/s`Vt\if'\yy \. ` '*/ ' H \ * * ' EXAMINER ^QLDBEEGs That is not, necessary, sir. You . '* '* ' "S, , 'S. V have your time and your" time ,oX appearance, and we have you down for approximately one-half hour. . . , , MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. JiXA&lNER GOLDBERG: Following Mr. Pundsack and those who will accompany him, I have Mr. Samuels for Thursday morning Mr.. Samuels, . ..,/Vv MR. SAMUELS: I,would like to request I be heard later in the week,, if I may. I have been called to Richmond, Virginia. "Xc necessary, I will appear at that time, but I 17 `v;ould appreciate that courtesy. ' 10 EXMClNER\GOLDBERG: You are on for an hdur? 19 MR. SAMUELS:. Yes. ' .' 20 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Do you need an hour? 21 HR. SAMUELS: Well, I would be willing to turn in 15 22 minutes. 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Are there any persons here who 24 have been notified that they are on for Friday afternoon"who 25 wish to switch to Thursday morning? Hf\' '' .. ; ! < tt ; ,v/v-,,-14 - -;v\ *v'v* I see a hahd. Step'`forwardsir. v*< v' ' V, ' V MR* SCHINNERER: My name is Albert D. Schinnerer, 3 from the Western states Occupational Health Plan. .1 am sched- -4' died 6r Friday aft' ernoo` - n,1 I think, alo* ng with Frank Calegp*V r' y.v 5 I don't believe Frank is here. $ Ed Story, are you taking his place? 7 MU. STORY: Yes/ I am', and l" would like to go or. at a the same time you do, if possible. 0 \ MR. SCHINNERERi So there will be two of us. -x I-- ' ra X have ten minutes. 1! MR. STORY: Five is sufficient for me. 12 MR. SCHINNERER: It would be 15 minutes for the 13 Asbestos Workers^Western States Occupational Health Plan, \ 14 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: We will put you in tomorrow I 15 ,,-w,1Q morning, then, following Hr. Pundsack, if, that is agreeable. MR." PUNDSACK: That would be Thursday morning, I ,1 | 17 believe. 13 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: You ai^e right, Thursday morning. 19 Just .let me make this change. 20 MR. SCHINNERER: Mr. Story's name is S-t-o-r-y, and 21 ..v my, name is S-c-h--i-n-n-e-r-e-r. I ft* 22 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right, I am taking you off 23 of Friday afternoon. MR. NICHOLSON: I am. Dr. Nicholson. A colleague of 25 mine. Dr. Kinsiey Kay, had at the end of his brief which was S. ........ ............... M3. 4 5 '0 7 8 .. ' is 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 10 ,20 21 22 23 7A 25 15 submitted in a ,wrlkfcajiv^arW^i6iiv*'i?oqueiBtQdv"fc&me. It was not .a vV v' ' separate ^letter arid was overlooked, and he did not receive a notification but he would like very much to appear and if it were possible at this time, if that would be quite satisac-v\ tory. v EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Do you have any idea how much time he tfants? vx \ MR. NICHOLSON: Perhaps twenty to thirty minutes at the most. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right, we will put him in 'x then Thursday morning. What is his. full name? ........ ,-MR*.'NICHOLSON: Dr. Kinsley Kay, K-a-y. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: We will put him in for thirty minutes. . i, 1 V Mr. Samuels, if you will spend the time between.how and Friday afternoon cutting it down to about a half hour, we will put you in Friday afternoon. v v' ! . MR. SAMUELS: I v/i.ll attempt to do so. ` ' * Thank you. examiner GOLDBERG: And the final witness for Thurs day morning is a Dr. Cooper. Is he here? DP.. COOPER: I have already been changed to tomorrow morning, sir. vv' * . .... v'v \ . EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right, Dr. Cooper. . ' 16 We have more time now for Thursday morning, if'ahy- ' oho wishes to switch. * : 'a * Take the inike, sii"v, ^ 'v > \ MR. JOHNSON: You asked I remind you about Mr. Rawlings from Wednesday to Thursday. Would this be a possi bility, sir? EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right, we will,put.MrV Rawlings in Thursday morning. . > - 4 r-': We .now get to Thursday afternoon, March 16. I have Mr. Bratt. MR. BRATT: Satisfactory. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. Mr. _Robert*. v' Ml'.. BRATT: Mr. Examiner, I thj.nk that is Dr. Roberta, s\ ^. KXAS-II11ER GOLDBERG: All right, sir. 'DR. VANIG: I am Dr. Vanig, who was hoping to get on today unless Dr. Roberts could be here. I will try to findxhiii and see if he still would like to hold this or if he wants to switch his testimony for the record.' I will let you know as soon as possible. Otherwise it is satisfactory. EICAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you,. Third, we have Mr. Lehman of Certinteed. Four, we have Mr. Weiner and Hr. J. G. Hall. MR. HALL: That is just Mr. J. G.' Hall. 17 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: _ All right. v--, Vivo'J\ wo have a Mr. Rainey, MR. RAINEDi,.. That will be fine/ sir. EXAMINER GOLDBERG:- \And sixth, for Thursday after-' noon, we have Dr. Merrill. DR. DISiUSOf Tor Mr. Merrill voiildyou use Dr. Dlsabo,, D-i-iS-a'-b-o? t .. ' "-v. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: . "' Pino. \ That will be Thursday afternoon. Friday morning, Mr.'Walls. MS- WALLS: I would take a half hour* sir. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Knaubar. . Ilr.,-. Holadav. 5. , ' -. * . \' = MR. HOI'jADAY : I have been changed to tomorrow morn ing. Dr. Cooper and I sfre.occupying the slot allotted to Dr. Nichols.-., ' ' V.. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: ' *" * you off of Friday morning. .. All right,.fine. *A We are taking, . v '.,v Four., I have Armstrong Cord. MR. BIBRIi.. I am L. J. Bibri,' B-i-b-r-i. Friday morning is O.K. 'vt EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right, sir. We have you down for 20 minutes. . Is that satisfactory? MR. BIBRI: Yes, sir. ' EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Now, with Mr. Holaday switched. 'A'. 18 I if there are people who have not been called or who know they 2 are on for Friday, a.fternoon who want tp cratch an earlier plane 3 or. Friday, we can accommodate you.1 4 Let me read off what I have for Friday afternoonjv ' S Messrs. Beasley and Weiner, Mi*. Kusmuk, Mr. Lavalette, 6 Mr. Taylor, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Samuels, and Mr. Perkel. 7 Sir? `,v , ' t , / i. : 8 M&," * KILLIAN! , Mr. Examiner , , Ed Killian. I had 9 . , v* V notification from your office of"being granted time to appear. 10 I haven't heard my name and I would like, if possible, to be 11 scheduled for'Thursday afternoon. , 12 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: How much time will you need, Mr. 13 Killian? "v : 14 &R. KILLIAN: 'Approximately 1.5 minutes. 15 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: I will tell you what I will do, 13 Mr. Killian. 17 Looking at the schedule, it would appear that we can- 18 not get you on Thursday. My guess is vze will be able to do so. 19 I will put you dojm for Friday. Be here on Thursday and if 20 we can get you rn we will'do it. All right? "Y 21 MR. KILLIAN: Fine. Thank you. 22 .EXAMINER GOLDBERG: That seems..to be the schedule, 23 ladies and gentlemen, as you' have heard it. 24 At this time I would ask those who have prepared 23 statements, with sufficient copies to be-exchanged, to place VVV:.* n HM , "v-v v. -* 'v'V IS iv'.o tablu go that others can oono by cd pick --.hen up;II j.i-.ivig lv:ro copies to present as 'ferns! exhibits, V '`VI 2'it, : , hi:. }3:>*fijn.lner, would this b a. the proper i y: 2 kxY. yoi.vr ^ccocwraj questions? 't,; `teJOfe-SPaa C'OLSBEKG: Whttt, sir? v ' Kk. : ,\7otild this b the prop:: time to nak procciflurcl questions? ,* I: "T 3! am hradlev ffells and represent the Asbestos Xnfor- ` Mition AssooiahionV-, t?e,haye c% nw^er. of qt.sstions asking for ! '^ . *' ... .1 * 1 . . .- r rulings iron you, anti X proface them by saying that in light' ; of di'i number of witnesses wo concur with you that cross- . , .., .. .. j 1 vxa>-.ij.-aafcio2j' flight cl si ay' the hearings beyond.our endurance and j '' ' ' ,.o1 /osnihiy .yours, and that If clarifying questions be required ' '. ' hiv; -.-.hey bo ft cose from you, sir. i * j i-. ' 1 \.. * '* I secondly, >:e-would ri]iet. yqur ruling bn your position ; a ..v.h r-.gard. to physical evidence, eit.ier living or photographic?. i i ycx\13. prefer it not be presented inasmuch as we do hot J. .-i-:k it would ha helpful to this hearing. "''ESfVaHTIR GOPpSEnG: May I a3k what do you mean by .! evidence? . .. ir:L. ;'k\L3iS: Either basket"cases or >.-rays. G0LD3S*?.G: The only thing 1 can say now is it.-vbv.l.l have to cos.*, in in duplicate*. K'ii. TiViVS: Thank you, sir. We will ac'cept that., .. > \ VV'V-, , 20 ; ^ . V- for aVullhgc '' I r is with \va;.- ! v "" *' *v'\ cut c; co photographs taken during the hearing; "Aire you opposed-' i:o `j'.-'jh photograph:-.: token by "the proas during the course o:; r-s .. this -hearing?*/ '=V . 1 53 El.MvlNGR CbLDDERG: I would prefer they- not be 0. 7 i, 1i taken. 3i v:.y. tiV):r t The c.n.i ' flush bulbs and piiotograi>hic equiorient cites not. add anytiling to the, hearing. \ S.V is discor.'\ ' - : * V'-W. I G IjR. WALLS: Shank you very much, sir . V 3 p' . . Ilov; with reference to your discretion on maintaining; H "v,'s ' ' " " !. . : *:S k t. 13 i; 12 thw c.v.-rrds open after the hearings, I understand that some ''y H' ' , ` tI *.. i rk is being dor-.e by scientists which wo hope will be finished ' ' 'i ixyhit .two or three wooko, and we wp.uld like to ask your per- i n oir siem r ov: for an indication of your discretion to leave, che \ u 13 !? !i 13 ! rooorc. open for throe v?-a?cs after chose hearings are, finished.j I " , .1 '\&1XW3R GOLDBERG: Do I hear any position on that :U>pl> o '.ticnv 17 KR. D3 GhkGORIO: fir. Examiner, I am agreeable to TO !! keep!c:-.t the-record open for a stated time, but I V7ouici hope, that Wall;* weald- -present whatever he Has %to-present in b.21 :.:o 2oJ:s. `i'he time iu short/ as you knov/. 2! m \ Is-it possible? . ]I b 3*. <* MR. whLi.ri`1 t/e, shall try, sir. .* J v'.XAI-jlllEIi GOLDBERG: '1,.would prefer, fir. Walls, to \.y ruling -.'n'-holding the r--cord boon for briefs'and addir k/.c-ral .-.vide vr.-. a.ict submissions at the close of the hearing ,j, \ I A, -*y l% !I 21,. V a I'K'vv a Uou ^2 'ao much and how many people vun-.i `.iiv.*, :* .the r.ecox'1 bald cp-in. \ `; v-. j \l ;v.- X sea only .prepared to permit tan days. > ilk. K/iL/wS: ' '^..understand, sir. Z think by the weak- j we will hewe a better idea as to when these additional j . 'ir.uv.ynts he rcadv, ' .! J3R GOLDBERG: So Z suggest you. make your appli-l \... i :-. i-.Lc;n at the close of the hearing. { H ' .'inything further? I se'-. a hand*' . MR. GROSS: My nane\is Mr. Gross and my presentation i : tomorrow morning. `J * * In answer to the gentleman that, just spoke, by a <: v-v-idehca I do intend to present physical evidence. | j Mow, X do not have any gentleman here present who I j . - tt: cal?- but, howeveri I do intend and I would like a { " * at this time to present in evidence testimony taken- in :n in which these particular people have testified, and of ?} : these particular depositions would state the condition gentlo-aan has and hov; it was obtained and the gentle- :: .\h subject to cross-examination and rather than produce w-u living body'; I do intend, if there is no objection, to ;.v.-v-inpa' testimony by way of depositions regarding certain ' . ( wi- lo afflicted with acbestosis. . I would ask, to save time, if there is objection to .1 ;lr. my ;Ya.-\\othe\.r gentlemen' .*. iave that phrt-i\auliir..,.problem. i! "GOLD*$UC: Let tu./tuk you this, Mr.' Gxross. j \ - ' 4 '.. *\ , t'ii.l?. constitute pagan from a transcript: ot a trial? CVtOSSi. 1 would say this, sir. Tills constitutes j : -r- : scripts regarding tlia coir,ponestion hearing .in ny particular .'valediction and the purpose of the deposition, quite frankly, j -v-eld )>m to evonervo tuts testimony of the individual because of] : J.:; inability to coma to court. ' ' . BtfbSn'uSR GOLDBERGi-.. Ancl those depositions were intro- nod ii; evidence'in pther tribunals?. > HR. GROSS: Yesv.sir. The particular depositions I. j.e.vor to word" introduced into court proceedings iiiN the State i ;.v V.ov: Jersey, the-Workmen's Compensation Division of the State .J: !!sw Jersey. 4 ' / !; 'EXAMYK3R GOLDBERG: Did those proceedings go. to a t > decision? MR. GROSS: Yas, they did. fcXAMINBR GOLDBERG: ' Are they reported decisions? !?.. GROSS: They are not reported, noi, sir. They j ./it here at the particular tribunal and the judge ruled \ r . % . v-.':-. particular. case, but outside of his particular ruling .Iv. ;, .;ou.?.d be no ro,;ort cx this decision. However., a judgment u:.*red in the particular hearing. 3:i'w:i2HJr. GOLDBERG: It . is a judgment of record of .\ C;V-?, i".g of Jerr;ev? . j i. t, ru w:\LoS.* nay it'please you# sir, X 'think ai 'this v.:.o thei reading into the record of very dramatic and possibly[ V '\ _ J ..c-r'itic testimony wcuidn ' t add' /particualrly to those hearings Vcir.y thing,' it would iii-akG they a circus. J '. . 'f1 MU. GROSS: If >;our Honor please, it is not my posi-. :.ion to road into the' -record; it is -iust my position to place : ,, l ' \... - '' \ v| intothe record the depositions of this particular individual, 'jii : ,o:>l that the Government should have*' 'an opportun ity to see ;* >:overall picture. We are dealing with individuals; I feel I - " \! irdividual \ia part of this particular proceeding, and that uiy position, . , , MSI. GliilCICLEF.j Mr.-Chairman, my name is Clifford :cch?.or, representing the National Insulation Contractors, :.\c r.::l Insulation Manufacturers. j think each one of U3 in this room recognizes the 1;'. :kk that there are cases of disease as a result of accumula- - .of asbestos dust arfcastosis. I see.no purpose for intro- a. oil statutory Workman's Compensation evidence from the-. Sv.tn of Nov Jersey, which was probably not on appeal to any i. !di.j higher courts but a decision by a judge of the Work- ..i :' '..'ci.pensaticn, into thio record. 'ir *C agree with Mr. Bradley Walls, I see nothing to be by :uch u 'thing, ona-;' and, two, I see no purpose of )).v\r.cr,!.r:j \ State Workmen's! Compensation .Htatutory hearing r-.w;u.\vtrv.circ into chi::; public hearing. rilAMS&SA GOLDBERG: G. Any other comments? .* fO'3,. N/.'S;.: Ily name is Nicl. United P&permakers and . /.V.pwrvrorkors Union. United Paparmukers and Paperworkers would like to exyresr dur, indignity of Mr. Walls' character!nation\of those who r.vrv suffer the effects of asbestos dust disease as basket oaees. Using his tei-ininclogy, wo have a basket case v/e would like to present to,you sometime today. , EXAIITUER GOLDBERG; We v;ill hear all witnesses who are presented,, sir. Does the Solicitor's Office have a position,on this offer of evidence, Mr. DOGregorio? ' MR. DE GREGORIO: I am sorry, I wap consulting with my colleague hero. Would you repeat the question, please? SXAWIIIER G0LDSER3: Do you have a position on Mr ; - Gross' recuest for a ruling? yin, DE GREGORIO: Sir, my only position is that if c!;e depositions or whatever other comments or views being ducatioued, if they are relevant to any issue raised by the Wouice, I would have no objection. EJtfJ-IIlJE?. GOLDBERG: Do you intend to make those part cf a written presentation, Mr. Gross? MR. GROSS: Actually my intentions are a brief introduction>'.s to my -experiences in regard to this particular \ \ \ ` \ v ' \ . ' flnld .-md to introduce, Without comment, the depositions which \. > \, \. \ $ - nctual testS.i.iony of an' afflicted person. X don1-!: intend to eoroGht oh the depositions or of rev anything regarding th-v.se in the hearing. X feel that the purpose of the deposition is to bring before this body the actual testimony, the actual'.facts of an individual, and quite frankly that is tho reason, v/e are ail here, is to protect members of our working.-.force, and they, themselves should have a say in .fchisxproceeding- I thought, quite frankly, at one tine, of bringing scineono here, but X thought that not appropriate. In lieu of that, it, is \ . intention to introduce a deposition without, us X say, any editorialising on my part. It. has nothing to do, or the decision in the case '.-ill not.be made part of the record. The purpose is to pre- tv.rit.. ,the facts as this man-, stated in the deposition. E^MIHXIRGOLDBERG:, Anything further on this? (Wo response) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: I will receive the depositions o rou- under tho conditions'stated by Mr. Gross. , i't. GROSS: Thank you, sir . --- v- KS2-1X3S& GOLDBEfcQ: Anything further? (Wo response). , \ \SXAMIXLR GOIDGERG: It is now 10:45. Unless there p T 26 is objection, wo will convene at 12:30\or the formal opening , o\ f the hearing'andv re. ceipt` of* evidence. *' \ So ordered. V\ is (Who roue on, at 10:45 o'clock a.m., the prehearing * conference v/ne edjournei'.# tha hearing. to convene at 12:30 o'clock tKifl., tna some day.)' ' x. ., . oI J Vi "I i!;|l I !i lV V.*> t! v/ ix t*v tf v; ii om ; >p v J' WfeMV: M:-!&C-y:L.v sim *%' ^:= Y`*V* i: N*-> .. Ss V. Er- & ]*V: V r-% ":i4v* . ' `V . D6I01V WB12^.#!---- aL. OocupatibnAl; Safety and Health Administration of the \ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ' '. hV ' . f-ciAVrwY'Vi'f*'J-|;VT!v:V`^-> . : .CVtir'iVO Docket No. In the matter of STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST, PROPOSED RULE MARINO PUBLIC HEARINO S rv. " . . n . . f:'-: rW -An y i'f.. Vfti '* tM w.^.. TM< Washington. D.C. March in. 1972. HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. , OfficialRepc/t*n Wuhtngtns, D. C. 546-6866 ; .. ;vj\ ' V; :t iv; ; 't-i.. - i-. . *svVv ... vif ': P'j MSS/fp 1 2 `\ 3 4 5 \6 7 8 0 to u \z 13 . 14 1,5 IS \ 17 ia 19 20 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 27 ; \ WASHINGTON, D; C. \ -y- ~-.-x In the Matter of: V: '\ , : STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST, : PROPOSED, RULE MAKING \ \s ' ' . i PUBLIC HEARING \ \ * Conference Room B \ Interdepartmental Auditorium 12th a Constitution Ave.,,N. W. Washington, D. C. Tuesday, March 14, 19,72 \ The above-entitled matter,came on for hearing, pur-, ouant t.o\prehearing conference, at 12:30 o'clock p.ml, Tuesday March 14, 1972. . BEFORE: \ \. ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Hearing Examiner , ?>?PEARANCES : \ . H. DcGREGORIO, Esq. Office of Solicitor, OSHA G. F. SCAHNELt, Director, Offico of Standards,. OSHA MSS/p \ 3-14-72 1 CONTENTS. STATEMENT OF:'. .3 Gerald F i Scanned! \ Acting Director,vQffice of Standards, 4 QSIIA, U s. Department of Labor, S\ Dr. Lain Totrick. \ on bohalf of American iron a Steel institute G (Mar3:ed as Exhibit No* 19, at page 37) David A. Padclen on behalf of United Auto Workers (Marked as Exhibit No. 20, at page 38) 0 Jim Corbin oh behalf of 3M Cosnpany, Occupational 10 Protection Products Division (Marked as Exhibit 21, at page 33) IS Daniel Mackiborki . of iianville, New Jersey \ Dr. Mtucwell Borov* on bohalf of Daniel Mackiborki Dr,. William Nicholson, '5 Assistant Professor, Community Kadi.cine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine,, :s Ci\ty University of'\New York 17 Charles 'Neumann- Senior Vice President rO'; Kent.ile floors, Incorpbrated \~ i> Sidney, Wolfe,, M.B. Health Research Group, Washington, D C. 10 Anthony Kaasocchi ., 21 Citizeship-*.Legi3lafcive Director, Oil, Chemical' and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CXO 22. David R. Lavalette 23 representing Shipbuilders Council of America 24 Ernest C. Bratt General Manager - Asbestos, of. 23 j H. K. Porter Company, Inc., of Pittsburgh, v \ \ 28 PAGE , 32 39 40 . 43 67 72 79 . 88 93 V\ STATEMENT OF: (Continued j v Alex Kuzmuk \\ representing the Asbestos Textile Institute 29 PAGE 97 . EXHIBITS NUMBER \ Government's Ho. 1 OSHA Nos. 2 through 17 \ PUBLIC: No. 18 \ No/ 19 \ No. 20 No. 21 IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 33 33 36 36 27 ' 37 \ 38 38 39 39 39 39 P Jt 0 0 E'E D X .N G S \ * mm --* '.M M mmm GOLDHERGj Tho.ce being no r'eanoii hot to do. sOf,/./s v;il cit this? point go on blip record* The hearing will be in order. -. ; This''is a formal hearing for the purposes of rule > j making by `the Secretary,of Labor for the asbestos industry, pursuant to Notice published in the Federal Register under 0: \ d>:co of January, 1.'^ 1972r Federal Register,Volume 37/ Ho. 7, V r Face'-'146 and following pagas. :r ii. i i* :: i : r. i The.., Hearing Examiner conducting this hearing is \ \\ \ .i author l*v. Goldberg, by designation of the Chief Hearing Exam- - `I * i. / Office of Eot.ring Examiners, United States Department of ; Labor. V ,' \- i The corduot of this rule making hearing will ba con"rolled by tho "Rules of Procedure for' -'Promulgating, Midify- j. or Revoking Occupational Safety or Health Standards, i` \ . *. .. \ ;;..n the Feeoral Register under.data of September .1, ./'l, Vote 35/ i?4.. 170. Y' Y i j | If anyone her?.* nas not read the rules, and regulations, f. 01 r*, ;e tv..-:m to'do so.\ l am not going to do sc at this time. - * . ... i The nature of this hearings is legislative! All int- I r/'.'-i 1 parties have bsc-.n afforded ar* opportunity under the otic.-. publishod on January 12, 1972, to,request the oppor- / ;;c appear and offer evidence,:documentary or oral. ' \ i 1. nil requests which were received have' been hc>norv/i, \ V 31 ' Pursuant to the confnretc \fchis motriing, a schedule of apoear-- ; imcr.3 lic'.a been arranged. Unclar the rules, as X stated 'this morning, fcharo is \ ^ jj the. opportunity at, the. discretion o the Searing Examiner for p |j V * J !; c'roB.'-ojxnuniition. ' again request that cross-examination be I - \ \ C Si limited'to essential points. '\ ' ' ` 1 y :! 1 call your attention to the fact that the.reporter ; 8 !| ma'can the only official record of these proceedings, that ali, .! I 9 j! U *0 ji . oo;n;r.3i:tsv\so!ien,within the hearing room will be recorded by tho reporter, that'.requests to go off the record are to be 31 *!'t - ii :a !? directed to the nearing Examiner, and we will not go off the record unless and until the Hearing Examiner so directs, will not advise you as to the proper rules of decorum, because you are all mature individuals who are well J i! WC\ XC of the decor 8 li t :y ji of sc.oh a hearing, they .:i.vp somobC'iy v., !' ' ij ' ?.t this *' C' , r.- ; ; G.vccori Or1 >.V f. <; ` y\ f. * ` G "IV'*ic.>vW, *, ^i*..* , Did X. unn.do.rsteuid you correctly to1 say that this is fo.V;P~.l? ** -I :?. Icgiilaui* ' socccri correctly. ,' t ,1 J j i BXftfciXWR GdXiOUJJRGs it is , hut xojnr.ol ,in ' tiii? Lv.igfs that .it leads to ' .promulgation of-.a 6n&l\ rule. \ ; ;.`R. DE GSEGORIOs Thank you very much. *. vj BieK&XIBSL GOLDB52RG: Anything else? \* i ! {No response) > i. \' v x j` X&!iINER GOIiDaSRGs Then a-: , this time, pursuant to i . \ the schedule. 5Sr>. 8cann<alX, it is your turn. , \\ \j \ STATSM2^T OP GERkLD P. SCAHNELL ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF STAKDARDS, OCCUPATION. Sffl&Y AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPASTMEltTT. OP LABOR HR. SCAWISLL: .Hr; Goldberg, my name ia Gerald Scanholi, Acting Director ox the Office of Standards, Occupa- . ' ' \ t'icm-.i. Safety snd\EsaX`th Administration, U. S. Department of j L-cior. Cn tshelf of the Department of Labor, I would like \ to ti\'.Z3.z into the .record a. number of exhibits.' They dre all i x '* in chronological order with 'tha exception of Exhibit No. ,1, 1 j'.viioh .-jo f.creid this morning v/ould be the January 12 Notice \ \' . ". - \ V, | y./tVjySCrc* Ro.Ia Making for Standards for Exposure to. Asbestos] v- /. . < 2XAAXNSR GOLDBERG: Thank you for calling -that to Oil. If I may interrupt you at this -cine, we will mark .vri/e in evidence as Exhibit No. 1, the Notice of Pro/ V.G.c: Htilii'.cj published.- .in the Federal Register of 1 January 12, 1972. ?. (Government Exhibit No. i was 3 vraarkad for identification and 4 .. received in evidence.) , L- UN. SCANNELL:- We do have duplicate copies. 0 Exhibit No. 2 is a letter dated November 4, 1971/ V frcrn Hr. Georg II. R, Taylor, Executive Secretary, AFofLrCIO j Standing Cotmittea on Safety `and Occupational and Health Stand ards on balialf of the AFLrCIO, requesting that the United States : Department of Labor promulgate emergency standards governing 75 the industrial use of asbestos. Supporting statements were 7 fj submitted with Mr. Taylor's letter. 73 Exhibit No. 3 is a letter from the Assistant Secretary 14 of labor, OSH&, dated November 10, 1971, to tha Director, IS national Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Depart- K> r.tOT't of Health, Education, and Welfare, and enclosing a copy of TV i. :% * i*. " .teylor'o letter of request and requesting their recomtnenda- is :: '.I! bn the proposed TLV of five fibers per milliliter,' reflect . th- 1S71 ?iCGlli recommendations *v: > Cur Exhibit 4 is a letter from tha Director of the l'.X Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the \ 22 r. r. >- i! t2S !' Secretary, Mr. Guenther, responding to the Assistant irv*a request for information. Lthibit No. 5, on December 7, 1971, the Occupational ana Health .Administration .published an emergency standan 1 \ 34 \ exposure to asbostos in the Federal Register; Volume 36, \ j . 235, Fages 23207 through 23209'. j Exhibit C is a notice in the Federal .Register dated ; v.iu-ry 11, Standard for Exposure to Asbestos Dust in the\ Ship.: pairing. Shipbuilding, Shipbreaking and Longshoring. Exhibit Wo. 7, a notice in the .Federal Register ' ' .j ted February 25, the National Institute for Occupational \i \ '. i fety and Health has filed with the Secretary of tabor, quote] riterdu for a Recommended Standard on Occupational Exposure ! . \ :I Asbestos." | . \' \ I. Exhibit Wo. 8 is the criteria package just mentioned! ' i . : t Exhibit Wo. 7. .| Incidentally, Dr.Charles H. Powell,the Assistant j I' s:&$tor of NI03K, is here today in the event that there might? *. i i a possible questionontheariteria package. | Exhibit No. 9 is the nobice of a meeting on February; j2 the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Standards. Exhibit No. 10, dated February 25, is the report m -.h-i Asbestos Advisory Committee of recommendations, with .toeying Hotter from Edvrin C. Hyatt, Chairman of the Com- VU-.Oi Mr. Hyatt is also here this afternoon in the\ event ! .rv z.;a possible questions on :the recommendations from the j .i;o;:y Committos.- . . . ' \i * Exhibit ;.o. 11 is a letter frera Isaac Weaver, dated Eebrnary 25, 1972. \ Mr. Weaver ds a member of the Advisory \ V. \ Cc;.vtiitc<e on Asbestos Jbuat. .Mr.. Weaver1 a letter concerns the dissenting vote on the previously mentioned Exhibit No. 10. Exhibit il-A is a letter front.Mr. Guenther, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSIIA, to. Mr.' Weaver, acknowledging his receipt of Mr. Weaver's dissenting opinion or: the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Mr, Examiner, the Department of Labor has received' the transcript of the various meetings', the five meetings of the Asbestos Advisory Committee, and they are Exhibits 12, 13 !' - .15 and 16. We would also like to enter those for the record, sir. >. ' We would like to enter into the record Exhibit 17 a package. It contains the originals of all comments on proposed standards:for exposure to asbestos dust as received in the Office of Standards; Mri Examiner, our position is to take into consid er.'. cfo,p at-the end of the hearing all evidence that you have . ooeute.i at unis hearing and then consider the proposed rule is. I:.:;;it -of this evidence that is received prior to promul- gi-.i-.i-1.; c. final' rule on asbestos dust. `.Chunk you. ; yiKAi-ilwER GOLDliSRG: Are there any objections to , :>.* joint of ''.Exhibits 2 through 17? E-jraMZMBR GOLDBERG: There being \noncExhibits 2 through 17, as identified by Mr. Scannell, are received in Evidence. ' '* ' . *. \ ; ; * 1 " I (OSHA Exhibit Nos. 2 thru 17 previ-:= ously marked for identification j . . . . v/ere received in evidence.) * i { ' 'v . .1 EXAMlIfER GOLDBERG: All, exhibits, received will remairu in the custody of the reporter until the close of. the hearing ! and may be\examined by arrangements with the reporter. | Mr. Scannell, does this conclude your statement? MR. SCANNELL: Yes, sir, it does. \\ \I EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Dobs anyone wish anything further! V ' , ' ~ \ \ j\ of,Mr. Scannell before he isexcused? j (No response) j EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The next witness I have scheduled; is-.Mr. Daniel Mackiborki.Is he present? j . o (No response) \ '' ! | EXAMINER GOLDBERG: , Is Mr. Samuels present? S lm, LhVALETTE: Sir, point of order. ] ; ' '! I Is ny understanding we are going to enter evidence at; EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Yes, youare correct. Tit this r.:<rs if there are any parties\who wish to 't*:heir ` testimony in the form of written documents. writton statements rather than by reading them into the record, I will recognize them for that purpose and receive .3 such statements. 4. MR. IAVALETTE\ Tes> sir. s ,My name is David Lavalette r and .1 would like to G enter written statements into the record on behalf of the Y 7 Shipbuilders Council of America. Q EXAMINER GOLDBERGS Mr.\Lavalette's statement for S> the Shipbuilders Council of America is marked Exhibit 18. 10 , (The document above referred, 11 to was .marked as Exhibit No. 12 18 for identification.) 13 ME. BROOKS:' It:. Goldberg/,I am Wayne Brooks, Ameri U can Iron and Steel Institute,. I would like to submit the 15 written testimony, of Dr'*. Lain Tetrick, who was scheduled, to 16 testify tomorrow afternoon. 17 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Dr. Tetrick*s testimony will be 13 narked Exhibit 1&, 19 (The document above referred 20 to was marked as Exhibit No. 21 19 for identification.) 22 MR. DROOKS: May I make one further short statement? 23 Dr. Tetrick's testimony will be or will have been \._ 24 , cumulative of that v;hich will be\offered, by Mr. Norman Roberts, 25 which Dr. Tetrick is familiar with, and we would like to ; ; \ 1 \ \ 38. associate Dr, Tetri'ok * s point of view with that which will be, expressed by Dr. Roberta. ; 3 I am handing counsel copies of the testimony. \ 4 EXAMINER GOLDBERGDoes anyone wish to submit at \ 5 this time? * 6 "MR* PADDEN:' David A. Padden,. United Auto. Workers, 7 and I would like to submit a statement for United Auto Workers s \ . j 8 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Padden's statement will be 9 marked Exhibit 20. ,, %o (The document above referred to n was marked as Exhibit No. 20 12 for Identification.) f3 MR. CORBIN: Mr. Goldberg, my name is Jim Corbin. f4 I would like to enter a statement on behalf of the 3M Company, t5 Occupational Protection Products Division. 16 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The statement for the 3M Company 17 will bfe'marked Exhibit 21. W (The document above referred to 19 ; 2.0 I' was marked as Exhibit No. 2l ,` for identification.) 21 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Does anyone else at this, time 22 wish to submit written statements in lieu of testimony? 23 (No response) , 24 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibits 18 through 21 are 25 received in evidence. Iff'/- 't ' V -S , \ V. , -^ / V-" " *i J \ '' V, \ \ \ 40 ; 11 ;* was on.December 11, -'71, uud on January 20 of this year I went.. \ `* V\> ; = _ f ?.; to my own doctor and he scint me into the hospital, and after > o -'j eight, days of extensive tests arid - x-rays he made an exploratory; and found out I had an abdominal mesothelioma. t 5 a If there is any further information you would like :r.e to-- 1 r\\. 7 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: There are two gentlemen that have 0 joined Mr. Mackiborki at the witness table. ' 0 . Identify yourselves, please. - '\ ,! j 30 DR. BOROW; Dr. Maxwell Borow. * MR. NEAL: My name is Cory Deal, representing the J 12 United Papermakers and Paper Workers Local. I joined in asking| 33 Dr. Borov? and Hr. Macikiborki to come here today. \ !4 !i EXAMINER G0LD3SRG: Do you wish to elicit any testi mony from Mr. Kackifcorki, Mr. Neal? </i! . MR; NEAL; X think perhaps Dr. Borow might want to v J!5 |! t^ talk briefly about his case and cu* expression of concern as to Mr. Mscfcibdrkx* s health problem. UiffiMIEHR GOLDBCBG: Dr. Borow. ** -:1f: ii 23 j! Would you use the mike, please, sir? STATEMENT OP DR. MAXWELL 30ROW ON BEHALF OP DANIEL MACKIBORKI DR. EOEGTC; This* has been of very great concern to us 2d--;.* :.n. the -.vcdical profession in the New Jersey area. We first b'jwswo v.'are of the condition of Mr. Mackiborki as to this 3 {' very rare malignancy* 'St is so rare that - textbooks eyen today 4-r I c'.oi.'ori.oe j.k -as being almost an unexistent malignancy* It is a KN> !\\4 pathological curiosity when one finds it,, and 2 would daresay Ml at least 95 percent or more., doctors of this country never even 5 ! have seitan it,, much less perhaps heard of it, and yet we now o i! have a series of about.52 patients with this.condition. >! All these patients have pulmonary asbestosis and 8 this hr.si been true throughout the world/ but other series have 0 been reported in Russia, South Africa^ arid it also has-been 30 reported in people who have not particularly worked in the n industry but are working with asbestos products, such as the 32 pipefitters that U3e asbestos to line the pipe, so it is a 33 very definite haaard. 3d Mr. Haokiborki* s situation is'a very rare malignancy IS However, you also have greatly increased incidents of other 30 malignancy with people with pulmonary asbestosis. The inci- 17 !i 531 3.9 ii *.,, ii dance of gastrointestinal cancer, lung cancer, is very exces sive compared to the average population. I think the problem gees further in that there is an. on ironmonfr.?.' exposure 'with this problem too. Two of our \\ P:.ti.; ti'. never worked with Johns-Manvilie but lived in the com- ?:l '>! :.v*.r.:Lt. end one woman, the only exposure we could find was where i;- she used to launder* her husband's clothes. He would bring ir. work clothes home.with nsbdstos on it and she would S.J :*n:u'?d.vthose clothes. This was during the late MOs and then  42; V E;jo c;.io down with th^s condition* The other woman played in the backyard of the industrial plant where asbestos was processed, and this is where she got the exposure. Another series, also of environmental exposure. Tills emergency never occurs until they have had the asbestos exposure for twenty or more years, usually between twenty and thirty years, and then the malignancy appears. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Would you give your full name and any material as to your professional standards, for the record? DR. BOROW: Maicwell Borov/, B-o-r-o-w. 1 am a surgeon, specializing in chest surgery, practicing in Bound Brook, Rev/ Jersey, and New Brunswick, New Jersey. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. Do the witnesses have anything further to offer?, HR. NEAL: Or. behalf of the United Papermakers and .. r Paper Workers, v/a would, like to join v/ith the Industrial . Union'; Department of AEL-CIO in urging the Secretary of the D.vpartnvsnt of Lr.bor to adopt as quickly as possible the staixtartis DU. 30R0T7: May I make one more commentand that J..; fth^t one of the asbestos effects we have noted 1s that th.-rc hu:-; been very poor correlation with the amount of pul; ? ahestosis present and the occurrence of the malignancy 1 ' 43 i Mr. Hsckiborkl^is a patient who showed no signs of \i pulmonary asbo3toais on his chest, strays or any other test that \j& "had done to the present t?;ne, and I am sure ha has it in hirs lungs. .- This has been cur experience with other people too, that v;e have had no clinical evidence of this until later on when one is examined, and Mr. Mackibcrki knbws his situation completely. This is a. fatal disease. There has been really no treatment for. it. . When these people are examined later for autopsy, there are the asbestos fibers.in the lungs, so X think the big question in everybody's mind is what is meant by, or how much exposure do you have to have before you are subject to this problem? Apparently it doesn't require very much. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Anything further? May these witnesses be released? (No response)'' EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, gentlemen. Dr. llicholson. Would you identify yourself, please? STATEMENT 0? DR. WILLIAM NICHOLSON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COMMUNITY MEDICINE, MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, CITY UNIVERSITY OP NEW YORK 15IC.10LS0M Yes. . I am Dr. William Nicholson, Professor, Comiaunity Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, City University of Nov; York. 44 \ I. work in the SnvirohmenUal Sciancw ,Laboratory, which is directed by Dr, I.tving r. Selikoff: of that institution. My background while <ii that laboratory for the past I three veers has been concerned with the assessment of the ' | \ * v i \ jnvironihental exposure of tho work environment of the asbestos .'Ofrksro v;hp apply the insulation in pipes to boilers and other | | t i i hot and cold type equipment. 'j ` j In addition, I have been engaged in two epidemiologi- ` cal studies relating to the incidence,of asbestos disease and r have condvicted tv;o environmental surveys of asbestos air pollu tion in Nev; York City ana in other cities throughout'the United J Vata&i ix: conjunction' with the National Air Pollution Control .^ministration, the Nev; York City Department of Air Resources. Unfortunately, Dr. Selikoff was unable to come to hh: hearing today. My remarks will cover the essence of his .. :.vii;v.:ny and my own, which wa3 to have been presented tomorrow In each case a brief has been submitted, which I : is part of the record at this time. A brief was submit- vrior to'the required data, which does not require any ff.thrr submissions at this tine. Is that correct? EXAIilHSR G0LD3ERG: Yes, sir. -- DR. NICHOLSON: Let me first speak to the health ce of one* group of asbestos workers that has been I by Dr. Solikoff since the early `60s lie identified every member of the International association of Heat and Frostj Workers bn. January If., 194.3* There were 632 members of theV J Union in the >7.e-r York and He;/' Jersey - Locals at that time. | Since then/ 425 have to June 30, 1971, 425 of the 632 j active members of the Union in 1943. ** ^ When one looks at the cause of death of this group .! ' | of workers, it becomes clear that .their occupational experience . ' .- i hus beer, a tragedy, qua in five has died of lung cancer, one in ten of gastrointestinal cancer, nearly one in ten of raeso- tkolior.ia, the disease you just heard about from Dr. Borow. This disease is so rare it is almost- nonexistent in the general population. One in ten died of other cancer, and almost one in ten of asbestosis. \ In svuomary, nearly forty percent of the deaths of this group of workers can be directly attributed to their occupational exposure to asbestos. ahtn one locks and considers the criteria for settinc uhkebtot. standards and one looks to the past standards that u set, they arc totally inadequate as a reference from t; pr.-int. of view of setting the current standard. In particu* 1,.. : yofe:: :o the fruit that both the United States and the \y '.tirh Standards i*g sot with the consideration of protect-; A g Oi .'.y against ashestosis. That was specified in the stand- '0.s, in both the. United States and British cases, and this ,r: k`t.cc.r.50 there w? v.vore clinical evidence on which, they could base the 'judgment. ` . \ lava!a to prevent against incidence of'cancer. T'ihcn we look at this gx'oup of v/orkerS whoso* er.ee l have just described,' 75 percent of their occupationallyj associated deaths'- are5 from cancer and only 25 percent from asbastosis, eo that is the real problem that must be faced in the setting of occupational,standards for asbestos.\ Unfortunately the epidemiological studies that bear upon this question are limited. The number,'of people studied and the various studies has been small and the number or periods of observation has bean limited and. in particular, with respect to exposures at low levels. We Imow it is catastrophic at higher levels, but there is ho significant substantive evidence that would indi cate what is a safe level of asbestos exposure that could prevent '-the inc$.dence of cancer. Thin lack of a valid assessment of the biological variar/ies is compounded by the inadequacy of the measurement techniques to assess the dust levels to which workers have b-.sen exoobed. This has been an unavoidable circumstance that dust moa hvoraeats were made using the best equipment available at time, but in actual fact it gives a very poor assessment t/.fj diu level that a worker experiences.-. 3*v>. iso be specifics v/ith respect to some tests we t have made in the asbeston inGulatioh industry. Thecriteria z for measurement that is being proposed is one in which all O ^ fibers longer than 5 Microns are counted in an optical micro- | A scope. 5 There is a validity to this description because that! G .. " ` 4 ' \' ^ \ iE ooma equipment that is relatively available to state depart--- 7 sant of health and to the Department of Labor, although at | . 0 this time I would suggest that only a few departments of health 9 - in the states do have ouch equipment. ... Ii to Nevertheless when one looks at the total dust 11 environment of these workers and looks fpr fibers that fall 12 outside the scope of the criteria of being larger than 5 mi 13 crons , there are many more additional sub-microscopic fibers. U In particular/ it is not uncommon to S6e more than,100 times 15 the number of sub-microscopic fibers as are counted. 16 This would not boa problem were the ratio constant. 17 17a could recognize., that with the optical microscopy we are ts simply looking at the tip of an iceberg., but what in fact we ID are doing in looking at a tip of an iceberg,that has different 2.0 densities.''. 21 In some asbestos exposures it is not uncommon to 22 find one fiber in 250 being larger than 5 microns? that is 23 95.C percent smaller, and not counted according to the stand 2fl ard, In other exposure:? the number counted can be as high as ffi 30 percent, 30 you have a range over 100 times in the fraction  ; x48 \ 2 * VI 3.i!I: 4 ii; s! that are ''counted by the optical microscopic technique. , This: range occurs vhen one considers the variety of asbestos, that is, presently used, going from creotine to tridyvite. fvfhen one is concerned solely with creotine, the mineral used predominantly in American industry, it counts for over 90 percent of production ana use in the United States. w Jt When using creotine the range in the ratio between a the observable, optically observable fibers longer than five , 9 i! microns to the total number of fibers seen v/ith the electroto I microscopy, can be as much as ten times, so in actual fact u what vs nre doing is attempting to assess environmental 12 ! exposure with inadequate physical measurements, although prob 13 ably the best that can be done in this, time. I am not-trying to make the suggestion that only monitoring be done with electro-microscopy; I am making the " |i is 13 ij f! w i! !l point that'it-iV a very subjective measurement that is being used. We are using an inadequate physical measurement to assess an exposure that would have an ill-defined biological effect, so that all those uncertainties dictate that consid erable prudence and safety factors bo put into the considera 21 ,! *5-^ M' * ** * M tion of an asbestos standard. Associated with the problems Of these-physical T * 1 ' nvjuromants I have described is the problem that even those .'.at are -somewhat. inadequate,, they are not done. The capa- Llity of w-tate and federal monitoring officials at this time .i \ 49 to assess the, work environment of all men using asbestos is too limited to hope that they can bs present v?hen the various. j dust levels might be errcaeded and the threshold limit now you j have.violated. The president of the International Union of the Asbestos Workers sent a questionnaire to each of the 18,000 metiers of.his union. Over 10,000 replies have come in to i I this time. I have a group of them from one union. This hap-'. I pens to be the replies from Local No,. 1 in Missouri. The results of that survey are as follows: Of all of the replies, and assuming that each worker worked 200 days daring the year, which is a conservative esti mate, particularly when they work a longer time, but using that figure to represent the work experience of those men replying to this questionnaire, when one considers commercial and industrial construction, the replies represented 3,089,500 r.an-uays of work, or man-days of observation. During this time there were 87 dust counts seen throughout the United States; that is, there was one dust count seen for every 35,500 man-days of work. In shipyetrds the experience virus'somewhat better. * .. ` 9 ! bcoriv.cs the requirements were there be on-site hygienists, t * j which exist in that particular aspect of the construction. -- ! ii There were 591,000 man-days of observation in shipyard locals, i cu:l these locals sax; 123 dust counts, which would represent *1 I one dust count in 17,500 man-days of work. So what wo are faced v;ith is the problem that, what ever standard ^ it cannot be expected to be measured on j a routine basis. Wa cannot rely on an inspector being there wiien perhaps a special limit ia violetted, so that the whole issue of monitoring vaunt ba viGwed in this light, that this cannot be the substantive criteria to determine v/hether a worker i3 exposed to asbestos or i3 removed from that exposure lie cannot1-wait for the dust count to be made. 2'ho alternative is that procedural standards should be applied, such that asbestos cannot be used unless certain criteria are established, unless plastic bags are used for the mixing of cement, and there are three of these in the pro-' posed standards of the NIOSH document. At this time there are three such performance stand ards in the emergency standards and they are valid performance standards, the mixing of cement in containers, the use of vacuum cleaners, the requirement that dust collectors be on- uSS. You can go through a large number of these, and .Vv,:.^cv. ycv. can specify the work procedures of insulation work- i;: such a manner that they can be assured if those work . '.ovouurcos are followed their work environment can be safe, anatfciw in the way that one should proceed to implement the . : r.cu:cii of ail of- ua that tho asbestos workers have a -work environment that will not produce disease. I will not\ continue! too long on the issue of the varir ' ous\ performance standards because Ilr. Hoiaday from the Labora- ' . i . ' ,' *>. J to:cj will deal with that issue in detail, but the background j for the need of that type of standard lies in, the fact that .. '!' V7C are dealing with the method 'of measurement that is really *7 very limited in scope and that;the physical difficulty of continuously mo"itoring precludes an effective control when Cr I'I Vising a numerical standard. 10 }> One of the problems, additionally, or one of the n !! ; 11 i.v. ?i 12... i problems has been that many of the exposures of insulation workers in particular occurred in very short peaks, that is, in the past the dumping of a bag of cement could give rise to t,*. i' dust levels of the order of fifty or perhaps one hundred fibers per milliliter. Many of these peaks undoubtedly occurred in the -nylons manufacturing operations. The occurrence of these peaks of course is variable, and to even have a ceiling limit that must not be violated but could be approached for a short pnriod of time would be hazardous in that again he would not bu able to monitor during the time that such peak exposures e occurred. lie would virtually need an industrial hygienist on 1 + * . .* It Gvovy rite watching every operation. With respect to a numerical standard, which of course - nr.vary i.v one wishes to devise procedural standards, you i 52 need a reference point to refer to to determine the adequacy of control measures that you have.implemented. You devise a I j 1 I\ , -A/ {Ili**l: dust collector for ti saw and you see indeed if you can achieve! vrhcvt you hope will be an adequate level. *J ! V7a recognize the inadequacy of counting five fibers ! i? ; per milliliter greater than five microns in length, but li \ - ' '1 \ v : , recognize also that that is the only criteria we have at this ! orv *: -M time that has an extensive body of data associated with it. n. i Thera is evidence that two fibers per Mppcf, which is discussed jj as a standard, will be inadequate-for the- prevention of asbes- : - i.' If i. v *.t iu: tosis. disease* \ I would like to refer back to measurements made in the environment of the asbestos workers, the health experience if I' kO !i which I have already given you and which is a disaster. If . one-measures the various dust levels experienced by these men, ?5 one finds s range of exposures from virtually nothing', one * ' v fiber per .ml up to one hundred 'fibersAil that can occur during th.v removal of insulation or the spraying of \asbestos. l*ut if one considers their common jobs and looks at the', average exposure'of these workers during the operations that they are engaged in moat of the time, one finds that v.nt-ir average exposure from measurements made;in the insuia- ' '-.ion industry in the hygiene research program at Mount Sinai that average exposure of these workers is around five or 1. ' . - ' ; ::i:: iibcrb/inl when they are working with asbestos. i! \ \ 53 Even when'-they are mixing asbestos cement, which is ' ) a !. j 0 !i mixing and applying asbestos cement, when the mixing operation : .I -; -. ' ` \ ' " \ itself tehee place, the average level over the entire period , . K. \ . of time* when it is mixed and applied can be under five fibers/ ml* , >. ; Whan one is cutting insulation and applying it to pipes r.hd boilers;, it can,exceed five fibers, ml, but it rarely would exceed 10\ fibers/ml on a long term average. Again, "11 ! cutting asbestos logs, the average that you have was 7.6 fiberc/ml, but if one takes into account the fraction of time thcit these workers spend in these different operations when I Ji using asbestos, the average that our laboratory found was about six fibers/ml. ' .... \ Thin is in accordance with data which appears in the :j i criteria document as taken on the West,Coast by Dr. Cooper's i* group that had an average pf 4.2 fibers/ml' for the same type5, of operation 'in '.commercial work, and something about nine .for * . J i! shipyard exposure for the confined spaces may give rise to -*> ;1t j. i : > ! higher dust levels. . The point I am making is that an extremely serious health h&sard has been documented at levels of approximately that of the current emergency standard, and these levels were ob':nine;!?, during the time when they were only working, with' In full fact, these workers spend less than half 54 , their time with aobestbs material. They are using fiberglass, | ' v' { .various other plastics, and their exposure to asbestos accounti; I- ", j I for the minority of their `job operations in time. So that one' can say, that their exposure right .now is approximately three b i fibers per ml on a long term average, without yet implementing the various control measures that are possible in that V ;i i industry and that if you ohould reduce their exposures in some cacer .by a factor of ten, so that that industry servos as an example where their exposures can get well below a level of two fibers per ml and it can be done without serious economic hardship, the coot of dust collectors and cost of plastic bags is very small in comparison with the total cost of various 13 insulation construction jobs. 14 X would like to make two brief comments on the standard as it appear3 in the document by NIOSH, and one is h t. with reference to medical records. The concern for workers' health as evidenced by the ragu.ir3iT.aht that you need medical examination is commendable a::.d ah raid bo implemented, but one important aspect of that 07 111 23 !: nhouXc* be the confidentiality of the individual records obtained on each individual, that is, .they should not be released on an individual basis to any employer, because the <1 &Ol** problem of a worker who experiences or whose job requires lie v.-r-h for different contractors, for example in insulation work, that'man could have hie employment jeopardised if the contractor know whether he did or did not have serious ashes* tosis disease. w* u Statistical data made aware to industry is quite valid, but in no case should there be available to either the union or the industry specific medical data on an individual.; The man himself should know, his doctor, if he wishes it, should know. The material can be maintain: ed by the Feder. al \ r 'Government, or-should bo maintained by the Federal Government in a manner that this confidentiality is maintained. 7. would also like to make one comment with respect to vyhat is x'-obably tho most serious issue, and that is the .1 section apprising employees of hazards from asbestos where V, !! material containing less than five fibers per ml of asbestos is somewhat ignored. t. ' IS !' ;; r.* !i In many circumstances asbestos materials are used , in the manufacture or production of material, some plastics, for example; anti-frcese compounds use asbestos to stop leaks. ic Tho total amount of asbestos is a fraction of a percent, and i J v/orkcrs in that environment could experience extremely high exposures and the final produce should not be the criteria on which ov.'j should either assess the existence of a problem or > : ik 4 . * .apprise workers of the hazards of asbestos. One should have all workers that may be exposed to j ,, ' r.'-.b ijr.c-.T in any significant quantities made aware of the danger the full Act itsolf applied to those workers. . , 56 I have one additional comment with rospect to the; desirability of procedural standards, and that comes about from the many indirect occupational exposures that obtain, particularly in the construction industry, where you could have a.o. asbestos worker monitored and have it determined that his exposure exceeds the threshold limit value and he is thus required to wear a respirator. In that case, be would be protected but the man or Cl the welder down the line> the electrician on the floor below ..0 If may not have the same protection afforded to him, and his M! i! I* z il -P' ! ! exposure can indeed be significant^ If - one can implement procedures that will control dust to the maximum extent possible at the Source, both the direct occupational exposures and the indirect ones will be i. v i .. . . ! ( ij taker, care of in the most desirable way for the workers them- selves. 4- 1 On the question of the feasibility of implementing controls that would bring dust levels down to at least two fib-..vs per ml and, hopefully, to levels much less than that, tr-j_r certainly feasible in the construction industry if i o:v.:- recognizes that respirators should be worn for a small - portion of the work. Certainly the removal of insulation material, old ! I insulation material or the spraying of asbestos, which perhaps 'i ivky r*r longer be done at all, but in those circurastancas 57 survivor x*os.irator's nr of course necessary and would be used v * during c very, vary small portion of the worker's time, ' i These are unusual type of activities and an average 1 asbestos worker would not be engaged in them .for more than a few percent of his time. At this time I do not know procedures that could be implemented that would reduce the exposure level of an asbestos worker during the process of applying asbestos blocks. Often the oust generated ao pieces are put together would give rise to levels thut could be five fibers per ml or perhaps higher for very short periods of time. ' / The average that we have measured in such circum- *stances ranges from about five fibers per ml to about ten, depending upon ventilation conditions. But the time that an asbestos worker spends in that particular operation is a small fraction of his time spent while working with asbestos, \ and it is a small fraction of his total time on the job, per haps ten or fifteen percent. I would suggest that it should be recognised that appropriate respiratory protection be mandatory during that operation and during the fox* operations where control measures at the source cannot be applied. In this way procedure controls in the insulation ij'lwf. try could -J3 implemented with the minimum of dust and / i.v.lc r.s.cur* sr: -effective workplace for the workman.  58 Whon one goc to factory operations the issue of control1, is even more mandatory baoaupe here you have in-place fixed operations in which tho application of dust control equipment can be applied on a stationary basis and you are not concerned with the tremendous mobility of an insulation worker Yearly cost is indeterminate. X do not know what it is in my own mind, but one muct recognise the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not consider the cost of bmplementation of health equipment or safety equipment, environmental control moasures. The Occupational Safety and Health Act under which this standard is being promulgated puts forth the criteria that a workman should be able to work at his job throughout his lire without:impairment to health. That is all I have to say at this time. EXAMlifER GOLDBERG: Thank you. Doctor. Does Mr. Holuday follow you? DR. NICHOLSON: Mr. H61adaywill.be speaking tomor- ruv/. ; EXhMXHER GOLDBERG: May we release Dr. Nicholson? DR. HERMAN: May X ask a question, please, sir?. as;AHXHEP. GOLDBERG: Come to 1 the microphone, please. DP,. HERMAN: I am Dr. Herman from the Research Ccv/icil in England. I don't want to anticipate my testimony ter-.errev morning but I would like to ask Dr. Nicholson, if 2 si 59 may, ona or two questions about his testimony. 11 it In the first case he gave the rather awful statistics, * \. as lie said, about the incidence of disease among asbestos work-]. ' ii i \t srs. Now I am not a medical doctor a.id I wouldn't quarrel j ' \ ' t ' j v/ith tha medical evidence, but neither is Dr. Nicholson a medi-j cal doctor, so I feel I can ask him this. ! There is one point he has not mentioned at all, the effect-of smoking on.those statistics. If he counts the statisC: . t5.es among that particular group of workers, then the effect of smoking is overwhelming. ; v?e believe that as far as lung cancer is concerned, f- i lung cancer .is developed as a direct result of asbestosis. EliANllIER GOLDBERG: Sir, you are giving testimony, not asking a question. If you wish to ask Dr. Nicholson whether the incidence of smoking among the sample was talien in to account, you may do so, but save your testimony for your cv < appearance on. the stand. DR. HSRItfvN: I ask that question. f DR. lilCHOjjSOV;: Yes, indeed, smoking has a direct i .influence on the incidence of lung cancer. The data obtained Jr. Sclikoff from that ''name '.group of workers is as follows: The group of workers totaling 370 in 1962, the information he obtained by direct interview on the smoking i;.vj5.tc of thoae workers, the risk of dying of lung cancer was . j :/ "r-'.Ki'j to bo 50 times that of a nonsmoker, non-asbesto3 worker } r , eo \ lx one considers that the risk of c.ying of lung' I' 3 ;! \'i *r` I>f <; i !i. ir / cancer might be increased ton or '.twenty times in the smoking .population, in the heavy smoking population, and vary scanty . , cleta indicates that the risk increasas with work with i 5 nsbeutos, but certainly not to the dagree of ninety tines. j i* it might ba perhaps -- wall, 1 can only say it has increased : I ; v end probably does not exceed the risk due to smoking. The j . / . \ i two, together, acting in concert, would produce an effect far i o i! l)j ;0 ft I! " ii tv- <!i!' greater than the one alone, and indeed lung cancer is associ- ; i * atod with smoking and if you could find workers who did not j smoke> -that would be desirable. I } :i I don't know if the criteria that -- I don't know if[ `I it is appropriate to write a standard in which the smoking habits of a worker are specified. But even if it were, that would take care of only the problem of the deaths due to lung cancer. A-'rom thu similar data it was found there was ho association with smoking and the incidence of Mesothelioma hud '.o association. with snaking and increased incidence of .rv. gaJtroinfcesfcinal cancer. Gastrointestinal cancers in these ,i ;> j;; :* "*-- KWt workers increased by three times over that of the normal population.. DR. HERMAN; Thank you. MR. SHZCXL3R: Dr. Nicholson, I am Mr. Sheckler, VXtior.al- Insulation Manufacturers and Contractors Association. 61 Dr. Nicholson., would yoxi kindly answer when were your industrialhygiene engineering Valuations made, tha approxi , i'l - ij mate year? .1 * DP,. NICHOLSON: They v/ere made subsequent to 1969, during IS69 through recant months. MR. SHECKLER: How were they made? ... l! ;i !i DR. NICHOLSON: They were made using the standard . 4n tcchniquo as specified in the criteria document. T. ! HR. SHSCKLER: When were the epidemiological study, information or physical examinations made? I DR. NICHOLSON: The epidemiological study to which I referred is an ongoing study and has been done with the help of experienced workers from 1943 onward. As they reached 20 ! i; years of exposure, the information was brought forward. ,Ji v- MR. SKECKLER: Did you make any industrial hygienic .. il studies, from 1940 to 1945? . .r * >i!> u j* DR. .NICHOLSON: No, I did ndt. However, workers in the recent yearn ware questioned as to the changes in work practice that took place during that time. Some changes have token place. There has been a reduction in the use of asbestbs. wa3 substituted, whereas in the past asbestos was ; *r, *t lueu, or perhaps cork, so that during the period of time from f.M ' } f *J - * the experience of these .workers the total time they spent v/ith .iobci'to^ has dsorVancd, perhaps a decrease from 75 to 80 per . i! cent, to t.ho 45 or 50 percent that \ic now present. Additionally, there' has boon semis changes made in the composition of the materials themselves ' In some cases the asbestos content has been reduced. The: procedures that the men used havo changed little in that period of time. * i \ The method of mixing cement either in a bucket or open tub was the name in '69 as in the 140s. The cutting of logs wiih handsawa, the application of it to boilers -ana pipes did not change, during that period of time. If one want back in past years and attempted to assess the exposure, it is difficult to obtain an exposure that would be much different or would exceed that of today by more than a factor of two. MR. E-HECKLER: You are saying, then, that the actual work methods remained the same? DR. NICHOLSON: Roughly the Same. KR. SHECKLER: The introduction of new materials did `./.nice a very drastic change? DR. NICHOLSON: I didn't say it would make a drastic change MR. SHECKLER: Would you agree you used as much fibrous gl33 during World War II as you do today? " DR. NICHOLSON: No, I wouldn't. What -I am question ing i the adjective, a factor that changed two times in the j of fiber asbestos is not a drastic change. The figux-es I gave with respeat to levels measured were .levels measured during the use of asbestos, and those \ 3' ,i levels today are roughly around a factor of five. You could 4 porliaps extrapolate on the basis of the material changes, that | r' S it could have been twice as high in earlier years. , It would be: very difficult to get levels that would be dramatically differ-| one.. and when you have to go from such a bad experience to one where workers suffer no harm, one has to take more than just 0 little steps in that direction. You have to go and make it a 10 major change in the-work environment of these people. V. MR. SHECKLER: Would you say it can readily be said \z there were no scientific measurements of thede levels during to World War II or before or immediately subsequent to it? !< DR. NICHOLSON: .That is correct. 13 j EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Anything further of this Witness? !G Mr. Lavaletto. i i! " If 2D <' c MR. LAVALETTE: ' S/.ipbuilciers. I am Mr. Lavaletto, representing the ! ' ' if Dr. Nicholson, you advocated the confidentiality of ; medioai records. I would just ask if you have considered in Zi I? arriving at this advocacy, have you considered the possibility 2? that by'so doing the employers are put at a disadvantage, that is, he h:.z a burden, and responsibility to assign people to work for which they are qualified, based upon, among other thj.ngs, tir^ir physical condition, and in our industry it is it ii . '' "64 1 ii coauuoa prucficb if a person- has a history of chronic respira tory affliction to assign him to noncbnfined areas and so .forth. Without the medical records this sometimes is diffi- i CUit. i DP., NICHOLSON: I recognise the problem you raise. 2must honestly say I am not too clear myself about the solu-; tion to it. .Perhaps it can be done on the basis of a reoom- nvevM'iv.tion that the workers' bo assigned to less duty areas. The issue in part really should not be that workers :0 i who; are impaired must have special jobs but-what we must have are jobs in which r.o ono will be at risk, either those that have had some impairment of their lung function or those that ere entering''the trade. We want a workplace healthy for everyone, but I recognise' there is a very large group of workers now so it I.- iv.airod. who main point is that criteria should be estab lished in which the workers themselve3, that their problem jf.> !: :.\v.rnld be considered, that is; they should not be put out of l 'job by virtue of a potential impairment due to asbestos ,dir:oi-::e. It is a very complicated problem and bears upon some of compensation 'laws, where in the insulation industry the u .-.iir.nufac.feuror, the last insulation contractor is assessed I if ll-.i ,zz\- gets compensation v/hen in fact the man's exposure c'.'-.l*. cc. -from many, many contractors and it just happens he ii ' \_ ; ; 65 is working for that wan.. The problem is with such laws there is a tendency to! : \ , . ab-.rdcn people.who have a serious risk, and that is wrong. My{ ploa is that considering all of the problems, one should | ' \. \I arrive at a situation whore the worker is not required to lose: hie. job because of his impairment where he can perform func- ' ! .'. iI 1 tior.nl work. ' * 'i | [:.j Ci lj EXAMINER:GOLDBERG: Anything further? MR. DE GREGORIO: Hay I have some questions, please? 0 Doctor, did I understand you to say there is no Vi problem in connection with asbestos spraying? DR. NICHOLSON: No. I said the problem -- I said there might not be one because it might be a procedure that * ; i; would not be used in the future. *!! Certain regulatory agencies, certain state .agencies i*j* < .-r r *> t have banned it already. I am not sure there is a ban of the {.praying of asbestos in any federal legislation. I knot? the spraying for pipe-proofing purposes has been virtually banned in xho country. . 1: MR. DE GREGORIO: Can you name some jurisdictions that have banned asbestos spraying? DR. NICHOLSON: Jurisdiction's which, have-abandoned j' I' ?; tli:s spraying, of asbestos for fireproofing purposes include New York City. Illinois, Philadelphia, Boston. This is a.practice that has been engaged in by i  66 : -I i plasterer union members to apply insulation materials to the j steelwork to assure there be a fire rating that would allow j ; `ii the building to remain and the .structural integrity under the .. ` i i , wo.vr-t fire. possible. There are alternative asbestos for this i Si >' purpose. i i 'I The Second use of spray asbestos is to apply insula-. ` .1 tion, particularly t<? turbines where you want to get a uniform1 .v I ^ \ *! insulation layer that is better achieved by spraying then by | applying insulation blocks. It can be done by applying insulation block. The .. operation of spraying is such a mess, and in practice we have found that its control has been inadequate1when attempted, j\ * \I i | and environmental contamination has universally bean serious, j and consideration should be made that that practice be banned j in all circumstances since alternatives are possible. '\\j ... t$ The situation with respect to the workers applying I'rjl ' *i 1`J | :.c can. bs controlled in the, sense'that air supply respirators ; will produce'an. air quality that would suffice; that is, air { i -i :-upply respirator.s .cu.n afford protection not to 100 percent r sj but in environments withfive fibers/ml the airwould be no j *y greater coxitaminated than by one fiber/ml. f If it 5.3 used, the worker can be protected, but a .problem arises from environmental contamination of such a pr.-.'osd'.iro. / . Jill. DE-GREGORIO: Thank you very much. EXAMINEE GOLDBERG: May this'witness., be excused? (No response) ,{ EXaillNIiR CipLNBERG: Thank you, Dr* Nicholson; Mr. Neumann. , 1 STATEJIENT OF CHARLES NEUMANN SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT KENTILE FLOORS, INCORPORATED MR. NEUMANN: My name is Charles Neumann., I am Senior Vice President of Kentile Floors, incorporated, manu- factxirers of resilient floor tiles. I have baen actively engaged in this field for the past fifty years. Kentile Floors, gentlemen, appreciates the oppor tunity to participate iif these hearings on standards for exposure to asbestos dust* I hops that my testimony will be helpful towards the ; goal of achieving a practical permanent standard on asbestos c'uct. Kentile Floors has three plants across, the country, in which asbestos fibers are used in the manufacturing process: ;j..;pXoyaes ` safety and health have always been a foremost; con- ciicrarion in our management policies. There is no alterna tive to this for a responsible member of a business community Our concern regarding the asbestos standard is probably common with all other asbestos users, and that is /. '. the roar that unduly strict recommendations for use in t  68 ; 1 formulating the permanent asbestos standard will create aost ; i *: . I .demands on-, many companies of: an unsupportable magnitude. This * <: will seriously affect their ability to continue to operate. }; wish to comment briefly on some of the recommenda tions of the Advisory Committee. Our engineering and safety departments advise me that compliance with a standard specify ing five asbestos fibers per milliliter of air is feasible. 0! In order to accomplish the 5 ml level, the cost to our company; :rj I \> 1 t I I 1 aC i o-|` I is estimated to be $225,000. Although the reduction of asbestos dust to so low a level is stringent and costly, we feel it can be attained and we feel vre can absorb the expenditure involved. On the other hand, if the maximum airborne dust level were to be reduced to 2 fibers of asbestos per milliliter of air, as was pro posed, the preliminary judgment of our people is that the cost 0 !i ii Vi ' *k would skyrocket to over one million dollars. An expenditure of this magnitude, followed by all of the other added and continuing costs which will surely be ;o !: It ;.:i Ii ;?. > , l' *"n is; !i iv.s-poc2-a.by the standard, would very likoly result in bringing about ni economic`situation that would prompt serious consid eration of discontinuing operation. -Therefore,-.unless ample medical evidence of a con ducive nature is available to show that the five fiber level * creates an undue health hazard, Kentile Floors requests that in t'.*.y interest of reality and practicality that the five 69 1 fiber lovcl not be rejected for soma lower limit. 2 Row., after the reduction of the dust level to five 3 fibers, we concur flint diligent-monitoring is essential to 4 insure continuous compliance. ; 5 Taking into account the lov; five fiber level, plus G the availability and urjc; a> adequate respirators, we request 7 that careful consideration be given to the scope and to the 0 frequency of medical examinations.. 9 Certainly we wish to protect the health of our ro employees, but we must guard against overprotection, overpro n tection that saddles us with heavy financial burdens. !2 We agree that cleanup of asbestos dust should be 13 performed by vacuum cleaners or wet methods. We take exception 14 however, to the proposal that requires asbestos scrap and tS waste be containerised. IS Resilient floor tile scrap and waste contains 17 asbestos fibers surrounded by resins and plastic findings. 13 There are no asbestos fibers emitted from such materials. !9: Hence the need here for a more precise definition of waste and 20 scrap. 21 It would not be reasonable to require resilient tile 22 scrap and waste to be containerized. The cost involved would 23 bo overburdening and would serve no useful purpose. Waste 24 should bo defined to include any materials containing loose Jto asbestos'.clust, ' 70 Our final concern, gentleman, is with the signs and labels involved. The wording on ,the required signs in certain plant areas, as required in Federal Register Volume 37, No. 7,( January 12, '72, and in the recommendations of the Advisory Coraniiteo, might be appropriate in those areas where heavy concentrations of asbestos dust have many times the five fiber level. She wording its completely unjustified where compliance with the five fiber level has baen obtained and where controls and'.monitoring exist; The unnecessarily grave impli cations that the signs can convey can only result in employment discouragement, excessive demands, difficult attitudes and lowering of morale. We have had signs posted for years in the mixing areas reminding and instructing our employees to wear their 'respirators. These signs have performed their function well v/ithout unwarranted'alarming and shocking forebodings. Regarding the warning labels on packages of finished products; cor.tni.ning more than five percent asbestos, we feel that the recommendation ..in its present form must be revised to pc.'.v^ps require a warning label only on those finished pro duct:- 'which when handled, installed or used emit a level of , duct that is hazardous. Resilient floor tiles contain asbestos that is encapsulated, bound, locked in, trapped in a tough binding = . 71 V material. The level of dust emitted in opening a box of tile, instilling them and uuing them, will very definitely be almost unmeasurable.' A warning label on boxes of resilient tile .'will; i elr'.laii'.ato thorn from the competitive market. It is not fair | to destroy a product with a label that accuses it'of doing | something it is not doing. i .t I believe without reservation that the resilient tile manufacturers could not endure the adverse effects of the pro-) . . posed warning label on their packages. r [ ' ' (, ' ' -, We also have a matter of imported tiles'from other countries which are entering this country rather-fast. Spe cifically, vre object on labels to the'words "Danger," "Asbes- tosis," and "Cancer," on these proposed signs and labels. In conclusion, Kentile again respectfully urges-that the requirements in the permanent standard on asbestos dust'be! of such a nature as to be economically and technically practi cal. V7e also recommend that' more- time be allotted to all parties concerned for further-study Of this problem, since the livelihood of tenp of thousands of TJ. S. citizens depend c-j it. , Tiv.-nk you vary much. E\7iIIIW5!R G0LD2ERG: May Mr. Neumann be excused? (JTo response). TJTu'lIH'SP. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Neumann. 72 Dr. Wolfe. STATEMENT BY KIDNEY T\0,F3 M.D, fil'Aili'H IlESKKCa GROUP', WASHINGTON, D. C. i DR* AvOXiPE: I an nr. Sidney Wolfe., a physician with # Ralph W.*do:;`G Health Research Group. My clinical training is in ifAsml' medicine. and -X was on ths 3taff of the National Inr. tit1.iter. of Health - doing medical rasssrqh for five years. A nuvior .part -of the focus of cur Health Research. Group in Washington is in occupational health. I would just like to wake a couple of comments first about some re-marks made this morning when it was requested that a worker be presented as part of the testimony. A gentle man from industry made a statement that this would turn the hearings into sort of a circus and mentioned the i/ord "basket c;;;:e" presenfceition, and the thing that that brought to mind was roally the only issue that is supposed to be dealt with at those hearings is health of workers, although we are interested ivi at leas!; .hearing wlvat some of the', economic considerations nr.:., the/ should roallv have no role and the decision making k.-.. :oilly to do with is it healthy or thought healthy, and linos with whether or not the conditions in asbestos or within five miles of than, since we know people h-.o gottendiseasedwho don't even work in factories, whether tii so con-Ai-cionc are haalthy or not is augmented by the p:*osc-.;-.of of poople.v;ho have gotten the disease. 1 think -in a aanco it .would be a 'circus if wo did hot: hrivo that kind., or .input into those hearings. because' Ithink 3 r.liC; /.'iici-car.es from the veil problems of roaokholiomar which is j. :' ! 4 alvoot" uniformly fatal disease: of asbasto3is , of lung cancer , ! 5 the distance in which many people hens sit in. a sense protects j 3 i them fro;.: the reality, and I think until they are made quite cieerly-aware of what it means to go- these diseases, unneoos- | 3 sary diseases, that that world'be a disservice. I 0 ` If workers worn guinea pigs and asbestos was a food to additive, the Delaney Clause of the I.^ood and Drug Act would SI have mandated the elimination of this carcinogenic dust from ?> 1 !i iS ! I ... i`jI the ,aj.\vicon5.iant long ago. However, in 1972, twelve years after the publication of Dr. C. ?7i,g\cr' s data showing the relationship between uo/.-ai.;tps cjipoauro. md Mesothelioma -- cancer of the lung rt V1..<;1 livings --- in Ivorians, and at a time when there are now hundreds ::y of ca'C-js- of this cancer in workers' ejrposad to asbestos, the ">' ) i i) 73 ?i ii ' li ii slaughter continues. The question'-thus arises, how much longer, in the race of a massive, evor-incronsincj ariount of evidence linking r.v.bastosia, lung cancer and Mesothelioma to asbestos exposure, ,31 tlO !i j mi will workers (and non-wov:kers with "incidental" exposure) cc:.t:l:.uo to be used as though they wore guinea pigs. In a recent report, the U'.fS. Environmental Protection hgc.-y.v stated thak, "A safe exposure level to asbset03 has not 74 i boou cr-hablishcd." (Bnchground information - Proposed Mationalj z yjlon Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, E.P.A., j 3 Beccrbar, 1971.) This statement is the inevitable conclusion : 4 of a series of studios over the past decade* some, of which; j ! 5 will I'd presented at this hearing by others, each showing the 5 capability of lower and lower levels of asbestos fibers to v$ cause disease.. 3 ?. situation is thus present in which there is no safe 9 'level of exposure yet established, data exists suggesting that !9 asbestosis can develop at levels under 2 fibers/co, and the 1! level of exposure causal to Mesothelioma is even less than that 12 which'Causes asbestosis. 13 Under these circumstances regulations which do not 14 propose to ultimately reduce the fiber count to zero fall to i * *.Li comply with the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act which ?6 an surer that-, "no employee will suffer diminished health, func 17 tional capacity, or life expectance as a result of his work IS or rnsrience.1' c *\ In this light, the proposed regulations should be ;.o rpriced in accordance with the goal of gradually' reducing the ..Tit -n count to zero fibers per cubic centimeter. We concur **> ** with tV.o Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers1 Union proposal to *;.C*>> scccrplish ' thisin three years. What can be done now? Ticcording to Dr. Joseph Wagoner, Director of the; r(..'*> DivTen of Field Studios and Clinical Investigations of NIOSH, the only two factor for netting standards are (1) is the sub- j atano hazardous, and' (2) is it technically feasible to achieve reduction to it given level of exposure. OJho ITXOSir criteria document on asbestos clearly showfe the ability of industry to reduce the 8-hour weighted exposure to h-slow 2 fibars/cc. If, one or two plants can achieve this goal, there is no technical reason thy all others cannot do the siruc. h'e agro~ with labor that this should be accomplished in six -months rather than two years. V7e are presently realizing that setting emission standards for air pollutants based cn total weight or particle ccunt'without regard for respirable fraction is inadequate. Similarly, it is not difficult to see how fibers shorter than 5 micro, or fibrils may also be implicated as a -aviso of disease.- As this new information becomes,available, it should promptly be converted into regulations. While generally supporting the NIOSH recommendations icr improving the asbestos regulations, several further .addi tions cr-.n bo made: KOKITGRIKS: A) It is not clear why requests for variance from proposed monitoring standards should ever be granted. This is again an area in which technical feasibility exists and economic considerations, although healthier for the company's / .. . ci.nc-.r;:/ should not be allowed to decrease workers' health. D) Since workers' health and life is at stake, regulntions should bo strengthened in the direction of maxi mising their involvement in the monitoring process. This, can include, but not be limited to, 1) allowing workers to wear personal monitors, 2) allowing workers to observe each step of the monitoring process v/ithout having pay deducted (as ha3 occurred in a recent case of a worker participating in a Department of Labor plant inspection), and 3) to require routine posting of asbestos levels in all parts of the plant. C) Routine monitoring of multiple locations in plants should bo performed at least four times a year. Por the many workers whose asbestosis has progressed cc cardiac involvement, the concept of requiring the use of j respirators in *ir with asbestos in excess of allowable levels r:.ay not be a healthy one. The difficulty in breathing which i.:. iy of those affected workers have may be further compromised by the resistance imposed by some respirators. These V7orkero should be allowed, with equal pay, to v;or>: torsiporur.iiy in another part of the plant until compli ance with the standard is achieved. Pedicel records should not be used to pose the iit^osciblc alternative ,of poverty or disease to 'workers; Thus ff.cco'is to these records should be controlled by workers not management lest they be arbitrarily used to fire or demote ] workers because they show evidence of disease. In view of much evidence that the latency period for developing asbestos-induced cancer can be much longer than twenty years, the requirement for keeping monitoring and medir cal records should be extended to the life of the worker. KIOSK is to be commended for the thoroughness of the criteria document on asbestos. In a certain sense, however, it is two documents rather than one. The bulk of the study reviews data on tho hazards of asbestos which would support th< idea of reducing exposure to zero. The 'recommendations, howover; fall..short of thi3. It can only be speculated that this ' discrepancy is the result of pressure applied by industry via tho Department of Labor. We hope that the elimination of the killing and crippling hazards of asbestos marks the beginning of a long struggle to give higher priority to the life and health of the km-irican worker. ThanJ: you. 3X&M3EEER GOLDBERG: May Dr. Wolfe be excused? ('do response) EJOMIHSR GOLDBERG: Thank you. Dr. Wolfe. MR. EARL: Excuse me, I have a question. 78 -. l I bolieve you support-the oonaept of the oonfiden- j ' . -i ' : . \\ ci.aXi.tv of the medical Records. However/ you - suggested that \ :j soi:.o workers cannot wear respirators and the employer should; j : ' be required to move them elsewhere at no reduction in pay \ i i until che engineering controls are implemented and the stand- j. :.rd is reached. I How 1 have a question on how the employer could know j you had to move the 'worker? Would you rely then on the v.orkey- 1 a tailing the employer that ho has problems in the pul- iv.or.ary area and cannot wear the respirator and therefore he I should be moved? DR. WOLFE: Thu critical factor is that the control be by the union so these arbitrary things can* t happen. In suggesting such a worker be removed to another part of the J picut with equal pay, one is building a procedure whereby an arbitrary action would not happen. Let's assume the worker's doctor, who is given per- cion to see the records, is told that this worker is workin a part of the plant which you would know from the rr.onitor- cua hacardouo to 'that worker, so he could then request his ;jic:iau inform the company that he in fact has a disease oh should mandate against hie working in that area. "four point is obviously it might work to the worker' advantage, but 7. thinlt that could be gotten around. Ml. ?JS.EL: That is what we are interested in 79 ' lor.;:nine;. '' ! > I! ?ZC\MINER g6&T>B3RGs , Thank you, Dr. Wolfe. Jit this point I propose tc take a ten-minute recess ! ; .I but before 2 do so,, however, 1 note from my scrhedulc for todayj that there is only one further witness scheduled, the repre sentative of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers. if there is anyone here scheduled for a session to follow who would like to come on this afternoon, please see o me during the recess. We will stand in recess for -ten minutes. ; ? (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) ; I! "* I EIIAMINER GOLDBERG*. On the record. Mr, Mazzocchi. STATEMENT OF ANTHONY MA3Z0CCHI CITZ2EHSHIP-LEGXSLATIVE DIRECTOR GIX-, CKEMICAI. AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION :v MR. MA3ZOCCKI: My najno is Anthony Mazzocchi, Citi- n }; *i1! r.i {MV' :ii .ir.zhi?-I,egiclutive Director, Oil, Chemical and Atomic. Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. The gontlemnn to my left is Steven Wodka, Legis latrye Aide. The propound Labor Department Standard for Exposure* :?3 to tistoa Dust is a very sad document. It serves to confirm // . rh r.;*Tb;;rs cf -our International Unron already fear: . *.: r tVit the Administration is frivolous with the health and I .viglito of wording people. '. Only mv administrative agency harboring that kind ofi , : > '. . ;i attitude coaid propose n standard# ns OSHA did on January 12th, which would. 9 1) ' t ; footer the continued industrial incidence of \ asbestos disease, . 2) K;ot up an enforcement procedure that would fail to even police its own permissive proposed standard, and 3) deny workers certain rights that had already ` been granted to them by Congress1 Our brief testimony today will attempt to point out these deficioncieo. We will also go bn to list, a program that would truly serve to protect a worker from the asbestos disease 2?irst of all, there is more asbestos in the work place than one is usually led to believe. The often quoted Labor Department figure of 200,000 isn't conservative, it is ridiculous. I'bi o.ir International Union# where we represent 17y#CCt workers in the oil# chemical and atomic energy indus- trieu, almost every shop and plant use9 asbestos in one form, -r r.r:cti.-ar. iho oil refining industry and chemical process industry xcz massive amounts of heat. These plants operate /` c:i a continual flew basis and maintenance work is conducted . ' . '-A 81 .around tha clock. Asbestos insulation is always being ripped b out as units are .repaired. With tho maintenance,completed, O th-i asbestos is'reapplied: and the unit goes back on stream. 4 In a major oil refinery on tho East Coast, Mobil y Oil in Paulsboro, Nov Jersey, asbestos has captured our concern 6 as the single moat serious industrial health hasard in that 7 facility. We had 19 workers in that refinery, who handle 3 asbestos, examined by l)r. I?3ving Selikoff of Mount Sinai 0 School'of Environmental Medicine. Dr. Selikoff1s tests revealed a very serious occupational health problem due to ; *1* tboir''siposuro to asbestos. New our concern is that 200 to 300 other workers, pipefitters, boilermakers, welders, bricklayers and others, :4 who work in cud around where the insulators are, may also have is been overexposed. Asbaetoc also turns up in the most unexpected situa tion;;. I was touring a plant in Northern New Jersey where .Froston aiiti-freose is made. At one point in the tour I :a i a ccmplatoly -unprotected' worker dumping asbestos into "0J .! I! r::) P i\ vat of., anti-freeso. He - told me that cisbestes is what gives v.wstorKi its anti-leak qualities. If that was the unexpected situation, then what has bteii our experience in a primary asbestos plant, like one which u; n. i:\-yv.-.<li\ct\vx.r asbestos; insulation products? : until recently, OCAW represented the workers at I 82 ` / i tha Pittsburgh Corning Corporation plant in Tyler, Texas. i . '' This px;<ut ic tbo sister to the Union Asbestos and Rubber Con-( \ v*nny plant in Paterson , Saw Jersey, whore Dr. Seiikoff con- p ducted hia now famous mortality study amosite asbestos workers i; In zcb, the Tyler plant wao originally started up by UNARCO \ before it was bought out in 1962 by Pittsburgh Corning, a joint venture of FPG`Industries and Corning Glass. u i! At tiie Paterson plant. Dr. Seiikoff found that total r. Jl deaths wore more than twice as anticipated. Where no deaths 11 j il due to asbestos were expected, 14 occurred. Where 2.4 deaths I duo to lung cancer.were anticipated, 25 occurred. There were also excessive number of deaths due to cancer of the stomach, !! i *? r! colon, and rectum. 'And now at the Tyler plant, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has already found that 7 out of 18 workors with 10 or more years of employment meet at l`!-zr:i three of four criteria for asbeetosis. Worse yet, HEW on the plant dating back to 1967 have found grossly .uccariv levels of asbestos dust throughout the plant. While i! xz ulrfnt may only have employed 60 people at its peak, the n- : . turnover was co bad that 1500 people had worked in that plant vi j! !! :;c>j /crying periods of time from 1954 to 1972. The story of Wyler is sadly filled with episodes of corporate indifference i.j <i l ;! a J! -....il governmental secrecy. With this kind of experience, the OCAW recommends I # the following concepts for a truly meaningful asbestos stand I.1t ard. PA rat,- all exposures must ultimately ba reduced '"to aero. viich asbestos, we are dealing with a substance that b C II I, I : v ii i `v i; r . f I4 iV ; cause:;- cancer in very small quantities. While a no-effeat ' level for the cancer may exist, it has not yet boon found. To-achieve aero exposure, performance standards must be enforced. Avid.ns any industrial hygienist wil-l testify, pc?:fOr:iiance. standards- are the easiest to keep enforced. For example, take an enclosed asbestos cutting operation with the :t !5 rr. : ( properly engineered, calibrated and tested dust collection ventilation - system. There is no need for reliance on monitor ii ing. If the ventilator breaks down, the worker and the fore- * < n` mar. immediately know the job is unsafe and the work stops `"I until the situation is corrected. "Ii c If the people in this situation had to wait for monitoring date, it may be days or weeks before the crucial decision is made. In the meantime, the workers are overexposed. ithermere, no continuous monitor g equipment, like is cur- r\ r '.ntly *. ailabia for carbon monoxide, has' been developed,for r 'for la the near future will there bo enough people r.;p ?:./ trailed to count. asbestos fibers through a~ microscope, Ii ' . T * 4 / ? t;:.; Monitoring should not be abandoned, but it is not to controlling industrial exposure to asbestos. ;? is ov.tf-'icturing, maintenance, and other industrial and it conotrsation processes using asbesto3 must be re-engineered no that tltay perform at aero exposure., We propose that industry', be put on notice, as soon as possible, that within si;;- months of the effective date of this standard, no worker J i.-li-'ll he r.rposad to more than 2 fibers; within two years, one fiber; and within three years of June 1972, zero exposure t/hall be the law. She authorization to allow an enployer to come into compliance through the use of respirators should be developed into a permit system. Respirators should only foe authorized viv-sra the employer has a definite abatement plan to reduce the ..Cbsure through engineering moans. The other situation where inspirators would bo alleged is where there is no feasibility facility in the state of the art for controlling the dust. The permit system would operate through- the variance y-.:.:esduro of. tho hot. The employer would be required to ..:ve his case. Engineers from OSHA, NIOSH, or th3 Union lc\ visit tho site of th9 variance request to make their :n .r.tuiioa of the situation. When respirators are authorised, they shall bepro- >/;'.< iod '*y the employer at his cost aid shall be of the type that v-..v'.r; the least strain ca tie heart and lungs of the worker for of duct exposure. Of course, respiratory protec*"l3ulci be wo::;-) v;h.vlo the variance request is pending. Until thn concept of zero exposure is firmly 85 entrenched in an industrial facility, monitoring of exposure \ to afi-bjytos dust, as continuous as possible, is necessary. Monitoring. equipment and methods mush be acceptable to employer.;- Furthermore, no provided by Section -8 of OSHA. but denied in ii | the proposed standard, v/orkors-shall have the right to observe such monitoring and their access to the monitoring records ; without hindrance-shall be 'guaranteed. The OSHA proposed Standard on medical examinations iru.Vr allows v.ho fox to guard the chickens. The medical com:o i munity,..like'many .other professional groups in this country, has -physicians that industry can roly, on to deny valid occu pational disease claims of workers. Therefore -we' recommend :a that-workers be allowed to have annual physical examinations per .termed on them by -the doctor of their choice but at the i! -.6 !i il ;3 ii employerrc expense. Furthermore,'the records of this examination should nov. hi- cent to the employer but to a central record-keeping -facility at iJXCSH which will keep those records intact and IS :: con&a;.tial . - . }:.r.02il would then send each employer an annual statist]! i ii:i c:': w:...vu.-y on the examinations of all his employees. It has bv-'r. our experience in case after case that as soon as manage-' r -:-c out how - fcm-Uy. they have injured the health of a A i! ir,--.nRg*n;ent also does its beat* to get rid of the worker*, -ii \. " i: .`./a*.: i-herjo recor ds not-C to bo kept intact for at least forty I years and be hold confidential. tfo also call your attention to the need for separate .. M j.uno'a rooms, fox* shower facilities, end for protective clothing as outlined in our previously submitted comments. !l Lastly,,in all instances where employees are given Si th-3 opportunity to participate in any of these processes, like appealing at variance hearings or observing monitoring, they shall bo compensated at their regular rates by the employer 0 ?l M, l ` ^ ,i i! i H / .* * I.. . * 1 1* . WP.*\ # i i. i' . i .i!;: for any lost time. If- we are to make this law work, .we must recognize the economic realities of working people. A worker should not have to subsidise the employer's obligation of providing a safe end healthy workplace for his employees. And furthermore, any regulations finally adopted on asbestos should be written in clear, concise language. The oasiecvt way to frustrate a worker's rights: is to write regula - i!': ^ - ! 7 Ijh:* ii !! 'V [1 II Z2.U tions in complex language so that a lawyer or an experienced union staff is required everytime these rights need to be e.v.c-rci&ed. I would point out that over 70 percent of the Ameri can work force of course is unorganized and have to rely upon their owndevices to interpret any regulation that would be If V7.i do anything less than what I have outlined -V.ro, the standard must called a failure. A deficient >i ll f standard of protection from asbestos, in reality, legislates 2! i sickness and an early death for thousands of people. Pacocl with this prospect, I would seek no new rule at ? all, rather than be held responsible for the cases of asbestos i UI i disease that would surface thirty years hence. 2, for one, will not be swayed by the position that "Let's get what wa can this year.. We'll improve it the next time around." Por asbestos, unlike nost other industrial, dis- ! 9 0as3 agents, the research has been done, and the data is in. :o Wo know what it can do. . 4 Therefore, there is no excuse to disregard the *9 Congressional mandate "that no employee will .suffer diminished 13 healthy, functional capacity, or life expectancy as a result of 14 his work experience." (OSHA Sec. 2(b)(7)) The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International . j < Union wants a meaningful asbestos standard. We do not want a v li standard that will be a diversion and a drain on our already <:l:.Uv racorurces* When dealing with, matters of life and death, the giving of false security is the most despicable act. EXhMXKER GOLDBERG: May this witness be excused? (Ko response) SJHMIKSU GOLDBERG: Thank you, sir. **\ ii1i We have now exhausted the list of witnesses who were :-a ifj. -chaduied pursuant to the prehearing conference to appear today Two witnesses scheduled for later sessions have asked M* to r,o oir and they are Mr. Lavaletta and Mr. Bratt. Wo will have time after their appearances for addi- j tional witnesses today, and I will entertain any requests to j appear today. .Mr. Lavaletfce. STkffEMEJW OP DAVID R. LAVALETi'E REPRESSlWIilG THE SHIPBUILDERS COUNCIL MR. LAViVLETTE: Mr. Examiner, ladies and gentlemen, iny nar.s As David Lsvalette, ,and I represent the Shipbuilders Council oil America. The Shipbuilders Council is the national trails nsi'L'ccintion for the shipbuilding and ship repair Indus- By way of background, after completing graduate otedios in industrial hygiene mid health physics, I studied civQl'/o yoars of shipyard environments and have responsibility in those areas, and I night say parenthetically during that tiii/v Z have seen dramatic changes, all of which have; led to lessening of the.exposure.of potential hazards of asbestos to j the work force. ICe appreciate 'the opportunity to comment on the pro posed i-tor.dcircle. Although we understand, and are in agreement with. ti.i intent- of the subject proposed rule making, we. feel tl-r.t presently drafted, the proposal requires clarification net practicable. f-oecific sections where a need for change is Indicated are discussed, and changets are proposed which would Gliminafco ambiguity, render impleraard:ation practicable, and ] assure attainment of the objective. J Paragraph 1910.93c states: "Warning signs shall be I provided and displayed at each location where asbestos dust hazards arc present. Signs shall be posted at least 50 feet j .' - r in each direction from the location v/here the hasard is present j i; ir. and at intervals; of not more than ICO feet along each edge of the area-whore the hasard is present." This requirement would present no problem for fixed it v shore side facilities such as pipe covering fabrication shops, although there- appears to be no necessity for posting such areas except on access doors, provided good ventilation con trol is maintained. However, this requirement would impose a hardship .board ship, it could effectively close.down a complete ship .r.idvr construction or repair during pipe Covering or boiler tricking-operations. i\a stated, the proposal vculd require either the ; .'ting of a complete vessel or constant moving of signs as .o.vl: icuationu change throughout the ship. The purpose of tr.\ vie .ns is obviously to warn employees of the existence of :.*j I* * - - Wr a vot/nvtirJ. hazard in the general area of operations producing airborno asbestos dust, and hence prevent their exposure.' 'ho. key words in the proposed paragraph are "where asbestos dust hazards arc present." Since "dust hazards" are I t not defined, wa assume that dust hazards are deemed to exist when the concentrations specified in Paragraph 1910.93a axe exceeded. In order to clarify this and obviate the necessity for signs whan levels as specified in Paragraph 1910.93a are not exceeded, us propose the following addition to section XD10.03a: ' "Signs are not required in areas where the environ mental sampling as conducted in accordance with' Paragraph 1910.93 indicates that levels specified in Paragraph 1910.93a are not exceeded." Paragraph 1910.93f states in part: (f) Monitoring - (1) Personal. "Employees engaged in the- particular operations or using, the particular tools- specified in paragraph (d) of this section, or exposed to con centrations of asbestos dust in excess- of the limits specified in paragraph (c) (3) of this section shall be monitored in accordance x/ith this' paragraph." (iv) Sampling frequency - "Sampling periods shall such number- and pattern as to represent accurately the -re of the employees over their working period. " (2) Environmental. "Environmental monitoring shall v.c'v.cccd in. all'-.areas in which employes are exposed to novations of asbestos dust in excess of the limits 91 specified -t1- paragraph (a) of this section," (iv) Sampling frequency. "Sampling periods shall be of such mm&er - and pattern as to represent accurately the exposure of the employes over their wording period." Aithrugh not specifically stated, there is an impli cation that sampling will be required daily for all individu als and environments exposed to asbestos dust. At least the standard could be so interpreted in the absence of more spe cific language. .. We feel that representative sampling for all types of. operations should suffice to prove the personal and environ mental exposure levels, and serve as a basis for prescribing the need for engineering controls and/or protective equipment r-.s; appropriate. Virtually all shipbuilding and ship repair opera tion? are repetitive and similar operations are not likely to produce erasures which vary significantly from day to day provided proper control measured are imposed. Wo therefore propose the addition of the following .r.fcatomwiit to Paragraph 1910.93f: Where' dust producing operations are repetitive in nature, it in sufficient to perform and document sampling for each typical type of operation, and consider such results as accurately reflecting employe exposures over their working period. 92 ' Sampling is required whenever operations, materials, or control measures change in such'a manner a3 to create potential exposures which differ signifi cantly from such typical operations. Sampling of typical operations shall be repeated at least j j annually to verify prior results." j 77a feel that adoption of the proposed, rule malting ! .; .. . i would seriously and unjustifiably impact shipbuilding and ship; rop:-.ir operations, fie feel that the changes we are proposing would result in protection of the employes and the environment equal.to or better than the proposed rule making. V7e feel that the addition of a quantitative defini tion of "dust hazard" as suggested will encourage users to .'..uploy engineering controls at the source of emissions, thus ..dnimising the heed for signs by reducing atmospheric concen trations of asbestos dust in surrounding areas. 17c believe that the suggested addition regarding r; 'i.voling frequency will minimize confusion, and is consistent ;v;.r. good industrial hygiene and engineering practice. Thank you. ZXZimWR GOLDBERG: May Mr. Lavalette be. excused? ; (No response) SJIAI'IKER GOLDliERG: Thank you, Mr. Lavalette. , Mr. Bratt./ . STATEMENT 01? BHHBST'C. BRATT GENERAL MANAGER - ASBESTOS OP K. K. PORTER COMPANY, INC. MR. BRATT: Mr. Examiner, I an Ernest C. Bratt, General Manager - Asbestos of H. K. Porter Company, Inc., of Pittsburgh.' In its Thormoid Division, Porter operates two plants or.o in Kentucky find one in Indiana, engaged in manufacture of friction products, including brakei blocks arid clutch facings. , It also has a plant in North Carolina, and one in South Carolina, malting Asbestos Textile products. In addition, a Porter subsidiary, Pacific Asbestos, mines the minerals in California. We are, therefore, vitally concerned with any stand ard proposal for the regulation of exposure to asbestos dust. The Emergency Standard, promulgated on December 7th, 1371, reduced the exposure of employees from 12 fibers to 5 fibers greater than 5 microns per milliliter, a sizable reduc tion. Because the ACGIH notice of intended change has indi cated this level would probably be adopted, we have been dili gently .working to reduce our dust counts to that level. We have in our two textile plants, complete recircu lation of air, emitting nothing to atmosphere. Inside we r:\7a mapley ?d rhe bent techniques available to hood our !> vihina**, exhaust and filter the air. 94 Nevertheless,. compliance with a. standard of S fibers ::.n all areas has been difficult to obtain.'v A survey of the problems at our North Carolina plant has indicated an addi- \ \ \ : tional expanse of $500,000 to try to reach 5 fibers. 6 7 0 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(5 I r/ | 18 19 i 20 21 K>0 20 ; i i 2:] 25 iiij: ii r Say "try" because I know of no available engineer ing that can or will guarantee meeting the standard. The best w:> can do is spend the money and then test the results -- and now wo. have o .proposed standard of 2 fibers per milliliter recommended by the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust* What expense will be involved in meeting such a standard has not even been estimated by us. Porter's four planto may be. facing an expenditure of $2,000,000 to meet 5 fibers'-- to mast two fibers may .not be economically feasible. V7e believe the medical evidence to date does not warrant a standard of two fibers. In the interest of our or'pioyaers health, we will support a 5 fiber standard# believin that any chance below that should bo the result of further study and more conclusive evidence. To return to the economics for,a moment# 2 would like to cite our recent past experience. In 1970# Porter operated wo additional plants in its textile group, one in Missouri iuv1. a saccnd in Worth Carolina. In light of the ACGIH notice of intended change# vre -.ined all our'plants and determined that Davidson, North Ci-.rol.nifi, and St. Louie, Missouri# should be closed since 95 neither had r.dequnte controls and the' cost -of bringing them into acrpliance. was judged- to be excessive. it vie s' not uii easy decision since both plants were profitable and both had loyal work forces which would be dis placed. our South Carolina location was the newest, and the available money was allocated to that plant sc that one expenditure could be made, not three. Over three quarters of a million dollars has been spent there in installing air and dust systems. Despite that expenditure, we are still faced with additional expenditures to meet 5 fibers. V7e have not even calculated 2. Needless to say, the impact on earnings has been severe.. Up to this point, we have been discussing capital expenditures and engineering services. There arc a great many other requirements that will add to cost -- day after day -- year after year. There ic the requirements for vacuuming all waste. This* will add $.10,000 minimum to the capital expense but the manpower increase'needed to operate the cleaners will add at liast $50,000 per year to our operating costs. Other costs, such as respirators, medical examina tion:; , record keeping, waste disposal, labeling, we have not estimated. We know it will be considerable. Against those increased costs is the pressure of the vrarket place where we can find our customers turning to 96 alternative products except in those places, where the unique proportion of the asbestos make it irreplaceable. Tills is s problem but the othar side of the coin reflects in D >^> ii i Ier:o jdbz, lower income. si Our toxtilo operations purchase over 5 million dol- I 6 ll lars of raw materials, our payrolls are in excess of $1,500,000 G 9 10 H :z v is ui L5 :g i !t r/ l and our locsl taxes over $50,000. Oar economic impact from those two plants alcne is considerable. I have addressad myself to the economic aspects of this standard, leaving medical arguments to the expert::. V7e want to and intend to remain in business. We hope the impact ; of this standee:* on the industry's- economics will be given due consideration. To summarize, my company is opposed to the standard t.B p::oposed in the following areas. . 1. Allowableconcentration: Wo believe 5 fibers to ho a reasonable standard and that existing data does not M I! i<J (t 20 ; 2! 22 warrant a'reduction to 2. 2. Personal Protection: We accept the respirator requirements but believe the proposed use of protective clothing at a level 10 times the limit is far too stringent and unnecessary. f>/i U li ce? !l 3. Warning label and signs: Using the word "Danger ir. v.v.j*c cstirriXy alarming and not warranted. The words /* 'O.rwiivj11 cr "caution" v/ould be preferable. ii Thank you. EXAMINER GOLDBERG2 May Mi:. Bratt be excused? (No response) EXAMINER 30LD13ERG: Thank yon, Hr. Bratt. Dooti anyone scheduled to appear at a later tine desire to appear at this time instead? MR. KUTHUK: X am Alex Ku:?muk, representing the Asbestos Textile institute, and I would like to make a pre sentation at this time, EXSJKINER GOLDBERG: When are you scheduled to go on, sir/ MR. KUZKUX: Friday, sir. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Step forward, sir, end take the stand. STATEMENT OF ALEX XUZMUK rU3?RESEKTH`TG THE ASBESTOS TEXTILE INSTITUTE MR. icyZMUK: Mr. Chairman, my name is Alex Kuzmuk. I a:: a .aemkar of the Board of Governors of the Asbestos T:::t j.le Institute. I art here today to officially represent and state tl-.t position of the Asbestos Textile Institute and its member r;--i'.niea. We are in opposition to the proposed-asbestos d.-.3c standards ao published in the Federal Register, January 1372. We are also opposed to recommendations proposed in the N.TOSH criteria package, and by the Asbestos Advisory 98 Committee. The asbestos textile industry, which this associa tion i-'epveDiJiitf, inclv.dcis over 4,000 job opportunities in manv.!..:afurlng, plus approximately 30,000 job opportunities in relntnd product fabrication and sales. The gross business volume for manufacturing alone is over 950 million per year. The gross volume for related fabrication and sales ie, therefore, many times this amount. Although this is not the largest segment of the asbestos industry, it is a very important one. Our product lines include the manufacture of safety garments, insulations, clutch facings, brake linings, paper dryer felts, mechanical packings and gaskets, laminated plastics, arid many other com modities essential to tcday's technological progress. In many instances, there are no. known substitutes for asbestos textile materials. Subsequent to the enactment of the Occupational Safety erd Health Act, the threshold limit value for asbestos du:it vas reduced from 5 million particles per cubic foot of to 12 fibres per milliliter, 5 microns or greater in length, V'c, in the asbestos textile industry, made every possible effort to meet the 12 fiber threshold limit value by rs--tngi:ieering dust hoods and dust collection equipment oh ::v.vx-.c, spinnorr-, looms, and many other types of equipment. 99 In addition, many of us initiated wet weaving and \ jy.c.d ' extensive additional changes in processes and materials. i:<i value. run Khan the further reduction to the threshold limit for asbestosdust waspublished on December 7, 1971,we ' all ovoragain to study, plansforrevisingequipment, j ; > i ! t yrccasces, and materials, for which vre had just spend thousands- i of dollars to install to meet the 12-fiber level, Many of us ! -| i:.i ..ynvo not, and cannot, reduce our dust levels to the emergency sI;* c..:.cl proposed 3 fiber threshold limit value. ; i If engineering to a 5 fiber level were feasible on y chi complex types of machinery and equipment used in the tex tile industry, the cost of implementation, would make it M extremely doubtful that this industry could survive econoraiii u:\Xly. We are presently being pressed to the wall by our competitors. The cost of a program to meet the proposed asbestos dust standards could be the determining factor for :: jving American-made asbestos textiles from the market place The competition to which I refer will not be . r :ir.'u to make* extensive capital investments to change pro- c..v.;-:.2r provide protective clothing, provide medical examina- ' and monitoring. This compstition is primarily from j* foreign imports. I, therefore, take this opportunity to ask this 1 iy.al agency "whether it will' take the responsibility of reepm^ !i u.y.diug equitable tariffs to prevent this economic disaster, if - - j 100 j tha propose-! Asbestos Dust Standard.*! become effective? j jlsyond the proposed asbestos dust OwancL'a-ds publisher in th: 0:-imir,r.v 12.. 1 972, Federal Register/'fibre nr reconiiu* nt1 a tions by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Asbestos Adv5.soi.-y Committee. : i i j ; !>{ vj i! : . r These raccmmond further reduction o:: the asbestos . dust threshold limit value to 2 fibers per milliliter, plus t ! many additional requirements concerning respirator equipment, , 1j protective clothing, monitoring, and others. j < With the problems we are encountering in attempting i %i to reach the nresent Emergency Asbestos Standard, it is unreal- ! irtic to oven consider the - feasibility of a 2 fiber standard. | \ i 1' would like to point out that Mr. Clifford L. . Sleekier. Ciwiirman of the Asbestos Textile Institute Environ mental Health Committee, took the initiative in 1964 to req*ues. t*t ;r. LGivit? Cralley of th6 United States Public Health Service ! iii to conduct an epidemiological study of our asbestos textile i ' t ;/ t \ s.i ' .indue, try. Via recognised then that a potential health problem I i iUciococl arid, therefore, v/a wanted expert advice and assistance^ v.c help us solve it. VJe have neither received the advice nor '.h; assistance which wa had hoped for. V*f! opened our plants to the United States Public Service personnel for environmental studies, review of records, end physical examinations of om: people. Our member companies urged employe participation in the study, and a substantial representative group of workers were involved V!a confcidually requested: the United States Public Health Ser- ! vice to increase their efforts and provide interim progress reports. j The Public nealth Service Asbestos Study of which I | speak has not been completed. A recent report, which is a 'i primary factor in the reccwunendations by NIOSH and the Advisory Committee, vras based on this incomplete study. The informa tion provided in the report was based on opinion and specula tion, rather than fact. Had the United States Public Health Service Asbestos Epidemiological Study boon completed as continually requested by the Asbestos Tortile Institute, we might now be in a posi tion of having factual information as to what the safe threshold 15-r.dt for asbestos dust really should be. One factor is pertinent to this point. The asbestos related disease involvement in the asbestos textile industry is being related to asbestos dust exposure levels as they p:.tc.r.*;fc.ly exist rather than at the time the diae'asa was incur::?.d 15 to 30 years ago. Such a comparison is invalid. All o the past monitoring for asbestos dust in American textile plants ha3 bean done using the impinger method for sampling. Today's proposed standards are based on a fiber lev using trie MiJ.aporo filter method for sampling. There i3 no 102 accurate correlation of iroping'Qr counts versus Milapora filter % counts established to date. There ha's been some work done by thn United States Public Health Service, but tile results arc incomplete. This is but one area that demonstrates the need for further health research studies and evaluations bafore unneces sarily creating an unrealistic standard that can be the demisa of this industry and its related job opportunities. We respectfully urge the Secretary of Labor tos (1) Reconsider the establishment of asbestos standards? (2) rein state the threshold limit value for asbestos dust at 12 fibers per milliliter, 5 microns or greater in length for an interim period pending a comprehensive epidemiological study of the entire asbestos industry in the United States. I would like to point out that many comparisons have been made between the British and United States asbestos tcMtile industry concerning health problems. The vast differ ences in materials, equipment and processes make such compari- onreulictio. (3) Provide for representation of the Asbestos reptile Institute on future advisory and study cocmittees. X would also like to point out that while many detailed, requirements are included in the proposed standard, it i.; absolutely mute on the very important medically substantinted problem of cigarette smoking as associated with -exposure to asbectos fiber. Wo# of the Asbestos Textile Industry# l have the greatest desire to prevent injury to our employees. We believe i this fan be accomplished without destroying the asbestos tex- tile industry. Thank you. < EJiAKlilER. GOLDBERG: May Mr. Knzmuk be excused? {Ho response) EmilNER GOLDBERG: Thank you, sir. Doos anyone wish to appear at this time who was scheduled to later appearance? (Ho response) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: If not# we stand in recess until 9:00 a.m., tomorrow morning in this room. (Whereupon# the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.# Wednesday, March 15, 1972.) # ff # OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS before the f ' of Ac . U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR !! ' . .. Oodcet No. In the nutter of STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUSTr PROPOSED RULE MAKING / \ PUBLIC HEARING Washington, D.C. n.^,. March 15, 197? Pm^1C4 ggO HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. OffictoiReporten Wufclngtai, D. C. 546-6666 > i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 'OP LABOR 2 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AMD HEALTH 3 ADMINISTRATION HEARINGS ON STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST 4 5 Conference Room J3 6 Il Department of Labor Washington, D* C. i 7> Monday/ March 15, 1972 9 T3;$ rearin':; on occupational safety and health :o ci'.wV-'.i-i;re-r/, So:: <zxi->osw& to r sons to s dust rcconvonatl ct : t :'0 . ?v:tUv:: M. ?.dfcrq, pzi(?ai<5.incr i; :c *9 !! <*l0 t /CO i 5 %4 CONTENTS WITNESSES Alvin Oroas W. Clark Cooper Duncan A. Holaday Stephen Holmes Clifford L. Sheokler J. Spencer Royer CharleB Zumwalt Albert Hi Fay Matthew M. Swetonio Isaac H. Weaver John H Marsh Joseph Leonard John L. Rainey Albert D. Schlnner Eddie Story NUMBERS: EXHIBIT ~ 22 23 24 thru 35 25 thru 35 36-A 36 -B 37 38 and 39 40 IDENTIFIED 106 106 150 i70-A 170-A 170-B 178 192 PAGE 104 113 128 142 172-B 170-L 170-P 171 173 193 198 202 209 212 216 RECEIVED 107 106 155 IS* 170-A 170-A 170-B 178 192  ' ii B P. -I ii 'S f. $XAM3OT?.if! 0L<D3ftK6c' -Coco rnorairuy., sfhtv hearing* trill S !! b ii* o\:dor, i* "1; X iu'-ve +.h following for fchis: morning s . i; S jj Mr. Grc , Oat. C;c;'.:p:a: r. Jiolac^'iy, Mr. Holme's, Mir. Shooklot. li '-It ivu.fi r,--;. r .2 hdci n.lc.miid ftp yaPviorr'ay- Rather ! . Ji . .*1V V'!.i 1',.'': i*-'.', o'C.V.Vi ` ' , ;*.;*\lf ,, I *?.Tn Alvin ; ivfro*.T.--1 f ?.. i;"! *'.y air. Qx'yri*:-ny Nov/ ! t '..'.i; 3uni. recently -When ;.::uj<'.ovr-f'i in >iv.- ~.sbefco ir.^viO'cKy. ;* . X '?c.' '; zo "ho proclaims f'4 V .'uX r-'i-piratory problems* 1 > V ': .^..ivvVi-coa 1\\ tv.' in*. * <\; , wV.i'J. :v- ' -v '``.'Iv.;: ; -*n yr.tOXuft'f, X > i :: >' rX yo.a .pay `v~ */? . I i.v:;:;1.:- i1 j ! - -:>: vlrev. hare t ./nort | i if.i'.tlrv 5:R:;v:lrac..rv il.v.snSs "in >ht> ; 'ti.y v:..vricvi?/!:itv;:. -this nan > I t bn changed 1.0-5 *Vhc' tfentlcwar. ';h:MVi 3: stsaa -ir>. corihyot with who v?a:co a~j `' '. ' ( ?.Ucfe3 with pvslr.-p-is.::y forom the had similar ! t yiwhr.o-ra a.-; 'chc?."~-. yo'.Uv;? ahildrou,. and .<$ X ss-uppo;<e .that is' onej Z\-r--?:-.* X .bo:-; iuierh vied i.u this particular field., ftncT { .-- v ' it a.'/'tx :.f that X jvat two employeson s. ''! i.f ;;. *>.*:* hv:o poj.v.ha ; en-a, iucre in q:ccz-. '. .ted .: S'. -tt ouc?y:. yo.-st^rdtiy regarding vJh<* e-Gnomic problems', 'v V-.r-a :.*o :!;) rich tbn eoonorxic nroblcsns or the 'asbestos* in- I * ' * thcr px-cfc.lov.-.s fay, wbov. -would' qo.Me about if the 3i-.and-*3.'f*.5 rote is) ouch a way that they would hava to uhang^ t;-.:" va.:. nothingsaid obovri: fchu ucono-Yh.* problems of.} v- ;: . v-iy: ourfern from the pulon.:t,r</- probl&sns .assoc** r; - ' v :,,,-.vV.v-y, v u^rr buon olosoly assoc- only fcha&r 'being iconoini.e . .; ; :: v. ;: n tv't viiril-r.d &vv.` who. it-ay :.' '.< "il bvh ';' . tic o;:o;-o:ui u prob- i` t >. , v .' i r c ; ' :> if Ui-v life b;r?o:Y;'V.-.?' short&nejt i .>.1 .-f...o-xu.: !>;:ohl?n::-{ o.f his dop&ncteats ; We- tJlii-:ti r.-on- is-vio probl-iai. i; :s sad ro^iirv.'. that there is' a two-fo'idI :>:rvidly., ..oid Ary liust point,. :-Vn"sra v;." u groat .c!ea?. oi tnuv.'fot yc:;: iay .-tort pradrot'; r but ws -tuut -.never forget (- that the iun involved, the human bsinc/y i3 not a problem. So j we must balance the prociuots against. the living parson. : j. X would like to introduce into -these proceedings a j depoaitiori that -was taken in wy office' - by. myselJ?' in the presence of attorneys representing various insurance companies who are j my opponents. The deposition in some 69 pages, and it is a complete deposition' that was taken that particular day, which contains the testimony of a particular client of ours - - questions I a3kad and, of course, the answers thereto. I would also like to introduce with this particular deposition the examining internalist's report. Dr. Rachroei Cherner. who is a physician in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. :Ct will.be sot0*1 that this particular report wap marked into /:Vidb\Y.v In. v.hifi portionX&r mattery and so I will -represent '.V- < i- 'Vxndtlcis ./>. i'j;. : v?iil introduce. has also.been marked A ?e :.y particular vnatter - as the medical reports ' 'U';` t > They also have been marked into 1 --r ue ; the iicnc-Mr.bXe Mobart Pai-g.*. X thank jbv. `".hat ii*. all 7. have, The deposition referred to by Mr, bxo~:.-. V7.il 1 b-j ir^i.ba Exhibit Mo. 22. The medical report will he marked Itdiiblt Mo. 23, Are there any objections? (The documents referred to were marked Exhibits Wo, 22 and No. 23 xo>: identification.) MR. SHECKXiERj I'd lilse t.p ask Mr. Gross if the Med ical report he is introducing into evidence contains informa tion about the Petitioner in the Respondent1 s medical exam ination? Mil. GROSSt It really doesn't. I do believe I have a duty to present the Respondent's side. MR. SHECKM3R: You will introduce both medical reports}? HR. GROSS: I do not have same available, but I can obtain same. (Discussion off the record.) r;x?MXi?3P. OiLW&HGz Mr. Shackles, X will receive thin, hit }.To. 22. into o""iiienco.. the- as being the deposition. (Toe docjurent referred to, here i tofore rv'-hef. .Exhibit No. 22- for! 3.dentific'.fion, was received in-- evj.dfA:r?;.) i: As to. the 'Exhibit Uo. 23, the medical repor offered ksv ?!>:. Gross, 1 will, iceep the record open for five days after the close jf the hearing for receipt of the medical report offered by the in the proceeding chat Mr. Gross has tn.fttified about, If that Respondent's roddical report is re- ca.lv-sd within five days- after the close of the hearing I will r-s^eivv that arid the medical report which Mr. Gross has offert *(/ the .v?;*r h>r medical report is not received within vivo 'hay-, the ..'lor:.-, of bemriwg. the medical report offered  by Mr. Gross today will go into the rejected Exhibit file. MR. SHECKLERs May I also' ask Mr. Gross other quastionij? t 3 j EXAMINER GOLDBERG; ?.`t is the only opportunity you are A going to get to examine Mr. Grose, so if you feel you should 5 )! go right ahead. V. MR, 9HECELER: Other than, the-moral aspect of this oas<b yon approacij the. subject of the economics of industry versus the ; a economics. Again r aside from the moral aspects of this case, ;) would you. wind telling mo what the 3:ate- in New Jersey is for I! tK*<V3?n-v. total disability? n* ?;h, y'.B.CtZS: It:* rate, in the State of Rev; Jersey varies Up `roT; vtvr to year. V?e* hav* au excellent- lav? fcfcnfc- allowa it ; * / 1,! ji iS l> to vary depending \ip.cn tho Cost - 'of -Living Index, The rate right now, ar- of January- X, 1972, 1 belie'-a, is $95 a week. i-tft. ssWiCZX&iRs If depends on wages? K> I '-tR, GROSS: *P ii i? i ty'i $9f> a weak. 10 i* 1' ij io lij:;`i` /> - > t!R. RSSCL&K: if'tov. that the V;or;t:i*:vn iio1-.- payir.trvji*. vor A `.Ac : r V. \\n \' of \r?.j 'j;.- r th ; -./Aclow after the death of the / i ?.o ii l\i . !< Pi !i to c-f tor hu;banu the indi'--.ius;.l parson It 109 thirds. However, of course/ there is some exception to this particular rate, and the exception would be if she remarried 4 or ahe worked herself. There are certain other refinements; b\xt basically she would he entitled to 550 weeks at the 505 rate of her husband, up to a maximum of $95. / !' However. it should be understood that the rate that a* ?(;. applies ia the rate.In effect at the time of the last exposure. ?. :( said, there is a sliding scale. This year it is $95. to ! Eaafc year it war. $91, and so on. :W MR. SHBCKLEHs Is it a fact that the v/idow does receive u benefits for not 550 weeks? 13 MR. GROSS: If she does not attain equal employment anc 14 does not remarry, then she will obtain payments for life. The * ts Order is entered for 550 weeks. If there is no remarriage, to then it irr correct eho will get lifetime benefits. 17 u iTXi'JiXKEHGOPPEERG: Is there anything further of '.hi? ritneau? y':. i?r.0R`'Xi*>i??s sfcr. Gross, are you familiar with v.. < ;p. I; 07 1 Vtvih--;":'-tv Oc:r--p':ir.;-. cases involving diseases,, alleged or Hivppoced, r>r bol? sfee: to bo related to a3bestoais? ^ '<Td itR. GROif-s Ves, sir, 1 participated in two such cases 1r i PA ! very recently. id It - DEGHEGOHO: Are you familiar -with the industry, or, 25 more specifically, the levels of exposure to 'which these persons r you represented! were exposed? 110 MSI. GR03S: Yes, sir. I really can't say the exact levels, but in teats my.de of the particular plant I personally went through the pleat#so I don't have the statistics vrith me# but I did know that information. MR. DEGREGOHO: But you don't remember now? MR. GROSS': No, I don't remember the findings obtained as the result of engineering studies. MR, roEGrSGOMO: These two cases, were they prosecuted in final judgment? MR. GROSE? Yes, a final judgment was entered by the Honorable Robert Paige in the Workman's Compensation Court in the* 0::.tv of Camden, rlR. 'IHGPSC.WO: Was an issue in the two cases whether ;./a:v .Xat-d he the occupational exposure of asbestos? ::i, v:;., ?'v* -judgment in both cases , one t thr* bo permanently a-.'id totally disabled. ' -4 vr-cai-c bp.vjfi-is?- provided by the New Jersey Co>.k "'n* f Cnr.-v; y.-w'-tor l.\vr. .which would be for the rest of his lifi*. X -i hho nfch-: r ri-:rnj t'{hJr.er* judgment was that the particular tridividu >1 --on parti*.\1`.!l>l.yy t*otata: lly disabled, and my rccollectior is that h-: was Hdjv.dg;;:d to bbve> 42-5 of th*. permanent total# whic -would entitle him to a rate based upon a $40 a week rate for approximatoly' some $12,000, MR. bE*3'A*3GOHO: Can you identify the disease involved In the two oasess, this illness? I MR. OKO&S: X con any this to you, the particular din-' . i ease that was found haviho to do with the particular person ? I which X introduced tho depositions' are mentioned completely ini* I the physician * .3 report. X can read that off, and probably it would be the easiest vray. All I can eay to you is that both o these gentlemen wore exposed to asbestos and the plont that ma 3e gaskets, and in doing this type of work it was necessary each morning for each individual v;ho, frankly, did the same job, to cut asbestos and place the strippings of the cut asbestos in such a way, around a steel base making these gaskets. x toured tho plank. X anr familiar 'with the operations **. on:* only tell you that tho diagnoses as ra?de by the internist, '"?vJrn->:v; v?r,n psu.vio-vi ly that the aisbestcs cither precipitate 3, .-it.-id, or brouyhh about the respiratory prob5.eras that the y-. .er-uvi srff-.-sr.cd from. It is v.\y rr-.a.-.o/otanding that it ia c^rlte difficult to say in s?.l5 <vjs-v.? to mr-vke a definitive diagnosis of asbestos without a biovi '.v, and. unfortunately maybe' r.n autopsy r because the- doctors usually look for y: articles of e.sbcskos in the lungp. So at this particular tiraw, as a result of the testing done, both of those ciYirkii.t-n were in various hospitals, r.o findings and diagnoses ....... "oh a positive diagnosis, but proballe - - that : rritotior. by occupation brought about. hih How long were 'the two putiento engaged i in fcho occupationsV 112 % MR, GROSS: They were both engaged from fifteen to 3 seventeen year's in the same occupation, doing the same job, 4 MR, UEGFEGONO: I would suggest that inaesnuch as New 5 Jersey cases are.of public record that our record heire show <5 the names of the cases towh.i.eh Mr, Goldberg does refer, so 7J I?i that ifrarid I air. sure v/e are .all interested in the potential f} exposure of v.haaii people, we so choose, we can look back upon these cefoa and cvac.-j whether or what the exposure level and v_? j!r. i,' , might haw; been, (: H ?i1 v:TaMvi i*'iv . Gross,, dc you happen fco know t?. !t.; `V v' c->C c.it I-. !; 'A', : 'v'ht two ctni^r- inv!ye.d i ' iv John Swift `i j/J -.xp-ur. TVicy;:;.v;i;; r. ,G'*sicat `?.-.vsoc\v/, ftTO u*,- " j_'J i ffy - 423.1, yh'- aiftc-.-. ;j..i H 3'0*r.vJti (Style:-nj ver.:y.s the iG . 'T,iir4if * SV If ;i w i! 39 1V1. i t *fvvACE be supply that j.ni h! ..I s ht-acing, 20 | 1 ai i! ii*t SKAMIh'i' witness? (Rn ly/M'lidi':1. `fh-nnk' ysu; Mr, Groin;, V sV i) w;) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Dra. cooper and Eoladay. DR. COOPER: Mr. Examiner, J am Dr. W. Clark Cooper, School cf Public Health, University of California, a Member of the Consulting firm of Taborsliaw-Cooner Associates, BerJcely, California. I welcome this opportunity to speak in favor of effect ivo standards to roouca occupational exposures to asbestos, J am a physician certified in Internal Medicine and Occupational Medicine and-am Professor of Occupational Health in Residence in viic School of Public Health, of the University of California Rerkwslcy. Uaforo join:'n<? the University, I was in. the .Division .o Occupational Health of the U, S-' Public Health Service, and retired in 7.SS3 while Chief of that Division. Voday f however, hot vo.praseotiag either the University or* the Public Health Service, bat. am speaking as aa occupational physician who has Ij^oa closely concerned for several years with the health problems of the infcli. i-.iri.v 'crude. I also apeak as Medical Advisor to, r.!..'.e dctiip'f.-At : . cot>--*';*3eatafciva of, the Western States Asbestos 'h/ttlt!-. PU\n. j > cooperative program, now in its 4th 7 ' ';v i-ioul cation workers -and insulation contrap o.-:r.. ->.i*.ir torn fit.iter*., : ..ned at preventing - dieease disutility iv;* citing from asbestos and other hazards of '.Iftic'* 'C.CclCGn i think hh&re :<o general Agreiraenf. ubov.t the harmful 114 effects of asbestos, which can cause fibrosis of the lungs (asbestosis), arc! is associated with a high risk of lung cancejc and other tumors. i see nothing wrong in our being reminded that we are dealing with a very, serious human problem, but I think that most, if not .all,, of up, in this room can accept that those do occur. iTi'.an wo review the iwvidesiae relating concentrations of . airborne'asbestos and effects- on man, however, we reach a rone 1 of great unce.rtsii.nfc y below average concentrations of about 10 fibars/cc. It hoc- bot-n shown that controls that drop the average below five fibnrs/cc will prevent ashes tosi&..- but we tf.ro not .-'.are abort the kvurors. As has booh said so often, Lao as bC; s tos " r >;; .1 :> t:s c.1 tumors v/e bee toilay resulted from expo sures 20,. .?.n. *), or oven SO years ago a 'llo one was measuring fibers in the air :!: inert tir-s Thors is no magic* number to t? shfic. >>y e:cjosi'ives. There is no way one can < -.."...n-V k'; X vY;. -itis ti (ikt to gut such av-!Tbox.. . There :-o-i ; `cc for vs to ssj: back oyer'all '!v v: ' re : .at v.h.v els cis Lve .or . There, are \.-tox, wr va.-yino fio.-:.-- nines, which j '.''.v' tod iy .'. m : ..I- * i. -sit'* one or .*.-pre poorly- P ;'i .,o<V co~ f.i*;vors that av.- ppoVibiy essential. in the Anit-l ation or pro motion ci- t'u?-..vrs Add' individual variations. ani one can ly so? hew it can be to define the importance of -aver-r age and peak do pe' t-vd the time anti duration or their Oocurreut 115 Raw data are uncertain, and to extrapolate from them to a zone of, presumed no-effect .is impossible, For the same reaons, it is risky to translate experiences in one industry to another. Since a number of some kind seems administratively !/, required, an average of 2 fibers/cc is a prudent choice for an eight-hour limit, based upc a a margin of safety as compared wi -h levels that we know produce effects* As I wrote NIOSH in December, 1571, first, reducing asbestos exposures' will come from changing materials, equipmen and work practices, with periodic check of performance, and not by constant air monitoring. The numbers in the standard shoald be cfu.idas tc.- engineering design and to practices that u it-ii changing, as well as showing those operations where f."vto:cy protfictiop will ?v; required. If would be unwise : '.np tic >3 .if singj. count:. as the either for ; *. * v fee. ~or-in.-g the l./ro of respira lory protection / spor.'id. -::>s;k, cIgo, that when v/e sowetor by light dr jo-v.vU.n;.? ribc-xv -Vi n 'u length, : h l.-: not like .o.'.op l.ioK- to;: e.->*b.r.' -.v-o:-:ide or b.oxrfol vapor.. *::fe cannot b.e we are vor-isp'-irc,- whit is biologically 'important in a qivei nnvircument. 'vnis ouc-uld gitv ..c humility in interpreting dati f ' 1 setting stanch* vc.?, and _ ultimately in enforcing them. In other wordsI egroa whclenearterily with those who rr-cormnc-nd that we think in term-.- r--r' performance standards. I 116 5I i !? My suppose of a 2 fiber/cc average is predicated upon i 4 there being a two-year period before compliance is mandatory,, j ti. t In the insulating trade our studies indicate insuperable diffi-1 4 i; cclties in reaching the standard, fairly soon, based on a 10 fiber/cc peak, although some operations will require regu 6 latory protection. Changes in materials and work practices are 7 already well advanced. Because there are far more difficult a problems in connection with other uses of asbestos, time should 9 be: given to work out solutions. I see no basis for concern, . 10 on medical grorndo r for the continuation of a 5 fiber/cc Stand- n aid for two more years, particularly if a in fiber/cc peak is it rp. ;; v.-:ri.t : ac, detectable long-term affects., a :i irt di fferehce bet&/5e?i five and two over this . , ^..r p*; important that, tlvi tv'e-yv-ar period be rbt *; ft:-iiS ! bili'cy of meeting the standards. This ;i a'U' v<iy:\,v*y in the West. Pul ing this t*;o-y?ar period |: l? ! i4;. 13 i 4I 19 jj id}{<.;-iC i.Vi respiratory design are essential to r.eet all the rc-:;iuixemosst* "> ;-findex'd or be available when needed. would 1x1:3 ji.w to turn to the program of medical sur P.0 j) 1 21 |Ii i; 22 !fi 2o'3-\ u;l: J veillance. It. uhoi'lc be a tressed that physical examination plays a secondary role in preventing asbestos.!?; and practically r-.o role in prevav-tii'C! malignancies except that they may provide opportunities to reinforce commendations on work practices and n habit-*;. O'nfi.i surveillance aimed at detecting acute or <.*>: iv-.ibie 23 j. the- and ,:o ;/!; I", r.f .* v..- are observing in the asbestos worker/ that occurred or bag an many years 117 ago. Medical examinations can play >'n important role in miti-f 2 gating the effects of these past' exposures, but only if the i 3 results are applied by physicians or others with knowledge of S the patterns of asbestos-related disease and with consideratib| 4 5 of each worker as an unique individual. 6 We have been supervising or conducting the examination v of insulation workers in California, Washington, and Oreqon during the pant three years. 1 am sure that without careful 9 J; ' I: 10 ii!: V. ; planning it will bo impossible to carry out a nation-wide program of compulsory, examinations equitably. There are too many ericas gue-h-ion ; to be answered for such a nation-wide progran '' ". b-.- 5 niti -tv-.-:.:-' h;?..3tj.ly, | } *.* . U t'1 win; c ) V. *Oif! il 'i olio wi l oe jvoiju IB ; TO .tore indi o;f coov I?' i.y w..ill.. he lencc 17 ! if) i 20 ?.? ;; u^.'J.-cn c dr.;i t. There 10 p-.\ i aJ.i fro;r. below some.' a>:bit.-;-iry icvel. iJseavse there is asbestos in near! asty air vampin o-.vi collects' anywhere in the United States, sore cannot a.?.y. asbestos is 'in the uir you must do Vo vs, i-1 include everybody. sc .'somewhere, ridminis- f Lr ;'iv-iy , p.roble- of vho is required to have the exam- v, ':. i" ' > '> '..i :u, z* i ::`v.oui'! ..:;--.'uvi7`"`f o>>:v b.-> o.-pipulriory ) s*- a condition or. cmv./.if the answer is yes. then some :ii8 1 realistic plan relating to employability of individuals with 2 changes in their chest films who are still able to work. Thor 3 are many men with positive ciiest films and no evident physical 4 impairment. They should be pei.oit.ted to continue work under o conditions of the new standard f even the current temporary one 6 XE the answer is no, much of the advantage of writing 7 I a provision .like this is the regulations and the standard be * s comes weighted against the employer, 30 that once one decides ?i 9 it is compulsory there are safeguards that have to be created. 10 Eclated to the above is the question of successive em 1? ; 12 'j ployer::;;, In tbs insulation trade, union membership defines Uw work force out the employer*. There can ba multiple 13 M{ i*!.;ployers for the space of a few months. A mechanism for re ducing the number of examinations and certifying physical eliqibjiity i? essential. 16 Jl Furthermore, many industries have on-going physical >'-.:n-:ir.ac:ior4 programs,- VJill they be required to support par- j SB }it<,i' If# y 20 t HI ?3. ijriilii?*-.:f V )' 23 >>r. : 20 ailel prccrams outride? Fourth,; e M.i'.bCj: of ;=,ti-.tvs. is oi? v.i %^i, ' a Ccmporiua- .i.v. le.v.cend 1 !>:*.?. it.y, 1 fully th- cur confident- lenity.. Vt is ~*?!kc'.*i ly in the i Ksvertheler.*-;,f do not. see her,? employers can protect their employee.1- or wiceiy utilize their skills without knowledge i I  119 ' 1 of their physical condition. We must devise mechanisms to 2 impart information to employers on such matters as levels of a 5 Xray change and pulmonary functions. Statistics of groups of ii .4 I! people are important, but in the final analysis it is each j l> Ii.. individual, himself, who must be considered in terms of his work. V it fr;io roriis by which information reaches the workmen is ` (i ai important, form letter from a governmental agency advising * j! so! 1 11 }) 12 i iri 13 It A- i 15 ;l it a man of his Xray classifiation does not solve problems. It often is only the beginning of a new set of problems. I think the workman, himself, should have some part in decisions re lating to his life, - and he must have the informed- advisors who can discuss realistically with him the alternatives in a given situation. Inextricably involved In the solution of some of the .'..-.tti/jrjiV. h?v abcv*sis the present state- of our </ >-:< - Co,-, ptio.. lix*?1.' s -'n.ir.It rare not designed to meet t'h ,v. s i L-.ui i "h the dal '.y.-M and non-specific effects l-- r ii: *. : wo -v:e firtlkinq .about, '.(c is utterly 20 ;! 2.1 {1!, t * j Z?> 2<. v;! t* 25 J: ji ji if int.ic to h resnit S of i,'"j . a,od reduce the oppor tircx hi os who, unfortuna lie: iy/ sh.ov; fiince the answers to the above questions, industry.to industry and tc. state, they cannot be answered quickly oi' 120 easily. Therefore, I respectfully ask we stand back from the matter of compu/ lsory physical examination while we think it _ through. It is not a severe emergency issue any more so than the basic standards. There should be provision in the regu lation that will go into effect two years from now. In the 'meantime we can look for answers to the questions that I have just raised, I think that 3orrta of these will re quire negotiations involving labor and management, the partic ipation of occupational physicans, and others. I think that under1 the aegis of the NIOSH or OSHJY there must be careful con sideration of hew we can handle this generic question for whic the asbestos standard will be the prototype. The content of the raguiren examination should be min imal, `including only elements that are pertinent and of proven bouefit AinguT-siaq asba*fos-reHated -disease and ability to- vdvi> or vj.Vfhc.ut s^pArstoru. For instance, sputum cytologic r.V:- uM nt b: 'laudatory. If is too soon, to assume that ~ho fi.odi:tdt <;f a'cypif3. call::: will ha of practical value in preventing or control ling. asbestos-related lung cancer. There should be sysfcotfia tic v^searen to evaluate this Tisethod of manag meat, with bur pr-t-ssv.t knowledge, it would be unfortunate if sputum cytology were lised as a device to deny men employment without more assurance of its positive benefits. :'.n th-s are? served- by the.Western States Asbestos- Health Plan we are ab-vjt to evaluate our experience in physical exam- 121 1 inations during the past three years to determine the impact 2 of Various criteria upon employability and respirator use* \ 3 Information of this kind is necessaxy before a physical exam 4 ination proqram is made fully operative. 5 In summary, I support a rigorous standard to minimize 6 occupational exposures to asbestos and believe that chanqes in 7 work practices to meet a 10 fiber/cc ceiling and a 2 fiber/cc 6 average ft hour limit will eliminate asbestosis and practically 9 <0 11 12 I t, t ,*t : eliminate asbestos-related malignancies. A two-year period fop implementation, during which feasibility is actively studied, is essential and 'will not be hazardous. Any program of contpulj* r-Kv.:y i.ijfi.iosl riu.vveil3.anee will require major modifications 1 -i-fore ca:i. bo made operational in a manner fair to both' 14 !: i! 10 ! t? 10 19 20 21 22 23 -ind empioyoe. In the moautime, voluntary programs should be.- carried out to determine the bust methods to be used in a- compulsory program. iixA.MIKHF: {-lOLDUHRG: Ms.y Ixv. Cooper be excused? l-*R, DEGFEGOWO: Did you say that some- q.roups have now csui'rently soma problems of medical surveillance? OP. CCOVEEt Yes, but it is a voluntary program, MR. DEG?flGOHO: Would you describe the characteristics of the program? Who -.fives the examinations? Who keeps the records? iiho 'rets the in formatron? EH* COGF'ES? sjRjo program* s general policies are under XO I; a ucjc.rG pf r<;orasunuiug both contractors an: union f; n I; 122 1- members who administer a fund called the Western States: As 2 bestos Health Plan, which reports in qenerhi terms to these 3 trustees. The actual physical examinations are financed out 4 of the Health and Welfare funds of each local area, which have 5 been negotiated in each area between the local union and the S contractors in that area, and the physical examinations are 7 carried out by a clinic or a group in each area that we have 9 selected as the one that we think should carry out the physi J cal examination. The duplicate chest films and summaries of to !' those Axaniv.r-tio--m, with the approval of each individual v;ho ''II : j ; in examined, arc uenfc to us in Berkeley, -so we have on file films uud physic-tl findings on individual employees.' The 13 i! results of tft&so are made, available to the employee and to his M i, personal physician, and y;e advise him in general terms of X-raf. iS evidence that is indicative of asbestos! s,. We respond to !6 employee* if they request: this information. This is a volun 17 tary program.' Probably less than half of the individuals in 13 atry area have -oaten advantage of this. 19 That is ';h? general nature of the program, so we regarc 20 ( i; ourselves aw neutral in terms of the adversary relationship which ofi-su. arj.rMs>, but have found that the contractors who a-;i particip.V:ting in chin program have shown as much concern for ; vr.ith a.- the av-ployees have. PSi j ri ;-.:r r?.; .tw.otly & prototype of whut miqht be done, ?.h | but " thr-.M': -ivld 'r. a stop in that direction, though. Thin ii.> Ij ii 1 is because, as I hava said before, union membership defines thp 2 work force here. We have not done any such thing as saying 3 this man is eligible or not eligible. We have no right to 4 do this, really. 5 MR. EARLE: You indicated that the insulating industry 6 I wonder which part, the manufacturing or application? 7 DR. COOPER. This is the application. 8 MR. EARLE: You indicated it would be possible, for 9 controls in the work procedure to reach the 2 fibre level 10 soon - - or were you speaking to the 5 fibre? 11 DR. COOPER: I think the 2-5 wc can do it. 12 MR. EARLE: Could you be more specific as to why this 13 particular industry can ancl perhaps some others, as you sug 14 gested , cannot? 15 DR. COOPER: 7 think ops reason is because we can de 16 fine raihei: clearly a number of situations-where there are deef) 17 and hiddenconcentrations of dust. I think the next witness 18 will probably be speaking to some of these questions. 19 Secondly, an important reason is that there are substi 20 tute materials that do not contain asbestos, and while this 21 is obviously not apy>1icablo to other problem areas, it is.a 22 combination of substitution and definable peak periods rather 23 than long extending operations. 24 IIP. EIAP.T'2: liven those long periods of exposure would 25 generally bo in the afaeturing? 124 1 DR. COOPER* I know legs about tbat. Prom the. obser z vations that I have made, the answer to that is yes. 3 MR. EARLE: On the compulsory nature of the medical A examinations are you suggesting, then, that we delay for two years the compulsory examinations specifically? 5 DR. COOPER: Definitely. 7 MR. EARLE: And what do you suggest during this per a iod , that the standard be a recommended examination? 9 DR. COOPER: I would put in there that it is g.o.in.g to 20 be compulsory some day in the future and force people to face U up to the problem. 12 MS. EARLE: You indicated generally that it would be 13 a limited examination of the sputum tests. What specifically U would you do? 15 16 i li ly !: {! o ii * it Z0 DR. COOPER: v.; to shortness of o>cjt j. ,,iti M-V. EAETcV to the extent r: A pulmonary function teat and a history 21 in determining the axifjtence of malignancy. 22 | DR. COOPER: Ho, they are not, We have never detected 23 7A IUf: 25 j ? any malignancy. MS. EARL'S: You indicated 5 fibers, in your opinion, would be permissible for the next two years in terms of expos- 125 1 ure levels, generally* and then to the 2. Isn't this inconais ?. tent with your earlier statements concerning the unknown 3 factors* especially in regard to malignancies? Can you explai 4 this? S DR. COOP Fils I think just because it is unknown does 6 not necessarily mean you q-v lower. I said that the fact that 7 we don't know does not necessarily moan you go to aero. I 3 f;aid the fact we do not know whore the cut-off is - - I think 0 honest people can differ a9 to where the cut-off point should 10 bo. ?1 MR. SCAMNELL: Dr. Cooper* did you say that 5 fibers* 12 you felt, was safe for preventing asbestosis, but not other 13 relating illnesses? U DR. COOPER: I said that I am very uncertain as to the 35 fact. I would not feel secure over a lifetime of 5 fibers ;5 'with .ill types of exposures. 57 v think there is some evidence from the British textil *3 ieduscrv aud there ie evidence from the jtPricertown) mines of JO Oi-etoc that rovtid indicait that when you qet 2~5 fibers we 20 are ^ S,ably getting down iu the zo.-.ie where them is a great 21 reduction of malignancies* but I would lot feel cernix'rtablo 22 with the 5 fibers.. ,23 MR. SCAKNEL'Ci: For ay? stosis? 24 DR. 100PSR.* ;v> 'far ns aibeatosis, I would be. Ik 25 is because of t.ie tumor p-robloa that X, wouldn't be, therefore . 126 1 believe inputting some margin in there even though I am not sure what that margin should be. MKj SABURRIfts Mr, Examiner, X am Ivan Saburrin, and I am an observer/ not a participant. 1 graduated in lav/ at McGill, in Canada; . Dr. Cooper, I have great respect for yon. I must adrai that as Mr. Earle :;ust pointed out, it seems to mo that I am a little bit in the fog. I know we are all aiming at 2, for zero if possible, but are you insinuating that you prefer 2 *:o S, but nevertheless under the circumstances now prevailing 5 v/ould be acceptable for the next two years or so? DR. C002ER: Yes, * EXAMINER GOLDBERG; Mr, DeGregono; do you want to ask questions? MR. WSSRRSOKOs Yea, Please. .' -Rooparc, you mentioned a couple of studies* shich sugg.-jto judc-wont, that a .S fiber standard is accept- . .J-.3.0 with csspect to' J:cd;h asbestos is and cancer., or just one or ti i other? DR. COOTfORr ;r 'think you will probably be hearing more detail'.! with record to those'studies later in these hear ings i since tb" individuals who actually participated and carried out thos;- studies will be here. So 1 cannot answer in detail. Vat the c:a.- fusions drawn by these who carried out the -study are at least in mining of Chrysotile as-  127 beatoa that a standard which prevents aahestosi3 will also prevent any increase'in tumors* But this ia a. situation,. aa I pointed out, whore both 4 fiber else and the presence of co-factors is different from 3 those `chat might prevail in other situations. Therefore, if 6 one accepts the study - - and I do think it is an excellent 7 piece of epidemiological research, it is still not safe to 8 extrapolate from that, 9 The second study is an on-going study of the. effects 10 of controls in the British textile industry, and here, again, n the conclusion was that controls designed to control asbestos!^ M f!I 14 1 did, in fact, v:mt humo * Those word the only two studies that I knew of chat arv.- directly pertinent here.' I. am not w.:*: i.i vi .*... uttililllto those two nets of results to narrow my liy V fi 16 )fIti4 (' t V *1 './.`Ci N.:,' O>'. ; L-;:.:..`,C~ieVt.y f which 7: think is fairly close already. i\\. 4vO0?1A:C- w.j ':* doctor, in these medical surveys in the WestL rA iC2 -VC'.. cCoOmitppiled jus-l modioclly, or is there a record of < <* j IQ tii vo>lluiuvthoev:ecr&s to the projects on which''.they were working! no ?.Vsci* too wmaateter!alr they were using? 20 DP.. cooSHi*? v'o hate this type of information on sever 21 a.! hundred of: atvri* which V.as reinforced nty conviction that it 22 ii *' i! as |! is ii.jposs3.blfe co reconstruct over the lifetime of that work. VIh. have worked with -loKens of contractors. We have paid par ticular at ten bios to cckormiue th-c duration of a man's work 23 Ij}-i' I? oxpo:i<.tee i.j- -s'jVoyurrh-'.. -Vie this has posad in the oast . I* i some striking risks. :t28 i ?. Unfortunately for purposes of trying to determine it/ 3 we found that most of the old-timetfe in our area had that ex 4 perience/ so we do not have many who do not. We have tried 5 to do this, and we are continuing to do it; and we also have a great deal of information on levels of industry in connection 7 il it 3 !| i! 9 I) . i; 1* i' with various operations, but it is very, very difficult to relate these causes because of the complexity of that situation. h VOlX'S: Uau there been field monitoring with these voir fitters ns to it? Dll. COOfr.K: acme of' them, yes. But this has .not been r,:. 'i c'./tv.ie/frr-.t or v-.ytuEvchic program. J3< of these people have & II been indiviuv/:/.: whom we put monitoring' devices in 'connect- :4 , it '5 |i 5G | with tvyi>*r. to. *M*.o:cwin<5>. the dust concentrations in con nection v-'itli certain operations. But these were never intended to reJ ate that particular monitoring with what we see in that 17 i m 'particule*.?: 'Aihn, beeriu&e vre* don't think that monitoring today has anything to do with it. Ihank you, 20 fl! j; 22 !i ^vLDjt'ElUa: Thank you, Dr Cooper. Dr, Hoiaday? dp., <;* ,, Hearing Exwniner, X- am Duncan A. 22 : ~i'At.y. ft- u-.iwij-: -v jediato Professor at' tha kit, Sinai School a;: rtsf-ir'i'.-,:-.- in Vi.tan-xn tal .vyioi'.oss Laboratory* . Before :><*s joiu'f with yir-.-i X with ti.s Division of Occupational !'; 'ii 129 Health, U. S. Public Health Service, for some twenty-five year{3. 1 retired in 1968. as Deputy Chief of the program. So ray ex <of I1 perience has been entirely in the field of industrial hygiene. ;I 4 ' My training Is as an industrial hygiene enqineer. S I am here this morning to discuss the primary means of 6 reducing exposure of asbestos containing dust. In my opinion V !' this is an exceedingly important point, because no matter ji << what st.vmckird in adopted by the regulation, unless it is adhered I! s :1 li ij w ]! aM to and dtst concentrations are reduced this is merely writing on tb:_: i-ijnd; a gesture towards nobility. So .we gat clown to what then is the moat effective way to use tho time and the people that are available for control. there is 'fo must recognise thafc/no on with all the time there is or TM f people there are for any particular problem. You must dis IS tribute your efforts in the manner that is at least rationally IZ designed to be most effective. \? HevoraJ ether people, before .me, including Dr. Cooper, 18 i i -I this'morning, have spoken to the.use of procedural or - - the other term - - perforviiunco standards, No-one. has really de fined it, X Ue.-uv own definition for whatever it is Worth. ,, i! t-,. .v.v- , procedural standards are regulation^ 'v? j; which require- LI.v. ?w?o of opacified- types of equipment, methods of matertec'-nif-i'h methods of material handling. Waste .O..*rv i` - 55 disposal, cuing rule;.;, ana all 'those ether procedures which aornigrac! reduco production of dust, .and. after it II 130 j i is reduced to reduce dispersion of dust into the work afmos- j / z phere. This, I think, is rather obvious. 3 These are standard procedures that have been used in 4 industry for many centuries, long before anybody knew how to conduct an air sampling program, and the only methods of con- j 6 ' trol were specified that v?ork should be done and certain pro cedures used to reduce dust. 0 i So they have a long and honorable history. A3 has bee 1 ineivtlpru-d toe fere, it is much easier to look at an operation anil to ; a so whether there if*. ventilation on a bandsaw. If a \\ there-:'is, is it turned on? - - rather than to hang around and *"!; 13 li cchvi air samples' to see what-kind of an atincsphersp concen tration ersiats. rhic is: a3.1 stating trie obvious. i 14 ij Again, it iss vary possible: to get off on a monitoring is li si; si if t/ !u! binge where you take a great number of air samples and merely rcau.lt. in piling -j.lips of paper up. in a drawer somewhere for ! furths-r examination. The air sampling is necessary to isolate is ! your of ai-i-t ft 5. sparsion and your 3ou:cce of contamin- ffl i a >."?.on- tho a^ofwines ? of the controls that have been 0 . ccco-p3.ir.hin<t this purpose fus,. 'O.: . i-.\ the main value- of such a process that s*.r\ r. ,;i<: he- p: Tho rout of the time, then, that might m ; y- .i<v:nv i-implee and ir- .laboratory time accomplishing '-'at:-.:' is. : u. -.-.j-- '. io?.. much beht-sr devoted to 'maintenance of 33 7our dust co;;d::f : , It has been my experience over the years that when I went into an operation where you did hay dust control equip ment and got it straightened out so it was working, that as I walked out the door the equipment started to deteriorate behind we and it did not improve until someone who would straighten them out came 'again. X Would very much like to see specifications in the regulctAous which probably would apply more to production oper ation and insulation, workers-. but definite specifications re quiring routine inspection and maintenance of all dust control equipment., as often.au once u week, if required. Experience will show how this needs to be done. Again, with your procedure standards, one can define employer responsibility and employes responsibility. The em ployer obviously i:; responsible for supplying proper control dgnip'rant prooer. Tutorials-, and the rules of operation. It 4 : p/.oyoe to sac that they are used, We must r* .!.! in scriio^ hing like the construction in- >? fate ir> in Nome measure- depar-dent upon ` .vt n . r.hrifty soul and will cake the `I--: .hr.on c. id dump-it out and carefully shake . ats out (die iast bit of material, or to 7'-'- lar J.WCO the jui: of a bag, sc-ms of which will go s not float'through the air - - this typo 132 It ia these kinds of simple things that are the em ployoe' a simple' responsibility to live up to - - the matter of spreading o drop-cloth underneath his area of work, to make sure his area is cleaned up so that that contamination does nojb stay chore on the floor to be redistributed, settled on the walls, go back to the floor and make a continuing source of hazard, which is what will occur without these procedures. Now, again, not to belabor the point, but I think Dr. Nicholson brought out yesterday in the little questionnaires on which he reported, the information shows the complete in- feasibility of ever expecting adequate monitoring to be done. One air sample for every 7,000 days in the shipyard, you might improve that tc 0,000 days, but let'3 not be unrealistic. You r go on that line at all if we expect to get real health protection*.'cw, in an effort to do something about this, sometime ago an a-j hoc committee was formed to devise a manual of roconaoended p>:ncticer; for shipyards-, This was a cooperative effort between t'<". asbestos workers' union, the Shipbuilders o ' America, 'die U. '}, -oary, the Insulation Contractors Associateon, ana Mt. Sinai,- one w,= did develop such a manual, which has not as yet been published but is in final form. There is abso lutely nothing in that manual, no procedure is recommended, that has not ban:- j.n soma shipys .d or other throughout tic ff.v'.t ..v.f, i"?tt, ? 133 I j1 None of them are used in all shipyards. This is the ?. type of thing which in my opinion is vitally necessary, and X ) 5 very strongly urge that the statement in the Advisory Committed's 4 recommendation that a series of manuals or a manual be produced 5 to give these guidelines to industry - - that these recommend6 ations be coordinated and carried out promptly. 7 I have a few comments bn the recommendations of the 8 Committee. One is on respirators. Here, again, I think the 3 subject deserves a manual, a relatively short one, some helpfuj. 10 hints on how to select and use respirators. 11. We .mast recognise that the guidelines such as the IP. hmerioEu nation? X Utan-lards are addressed to situations where IS you have a safety profess? ionul or an industrial hygienist who14 can w;drK*.oi*d vb.'t to is- reading and who is familiar with the 13 . ;/h:3 knov's to.. :-, ho should determine what level of Con 16 tamination people axe rhcoosed to whan ho selects respirators.. i7 Again, it is unrealistic to aspect in industries where W asbestos) la used - and they are many-fold - - that we can an|id ticipnte having tl;?.!.< type of guidance available, either from 20 company sources, union soorc.is, oj: official agencies. We 2! need uomething that will specify and spell out the informant, 22 the individual c;v.fra;:tors, or the union's health and safety 23 committecu, I :>t ',xv;rtani the xor-sou for differences in pro P3 tection factor--- ' g-a-*> on the vnlve versus the single-use valve 134 respirators, I would like to see the data on which that was based. Offhand, one would think t could take a valveleas respirator and put a valve in it and then have something twice as effective. I am sure this is not what was in the Committee's mind. It needs some e:tplanafcion. This is, again, not critical at this moment in time, but 3 something to which attention should bo givan quite promptly. I am quite disturbed about the recommendation on pro tective clothing. In ray opinion `'protective" is a centralefce mis novanr in this contMd:. The protective. clothing hero does vi--.t protect ':hv a-rx'lwcu any more than ordinate/ street clothes. v.\: ii: tot thorn- Vi .vt not used to protect the vn?.n. It is there to t.-op cos*.trunin.vtico fsrom walking off the job into the locker* r-'Gvn or into the lobby- br into hie house.' There is no other ei-rouse for it. 'on set a level above which you must wear protective clothing and below which you don't need to. It sounds a littlii reasonable,' but it isn't. If a man furnishes his own work cloth-;5, he in not going to take those home and have them I'-'Undere.d evwry or\\-. ,iy the- time be has v.-om them in concen tration .of o.r ., ;.>m>, or throw times cite threshold levels or gaything froiv .-ek re si;: weaks, ho will carry out about t] : oamo r f lamination if he had worn them one day i'.'-i a Gin - -1 . :)hundred ? . '-w . olut of th'.-j, hecuus,-. otherwise we are I Il1 i going to have something in the regulation which we think is i doing some good and really isn't accomplishing anything; that i3, you are still going to let contamination get on the job. Wow, if that is what you are interested in, look at it again and see what provisions can foe x^ritten in to protect other people in the lockerroom or thc= household or the laundry which, way ho unfortunate-enough to get these clothes. You might ever, have v contract- and got quite a few of them reqularjLy ovv'v.y day, Xu svur?.try, X think feh* i'o.-? recommendotions on proced> ai ctuv.durfi:; ; r. - ..-rlterir document arid in the recomwend~ m i*ionr, of tit-a ' iv ;/j Conmti the*? a'w quite ggi.-'i .'Hi ere -are c'nrso that have demonstrated they can aco:r.o 3h tVj sir r*o:pose| .Oii.-O' fcc> see those in. >: would like to see >:anv more. X agree witii the Conim.ittee: s report that they did not ;>time to writs thege manuals., this is a loner, tiresome if.-h and has to tv or?:od owe by people in the 'incutstry - - the workiiion, the forem-ari, the industrial hygiene engineer, the ifot'.y off tv ; v - who knew what is possible . :r.d_ v/hc- can be ;.nf >. '.`V.-f! ; -v;r-rlv*:. >\-.*.hu .*' tc-yo oxocedarcu that are estabf ' * : t.*.: uew a m '.virl or a series-/of manuals f ix JIow dc you do it}? ;> )f the-.- r-n-.-.t. wny you ,-v; i/it -T . -%y oattjsrn? what determines 'CjU';'. L.'.imo, vra-ch.w 'tviSix. down . over there? It is possible to get more information out of samplings taken in one way than An another. Again, after some thirty years now in the business, I have a certain degree of skepticism of the results of air sample importance unless I know exactly how they were taken. Applying and removing insulation, certainly, is a fertile fiel{3 for writing a (f'.acv.-;;! of ro.ccnwisnded procedures. It is as ton-' Ashing how much good can be accomplished by some very simple advirus and simple changes in methods of material-handling. The mere. procedure of dipping the block of pipe in u fifty-gallon drum of water and putting it in a plastic bag until it ic used a weed: or two later has been found by the Puget Naval Shipyard to reduce dispersion by fifty percent or more. This is the type of thing I am talking about. Ot'vr: asbestos-containing products are topics about rhioii I v-'. unfamiliar- but certainly it could stand a series indv.t\r.. s there, rio.ipirc.tora definitely need a few ')ice:;; ` cn "'/lection, care, u, and all that. v;c-a-V- disposal, at least to the point vhsro you c,s--. it '.nheide t?>o plant under proper control,' again in a subject for tuor-gat and apeefisary amending, because con- taraination o-- '. -a . t a that is not contained inside the plant merely is a vo-.t>rf'iii.g source of rontemination and exposure to everyone else, In sriir(Ui'cyth.-jse u remarks of mine are merely in 136 1 tended to point out that there is a lot of information avail 2 able to accomplish quite a bit towards .reducing exposure of 3 our workmen in the asbestos industry. This is not information /f that has to be strained out and considered. It is available 5 . now. e The v:erc exposure, of course, is impossible of attain 7 ment, but if we use the information we now have vre can reduce S all our workmen's exposure quite 3ubstant,iatly. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. SHECKlGfcR: In addition to the vary excellent reo- if comendation which you have made, would it be your opinion that 12 to supplement wh-at you suggested a total epidemiological study 13 of the entire industry should be started ana completed just as 14 quickly ur> possible? 15 DS. WOLI'llMr 7 put my.stothcscope away long years ago. ;s <7-*C?" \( I -vv-n51 rsooiflftieud epidemiology..-if they won't- 17. .-.oemn-'-jr-J. dust systems. Oust offhand I'd say what you 2fl proposing really in a rather enormous chore. I will toss 2D this one over. to the epidemiologists to see which piece or par ?-0 they might .select,. I.- ovstsoxially.. do not think a need any 22 more studies of people, with high exposures* What we need to 22 find are cohorts of people with low exposures and look at that. 23 MR. DtiGRiIV-i'OjMO: Dr. Kolaaay, I take it that you prefer 24 to control the source of dispersion rather than protect the 2D employees from dispersion. 137 DR. HOLIDAY* Obviously, it is wuclv more satisfactory in the first, piece not to produce the dust, and in the second place to catch it before it gets out in the air, and in the third place if these methods fail, protect the individual. That would be my chosen method of operation. MR. DEGREGONO? is it possible to control the source dispersion down to a 2 fiber standard, a 2 fiber concentration by a combination of engineering controls and work practices? DR. HOLADAY: What situations? MR. DEGREGONO: Any situations. DR. HOLIDAY: It would bo quite possible in what is an; can .be n very dvoty operation - - mixing mortarIt is quite possible to control that by obtaining the mortar in small plas , _ i tic' tags which have a spout to which you can add some water and g&t it 'moistened before you open the bag. That does it right there:/. This is available. MR, 9EGR3C-OKO: Two kinds of operation 'nave been mentioned. One is too fixed operation prevailing, I suppose, .in. manufacturing plants. DR. HOLAD.AY: tea. MR. DSGSiiGOMO: The other is the Insulation operations or operations on construction. Calling your attention first to the fixed operations with materials involving asbestos, wha hind of engineering- controls' do you think are possible to keep down th<- gsneratipa' of asbestos fibers in this fixed operation? X3 '! :'H 1 DR. HOLADAY: I have no answer for yen that would l cover everything, because we have, as we pointed out, a wide 3 variety of materials which use asbestos all the way from some 4 thing like making pipes down to textiles. 'The problem will be 5 in a different order of magnitude in those operations, I am 0 not at all familiar with them, and would be talking from ignorf7 ance there, but I would juat consider that there are complete * ly different and more troublesome problems in, say, textiles. S Again, I nould have to look at them. I think we have 10 people in this room who have.experience, actually, in those 5 a pi ants who could 'te mero responsive to your question. i?, o.o ;hr matter of power tools-yes, it is perfectly 13 possible to control'production of dust in such operations, XS. IA cutting and gr? '-ding ho where you do not. put out in the air 15 anytiling approaching, your two fibers per cc, as you can really 16 capture erisaivfcially all the dust right at the point of the dis^ 17 Portion, I agree' it is not clone. 'Much of the equipment is 13 faulty, 19 Hi. t v7hat kind of controls .would you use? 20 CK, UOiJv'jA v ? Xiocal exhaust ventilation. In other wor^ls, O] tetoh '-.hi* .TC!r:t .r?. <-t the point of the dispersion by picking L>ip/( it ig. with a a-.:-; .-'Mi ol: air taken into an air-cleaning device. r" '% ?;R. I>*ii^P'Ct>0c?0; Are these systems available? - ?/i ?.. 110".-? DAY ; vas? . r.o ;'i>l. ).*i!C*?.iiuO;-JO; In the United States? Tip >Vv 139 ? DR. HOLADAY: There are pictures of them In the Manual. 2 MR, DEGRBGONO: Do you know if they are very expensive? S 3 DR, HOLADAY: X would think the most expensive job for 4 a bandsaw, which is used in a fabrication shop or could be 3 ii carried out on portables, this would run you,between the dust $ | control system cn the saw and the bag~hoii3e for cleaning it up, 7 ! about $1200. Kcw, you could pet by for about $(500 with some- 3 thing that will do probably jest about as well. 9i If to jl i: i* 11 MR. DESr.BGOWOi What would bo the. life expectancy? LR. KO'Q'.OhY: The $1200 one? is going to bo around a groat many years. It is really overly-designed. It is port IP. s' 13 t able. You can pick* it 'up in a cherry-picker .and get it in' a pickup truck, !4 ;< MU.. DEGTOiGONO: I think you mentioned something of a IS r ic* i: special problem, the weaving of textiles. Isthere any kind of technical controls foi* that kind of problem? I haven't !71! IB 19 Si : i..-. an. asbestos textile plant. My experience is circum- cosribc.fl. ivi. ; You wautioned this Manual in final form, ::vt publ:'../;-':) : inis time. Will this be available in the 70?:t or two? g?. *: DU. ftOuADA?; Copies &s;s available right now? that is, an individual copy ia arai. labia. iij) 25 11 i! I] MU, EARlaJ: Yonld you make one available for inclusion in our records, perhaps?  3.40 DR 1 up 1f MR 3 i from the audience, you indieaxed that more atudioa are needed i< for high -exposure leva?, employees, What is your definition? ! DU, H0IAK\7s Somebody who works in 10 f/cc, or better,, i' i i- for a good many years. y yiS,. *rAiTOKi 'fen or above. It is the 5 and 2 that we- naad? ;-i !> 9 ;! OJR, K0L?iDJ-,Y: The concentrations, of course, of 10 j| interest, aro the ones t>s are- talking about, tV.a S fiber per cc 11 fj |i 12 13 i; 14 ^!! and the 2 fiber por so levels. MR, .ShnSiES You aiso indicated you specifically Usia-.frer-.cl with certain of the Advisory Committee recommendations a-ut ynu dealt with these in some' detail, and then you general ly a hated' that yoo v/oulc? aqre with many of the provisions, ?:1 y briefly scribe .Km ?. of those key provisions? ! 7 \ -OXt `fhv 3:oy provisions I agree,- with. are, bl;`a.v 'standard of five fibers y d .for' getting down to the two 20 {: <: 99 !it: 3 ! !! 24 !* ji 25 !: t..K ; a:;- r,c5> to be an unroarioneb ly long ...rice of ti. i '.Vjv.;;,., ii-;-,: provisions requiring some' ..ion.1 toring, .: fc,-.' .<; thin will horrify woas people who are :c,l to h.ivivj.., to do air-uvoni coring tv `J`J4.1 what conditions ave in ff;oi;-r plait-:,. this would not e& any problem at all to certain other t-. ov; i7*dwatries. Tr.-,- requix'^ments here, I  141 -V. 1 believe, are that every year if you are in compliance around 2 the standard cf five and routine sample once a year, quarterly 3 if you are in trouble? completely extraneously to put out your /J ii Bureau of .Mines inquiries for the uranium operators to sample 3 ?! 4 Ji 7 i| ii 4 io! the placp once a week. So while things may soem horrifying when you start out, again we should put this in the context of what is clone e(.cistthere. MR. i M&F; Thank you. rjlAWl'U3R GOLDBFRG: Do you have a question. Mfi. SABDRniNs- Mr. Holadqy, iniyT.i I"v' "<"> ** u X rrii right in'.construing your version as follows: that you se^m 12 to stress from the beginning of your delivery that it is not 13 14 I; ii> (! so much possibly the 2 or the 5 that is of paramount imnovtanc^y it i?r, rather,the methodology, the frequent inspections. You u u! the word Uousecloaning when properly done- X would say. fC u4 r iU:.nr, for .i n :staixoe, the po Hieing that should 17 '' v: '/: r. ;.o:o,i X/ir; down a >cl do-: not open c ir> \ ncilal : his -o, V?oU. , ho i;> not doing .`AIf Y. i i ;i >r c the n '.ns tan l: surveillar. VSm>**J> ;; 1 /O1i1 *; t:in i.Y pO.'.* i/.':'me.* To ' gave an e.-c.. .mole of hho arid r.O shipy-xi cl ir, a 11 ike. yJ. av a 1?. have t'nei: 22 tii;. .13 ; d.' rcoipli TiZz Aa V xiqT t? DR, KOLmDAX: You are ri.i7ht, and you (; that X address:.v; v.y remarka primarily to the field with 2y il which X an. really fa-miliar , vrhich in the insulation .work avid.  142 li 1 Jj' again, I am stressing the use of dust-control equipment, be) >4 li1 cause if it is properly designed-, again not talking about I textile weaving with which I am unfamiliar, you won't just catbh i< 4 t: everytiling unti] you gee down to 2 to 5 cc. If it is well- designed, the level vrill be well below 2 fibers per cc. In i I; other words, an industrial hygiene engineer or ventilation I. I 7 j; engineer doesn't design the equipment saying, "If I design 8 it this way I will just get under it." Yovir idea is to give 9 yournolf some elbow room. 10 EXAMINER GOBDB75RG: We will take a ton-mimvee recess, St (Recess.) \z EXAMINER GOLDBERGs Dr. nolraes? 13 it! 14 ' 19 `!i1 ! J- PR. HOLMES: of Science of tho of the. 0 river; si tw .r:r;f of ?'hy\! IV ; :.cul ,>; rbloovi tae U. K, asbestos inti id try for more than 2': y vVvs and have boor. ftecrefcary of the ftsbestosis Research to Council since .19'i!,, 20 I welcome fcno opportunity to. appear at this hearing and I Z\ propose ir. nry testimony to deal primarily v;ith the British 22 experience in the iravelopment and application of occupational 23 asbestos health standards. In preparing my statement, I have >fs/* had the advert engo of studying the Criteria Document: "Recommend ^.*,5 ? I pift; il anions for an Occupational Exposure standard for Asbestos", 143 . f . - f I i prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety andj z Health. ' I 3 Asbestos manufacturers and uasrs in the United Kingdom 4 are subject to the Asbestos Regulations, i960, which came into 5 6 7 9 9 JO 1! ji $2 ! il <3 ;; j. in j; |i it jj i? J i) i9 j: 1 .10 ji fi ?j ji:* *> f force in May, 1970. The important feature of those Regulation^ is the absence of any specific standards of duct concentration This point is dealt with instead by the inclusion of '-he follow ing sentence: "References in these Regulations to asbestos dust shall be taken to be references to dust consisting of or containing asbestos to wuch ->u oi.tent ek is liable to cause danger to the Vii - s) 1.ill oi emp '.ay:? >: i > ':-i. sons" * J. Wti..; poxcoaeliy 5nvolved In the discussions which took : its -Jrrinci uV: dr ..ri-iug of the' Recjal&fciojis, avia X knew that cific levels v,-. rvi.it to or :.v.- -rU--:/ Xj .v\-d that. tliU.ro right ; evidence on v.'-rLo.v to b posnr*-f which could br felt that any v.ach vita: kv:ov7.edqe, ht'./i. .u bi . Having rsc.>."J th sii ; *7 i > #5 published in ba.-rch, It' `'bl-ancuTd!-, to.-. A.rv-;r-rr Sr':e:?toi- OpJ./r::.^: b They csfine the purpose of the v  1/J4 1 document in the following terms: R "In this note guidance is given on how H. M. Inspectors 3 of Factories will interpret the expression 'dust consisting J 4 of or containing asbestos to such an extent i as liable to 5 cause danger to the health of employed persons' and how the 0 measurements may be made. It is emphasised that these notes 7 have bean prepared for the guidance of H. M. Inspectors, since 0 only the Court!', can give binding decisions in these matters. 9 It ie importer-!: to .ban;.; in mind that these standardn are pro 10 visional and iT-y !mv*e to be revised from time to tiroo", i i; *i fhoi.? r-.. udationo then follow, font, in order to under; n rt-oid hov .Ik.- verc arrived at, -we have tc refer to the report 13 (-.titled ''Kyoj-fttnhdaxds for Chrycotile Aehcttc . "t", 14 puMiohecI bv the British Occupationa?. Kygiene doc levy ip 1968. 13 Inin report v,a:.< *.h -work of the Scaitvty'y Sub-Committee on hcbceto:) which .included representsfcivos from the .then Ministry M of labour (Factory Inspectorate), the Medical. fosearch .Council 13 and 'the *>? toe in fcciyoarch Ctouieil, 10 The Sub-Com-v-i t tog accepted the idea of disease being rela m to an integrated e.!ipoaure to dust, measured as a product of aoiicantratio-. or; tiv.r.;. Vising information supplied by the 2 a ac-crstcs indvot.-y >/va statistically analyzed by the Mediaal 23 (-' -r. -lomcn , :.t r.v.cc^^encvzd mexiwmt itccuj.'.ulated exposur of '!'/) -y-.-r. r *I*ha r.ta?.ds?:d py>3 iecl only to asbestos Ik and Ww.k , ; ;;j . ourt- teat not more that If of those 145 exposed would exhibit the first signs of the disease. The criterion adopted for this was the presence of persistent basal rales. If X-ray changes had been used (employing the tech niques available at'the timt), then the standard would have * been slightly less stringent. It was realized from the begin ning that the standard had certain limitations. The nformati< on which it.was b-.isd was scanty and was drawn from a textile plant> where due - .concentrations did not fluctuate widely. 'Ths it micUt bo unwi :r'. to apply it to situations experiencing high 7>or>.ks of. con&knutvtion was. recognizedi and it was- 'recommended that the tims/coricr-atrafcion concept should not be used above 3 10 fibres/cm * o^cfiUKe too little was known about the effects of high concentrations for short periods of time, which might interfere'with th** normal lung clearance mechanisms. Purther- 'iore, it was based on exposure to chrysotile asbestos only,, anc doubts would iv\0''itahly arise in applying it to other tyoes. It should be -cccy-.i V.-. as a first attempt to establish' -the dose- -nvr*:c- >:aiv:.:J cn-:hip Tor ar.bsstoais from, the u. K. experience hior.'ft of viv.: i:\rxi itb associated with it have become irtcroaeauthority with which it Has become i:\v..-ota-j. in vi'.v. i>.lv..;..---'rional field. in i-iakiviw 'Jxryjam-.wdfxtityvj in Technical Data Note 13 tu-i .(> >,"'a t ea.-a. have been aware of the limi tations of the standard,, .'t.k.ixig into account the extrema case where a parson might posbly be occucttuioaully expc-secl for 50 years, 3 1 they have proposed 2 fibres/am (measured over a ten minute- sampling period) a3 the limit below which the substantive clauses of tho Regulations will not apply. At the other end o{c 3 the scale, concentrations above 12 fibres/cm (changed from 10 to 12 to come into line with the ACGIrJ standard of 12 fibre{j/ cm^ recoiTHnended at the time in the United States) will call for action to rcduoo the level by improved dust control or, failing that, to provide personal protection for the worker. Levels between e- and 12 fibres/cm^ ivill be assessed by means of a four-hove; continuous or time-weighted average sample, and tho extent to which tho standard of control will require to be improved will depend upon the amount by which it exceeds 2 fibre3/cm^ and the duration of exposure, There is no doubt vhat the ??&ctot;y Inspectorate regard the 2 fibre/cro4 limit as a goal to be aimed at eventually, rather than a standard to be rig*:;'ly onfov.,.:c new, and it is not thought likely that furthest .be called for ;.r present if the level is : fibr , _ insuring j.-.-. nit'! the 'difficulties; and un- hs*-se lev- : vn tho f-r.^.-urrement of dust- concentrations action by them so fur has tended to co i.oaiJMw * ' ivev.tions stbof anti ally above 12 fibres/cm , and this the/ oi;J.y regar-1 as the first priority, before ir.ovjjic; into v/JK ght be called the "grey area" between 2 aw? 12. They r.operutinq the same standards for amosito arid ti.naous anthophyI3.ite as for chrysotile, but. for .-crocidolite 147 1 have called for full protection unless the level can be main-, 2 tained below * peak value of 0 2 fibres/cHi- The distinction 3 has. bean drawn because crocidolite is generally regarded in th( U, K. as being, the type of asbestos most closely associated with mesothelioma. Even so, unlike the standard for asbestos!: there is no epidemiological evidence to support the chosen figure. In making their assessments, the Factory Inspectorate 8 j intend in all cases to use samples collected in the immediate breathing zone of the worker. !0 3? (> 12 13 I If the G,0.H S. Standard is to be considered in establish ing a permanent asbestos dust standard in the United States, then it must bo ceaiembered th t the B.O.K.S. recommendation 3 in - hat the integfotad exposure figure of 100 fibre-years/cm corcentrat5.cn liwit which is a figure derived from the Standard a fifty- /env* continuous occupational .exposure. Such ?6 ; I, 17 -i; i' !3 jv ?D It;. ?.o a .'i c 'V M. 1% .*V . * u-,v will only rerely be ohcountered in the f.. { uV.`.Ci X sV d ? V'Vc.ti:':: that it would be regarded as completely unrealistic i"i fa u United Gtc,tns,. where a shorter period i the industry is usual for asbestos workers. A change from fifty years to thirty yjar.v will raise the limit from 2 to over 3, and if one tmeos .into, account the uncertainties inherent in the B.O.H.S. standard , then a figure of 4 or 5 fibres/cm^ might not be such an unreasonable figure to adopt until more epidem- 24 ioicgicai sividerioa is available. This xa being collected in the U, K,.. ). it it will be some considerable time before the 23 a 148 1 picture emerges. 2 The manufacturing aide of the asbestos industry in the 3 U. X. was first subject to regulations in 1933 (The Asbe3t09 4 Industry Regulations, 1931}. Prom that time there has been a 5 continuous program of dust control, and we have seen the rate 0 of incidence of aobestoais drop dramatically and along with it 7 1 its associated lung cancer. In one factory, the incidence of a i agber.tools among long-service workers feel from over 80% in. 3.929 to 3% in 195-7, and the incidence of lung cancer among the in i factory workers is now no greater than in the general population, 11 Tiiis has bean achieved without any officially approved duat 12 standards, ana today there are soma areas which we would regard 13 IS as satisfactory where time-weighted average dust levels are 14 still higher to a limited degree than the Factory Inspectorate 15 ultimate goal of 2 fibrea/cm . It is my view that a sizeable 16 part of the health problem facing the asbestos industry today 17 to ii J is due to the effect of peaks of very high dust concentration, albeit only for short period's, attending uncontrolled operat ions, such an zxet cnoi/vurterecl in the insulation industry. A !! |! ;2I ! p? `j >i?; 23 |j *i}}'', 2-a 23 .standard which rev.ov-.if the worker frovn the effect of such peakii is probably more, important than one which imposes unreasonably strict average ia v-sls. To3*incf everything into account, I would suggest that g standard do.rlgn .v.l t- Montrol (or eliminate) short-time peaks above 10 ur 12 fibre a,.- 'ith an -4verag& time-weighted figure i  149 1 of 4 or 5 fibree/cin"1 (given existing working practices) would I a in the present state of knowledge be worthy of consideration a as the Standard for Asbestos Exposure in the United States. 4 .(Discussion off the record.) 3 ttR, HOLMESj All these epidemiological studios done v? An tho nu;t,. where the evoking habits of the subjects have not y ?; boon tr.kesi i~tio c-.eoouyfc, give an exaggerated figure of the K !Ii; asbestos-related. diuefeso, and this is why X asked the question 9 r,( of Dr. ifAche*Ison ii! his testimony yestorciay when he ignored w the smoking imp!Aeation.in his workers. 11 Before I close, Mr. Examinerr I would just like to 12 say a few words ..oncoming Mr. Duncan Holaday' s presentation, 13 heartily agree with his idea that a manual or manuals should bfe 14 i: o -ovidscl for people working with asbestos. We in the AsbestosJLs 'JS j; JU1. Ui *>' * ;v 1' !') Yj : * `'seai'ch Council in England have produced a whole set of manuals '.-.''cr.ijia z\iJ. "iiffevent type's of handling of ; : n;,tos y..r. : have nine of those marma' ^ . C"li.* lA , v;.: ...j.' practice for hh disposal o Y* * *''...... ... ' ' c?* :j: p eint which V> . -;t. bn a v rrn.-jl note ov. h-o iT'.c t.cuverne: *8 ii 23 ( 24 : 25 Ii du r.nd v c 1 un dust sampling procedures which he thinks is' 3:<r.:o A-syo c-tcnt, 'uo that people sbcnild be advised how to take dvi-si: a amp 12 s.. If you wishMr. Examiner, I would be quite happy to leave chose, a-j part or the evidence 150 EXAMINER GOLDBERG i You have only one copy of each? DR. HOLMESt With me, I are afraid I have, yes, sir. We could send more, if required. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Wo would appreciate receiving another copy of each so we can have duplicates. I will make these as they appear for receipt into ovidence j Control and Safety Guide Number 1 will be Exhibit No. 24 Guide Number 2 will bo Exhibit No. 25 G'.iide Number 3 will be Exhibit No. 26 Guide Number 4 will be Exhibit No. 27 Guide No. 5 will be Exhibit No., 28 Luicb: Number 6 will be Exhibit Ho. 29 G.c'.cle Nc^ber 7 will bo Exhibit No. 30 tliid-j i'lniwo.c %n will 'b Ko, 31 Vi ' V will bo Exhibit Mi., 32, Uoiicav-rch Council Roeoiiftonded Code of Practit :e fox* the He net ling- a d' D:i>.pcuul of Asbostos Waste Material will be Exhibit is.,, 3 3. Technical Note Lumber One, the Measurement of Air borne Asbestos Oust' by the Membrane Filter Method will be Exhibit No..34. Technical Nor Number 'l. Dust Sampling Procedures for Use with th'-1 Afb-: cfy.iat.ion.,:i , 1969, v/i'll be Exhibit No, 3b. 151 ) 1 {The documents referred to, identir. 2 ficd As Exhibits No. 25 through 3 No. 35r were received into evidenc'e.) A EXAMINER GOLDBERG; Dr. Holmes, I would appreciate 5 your sending duplicates of these by airmail immediately upon 0 your return to the United Kingdom. 7 DR. HOLMES: I understand, Mr. Examiner, there are y certain guides and codes which have been published by organ & isations in the United States. *X don't say these are the only 10 j j ones available. !. 11 s EXAMINER GOLDBERG: ii . 12 j! Are"there any questions i . 13 i CR. Sf.EUREINf Dr, w i: i' iL< i! 13 ;> v.hi_- c implication of the. information aobsdttod in connection vith criteria, vii;h a vecoravsendeti S5tt".nda*.d for exposure to arksatea, 17 ! Til*. HC-LHES: Yes, 3ir. ' IB MR. SA5ilf5.U\IiI: 7. was struck by the fact that it is 19 stated on Pag 10 that the development of standards for asbe3t{> 20 auot in Great Britain and the avalxmtion made by the British 21 22 23 2d !i Occupational Hygiene Society on Hygiene Standards for Asbestos has giw.n great weight to the development of this asbestos standard, This i~. followed by., .in conclusion, that the portion djaiiug -with tha .".va-mary for a .rcco~;.t:-i'ided basis on Page 517, 20 j.  152 1 he recommended - - the standard recommended in this document z ia similar to the standard adopted by Her Majesty's Factory 3 Inspectorate in 1969 is more stringent than the recent United `4 States Emergency Standard. S My point is - - - Q EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Sir, you are Supposed to be asking V questions. If yew v/ish to testify, we will put you on. a MR. SLBURRIM: To put my question and make it as 1 9 i! short as I would like it to be, is this 2/cc fibre submitted 10 here anything nimilar to what ia enforced in Great Britain? ri Dii. HOLMES: The situation, as I pointed out in my h5! testimony, it. that in Groat Britain 'we consider it two, and 18 14 15 16 17 t8 19 j 20 I; 33 !* f* '-2 !; f; <2^ * the Factory .T.nr.pootorcate concur the two-fibre limit to be somej- fching to l>e aimed at. Sritiah industry has been working cbn- sintently to rodneo dust levels to get somewhere near this goaf.. Wa have certainly not reached 2/cc: in the general field of .i-fi-piant and out'-of-plant asbestos work in the United Kingdom. So the situation is, of course, rorae jobs are fairly easy to control, beci-uthe Manipulation of the asbestos is not violent, and the >.v fore there is not a lot of emission of dust. Some hi-*5* processes use high quality asbestos ri'rce which is ov.' pc-rativaly dust--free-, others use lower gradei; cf: .fibre. whior, in r.exx- dusty, and it is certainly not true *'-r.ro in the? t.*:-v ^ side of industry that all operations in tbit M L r-:t ;.ivi :.r:;bT rit.-Jf 'ceu he controlled ir, the present state of ! ?j< 153 I knowledge down to 2/ca. We ere not expected to be getting the 2 yet. 3 Xn the present state of knowledge certain textile 4 operations ~ - the carding, spinning, etc. - r do not get down 3 to 2/cc, generally. Certain very high-quality operations may . a well do it, but the general situation is that we are not yet, 4 throughow. the British industry, achieving the 2/cc ultimate goal. & l-!A. sa-luaRXIJ: Must- 2 understand, therefore, that the W 2/nc arco tantamount to characterizing, when you please, your u facfcorie jv and that each case is just upon its own merits? 12 DK. HOLMESs That is true. I have referred to what i3 we regard as the ''grey area" between 12 and 2, I think 14 Dr. Cooper referred to that. The situation is confused below 15 10, The way the Factory Inspectorate are looking at this is 16 that they will look at the operation and they will decide 1? whether it is a truly continuous operation, whether the worker 13 ir? exposed continuously, and whether the worker is exposed t'9 fjoptinncualy or bearing in mind that they have this concept 20 of a hotel e, ;jo which is a multiplication and concentratioi in tima. '):vjy will decide wimt action is to ba -taken, (!-n t< : uuilbar of jobs. If aci s*jro, are. not dona for 23 full working week, h man is not exposed, to this concentra ?A tion all the time, sc relaxation will be allowed. *!R, Sihi'Rhil']: It is said that .10 or 3.4 - - 25 154 ( i 3 OR. HOLMES: Is a situation is above 12, substanti- ; 2 ally above 12, again the Courts would have to decide what was a the substantial figure above 12. If it was, even for short 4 periods of tints, then the full rigor of the British resulatidnjj 3 ! will apply, and that iri personal protection? and by personal i) protection I mean protective clothing, which I will agree with !J 7 it Holaduy does' wot protect the man. It protects his out-door i 3 ! clothes and therefore his dependents when-ho goes home. 9 But personal pre-faction in the United Kingdom includes HO respirators - In situations where this is being found rappir- 11 atcry protection is recommended while dust-control measures ar<ji u being taken. 'i-Vsy insist dust-control measures should be 13 t.'Ocen so,if c.h all possible,situations should come down below . i. i, I: .Via iitevc. i.v th'-? situation which is existing at the present 'M C.mI) K- n ih: I -co to now our cun Factory- Inspectorate ban ;v ; vwxt-ptr.v:*:*! c-.V.*:- area, but they hu:ic accepted the situation t Mous above fchi-;, olboit for short poriedo, ] I:1. b. ' i r.et subject to the 100/cc standard riO wt. VJe.u h&Ls the Uritish Occupational iVyc/iaae o"oJ . fv -.w'- '.a -evolved hhreje standard*!? oh'. kFlvl.-ieJ : *i?he British C-jcUpatioKal Hygiene Sociot^ is h i>coi:Qaa.io;;-a;*. body to which a lot of industrial medical 241: 25 P offiov'.oj b:;v;-nc.i. of course, also the industrial hygienists If publish-*:- a hiijhly-rfrficirx'-fed International Journal, and it establishes committees to look into hygiene standards for var*-j ious toxic materials. MR. SABURRIMj It.is the common heart of the ACGIH? DR. HOLMES: Yes, and works vary closely v/ith .it. MR. 57iBURHII'7: Thank you, Doctor. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Before 1 call on Dr. Cooper, Exhibits 24 through 35 are received. (The documents referred to, hereto fore marked for identification as Exhibits No. 24 through No. 35, :ire received in evidence.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Dr. Cooper. DR. COPPER: Dr. Helves, I would like to ask two vu.usti'ono.- the first one re latino- t.c the 3.0ft/cc fibre concepts .Aic':,. yea; v, >'.: fcho heart of the proposed recommendations i..: it ;-oh fcrun that this was derived out of stadia.-: rolatto tabeytooi;-;? i/ dr. uov.?-?,-:g s Yect UR - COOLER: hrid ;'.y not be a-fi/llcalilo to inaligiian cies? Do you have any apid^iiiolcyloal studies which woulu make possible' a cow.varison between: -Tuall we say, 25/cc for four yasrc, early in life, with 2/cn over fifty years? About ::onS viutstion, is there not some work of br. xkiWtov.*-: to ^oxtaiii to this question of f 156 1 relating to this exposure, derailing In response in terras of } a asbestosis and malignancies? you stated that you do not fool , / 3 that malignancies not associated with asbestosis were found 4 that you could sittribute to asbestos. 5 Now, the questions that arise here are, first, on Q what criteria is the diagnosis based? Are we we requiring X-r y /r- evidence or pathological evidence, which can be quite differ 3 ent? 9 Secondly, is there epidemiologic evidence which does 10 support this position that there is no excess of malignancies 11 { >:*} iri * ij 14 |: An individuals v:l>o do not have usbcstoeio? MH- hClildS; Taxing the first question, yen asked phuuU the e?fvv':V fay,, 'high oseposurns, particularly oorly. h V'.fo, -x,\n. t'-.o uvintu thoz'o- We have said throughout io ! W |; 17 |; I* r Id l; 'i 19 i; ;i 20 !: :l 21 r{ 22 j' 23 ' 24 i>. a \hi $reports, *.c ware not prepared to car fch;!.1;' vor.<'.l ox,: iCcu*. beyoxu 5.0 t/cc for ter* yeavn,. Ha .*.> *c that tli:*, 2ll/cc for the tv..-;-; yours was equally as- t: > fe 0.0 ?.h f/fcp ?<- .> .Oni? r.rvshono'.1 .voporf, to jh.Aeh you, ref rr, was a study which Or, Kswhou:-;*of the l-oudon. School of fiyqiune, did in j factory in a^br;.- ;oa 'oi;:nt in tb.e Ua , v;he:-.` i .- she showed ;ant the rf.vc.--vi;- of :i: \c-r 'dwjCy ciViTw -.<t the worker : vaw only ({'/.'!.dsivo" ir*. t v LO he- had high u\?;:<j.u>res, even short us:; / ir :y- hod n,,-L`i lev.7 v. nv'Si-re over u J.cngc/ '.V,. : h-.-r! ; .cnMy = U'.ur.`.uir-.t0/' ... itrqt.r docs. 157 that there was no excuse of malignancy in that situation. There weren't any precise measurementst which was the only difficulty in that study. The second point is that this question of cancer, lung cancer/ is that the U. K. idea that lung cancer arises from asbestosis - - and there in no doubt about it - - that th{2 7 0. K,, steadily evr r the yours is the number of people with 3 U ashestoaio who eventually dveiop lung cancer has remained i steady at about 5C*S, about. 50% ox them clovolop lung cancer, i :G ii*. i! ii !;1 12 !: r i; i4 1i;: {e (i<l l: 16 ii 17 /a i 19 ; si 20 1* If But on s lueticb v: 30JjE ud? VC' V'C y^a-ts, tur> vi, r >' "V>:''irc ht-V uhov.. caopl'i ii r'.poae:d .1 lotions - - comp!?.holy uncontrolled o;q-'onure - -' then the lung canco r rate wo- o':out 12 to 15 timt-sK as much as the regular population. The lost' study v-ett in 1969 when fcho paper was pub lished iii th-.-j <-.v?r.?!s of the British Occupational Hygiene Society by (Mr. Riehcid f>:u'X). It bears out the view that whejre cio u7b^:V.;c,si^ * bremcht dovfn by dust control - - anjl ve nnburi:o;.:ic level can ba. brought down by f 25 ! Mc.-o.c:: level dropa as well. T7. j ;-: *nt ,;r i;-.v;;pl<v without aebcatosid, { ', fJi;)'. !i ;;.;cv;irnQ u cne cause. ii 1 158 1 MR. SHECKZiER: One question: you testified that youp: 2 goal is to achieve two fibres* Would you clarify for me the 3 differentiation between the two-fibre goal, which you are 4 attempting to achieve, and a tv?o~fibre level on an eight-hour5 time-weighted average basis, because 1 believe with your 100 *3 years- ~ Da. HOiiHVS: As T. said in the beginning of my pre- 0 l' ff1 ] e. i |i 70 Ij 1V 11 jt If i! 12 ti ! 13 14 aentatio;:,, these and thoy arc re: ting the? duct ?.v U. S. coal: o'.'.".'! way tha Factory that if you vra/it sa/npla. Xf '-.hat sample turns out below 2 if/cc, then the ss'beacoa regulations or substantive clauses therefore. - - te, `5 | chat is- the prevision of exhaust ventilation ~ - above 12 :-r< a ty.i'-rtf.ni??.?- 5W-u.s..a is above 12, they allow you to repeat it; and xr. ir above l;3, then the full vigor of the regu- 19 !i atio*. is v.f }?.:/ it- :-\7v.i'n 2 and in you follow up the fcen- ' l'* . Vir.! rid! avjiip3.e* cinio.r* hcivo i cor. given by the Factory .;rnv' ai.--..-:* fht 2 and 12* The Ccctor/ T >: u 'about -tills. They prefe r n 5: n ci t: to have 4 Vi. t :" iv:. ;v-i vo ivc.r; uucause they are not sure > .iti-;: j-i:: , which Dr* -o-cOi pointed out. Below 1) I 159 the situation i*-. quite confused. MR. POWELL: Mr. Holmes, I would like some clarifi cation on your statement. As you know, we have looked afar at the work that has been done in Great Britain with a great deal of evaluation and interest. As 1 understand your state ment this ifiomiuc;, and 2 would like to aok if this is true, that what you V<;v/c a aid is that you recognise that the 100- fibre years, whoa you have many variances in level, becomes quite 3omewho.t questionable and it is really kind, of a guide line to work on, and that this is designed primarily, as you siw it in Great Britain, to protect all but one percent, or ninety percent of the working 'population from asbestosis. DR. liOXf&Ss That is correct. MR. >hVi'?i;L3'.ii This did not consider (araosite and HUthophyllite)? Dll, "(--.O'. yau, M. v i;x-h: With tbiv; :i.y< mind, and with your state- . >t hi" .ivnsii. : -theu you r::;uly do not control down to fib-.v:.-:-., : ;h.ir ,:t feur or tc:> or twelve, could you give up tc.::*-: i d?:;>. tv? what of wo-r'Mrre you think you are pro- toutiiuj o;nder ciix-yiasfas,egc - * say, 4 and 10? Ifl'. t i dosvfc think X could give you any pre- cine infcsmatioi: --ur bestoh workevv-v i hb rfi rv.vogaisje there about' 50,000 asI M,,- but :t.mat of thuss workers are not employed in .ctu-nV-r llli1-' regulations apply to anybody. In 160 1 fact, I could quote whwfc it any*: these regulations' applied to o every process involving asbestos o:o any article composed wholly v j; or -partly of asbestos, except ci process in concoction with whic*t h a dust cannot be given off, | . Well, this, of course, means that these regulations . ; \ are applying to all sorts of persons in the U. "K. who have 7 If 9 ii !i p {[ ii W {[ never been subject to regulations before* The actual in-plant number of people is quite a small proportion of the total numher of people who have been and are still being nxpqsed to asbestos. 11 12 j 'i 3 i; !/l jj Therefore, X can only confine my remarks, really, to in-plant 'situations, because these people.outside have not beeA monitored. A lc-;' of them, particularly in the insulation in-* lu.vare rciv'^-rant . and wo have got no idea what sort of tht*.*s& a:, pi-: have had? but in plant situations X " . * ^ * * > * #* ,1 '/ l! ,, *1 cult t fy a-:l .\;-.>;gfc not ivorc than. ....... .Vi: is very cliffi-; ?0 ii ji 20 ! 2? 25 I 23 ;j PA il 23 1} asbefitou ol.*r'v.s arc d. -wn, f; somewhat Md, PCMiLiVt: t 1 redo.rnito the difficulty. It must bs> .I higher than the one - - that you must not be protect-j ing down to one percent. j 'OR. HGT-MES: The one- percent situation is that th erji \ is oue thing that ?- tan.* r. tike 'into account, because there ar<? iimnunology facte.*:':,- v.ing in, so the doctors are telling me, j 161 and not every worker is equally susceptible to asbestos dis ease. This is something which we are working on. If I could quote from the Hygiene Standard, "as 4 long as there is any airborne (crooidolite) dust in tha work 5 environment, there may be small risk to help. It should be 3 realized, nevertheless, that exposure to certain limits can be 7 tolarated for a lifetime without incurring, undue risks. The 8 Committee believes that a proper and reasonable objective to b< S to reduce the risk of contracting asbestosis to one percent of 10 those who have a lifetime exposure to the dust, Bu 9asbestosis' 11 the Committee me ins the earlier demonstrable effect on the lum 12 due to asbestosi-.'.:. 13 MR. POWELLa. You mentioned.today that after you went 14 j: through the s.w.e calculations that we did, somewhere around i.; fibre* ;:t would probably be about right, the.dur- .j .i.- rt of hhr* oxpu-cifmeo. in tho O., S., which is probably 1? !!: is !j;: !i .9 ;; I* 20 somewhovd bih .'c'j ' 3Cu ;.,nd 35',;, this would than weight out to i;?.: same level tv:;., protections against asbestosin in the U, Then you went on rocommend that we probably should go to ho-i-j. i was a little puzzled as to when you. equated, it only ii li 22 {i li 23 !' 24 to asbestos to three and didn't - I understand the lung cancer, why you went, higher rather than going lower. DR. RQv.MhS, What I was gettingat was this, that the level of 2 f/cc \vciS set as r? goal, We, within the industry, aije 25 i; a confident that if we get down to 4 - - and when I say get down to 4, it. might fluctuate because of the 'uncertainty of measure ment at those lo'- levels - - Y. believe in these situations I where I know the people who have been working in this area for 2 a long time without any asbestosis disease, then for the 3 tJ. S. situations where it is admitted that the average length 4 of time of exposure io certainly less than fifty years, which - S ia what ours bas based on, therefore I would say in a three- a plus and then a little bit for fluctuations, four. 7 MR. POWELL.' Would you consider this five that you aife 8 suggesting would be adequate to avnocito and (prooyllitite), 9 as well a3 crocidolite? in DR. HOLMES: The British standard was devised for n curysotile. The same Committee has been considering two things 12 since, thi'.t time, Thif.: was in 1968. The Committee is continuirl< 13 to nd is ')<.at possible revision or the crocidolite 14 f;t-xi-davd *nd, .-.S'c.-a-ndly, looking at. the evidence to see whether! 15 we could derive z- separate standard for. amosite. IS Taking the first one, v;e decided in the meeting in 17 January of -chic e:\rr that tilere was no morn evidence on the 13 crocidolite to suggest that v/e should alter pur use from what 19 we had in 1968. Therefore, the 100 f/cc stands. We also con 20 cluded there was not enough evidence on amosite to promulgate 21 separate standards, cuvl there, as the Factory Inspectorate had Z2 done, we recommended that for the time being, the standard for 23 a.nosite should b-s the name as for anthophyllite, We have 24 also believed in the K. that when you got down to control aqd 25 exposure that c:-x c id elite is by far the mosif dangerous form of asbestos,, and v.'U- row li t cup of the British Occupational i 163 Occupational Hygiene Society is not considering crocidolite at all, because It haa effectively disappeared from the U, K, scene. This was done partly by the limitation of the ,2 figure. That made the processing of crocidolite just not pos-r 9ible. There were no imports of crocidolite into the U. X. since 1971. Thank you^ MJR. PEGftfiGO'IO: Did British regulation require the control oc asber.`to3 duet? OK. HOLMES; Yes. MS. D&GKEGGtiOj When you mentioned numbers 2 through 12., theso represent measures of t/h&t dust or fibres? &SU HOLi't-3S: In the British regulations we refer to asbestos dno-i. I agree with that. But there? is no figure in the regulations except that, and then we come to the document "Technical Data Note 13", in which it says "dust consisting of or containing asbestos to such an extent as is liable to cause clanger to the- health of employed parsons' nd how the measure ments may b>> mads." If 'fir.i c/ooc on to recommend fibre measurements. Mi''.. ihl.r./Tji.-ONO; So indirectly, via the reference, wo gav., :ie?.IXy. to .a .vntro! of asbestos fibres. Df . /if ..i'-Vi'-o- Fibres above. 9 microns. That is the way fhr- dust clauvui in. ;chu' regulations is being inturpreted by the .163 t fibres? 2 DR. HOLMES: They recommend a standard of 100 fibre 3 yearn per cubic centimeter as the total integrated exposure, 4 and if one assumes that man can be occupationally exposed for fifty years, it comas down to 2. if occupationally exposed only for ten years, then this standard could be 10 and not 2. It is n question of <35.tiding into 100. This is the point that I want to make most carefully, that the 2 f/cc figure, which ij 9 being bandied around thu world, is derived from this standard ?0 but based on 50 years exposure. n If not, than the standard needn't be down to 2. It can be something higher in proportion, provided you don't take 13 it beyond the extrapolation limit, beyond 10. I would not 9ay M l that. .id fibres/cc tor five years was necessarily as safe as 10 fib/.es/cc for ten years. (tv- do believe, .and X think medical opinion generally Vjl.'.v- iwv.t v'.v: effective peaks', which i probably the most . ;i< 4 . . ad if you can eliminate the effective Kf*.. nj.'vi'tGOV.'O: That sounds strange to ms, because you wore saying that the peaks are wore crucial than the long 22 S3 23 i 25 torn exposure, and yet apparentiy the recommended standard is in terms of 30 years of exposure, regardless of peaks. DR, HOT.VGS: Fifty years of exposure. The average exposure over SO yeart. is to be 2. That is what the standard 1 > Ibb 3 j; recommends. Thefc brings you your 100. That average exposure t* might be 3, but if it is an uncontrolled one where there are high exposuras- (.-.net low enepormrea and the average might be jrighjt 4 down, the Factory Inspectorate is going to come in one day and o cut you under peak# and if the peak is above 12 then the full 6 7 8 9 fO 11 12 SS ( . |! 14 l H ,s !i Si iV 17 )B 19 20 21 22 23 2/? 23 !| protection of the regulations are enforced. So we do guard against the peaks. MR. OEGRJ3GCJNO: You do use fibres? DR. HOLMESr For anything beyond 12. for however 3hort a time, they will require full respiratory protection until the situation can be improved. In the British regulations the provision of dust control unc oarsoiml protection arc* not alternatives. Dust control is called for in all situations, an/ it is, only when < ist co 7t:r.;.l t ;,c ba^v; carried to its practical limit and the situ- a tier .'.r net u*'*r;cr control -that personal protection is \*\ VC-l *:^:i a last ronort. British principle is protect c'v.' job rot, it id only when yon fail to effectively protect hi to job do' vor turn to protect the money. MR. DEGRBGCtfO: vfnat is the lifetime exposure in Great Britain for a working man? DR. HOLMESt Well, there ore quite a lot of people who have bean exposed for their `whole working life to levels of four and five e.iid' six,- and no asbestusis, HR. DEGEEGONO: How long was that working life? 167 1 DR. HOLMES: That would be thirty to forty years. 2 MR. EARLE: I did understand you, you are not em 3 ployed by the British Government? 4 DR. HOLMESi No. Perhaps I ought to wake my own 5 6 7 8 9 <0 11 12 r >:) ji M i4 ]j "i 1G 17 18 19 20 .21 22 jj .?.3 i` H o.i position quite clear. I am employed by the asbestos industry, because the Asbestosis Research is an asbestos council formed in 1957 by the three large asbestos manufacturers in the 0. K, to pool their resources and sponsor research into medical and biological researches into the causes and prevention of as bestos disease. Shortly after it was formed, I become the Secretary of the Council. We administer funds and sponsor research in variousuniversities for medical' and biological twsearoh continually into the causation and prevention of isbeat.oc diseases. We also pool our information on dust control between the wtismb*?: companies, r\nd 1 might say that since- we first started v/e have about r.in associate taemlirs, both at home and overseas, including the United states and Canada. We sponsor this research. When the new regulations came along we were accepted by the Ministry of Labor as the spokesman for the British asbestos industry. We were invited to discussions frpm the first breath of these regulations. When the first Letter of Intent appeared in 1966 we v/ore invited to comment. From that time until the- regulations became 'law we. were in  1 168 control and safety guides which 1 have submittedr They were j I drawn up by the Asbestosls Research Council, but they have all l 3 had the approval of the British Government in the form of the 4 Factory Inspectorate. The one on Disposal of Waste was n 5 joint document with our Minister of Housing and Local Govern-' S orient, who was responsible for the waste disposal - - what we $- call refuse types. They collaborated with us in this. We 0 have always cooperated .vary closely with the Government. Thenji 9l\ i 20 j- K 21 j- i2 i! 13 j; M 24 I! IS is!! /i iO 27 lj 10 19 i.. j, i! ZCr j: It i, 22 ti;i (! .<w>0 i. />* !'. 25 (111 has been mutual trust. riS. `&iS,AV&&: r.xi describing. tho British situation you ( mmc-'dc-e2 r.voolIe:>:-v<s'jcc iit fciwaa to rc.;Cjnmrndafconu', guidelines, ragu- j l1otio.l:inc-sns.,.. X1. ic'..oOuh3f j.uow bow familiar you are wi':':; the- William. Steiger 'health &ct. --/a pox!ring under .hero. ?.x Kxa *<?c:vc to set ar a standard a 5 fibre level and mate it mandatory could., in .inspecting a plant, give a citation with propos-ad penalty to an employer and an abatement{ period for him to correct the situation, which vcrnM bs eon- tonfted. What I cm a little bit h-.vy on ia you indicated the full force of the. .`.Hit rsgul'it ions would apply if there vf.'ts niors thar a IV. fit' iO .HUtir.- Htao io the mechanism? Do. yr.-ur inspucto:. ; .louu** .itrhions? oust v;hat 1c the .enforcement JIH. ` f0',!.W : There bc.cs very iihclof this. X 1.1 rc; Ots.vy ov ..":..: ir '.Ttind. iiiE vmforoamc-nt. mechanism is thr.r. s pi an t or .> i.fic.n i:i c olL-vt <vOU.i! tv f rujv1 ;-r:Ci:ad. I i njrrfjnt i I 169 1 Factory Inspectorate would call in the Chemical Branoh who are p. responsible for dust sampling. The local Inspector can only 3 call in to the Chemical Branch. Ha can't do it. It is con- A sidered to bo a technical job. r> |l There are inch*dtrial hygieniste. They will come and ii;' they-will take duet MVMiipieu. That procedure, from the little 7 I have found' in thwi IK K., As that they would find a situation * s anc! if it. was; substantially above 12.and confirmed, they will !l toll the us people that something must be done; that they must ic 1! install or is.prove your industrial' control mechanism. "We i n will give you. mo many months to do thisK one] in the meantime i: i2 you wish to conti-me operating this process at this level, theiji ?3 you must protect the people involved," 4 ; !| i1 <6 I i; 17 | i iS 1 !i :3 They return to check to see that they are effective, MR. f'A>*LD: :oo they hav-a the authority to close down the operation? OR. KOIiMES: They would be taken to Court and probably theni would to a fine. MR. ; .;ui. bolov- 12? 0 !' Oh. iIOj. Dole*? 12 th:-o/ have not indicated what r.ofcj.cr. ckoy oil To Caky, i'.'k, y'i'ikoE: To your know!adeve they have not taken n3 : rV,.yoo to Court? DR. tiOiii'ii lG : wo ,, 2? i-!! MR, SABUR;i:ci7; Inasmuch as you did distinguish, 1/0 1 Dr. Holmesr as to the formation and by whom it had been org 2 anized the Asbestosis Research Council, I should like you to 3 tell us if the British Occupational Hygiene Society is a gov 4 ernmental body. 5 DR. HOLMES* No, it is not. It is a body which is 5 similar - - wall, it ie a professional scientific body, 7 MR. 3ABJRRIN: Independent from the industry? o DR* holmes* Yen, it ia.a society to which occua pational.hygienists belong, just .as a physicist would belong ' to the Institute of Physics, It is my professional associa if) 11 tion. It is not a. governing party. It is a professional 12 . society like the Aitierican Physicists Society and the American 13 Chemical Society. 14 MR. PARLE: 2 wonder if the labor unions employ Jfj hygienists and if they have any membership in your society. \<5 DR. HOWIES: They have an official research body, 17 Taey arc employing medical people. Dr. Nawhousw works for 19 vho.ti. Profeuaor 3chilling ia the Director: and they do in in dustrial medical research, ~o MR. EARthey members of your Society? DR. HOi-MiS: PJ.l of these people are members of the 21 22 Occupational Hygiene Society, and whan the regulations were 23 being promulgated they were consulted, just ay we were from th s 2.4 industrial 3.ido. 25 {Discussion off the record.) DR. H0LADA7: I would like to be called to present , i as an exhibit the Manual of Recommended PrEictices for Handlingj Installation Materials in Shipbuilding- .1 | EXAMINER GObDBERG: For purposes of presenting the | Exhibit you may resume the stand. * \ Mr. Holaday, you have handed me a cjroup of papers 1 and an envelop- What is this? DR. HOLAD/iY: Those papers sonstitute a final draft of a Manual for Recommended Practices for Handling Insulation Materials in Shipbuilding. The package consists of the pio- ;v',i:c.r: oi; the prscodures and *:guipvnent which are described in tv..-' i-spaua:*., EiJAMjci'sP. g'J3'.i>niG.Aos 'We will nark the textural material Evitibifc :ri>A and tbc. -2i n-oloue of photograph.-; 36>, and you will ! make oa'ch tv supply u.u with second copy of this within five- days within the* close of hearing. DR. HCL-APM: YCui, sir. EXAMINER GOZ.-DHSKG: Exhibits NOV 36A and No. 3PB are received. (The documents referred were marked for identification as Exhibits 36A *iml 3VB.. end received .in evidence.) EXAMINER. cnvc-v ov the cfant;. . s Dr. deeper, you have had your Of., C:CO??,\t -;uaid lik-.-. to introduce in evidence - fl I 170-B 1 EXAMINER GOTjOBERG: All right, sir. We will mark 2 as Exhibit No. 37.Western States Asbestos Health Plan, and 3 as marked Exhibit No* 37 is received. A (The document referred to was.'markeja for identification as Exhibit No, 37 and received in ovidenee.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: bo we have any more second Q thoughts before we call the next witnoos? Hr. Shockler and Mr. Royer, are you appearing togethj- 10 ft;;? r. MR. snECrGliERt 7'cs, Mr. Examiner* !2 I am Clifford I-. Sbeckler, Chairman ooJf Hue Si: Vrtv 13 and Health Committee, National Insulation Manufacturers Assoc 14 iation. 1 tun appearing before you today., along with Mr Spend? 15 Royer, representing the National Insulation Manufacturers i*3 /Vi sedation and the Nr't.iono.l Insulation Contractors Asso..-- 17 iat.jcat. 30 39 i: I, ii ?.o ;; ji 5". '! (>* * i F2 ' i'iiv. Membership of both Associations wish to express o-:T>cjaihio." be* V.h..- pcr>yo.md otnnclarc! For ash is i; os dust as pub- 1 -id in the ml jiryty*'; Tferineuday, January 12, 1972. >,ich in U our opposition to elm recoii-uiondations o-z tl:-.* h.:ivisor.* ttoa on ashen too dust national V.g,1: Urate ftv.- Occupational Safety and ileal tn er.iter.iii document Til*-. da cion ,\1 InsuIation Manufacturers Ansoelation 25 ; represents the ir.snufactur&rs of ThsiiMu-*.! Insolation products .in * 170-c the United States. The National Insulation Contractors Association represents the major Thermal Mechanical Insulation Contractors engaged.in both hhe construction and shipbuilding industries throughout the United States, Our comments will be directed specifically to the 6 application of usboshos containing insulation products and not to the. m:\uuiirc brring uch products. Tho construction and shipbuilding work currently 9! 10 11 12 13 34 IS xmdarway by our Thcxma.'1. Mechanical Insulation Industry is bein^ done under both government and private contracts.' Federally 1 funded contracts involve office buildings, hospital':, schools,| libraries, missile facilities, defense projects, dams, airport} V facilities, rapid transit systems, low rent housing, military housing, air avd water pollution projects, shipbuilding and shp rr;r> airing for I n:: if, r.:s Nu-ay - Coast Guard - Merchant Marine !: K? }: h i? < M-* l ^:j j; rr> f 3H.V c-vntraot ; inclv. le office : l, :T. C `1 , .i.-ij:;- .vj>*r.e~j, \lower gtwv rating pia ' ; im.>-!.rial plants f housing, uo J X'line'a, soyni: . - if >-ri i.'tners. in therm;:-1 s.vchuuic&l insulation construotio: industry, e icl'-rdisg the laanufactvring of insulation products, 23 24 ! i 25 j !i li and' considering .ly ;:he installation of this material, directly involve appro#iv,uiv.eiv if. 000 job opportunities in the United States, 170-D Thi3 industry rftpresents an approximate $700 million gross volume of business annually. i I Our industry is comprised of over 1000 contractors. \ Most of these contractors are small businessman spread through' j 3 out the Unitod States. Mr. Royer, who is here with me today, | i 0 i is one of the small businessmen who will present you with his views. 8 Our opposition to the asbeetos dust standards are 3 based on the fact that they are neither reasonable, practical, 10 feasible, or.economically sound. Much of the .information for if establishing the proposed asbestos dust standards, the NIOSH u criteria package, and the Advisory Committee*o recommendations 13 was gathered tea experience :ln this thermal Mechanical Insu14 ' ivj.o:c Industry. J Y,et u2 .;.vav5X?w th$f courae of events concerning the j oli limit voj'.ue to?* asbestos duct over the past few | t 17 ycc... >;i, If; fo the evsrican Conference of Governmental In** j dur:trial avgi cr.iats: Threshold Admit value for Asbestos Dust j v/:'tf; oub.lishGd at 3 million particles per. cubic foot of air ai< | :0 ][ so {Mii<: di i measured with the impinger method. We were able to work with < tliic standard. /Vt that time the majority of State Departments 22 of Labor and Health maintained the same Asbestos Threshold 23 Limit Value. In December, 1970, the Occupational Safety and 24 ! 231; Health Act became law. In 1977, the first sel: of safety and health standards beeam.- effective. The threshold limit value i. i for aubeatoa dust then became' 12 fibres per milliliter j greater than 5 microns in length aa measured by the membrane j filter. This industry did not question the reduction of the j threshold limit value from 5 million particles per cubic foot to 12 fibres per milliliter# and the complete change of the method for monitoring asbestos dust# instead, we immediately went to work by introducing new methods, equipment, and mater ials, to reduce dust levels to within the 12 fibre limit. On December 7, 1971, Emergency Asbestos Dust Stand ards were published in idle Federal Register again reducing the Threshold Limit Value for Asbestos Dust from 12 fibres per mil 1.1 liter greater tlv.u;. 5 microns in'length he 3 fibres per j millilitre greater than 5 microns in length.. On January 1?.- j 1972 ,, cUo proper;r-d asbestos dust .regulations, with a 'Threshold' Limit 'Valin* of 3 fibres, was published in the Fedare.l Register . r:'.u-j ."a--.- in conjunction with these proposed regulations, both HX03U >vid tho Asbos uoi- Advisory Committee have made recommend ations for further reduction of the Threshold Limit Value for asbestos clu.sc to 2 fibres cor milliliter greater than 5 micron in length. You now have a picture of the inconsistency and xmcertainty involved in the establishment of an Asbestos Dust Standard. From 1970 to date, a period of just over tvyo years. the Threshold Limit Value for asbestos dust has bean changed 3:;;ch 5 it'LCF to 12 ii.-.ves, ebon to 5 fibres, with a current  old Limit Value changes there have been many other related re 3 quirement changes, that add to the total confusion, .such.as respiratory equipment, dust collection, vacuum cleaning equip- 5 ment, and others. The change from 5 MPPCF to 12 fibres has <5 boon a costly one. Our industry has, with some difficulty, 7 absorbed this cost. We frankly cannot meet.the 5 fibre Emer 8 gency Asbestos Standard as currently effective, nor can we ab 9 sorb the cost of the Emergency or Proposed Asbestos Standard 10 and its related provisions. It is needless to aay, therefore, il that to achieve a 2 fibre standard as recommended by the MIOSH 12 || Criteria Package and tlici Asbestos Advisory Committee- is neith er 13 II:' n ?4 ;i 13 jl 16 !i ; 17 18 39 20 21 22 23 0,1 ,, practical, feasible*, or economically possible. Lyt.'fi carefully examine the reasoning rox* the errat- ic: rcivi'iion* off 'the Acl/cstoa \Cb re. whole! Limit Value since 1970, A?; 1 have a.I.voaey told you, much of the information which con tributed v.o i:hese revisions was gathered from our Thermal Insulation construction industry, its host, this information i3 scanty, inconsistent/ incomplete and inaccurate. Firat of all, I told you chat at the change of Threshold Limit Value from 5 MPPCF to 5 fibres per milliliter there was also a changjs in the method for monitoring asbestos dust from the standard or midget impinger to the membrane filter. There is absolute ly no method for correlation between the asbestos dust counts 1 I aeteriitf.nad by mcns.toring with the xmpinger as compered to the i J ' 170-G j - - * \? 1 membrane filter#. It is, therefore, impossible' to compare the ?. exposure levels in terms of numbers of fibres per milliliter 3 greater than 5 microns in length with numbers of particles . 4 5 8 * ii a |i j it; 1 ?i \2 13 14 15 18 1? 18 19 20 !> ii ii of total dust when using the impiugermethod. It must be recog nized that the impinger method included particulate matter other than asbestos fibre. Physical examinations on a part of the work force f i installing Thermal immlation materials have been conducted. The disease involvement determined by these physical exam.inr.tions hnq been related to the present day asbestos fibre "poavjr.s as monitored by' the milapore. filter method. These factors cannot bo co?cp:ined or related. Also, based on sup-. pos.iti.on and assumption, it was concluded that the -exposure levels of men working in construction and shipbuilding before, during, and subsequent to World War II were at the same levels ox exposure as is o. worker engaged in similar activities today This hypothesis is not true. `The types of materials have changed- the percentage of asbestos contained in thermal insu lation products has been reduced, the method of installation hat; changed, and fabrication equipment has changed. Each of thane changes cinco the early .1940'a has contributed in the roiuct.l.r.n of dust Xci/ejs. It is, therefore, illogical to com ^3 s: r. 54 f: 55 j; pare dieecs .Mrcur.renr.es which resulted from exposure from ^0-30 years ego with dual*, levels monitored on construction sites within the last several years. It is also illogical to ...J li 170-H f compare our American industry with that of foreign countries. As X said, we have withstood the change from 5 million particles per cubic foot of air to 12 fibres based On insuffic 4 ient information gathered from small segments of the Industry.) 5 Although there was no further input of pertinent-information, -again, based on supposition and assumption, the level was then 6 ' lji reduced from 12 fibres to 5 fibres. Now, still based on sup ii 3 position and assumption, with no further information available 9 both NXOSH and -the Asbestos Advisory Committee are recommending * 10 a reduction to 2 fibres. While these reductions in the Thresh^ 31 old Limit Value have been readily forthcoming, the proposed 12 regulations, NIOSH Criteria Package, and the Asbestos Advisory 13 Committee recommendations are completely void of any references 14 to prohibiting or restricting workers who are habitual cigarette 15 smokers from working with products containing asbestos fibre. vs j! I 17 'flics same studios, upon which much of the emphasis has been placed concerning the reduction of the Threshold Limit Value, fS aloe. dev-onstrof-o draw tic? effects of cigarette smoking when 19 av.;;cita.v vri.fch too pulmonary disease , A-ibestosis. ;.o Ay >" told .-'j.' v?a have not achieved the level of 5 n iV>!:,1 ?.Z i k:. 23 [ fin 1, W-. a;rr.akiog a docid-ad effort to do this. We have pro3>ler.s vmiq a- t-, the construction industry in attempting to ucwply with the proposed asbestos standards, X am not at this 4 :! time going to review all of the minute problems involved in the application of those standards? instead, I am going to speak  170-1 A 1a! [t 3il 9 ti 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (' 'r< li to the economics of achieving this proposed standard of S ' ' t fibres per milliliter 5 microns and greater in length, as ( . ii- published in-'the Federal Regie tor January 12, 1972. We feel, $ i with the economic impact that this regulation will have on the! f- Federal Office of gadget Management, other Federal agencies, \ i including the Armed Services, and on private enterprise, it isj worthy of Very caroful consideration by the Federal Department! of tabor. We brought together a number of the foremost contract oro in the Thermal Mechanical Insulation Industry, and together we evaluated the cost of complying with the proposed asbestos regulation. This was accomplished by breaking down the regu lation into each cf its requirements and computing them indiv-j i idually. The requirements were computed individually, include! torahg, b3 on purchasing the monitoring equipment and Ic. -iv-.C; the aarlyvsod at a private laboratory; respir- --cr. of v.h-i dioooa-'bio type; physical examinations; dust <*> r oolievition an2 vacuum cleaning er.mpmsnt; warning signs; pro- id !; 20 ; .1 ?.i il| i i i-..?; tive clothing? : tu: vork placo-t-ant. .As a we used a IOO-kum contracting -u?it with 25% oi: the unit working with asbestos--containing products, b'e cdisputed off-;tob time and- lost time productivity at an average construction worker's 23 ! 24 r 25 jj rate. The total cost for implementing a program to comply with the proposed Asbestos Dust Regulations as published in I fcho January 12, 1972 Federal Register for a 100-man construct- 170-j l V . * ion unit/ 25% of which worked with asbestos-containing mater- l i lals, is $795,375.00 direct expenses per year-----$27,740.00 ]' ! administrative expenses per year and $16,700.00 qf capital expenses; therefore, a total for the 100-man unit* with 25% engaged in work with asbestos-containing products, amounts, to $039,815.00 increased construction expense for the purpose of complying with the proposed Asbestos Dust Regulation. . This represents an increased labor cost of 168% that must be passed on to the customer in order for a contractor to survive. The customer, in many instances, is the Federal Government and the Office of Budget Management. Considering the inadequacy of medical and scientific research information concerning safe er.posure levels of asbestos dust, and also considering the aapposition -and ii;-v*u;r.tion cm which the proposed Threshold. val'.te i? bes-tx'., it is difficult to imagine a justifies- | .. I fifor tin': 'or.o^rc sv.ross thin regulation will place upon j the construction industry, Federal Government, and private j enterprise. We respectfully urge the Secretary of Labor to: 1. Reinstate the Threshold Limit Value for Asbestos Dust at 12 fibres per milliliter 5 microns or greater in length, for an interim period. !! 25 ii 2. To initiate a comprehensive epidemiological study. of the entire asbestos industry as it exists in the United J 1 States; and to daf.j.vmln-*: not only the effects of asbestos but ; I ;? i 170-K 1 also asbestos associated with other airborne contaminants 9. and cigarette smoking. 3 3. To provide adequate lead time prior to the ef 4 fective date of reduction of any Threshold Limit Value in ordelr 5 that the construction industry, operating on fixed contracts, 6 can cope economic'illy with the increased costs that such a re 7 duction will create. 8 4. To provide definitive information concerning the 9 specific requirements of the regulations. 10 5. Provide our trade associations with representa It tion on future-'Study aud Advisory Committees. 19. vve. representing the construction inclvjstry, have beeji 13 moving forward to provide safety and health information and M implement safer working conditions, We intend to continue and 15 accelerate this program. It is cur desire to provide every 16 possible protection for our people. 17 Thank you for the opportunity of appearing at. this 10 public hearing today. 19 I might add that the two trade asr-pc ;.tiens I am repre 10 senting here today made two requests fox' representation on the Advisory Committee, both of which were rejected. We, repre 11 22 senting the construction industry, agree with Dr. Cooper's statement that the-re is a serious problem there. We have been 23 a*r .* moving forward to provide and enact voluntary safety and A;* health procedure! .standards and .implement a?.for working con- 170-L 1 ditions. He have produced manuals. We have produced recently) ' | z a Letter of Compliance and recommended procedures for compli- ; k 3 anoe with the Emergency Standards. We have held meetings of \ 4 all thermal mechanical association contractors throughout the country for two consecutive years solely on thi3 point. We ! i ii intend to continue and to accelerate this program. 7 ! It is our desire, as it is your desire, to provide !; P i)!>i' every posable protection for our people; but let -us not. do it 4 at the otpenac of the job opportunities of small businessmen SO and the economic impact on 'this industry. Rejoin. I ainii to thank you vary much for the oppor "f !2 ! tunity of appearing'h'tee before you today. ,,| E2flHIfSK.ll GOLDBERGv Me. Rover? 14 |l 15 !{ I 16 i 17 .6 n i 19 j 7.0 | 7:1 MR. ROm>a; 3Sr. Goldberg and members of the Advisory Committee on Ashes cos Standards < my name is O', Span ear Royer, and I an; here to represent the national Insulation Contractors 'Association and 'aporox-imately 1,000 small insulation contract-! ora and fabrit-.fjfor.'- around the country. I am President of the Young Sales Corporation with headquarters in St, Louis, Mis- o..:".vri, (1y jagw; in the fabrication and application 7.i'.'.rvu ;.:io-.v ;,sid ocher materials which, contain an- fibo.:. h-'' -1. olucos t'fp t and col ri pipi .Cr. :vO:..'; i;. . ''(`'r.cia.l anr ivc1.'1, jfri >1 bui '-.ra r oil -<of i.n>-il'r.f:!3 , ehipn of projaa by rhv Web- JTct-. ?oveii 170-M no neophyte in this business, having been in it for 27- years. I am close to my employees. I know most of them by their firsjs; names. X am definitely interested in their health and welfare 4 The statement has been made here that all risk in 5 handling asbestos-containing material should be removed and 08 the tolerance of air-laid fibers reduced to ero. The AdvisorV yv u|< Committee has recommended a maximura; of 2 fibers per milliliter 8 of air. I cm not sure I know exactly what that means as a 0 contractor, but from the description I doubt seriously that it 30 can be reached. 11 In fact, I cay to yon that to accomplish these goals 12 on a construction job is impossible, and if this becomes the 13 law either we will bo out of business as contractors , or some 14 other substitute materials must be found by the manufacturers 15 to take the place of the asbestos. 16 Let me present a picture to you gentlemen which I'm 17 sure yon haven't considered* 18 Insuj.e.tir-n contracting in the United States is ap- # 19 r; 20 jj 21 i JI 22 ii p:-:-;>xii:rV''ily a 5700,000.000 per year business; no-/ever, the n/erago contractor is i- small businessman with annual sales cl approximately $700,000-, Net profit after taxes averages 2% wf tiie aiior $14,000 pur contractor per year*. 23 1 ?4 Using figures developed by a number of other contrac ors from various pa>.v.s of the country and myself, we computed 25 i( that the additional cost resulting from the proposers asbestos h MMt Wlwi 170-N ! Jl 1 dust standards will amount to,$134,000 per average-sized con z tractor per year, or more than 10 'times his net earnings. 3 It is obvious to me that unless the proposed Standard A 'is-modified in a major way or the cost ia passed on to the 5 customer which.,, .in many cases is a Federally funded project, ijjcL 6 will be impossible for the ^tiall insulation contractor to sur 7 vive. 3 You must be made aware, also, that every contractor S has a backlog of uncompleted work at a fixed price with specif 10 ic material and specifications,, It will be impossible, in mos: ii instances, to pass this added cost on to the customer, since I J2 thoE<e contracts ware consummated prior to publication of the | 13 proposed regulation. U I had intended to go into the breakdown of the diffe: 1 *5 on< , but "Jm-i: briefly wo broke down, item by item your 16 p; illation V t / l., v-cnitoring 1? 2- 'rhyriii'j.x.'i examination*,-; 3. Workor p.lacoavsssvt 2.0 4. tV.spirav.ors 21 5. Du-it collectors 22 6. Vacuum cleaning 23 7. Warning signs fi. Protective clothing <A By uaivK* these, roV.ra by .item, wo computed what it r\%) ' MW ** *** IV/V I7O-O 1 would coat the average contractor. As best we can find out, dli 2 he employes somewhere between sixteen and twenty men! SoJ'you i* 3 can see that each contractor has a small contingent of the 4 overall business. 5 One item in particular i3 the monitoring. We based 6 our projected cost on approximately one sampling unit for eaah 7 three men employed. We estimated laboratory expense on the a basis of two samples per day per employee. In addition, we 9 included administration expense to perform the monitoring,`thfce 10 samples to the laboratory and handle the respirator program. 11 This may sound ridiculous, but because of the mobility n and the geography involved in the construction job '-it 13 isn't like a plant.where you can monitor locations day after U < 15 i! 16 i 17 jt day without any problems and establish vha-fc the limits are .hero., 'ion hcwr. to-follow thin man around, because he is moving all over the project. in addition, vre included administration expense to 18 perform the monitoring. . . .. 19 By the .way, at the moment we know of only two private 20 labs in the United States that are equipped and competent to 21 perform the analysis of the samples. 22 The time that will be lo3t on the job, both in exe 23 cuting the tost3 and in trying to carry out the stipulations 24 ;; of the regulation ns proposed is staggering. We estimate our 25 t1)* labor cost for materials will be increased 16R%. j 170-13 The main issue, so far as the contractor is concerned, is how he will be able to pay these additional costs and still remain in business. In my opinion, many of them won't be able to absorb it. We urge you to reconsider the proposed Asbestos Duet Standard as published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1972. We, as contractors, are just as interested as you in t seeing that our employees work under safe conditions, but we request that further investigation and evaluation be made to initiate more practical standards that will'provide protection to o n&ool& 5n.- ,hat will ii: pur. U3 out of business. ATiesUiC yOU. (Dlsovnoient off the record.) fiXftHXKBft G0A> BRG: Mr. Zuawalt? Mr. SUMWALTs Mr. Examiner, my name is Charles SUKiwait, and am the Secretary-Treasurer of the Industrial Safety Equipment Association.' This is the trade association oi tne principle i.iamifacturers of all forms of personal protectiv* equ.ipv-anfc except shoes. Included among our members are the mai v> ofacturers of protective devices on whose behalf I speak to yot tod;?'/. Ue hai1^ previously submitted our coiwnents in"writing curtaining to t:= proposal containing the Federal Register vJ 7:-nu-v>. y 1?.. V- c o.'.ntbly they will ba entered into the raeorc j X hc.ve lei. tc the ateno&ype recorder. for her use > 170-Q 1 With your permission I shall restrain from restating 2 these comments now. More importantly, however, I should -like tjo it 3 address our members' aomments to the more formal presentations 4 which form the report of the Advisory Committee and signifi 5 cantly enlarge upon the January 12 concept. The report by our S respiratory manufacturers does not warrant otr comment as 7 experts upon any facets of the Committee's reports except theix 8 recomftts'/idations contained in 1910,93, Paragraph NC, Respiratory 9 Protective Devices ^ We would like to underscore the preamble 10 1 ii ,s 71 pn i:a graph approve-. The ata 12 (7) are sound ;i.n ii 13 II ii 14 \ r' V' jj Sub-paxconcentrations of i:no limit (3) :-xxe 16 II 1! !i 17 (i We sufom criteria for both 1 18 W p!i !} r 7.0 l;. i: 7.1 , v*J spiratory d.cvi-: ::i.vs tir.tes the ii 'egM-irec. to v.-c :: in our judgment. We rc-ijv 2 xn an, 23 r ro to ho mat' ".or: 24 n be on. a goal kS decided upon- L 170-R ' I This Sub-paragraph (6) we do not argue against the 2 type set positive pressure respiratory as protection for con $ centration exceeding 500 times the .limit. We do dispute limit 4 ation to only continuous flow-types. There are many industraa: 5 applications where the distance from sources of respirable air 6 exceed the present limitation of 250 feet of hose and the 7 proposed 300 feet of;hose. This is particularly true in work a situations in confined spaces such- as holds of ships and the 9 lilcc. Such situations often preclude the uae'of compressors at TO require tank systems as the source of respirable air. 11 Unless demand-type airline respirators are utilised i: 12 such tank systems,, workers run the risk of exhausting tank 13 contents prematurely and without adequate safeguards due to thi U waste of aaronat continuous flow-type system. Inasmuch as 15 positive pressure is maintained in the facepiece at all times, JO use of equipment acts to serve the exhaustible supply. 17 Ho appropriate rewording. '<0 b'j -? final word, vrs stress the need for the asbestos stiindr xtla to .recognise self-contained breathing apparatus, boti VJ open r nci closed circuit; types, ns an allowable form of protect 20 JA ive device in all concentration. 22 In closing, we applaud the drafters of the recommend ations contained in the Advisory Committee's Report, Such Z'i ?A sucjgestions as we have made are bom of the desire to see the 25 fulfillment of their primary objectives. 170-s Wa offer that the future success of any Advisory Committee dealinq with respiratory devices in general or spec- * ific reference could well benefit from the input of the con siderable expertise of the manufacturers. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Zumwalt. For this afternoon it would appear there will be onlv. threo witnesses. Accordingly, if there are those here scheduler to appear tomorrow or Friday who would want to go on after the three witnesses, then I will consider you this afternoon. We will stand in recess until two o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:45 the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., this same day. ) \ j ) i I i i * 171 % I AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (2:00 p.o.) 3 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. 4 Mr. Fay and Mr. Swetonic -- excuse me, is S Doctor Tetrick in the room? 0 All right, Mr* Fay and Mr. Swetonic.* 7 MR. FAY: My name is Aloert H. Fay. I am Vice 8 President or the Gold Bond Building Products Division of the 9 National Gypsum Company in Buffalo, New Yorlc. . I am-appearing 10 here today in ray capacity as.president of the Asoestos 1! Information Association of North America, located in New York 12 City. The Asbestos Information Association 19 comprised of S3 twelve of the nation's largest miners, manufacturers and 14 Importers of asuestos and assestos-containing products. The 9B raeaioer companies of the association are listed on a fact 16 sheet, which I will auumit with my testimony. 17 As an introduction to industry testimony that will 18 follow, I would like to oriefly sketch for you a general 19 picture of the size and scope of the asuestos industry in the 20 United States, the types of products produced, the nuraoer of 21 people employed, and other factors that will help position the 22 asoestos manufacturing industry in the economic and social 23 structure of thi.s country. 24 I should mentioned oefore proceeding Chat the 25 majority of the data that I present refers only to the IV X m # *w 172 manufacturing side of the industry, and does not include a detailed Information on Industry using finished asoastos products, such as the construction industry or the insulation 4 application and removal trades. S Asbestos is the generic name given to a group of j inorganic hydrated silicate minerals that have one common 7 attribute, namely, the ability to be separated into relatively 0 soft, silky fibers. The three moBt commonly used varieties 9 of asbestos are chrysotile, crocidolite, or blue fiber and 10 amosite. . 11 It is important to note that chrysotile accounts for moro than 98% of the total annual United States consumption 13 of asbestos. In the post, crocidolite and amosite were used 14 far more extensively in the United States than they are today. 15 The leading producers of chrysotile fiber are Canada and the s 16 Soviet Union, with smaller deposits being found in South 17 Africa, Rhodesia, China, the United States and Italy. 18 Crocidolite and amosite are mined almoBt exclusively - 19 in South Africa. 20 The total annual world production of asbestos is around 4 million tons, with Canadian production accounting for zz about 30% of the total, and the United States about 3%. The properties of asbestos that give it commercial value are its fibrous structure, the great tensile strength of the fibers and its resistance to high temperatures and to  i 173 1 certain types o chemic&l action. a As a fireproofing material, asbestos has over the . years saved untold lives and many billions of dollars in 4 property damage. It is used in products ranging from 8 asbestos-cement shingles, panels and siding tofireproof clothing, insulations, floor tile and friction materials. 7 It has been estimated that some 3 thousand different products 8 in daily use around the world contain asbestos. Most of these i products, even though the percentage of asbestos in them may 10 be small, cannot adequately perform their function without 11 one or more of the unique properties that asbestos imparts. For most of these products, no adequate substitute for 13 asbestos is available today. 14 It would take me an hour to enumerate for you the IS major uses of asbestos fiber. Instead, I am submitting with 16 my testimony a listing from The Asbestos Fact Book, a publl- t 17 cation of Asbestos Magazine, of some of the primary uses of 18 asbestos in our modern society. I think it will become quite ie clear after reading thi9 list why asbestos has qten been 20 called the indispensable mineral. In the United States, the consumption of raw 22 asbestos fiber over the past decade has remained fairly stable at an average of approximately 775,000 tons per year. & with an estimated value of $90 million. Of this annual total. 25 approximately 125,000 tons valued at $10,5 million is-produced ssal 174 domestically, the rest being imported, primarily from Canada, +. Based on Bureau of the Census manufacturing statistics and other data, the estimated value of asbefetoscontaining products manufactured in the United States last year was roughly $1 billion. Only around $35 million worth of fiber and products were exported, the rest being consumed domestically. These products were made in well over 500 different manufacturing facilities, both large and small, throughout the United States, with a work force of at least 50,000 employees, and a payroll approaching billion. It should be remembered that these employment and sales figures refer only to companies and industries in which asbestos fiber is converted into finished products. In most cases, these products are not sold directly to ultimate con sumer, but are used in the manufacture of other products, such as automobiles, electrical appliances and fireproof clothing. In other instances, the finished asbestos-contain ing products pass through a dealer or distributor to an applicator or some other craftsman who installs them. This is obviously the case in the construction industry. Thus, products containing asbestos fiber may pass through three or four levels of trade or manufacture before they are purchased by the ultimate consumer. For this reason, it is quite difficult to accurately judge the total economic'value of the asbestos Industry to the nation. We firmly believe, however/ .that the Arthur D. Little Company economic study now under way,'will show it to be substantial. For example, it has been estimated that the insulation trades alone involve 40,000 men who spend at least a quarter of their time working with asbestos-containing products. Other employees whose livelihood depends at least to some extent on the use of asbestos-containing products include other types of construction workers; siding, roofing and tile installers, pipe layers, salesmen, distributors and dealers in asbestos products. It is impossible to calculate the total income derived by these workers from the use or sale of asbestos-containing products, but it is certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If one adds in the value of services, machinery, raw materials and other commodities purchased by the asbestos manufacturing industry each year for use in the production or shipment of finished asbestos products, the total economic contribution of Che industry to the nation's economy would reach, perhaps, $3 billion, and would involve,to some degree, the livelihood of at least half a million wage earners and their families. We believe the economic and social contribu tion of the asbestos industry to the nation is substantial. In addition to the many and varied lifesaving uses of asbestos, they play an important role in our modern 176 technological society. For these reasons, the establishment of reasonable and feasible occupational health standards for asbestos is a matter of great importance, not only to the men whose health we are trying to protect, but also to the industr end to the country as a whole. t ; \ . I,. Our industry is cooperating fully with the Arthur D. Little Company in the economic study they have been retained to make by-OSHA. He are all working hard to develop precise figures as to the potential economic effect of the proposed regulations on our industry . To'date, we have been able to make only rough estimates. In general, they show a cost to the industry of approximately $200 million in new equipment to comply with the proposed standard of two fibers per cubic centimeter in those sections'of the industry where we believe a two-fiber standard is technologically feasible. The i - -i -Ti - . proposed regulations would also produce a lose in sales of at least $400 million because of the labeling requirements and the shut down of operations where two fibers is techno logically unfeasible. A number of companies have already indicated that they do not believe a two-fiber standard is feasible in many operations, and that if such a standard is promulgated, they will dose down those operations immediately rather than spend millions of dollars in a vain attempt to achieve the unachievable. The loss of jobs will be sub stantial. r ^ 1 I 177 i Yesterday, there was a statement made here that if 2 one plant can meet the standards, then all can. This is not true. There are vast differences in the various manufacturing 4 industries and the dissimilarity makes it impossible for one 5 to duplicate the other. 6 One other point. Yesterday, it was stated that 7 smoking substantially increases.the risk of disease. Since 8 we are all concerned about the health of those associated 8 with this business, we would like to recommend that the to proposed standard should prohibit smoking during working hours 11 on the job and that the warning signs required to be posted should prominently display "no smoking." Precedents for this 13 exist in regulations at the Department of Interior,' for 14 example, in uranium mines. 15 In closing, it is our hope that OSHA will take all . 16 of these considerations into mind in developing the standards. 17 If this is not done, it could well spell the demise of at t8 least half of the asbectos industry in the United States and 18 in time, perhaps, all of it. 20 Thank you, Kr. Goldberg. I want to submit two exhibits. This exhibit is a 22 list of the members of the Asbestos Association of North 23 America. - EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The list of members of the 25 Asbestos Association will be Exhibit 3b. , . 178 (The document above referred Co was marked as Exhibit No.36 for identification*) EXAMINER'GOLDBERG: All right. MR. FAY: And the second one is the Asbestos Fact Sheet concerning the uses of asbestos and asbestos products. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: That will be Exhibit 39. (The document above referred to Has marked as Exhibit No. 39 for identification.) ; EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. Exhibits 3fc and 39 are received. (The documents previously identi fied as Exhibits Woo. 38 and 39 were received in evidence.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Introduce yourself. . MR. SWETONIC: My name is Matthew M. Swetonic, and | I am Executive Secretary of the Asbestos Information Associa tion of North America and also manager of special projects in the Public Affairs Section for Che Johns-Hanville Corpora tion. Mr. Fay has already described the association, and identified che companies which it represents. We are basically an information disseminating organisation and the facts or opinion# contained in my presentation are supported in the 179 1 medical literature or constitute the professional opinion of - 2 medical and technical experts available to the industry as 3 consultants. 4 The asoestos industry has recognized for many years S that there axe occupational health hazards associated with 6 the excessive inhalation of asoestos dust. Recognizing its 7 obligation to protect its workers, the industry has over the a years invested many millions of dollars in sophisticated and 8 highly efficient equipment to reduce asoestos dust levels in 10 the work places generally accepted safe limits. Some $100 II million has ueen invested for this purpose in the past decade 32 alone. I just might point out in reference to some of the 33 testimony that was given this morning that almost exclusively 14 this equipment was designed to prevent exposure at the source, IS dust collection equipment of the type that was descrioed for yc 19 in the insulation trade but on a much, much larger scale -- 17 again not protecting the worker, out protecting hita from the 18 dust oefore it ever gets to him. The general position within the 5.ndustry is that ' | 19 20 would never like to see a man ever have to wear a respirator, 21 for example. The source is the place to stop exposure. 22 Over the years, acceptable safe limits for asoestos 23 exposure has been lowered a number of times uy various oodles, 24 including NCGT.H and others. The Industry has worked hard to 25 meet each of these lowered limits. Now, however, the industry 180 1 is being faced with the possibility of yet another decrease 2 in the acceptable limits for asuestos exposure. In the paBt, 3 each new standard was accepted by the industry because the 4 developing medical evidence indicated that new lower limits 5 might indeed be necessary. This is certainly not the case c; with the two-fiuer standard proposed uy the National Institute 7 of Occupational Safety and Health. The medical brief pre 8 pared by NIOSH in support of the two-fioer limit, in our 9 opinion, falls far short of establishing the necessity of such to a standard. 11 The criteria document, in fact, states quite 12 clearly on page D-10 that "the number- of studies that have 13 collected both environmental and medical data and with a 14 significant numoer of exposed workers is not sufficient to 15 establish a meaningful standard based upon firm scientific 16 data." 17 If this i3 true, then the question must be asked: 18 upon what data shall a standard be based? If we are going to 13 base our standard upon what others have done, which is the 20 basic approach that NIOSH had taken, then we are running 21 around in circles, because if specific data is not available 22 to us today, then it could not possibily have been available 23 to others when they developed their standards in the past. 24 The simple tru.h is that no one, NIOSH included, 25 .knows for sure what a safe occupational standard should ue. 181 I There is general agreement among the'professionals studying th; 2 problem that it should probably oe lower than 12 fibers per S cc, out how much lower is'a question- that has not been 4 answered to everyone's satisfaction. The main reason for this 5 is that the disease we are seeing today is the result of 6 conditions that existed 20. or 30 or 40 years ago, at a time 7 when today's highly sophisticated dust collection equipment 8 was not readily available and when ooth the industry and the * medical profession knew relatively little about the hazards lf> of asbestos dust. 11 This point has been made repeatedly oy the doctors 12 testifying before this hearing. 13 We simply do not know for sure what the dust levels 14 were in those days, but there is every indication that they 15 were enormously higher than they are today. For this reason, 16 as many doctors have pointed out, we must be very careful 17 about Looking at today's conditions and today's disease and 18 trying to draw a parallel between the two. Such a parallel IS does not exist, and this can lead to some very erroneous 20 conclusions. 21 Let me give you an example. 22 It has oeen reported oy some researchers studying 23 the insulation- trades in this country that the dust con ?4 ditions that exist today on, insulation jou sites and in ship 25 yards are exactly the same as existed in the past. This has f'y L ' # [ I 2 4 8 6 7 8 9 1ft If " 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 23 25 ' 18S led to a calculation Chat the very high death rate found among these men is directly attributable to levels of around three fibers per cc. The evidence is substantial that this calculation is inaccurate* 1 am submitting with my testimony a paper which describes the decreasing asbestos content of insulations used in the trades over the past 30 to 40 years. You will recall that this basic question about the levels of exposure in the past among these people was Drought up yesterday by Dr. Nicholson and under question by Mr. Sheclcler,, The basic document which substantiates the conclusion that the levels are considerably different, although we don't know what they were 40 years ago, but we do know they were much higher, is contained in this paper which T. have here entitled, "Changing Concepts of Insulation Material," I will not go into the details of what is contained in this paper, except to submit it. For example, I submit this paper not to discredit any researcher's work. Obviously, I am not in a position to do that, but merely to point out as others have done, the enormous difficulty one encounters in trying to establish meaningful numerical standards. In addi.tion, as Dr. Holmes pointed out in his testimony, the evidence seems to indicate that more importance should be given to peak exposures in evaluating disease 183 1 potential than to time weighted averages. 2 For example, in the tearout of old insulations 3 aboard ship, the British have counted levels as high as 4 3&00 fibers per cc, with a mean ranging netween 139 fibers 8 per cc and 353 fibers per cc. Today,.of course, men performing 6 this work ore protected by air supply respirators. Thirty 7 years ago, when they received exposures Chat led to their 3 present disease, they were not so protected. 3 The doctors are generally agreed that the lung's 10 ability to cleanse itself of accumulated dust would be 1! seriously reduced at such high levels, yet a time-weighted 23 average for a.40-hour week might show a relatively low level. 23 In the spraying industry, counts as high as 1500 M fibers per cc have been recorded. Yet., considering the time iS upeufon preparation of the equipment and other non-spraying IS tasks, the time-weighted average for these workers might come 17 out to be reasonably moderate. 19 Thus, in the opinion of most experts, time-weighted 19 averages can be very misleading if the men are periodically 20 exposed to fiber levels so high that the lung's cleansing 21 mechanism fails considerably in its ability to rid the lung 22 of accumulated fiber. If, as the experts have told us, the 23 lungs can remove 99% of all inhaled particles, including 24 asbestos fiber, then a reduction in the cleansing function of 25 even a few percent will increase the amount of finer retained  184 1 by that many magnitude 2 in addition Co these reasons, there are excellent 8 technological and economic reasons for not promulgating too 4 strict a time-weighted average, and instead placing more 5 attention on eliminating the high peak exposures. The industry r> is in the process of trying to develop accurate data with re 7 gard to economic impact. 8 Mr. Pay referred to this in his presentation. *> lie are working hard on this problem with OSHA, io Bureau of Standards, and with Arthur D. Little. While :tt it will be cone weeks before final figureo will be available, 12 early estimates indicate that the cost to the industry of 13 or.eofc5.ng a two-fiber standard,in those sections of the industry 14 where such a standard is feasible, would be in the vicinity 15 or $200 million. 16 In recommending a standard of two fibers per cc, 17 the erroneous assumption has been made that today's tech 16 nology is c .pablo of lowering the levels in each and every IS asbestos operation to two fibers. Past experience would 20 indicate that in a sizable number of operations it will oe 21 impossible to reduce the levels to two fibers, no matter how 7.Z much money is spent. 3 In these cases, the operations obviously would have 24 to bo shut down and the men thrown out of work. Wc have only 26 a very rough idea at this time how large a segment of Che 185 manufacturing industry would bo affected in this manner> but an estimate of perhaps 15' to 20% seems reasonable.* ` ' ' ',/* . Applied to the sales of a billion dollars, this would obviously work out in the range of $150 to $200 million. In addition, there will no doubt be cases where the technology is available to reduce levels to two fibers, but where the cost involved would make a particular product line either no longer profitable or no longer competitive on the open market against non-asbestos containing products of the same type. In those cases, the plant or manufacturing operation would also be shut down. This particular type of s?.tuation would also exist at a five-fiber level hopefully in not as many cases. Trying to put a handle on the potential number of lost jobs is extremely difficult. Many small manufacturing operations will undoubtedly go under, but it is nearly impossible Co determine Che Cota3. number of men we are talking about. Perhaps 15 to 30 thousand is about as close as v;e can come at this time. This would not bo just in manufacturing but would be a consideration of the insulation trades and other groups as well. The figures 7. have just mentioned may not seem large when compared to what the steel or automobile industries would have to pay in similar circumstances, but the asbestos industry I 1 in this country is much smaller, and $200 million in equip* 2 raent, another $200 million ox more in eliminating product..llneji 3 due to an inability to meet the two-fiber standard, and 20 .* ** * 4 or 25 thousand lost jobs is an enormous chunicjU of this industry. 0 For this reason, it is vital that OSHA give considerable 6 thought before promulgating a standard that even the experts 7 agree is not based on solid scientific evidence. 3 Of additional enormous potential financial impact on !< + the industry is the labeling requirement no contained in the 10 final recommendations of the OSHA Advisory Committee. It H woul.rl require the placing of a warning label on each and every 12 product containing more than 5% asbestos by weight. This 13 label which contains the words: ,:Do not breath dust -- may 14 cause asi.estoois and cancer,15 15 Such a label would surely spell the demise of a 10 nusihor of major product. lines of the industry, including viynl" 57 arrestor .floor tile, arbortoa-pipc, and any other product 53 that is Told directly to fee consumer market. In addition, 13 there is no doubt that our competitors will attempt to take 20 advantage of the situation by encouraging the public to avoid 21 asbestos-containing products because of the potential health 22 hazards implied in the warning label, even chough to the 23 customer no such hazard exists. ?4 I would question whether such a label is, in fact, 25 necessary or called for in the majority of asbestos-containing 17 187 1 products. Everyone in the industry end in the medical and 2 scientific profession who hag dealt with the asbestos health 3 problem over the years is familiar with the concept of locked- 4 in and non-locked-in products. A locked-in product is one in 5 which the asbestos is bound into the product with cement, ,r 3 asphalt, plastic or some other binder which prevents the 7 escape of free fiber in use. a Examples of locked in products would be asbestos 9 cement products and floor tile. Kon-locked-iti products would 10 be those in which the fiber is loosely bound and which release 11 fiber during handling or application. Most asbestos-containing i. 12 j insulations would fall into this category^ as would fire 13 i proofing sprays and insulating cements. 14 j 7. should mention that while there is. no labeling j 15 !t requirement unde:.* any federal statute for insulation products i 1? at the present ci-nc, X bdiove the majority of the companies 17 in the industry* voluntarily have a warning label on most 18 insulations which they consider potentially hazardous in use. 19 The came applies to a lot of bag acbc3tos cement products and 20 fiber shipments.. This was a voluntary action on the part of 21 many of the companies in the industry. 22 The fact of the matter is that the.gardenh. of 23 content of fiber in a product has absolutely nothing to do with 24 its ability to create a health problem. An insulation con 25 taining 7% asbestos fiber requires very careful handling,  lfl 2 3 5 ; *7 8 .9 JO > ;i `2 54 -.0 ;8 17 18 10 20 21 2Z ?A 188 I while an asbestos cement shoot with 13% asbestos requires . #1 essentially none. For this reason, it is only logical that the Advisory Committee recommended labeling system be discarded * .. \ in favor of a system whica only requires labeling, on those products which readily release asbestos fiber in a hazardous quantity during handling or application. With regard to the monitoring requirements of the proposed regulations, I would only like to point out that , there are probably no moire than three dozen trained Industrial hygienists in the entire count;.y available to industry to sample and analyse asbestos dust concentrations, QSKft should appreciate thisproblem .because-of its own difficulties in finding qualified industrial hygienists. Ken can be trained to do this job, but it is' going to. take much more tir.*'* than 1 is permitted under the law. T. might also point out that tho dust monitoring ' system as required in the regulations will cost the manu- fsecuring industry alone between $3 and $5 million per year. not an ezhorbitant sum when viewed by itself, but one that adds to an already heavy financial burden on the industry. As my final point, I would like to discuss for a minute the medical aspects of the Advisory Committee rccom- . meudations. She recoctir.endations state that the medical t. surveillance prog;:am shall be carried out by physicians 189 1 selected by the employee!; and that Che medical records will 2 be available only to HEW1 and DOL physicians and 'bedical 3 consultants and physicians designated and authorised by the 4 employee" 5 You will note this employer is by omission pro G hibited from seeing an employee's medical record, even though 7 Che employer is responsible under the law for the medical 8 condition of his employees. S Under Section (c)(7) of Che Advisory Committee 3:1 recommendations, an employer is required to make sure that ti no employee ''should be assigned to Casks requiring. use of 12 respirators if his most recent medical .examination indicates" IS and then the section goes on to the certain medical criteria. 14 How can an employer obey the section of the 13 regulations if lie is prohibited'from seeing an employee's IS medical records by another section of the regulation? This 17 is completely illogical and is obviously reflective of the 18 haste with which the advisory committee was required to IS perform its duty. 20 In addition, how could an employer conduct a pre 21 ventive medicine program in his plant if he cannot perform 22 examinations, note changes in medical conditions, and counsel 23 employees? These programs are in existence in essentially ?4 all manufacturing companies in Che asbestos industry. And Z 25 might point out Chat not only are employees counseled on 190 t possible occupational health problems, but on the general rJ < 2 overall health condition as well. ' a We have heard the arguments from certain unions, 4 not necessarily here, but from others, that it should be solei: s up to the employee to decide whether or not he is willing to 6 work under the existing conditions, whatever they may be. 7 This simply does not make good sense, because it is still Che 0 responsibility of the employer to safeguard the health of i> his employees. Where the responsibility lies is where the trt implementation of the medical surveillance program should be n centered, and no place else. n It should also be pointed out that a system of the n type proposed in the recommendations would effectively present 14 future ctidemiological studies of the asbestos industry, 75 except on a very Limited or local scale. The medical records ia vital to such studies would be distributed among thousands of 17 doctors all across the country, and retrieval would be virtu 10 ally impossible. VJ In conclusion, X would like Co summarise very briefly 20 the various points X have attempted to bring out in my pre 21 sentation. 22 One. The nodical evidence for establishing a 23 meaningful time-weighted average is unavailable at this time. ?4 Two. Host experts agree that the brief, massive 29 doees of asbestos fiber are probably more important in the 191 1 causation of the disease than continuing. Ions'-tern, low or 2 moderate exposure. This is not to preclude that low exposure 21 over an enormous period, of time are not to be considered at 4 all, but that the one is more important than the other. 5 Three. If OSHA promulgates a time-freighted average 6 lower than five, the economic impact on the industry will be 7 enormous. In addition, many asbestos-containing products will 8 probably disappear from the marketplace and thousands of jobs D will be eliminated. 1t Four, A labeling requirement of the type recomraendec S1 by the OSHA Advisory Committee will result in the unnecessary 32 loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in sales each year. S3 Entire segments of the industry will be destroyed, with 3 4 resultant large-scale unemployment. `>5 Five. Tho dust monitoring program recommended by <3 OSBn is-impractical at this time because of the lack of : < trained personnel, )3 Jiir. The.medical surveillance recommendation of 23 the Advisory Corcvitfcee is illogical and unworkable. 20 There are, of course, other sections of the proposed 25 regulations that will create difficulties in addition to those 22 that I have discussed and these will be mentioned by separate 23 testifiers. However, I believe that the points that I have 24 covered are the most important, at least to the manufacturing 25 side of the industry. 192 OSHA has a tremendous responsibility In the *** '. ' * establishing of occupational health standards on asbestos. .< . f , . , Not oaly must the workers be protected, but the continued availability of asbestos-containing products to our society must be assured. To promulgate unnecessarily stricter impractical standards that would destroy entire segments of the asbestos industry would be a serious mistake. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Do you wish to introduce your document? HR. SWETONIC: I have two of them. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Document entitled, ''Change In Time Period of Insulation Materials," will be marked Exhibit 40 and is received in evidence. (The document above referred to was marked Exhibit No. 40 for identi fication and received in evidence.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: May these gentlemen be excused? Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MARSH: Gentlemen, my name is John H. Marsh. I am Director of Planning for Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. Prior to my remarks which will be directed toward the economic impact of the proposed regulations,'! should like to have Mr. Isaac K. Weaver speak on the technical feasibility of reaching the proposed standard and comment on certain other aspects of the proposed regulations. mmrI>.;123 . ' . i *, EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Weaver.. 193 .. 2 MR. WEAVER: My name is Isaac H. Weaver. I am Corporate Director of Environmental Control for Raybestos- 4 Manhattan, Incorporated. I have been engaged in this capacity 5 for the past two years, prior to which I was employed in 1 6 various engineering and technical management capacities for 7, approximately 25 years, all but two of which were in Che 8 employ of Raybe3 tos-Manhattan. s Prior to my initial employment with Raybestos10 Manhattan in 3.946, the occupational hazard of asbestos dust ? t exposure had been recognised and extensive engineering con- trols bad been implemented to reduce worker exposure and to 13 cope with the problem to the extent Chat was feasible with K then existing technology. Scientists at Raybestos-Manhattan ' 15 adopted a progressive, positive attitude toward optimum 16 degree of control with Che goal of achieving maximum feasible 17 reduction of airborne dust concentrations. 18 Much original engineering design and dust control IS development was accomplished at our Manheim, Pennsylvania, and 20 Charleston, South Carolina, asbestos textile .plants during the 21 late '30*8 and early ?40's. Some of this was in conjunction with various Government agencies, as well as the foremost 23 industrial hygiene consultants of the time. While much has been done to reduce exposure of ` our employees to airborne asbestos fiber in our plants and in ' 194 the plants Of many other asbestos product manufacturers, much remains to be done to further Improve the situation. However, our experiences in our investigation of the experiences of others who have been wrestling with the problems of achieving ever more airborne fiber concentration levels in asbestos processing operations during the past several years has led to grave doubt in my mind regarding the feasibility of con sistently attaining levels of less than 5 or 6 fibers per cubic centimeter in many critical operations. To place this problem in proper perspective requires that one accept the precept that an engineering control approach to environmental improvement in the workplace normally is undertaken with the goal of aero exposure or aero dust emissions. We neves: have designed an engineering control system with the idea of achieving a 5 million particle per cubic foot level, a 2 million particle per cubic foot level, or a 5-fiber per cubic centimeter level. Our goal always has been to achieve zero exposure and that always will remain the goal. During recent proceedings concerning the setting of standards for occupational exposure to asbestos fiber, I was very much disturbed by apparent misinterpretations of British asbestos control standards and enforcement practices and by what appears to bo disregard or lack of knowledge regarding technical feasibility for attaining such standards. 195 British medical, governmental and industrial authorities have established an admirable goal of maintaining all asbestos operations below an airbrme concentration of two fibers per cubic centimeter. However, it is my impression and belief, as confirmed by Dr. Holmes'this morning, that they have many critical operations where this level is not being maintained, in spite of expensive and sophisticated environmental controls and strict work practices that they have maintained and improved upon as rapidly as advances in technical feasibility have permitted. X recommend that the American asbestos industry take full advantage of available British technology wherever possible to improve our occupational environmental control of asbestos hazards, but I think it is equally Important to give full consideration to British experience and knowledge concerning what they have found to be feasible regarding standards and their enforcement. We do not believe it is technically feasible to achieve a level of two fibers per cubic centime ter in all of our operations, either now or within the foreseeable future. With respect to the measurement of airborne asbestos fiber concentrations, I seriously question the reliability of the membrane filter method, particularly at levels below 5 fibers per cc. At the present time, tliere are very few technicians . 196 in this country who are trained or who have the experience and ability to perform the tedious and time-consuming microscopic analysis that is an inherent requirement of the membrane filter method. Furthermore, Raybestos-Manhattan's experience with this procedure, even when using trained and experienced microcopists, have not bolstered our confidence in the potential reliability of Che basic method. While we and others often have deplored the . j many shortcomings of the membrane filter monitoring method, we always seem to come back to the conclusion that, while it is a poor tool for anyone to work with, still it is the best we have at the present time. In any event, I remain extremely dubious regarding the feasibility of effective monitoring by industry or by Government enforcement personnel by means of the membrane filter method at its present stage of development Regarding the question of the medical and health aspects of the problem, we have reviewed hundreds of medical, scientific end industrial hygiene studios relating to asbestos health hazards and their control, and have reached the firm conclusion that no conclusive evidence exists on which to establish need for a threshold limit value lower than 5 fibers per cc greater than 5 microns in length on a time-weighted average basis. This appears to be especially the case in regard to chrysotile asbestos, which accounts for the great majority of both industrial and environmental exposures. ' 1 The difficulty or impossibility of maintaining 2 reliable controls at levels lower than 5 fibers per cubic 3 centimeter) coupled with the lech of Scientific fact to 4 Justify the need for a lower standard, leaves me to recommend S the adoption of the presently proposed permanent standard of 6 .5 fibers per cubic * centimeter, as determ* ined by the membrane . 7 filter method or by whatever improved monitoring method may 8 be forthcoming. X believe this recommendation coincides with that 10 of the American Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 11 and a number of eminently qualified medical and scientific .2 authorities who have devoted a great amount of effort to study 13 and evaluation of this subject. K I appreciate this opportunity to testify regarding 13 the proposed asbestos standards, and I endorse enthusiastically 16 the concept of uniformly applied and enforced occupational 17 safety and health standards based on sound factual data 18 obtained through all available sources of pertinent input. IS Unfortunately, 7. am convinced that the timeframe within which 20 the presently proposed standards, criteria, and recommendation:; 21 were prepared was grossly inadequate to permit full and proper 22 analysis and consideration of all available data by the parties 23 who participated in the declsion-malcing, ?4 X feel sure that if more time had been allowed for 25 study and review of available medical and scientific information - - . . ______ - -__. _ ________________ - . ' . ' . 1 198 ' "3 I by NIOSH and the Department of Labor standard-setting personaeL 1 ' *' , ' * <* .. 2 and for more extensive deliberation by the Advisory Committee S on Asbestos Dust, far more extensive and appropriate criteria 4 and recommendations Mould now be available as a basis for S setting a safe, fair and enforceable standard* 3 That is the end of my remarks, 7 MR. MARSH: Raybe s tos -Manhat tan employs 6500 8 people* Approximately 80% of these are engaged in the manu 9 facture and distribution of asbestos-containing products, 10 including friction materials, asbestos textiles, packings J1 and asbestos reinforced plastic. 12 I wish first to comment on the emergency standard 53 of 5 fibers per cubic centimeter established on December 7, 1* 1971, and the proposed standard for exposure to asbestos 15 dust published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1972. 10 As Mr. heaver has indicated, we believe it is technically 17 feasible to achieve the 5-fiber level in most of our operation;. 10 It cannot, however, be accomplished immediately. Up to two Id years time and the expenditure of millions of dollars will 20 be required. 21 Since the imposition of the emergency standards on 22 December 7, we have been studying all operations to determine 23 where immediate compliance is possible and where engineering ?A studios, additional dust control equipment, or changes in 25 manufacturing procedures are necessary to achieve the standard , It is now clear that in order to comply with the 5-fiber standard certain products must be discontinued, as it will not be economically feasible to produce them, t least in this country. In addition to the discontinuance of certain products and consequent loss of jobs, the standard of 5 fibers per cc will result in higher manufacturing costs. Many products produced by Raybestos-Manhattan and the industry will be increasingly vulnerable to foreign competition. Our company has already been forced to lay off textile workers and we are concerned about the prospects of additional lay off's and loss of business due to lower priced foreign imports According to figures from the United States Depart ment of Commerce, imports of asbestos textiles, of the type manufactured by Raybesto"-Manhattan, more than doubled between 1969 and 1971, and imports of other asbestos products, of the type manufactured by Raybestos-Manhattan, increased nearly 50%. Higher costs for United States manufacturers will surely accelerate this trend and encourage the flight of American capital and the loss of American jobs. On the subject of labeling, wa believe a cautionary label is appropriate in some instances, but feel that a blanket rcquircs.ent that all finished products containing 5 or more percent by weight of asbestos be labeled as proposed in the Advisory Committee report is not warranted. To our 200 ' 2 8 ,4 5 u * -7 B 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 10 10 20 21 L 23 knowledge, no evidence has been presented to indicate that any harmful effect has resulted from tha normal use of thousands of essential asbestos-containing products. The National Academy of Sciences-3 in its report on the biological effect of atmospheric polutants, states: "Asbestos has become almost Indispensable in modern technology it Nowhere is this fact more ovident than in the area of safety. Safety products manufactured some materials produced by Raybe stos-Manhattan range from the common theater fire curtain to sophisticated heat barriers surrounding the engines of the Satum boosters. The hoods, coats. trousers, aprons and mits that protect steel workers from the heat and splash of molten metal are made of asbestos cloth. Firefighting and rescue teams are protected against incineration by specially constructed garments of asbestos cloth. Woven asbestos cloth and tape around hot piping aboard ships, or in industrial plants, protect operating personnel from harm. Similar asbestos tapes guard electrical cables to prevent accidents. The-safe operation and control of the nation*s Industrial machinery, construction equipment, agricultural implements, and mining apparatus as well as the millions of cars, trucks and buses on our highways are dependent on the asbestos composites that are used in the braking and power transmission systems with which all of these present day 201 necessities axe equipped. Packings of asbestos composites are used to seal the countless dials that control all water, gas, and steam lines in industrial manufacturing processes. Gasketing of asbestos effectively seals internal combustion engines and exhaust systems. These are just a few of the many uses to which asbestos is put to protect life and property. We believe the labeling provisions for finished products contained in the Advisory Committee rs recommendations are unnecessary because of the absence of any health hazard associated with their normal use. Furthermore, such labeling is likely to encourage the use of substitute materials which tnay not have the superior performance characteristics of asbestos products and may be less safe. To quote again from the statement 03; the Rational Academy of Sciences: "Asbestos is too important in our technology and economy for its .essential use to be stopped." Finally, ::e -wish to comae* .t on Che recommendation of Che ... \isory Consaitixe on Asbestos Dust that a level of two fibers p>: ' cubic centimeter be.imposed in two years. As Mr. Weaver has indicated, we do not possess Cue technical knowledge tc achieve this level many critical operations; therefore, it is useless to operalatc on the economic con sequences of the establishment of such a standard. ) 1 Wo understand the dilemma in which OSHA is placed 2 by the imposition, by law, of an arbitrary and altogether 3 too short time span in which to develop enforceable standards 4 which will protect the employee and his job. We sincerely 5 urge that some way be found to provide adequate time to fully 6 consider the technical feasibility of the proposed regulations 7 and the opinions of expert and experienced medical and 3 scientific authoritiesf who arc not convinced that such 9 regulations are justified on the basis of the available in avidea.ee. ii It would indeed be a tragedy if restrictions were r . 12 placed on Che industry which are not needed to protect the 13 health of the wojrker or the user of the products, but which U would result in the loss of jobs and the elimination of 15 many thousands of asbestos-confcaining products Chat protect 1' and save liven. Thank you. ! 17 HXAJlusER GOLDBERG: May the gentleman be excused? 10 113.. LHOITABQ: My name is Joseph Leonard, Safety 19 Director of the International Longshoremen's Association 20 and various other subcommittees of occupational safety and 21 health, a member of the New York Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, subc&alrman on occupational safety. I am a member of the Rational Safety Conference on Labor Occupational Safety. I am a member of the impartial committee of labor and occupa tional safety i?hich takes lr. over .10 million men. On our mr/Btm 203 I On our committed, we have one doctor, three t . 2 industrial hygienists and six safety directors. 3 Gentlemen, my job is transportation.' We work on 4 the waterfront. We are the innocent bystanders. We have 5 handled this stuff for years. It is a dust-- bad break in 6 the hold of the ship, break in the docks, break in the ware 7 house, We have no protection, We are not concerned with S that. We have nade an inspection of our new .. operations -- 3 where this stuff is blowing up on the ceilings. Our people 10 work all day. they don't have the false ceiling, just leave 11 if; there, ut in blocks of maybe 12, 24 by 32. This asbestos ZZ is layi'.Tg-uo there. In our in&: -uctions, which runs about S3 100 foot, t:c inrpcct the contax ..era that leave the area. 34 Asbestos is blcrii-V up there. Yesterday, ' picked up a couple W of handfuls. The men claim, it is coming down. TO We arc in a different profession than other people, 37 i/c too have me*11 ?:s in the asbestos union on the waterfront 70 who do repair for many years. The burlap bags, jU3t as S3 I said before, cm the waterfront, when we have caster beams 20 an occupational disease would put everybody out of business 23 in this country. They resell them bags on coffee,'.and when 22 the coffee warehouse people got sick, they couldn't find out 23 because they cold the bags. They said they too would be out 24 of business. But re handled it our way, when we couldn't get 25 no help, wc weak to the department for 5-ply bags and 204 I couldn't got it. The Coast Guard gave it to us. They put 2 on all kinds of restrictions - shower baths, all kinds of 3 new. equipment for safety. They couldn't afford it. So we 4 did the next best thing. We stopped it from coming into the 5 country. 'J Maybe we villi have to stop the asbestos from, coming 7 into this country, if this is the sight of the union people. 8 X, too, was an asbestos worker many years ago. So 3 was my cousin who died, so was my other young cousin now who 10 is disabled, one of my nephews who was an asbestos member. IJ My family was in the asbestos union for 60 years. I've.seen <2 fchcce people. They fold us years ago it was emphysema or 13 something elec, it wasn't cancer, Wo notice novi by traveling 14 through the country ~~ they didn't tell you here what the :s cost of a man's life is. They tell you what it cost to ;6 improve conditions at this stage of the game, when we can put '7 a man up in the sky and do everything else in this country and 18 wc can't improve the asbestos after all those years. I, too', 59 was an apprentice in the asbestos union many years ago. And 20 for the people here, X will toll them where I worked. I 2! worked in Grand Central between the ceiling with my cousin, 22 who was an expert with Armstrong. I worked on the asbestos 23 on the trains. X worked on the movie house in Brooklyn on 24 the side where we had pitch. X had to carry the pitch up 2o two flights of stairs to the man who wa3 putting the caulking 205 1 on the outside of these here containers. Weworked in the 2 shell of the ceiling, dusty and filthy. . 3 I worked at Mount Sinai Hospital as an apprentice, 4 but 1 am glad to say many years later we never thought this 5' would be the place that would help our people. * '*.* 6 We went back here a year ago with Dr. Solokoff and ' 7 we learned plenty. Ho'saw pictures of lungs. This was never > a cost item, only to the poor worker. My last Job was in 9 a powerhouse on the East River, where I had to go down to 10 the truck and carry up the old bags years ago. Looked like Santa Claus or Snow White, and carry up the pipes, carry up 12 the pieces of board that we put around the high tension shahm. 13 The mechanics can get off those. If wc had to saw a piece, h 14 wc sawed it. Y.c had to mis the cement and carry it by 15 buckets. When X went to my doctor, he told me to quit the 16 j job because my nose was blowing up every night, I couldn't 17 | hardly speak sometimes. I went back on longshoreman work on U' the docks where 1 belong. r IS Uc knew about asbestos. My family was in asbestos. zc I have been coming down here for 20 years to all z\ i thcce hearings, representing the unions and my own union. We Z1 hear all the stuff about threshold limits. We got it for 10 23 years. What happened? We have still got it. & Wc are in a different world now. Wc are supposed to 25 bo an automated world, better living for our people, everybody, 206 1 When Rachel Carson Btarted this, they killed the 2 poor noman because she came to Washington and talked about 3 theenvironment. Like anybody else that comes down here and 4 fights for the right of the working man, they never tell you 5 the cost of the poor man whose kids have to go to college and 6 At the age of AO he is knocked out by industrial or occupation 7 disease. They don't tell you that, the cost of the man's U wife running to see him in the hospital, watching him die. 9 These are the things we have. X it is so dangerous as 10 everybody claims, when they see Silent Spring --- when we were M on the advisory committee in our State Department of Labor, 12 Bureau of Labor Standards, United States Public Health Service 13 put a book out and they said -- 7. will have it here in a v\ second -- they put this out (indicating). They talked about 15 asbestos in there. They talk about everything else. 10 In Montreal they made a study in the docks, an . 17 ! 'iuveotigation in 1962 and they ciaita then the longshoremen i 10 | in asbestos, cotton, metal and many othe?; chemicals, that 15 these people handle -- this is nothing new in occupational 20 diseases. 21 In the year 1713 a great scientist decided the 22 effects of dust: did serious damage to a lung, which caused 23 shortness of breath. Mothing was done until 1930. All the 24 great science we have got in this country, and all the great 25 things we can do, we can build those buildings with no air 207 1 in them, close windows -- ue can leave asbestos up in the 2 ceiling without building rooms; we can do all these things, 3 but we can't get asbestos so that people won't die. 4 1 say forget all this. Let them make the asbestos 5 safe for the men to work in. That is the easiest way. Zf 6 everybody is claiming this all over the world about asbestos, 7 there must be something wrong. Either we in the union are S wrong or the management, but the co3t -- I have heard that for 9 20 years. I heard about people put out of business. In my 70 own union we went automated. Tell me they can't stay in S3 business. Still we have an annual wage for the men. The men 32 don't have to work, the men retire sick, retire at the age 93 of 40 with $312. He have records. Why is all this stuff that 34 men are being put out: of business or some other company is 35 going to get the work? This is a lot of baloney. Subway 'j S workers, talking about the brakes and ;the steel dust -- there j 7 is no problem about that. There is in here pictures of the -n asbestos workers in a factory (indicating). You couldn't even '*3 coo the sky. This was put out by the Department of Labor ?.0 about 4 years ago. Gentlemen, T. say if two is too low, then 21 accept none. Industrial hygienists are the Acerlean threshold 22 limit people -- nobody has ever made a study. It is allv 23 right to sit 5.n your office in your high chair and discuss 24 these problems, but who has ever made a study where the 29 working man is? Nobody. Or the companies neither. They come I hero and say this, they wilt sit in the high ivory office and 2 tell us what is wrong, what the unions are doing wrong, I 3 visit buildings all over this country. My job takes me all 4 around the country. I am very friendly with the construction 5 unions. X visited a building the other day, three stories, subcellar. Went clown to sec the other fellows X know in the 7 pipes. Dust this high (indicating) up and down the steps. 0 Talking about tak?.ng a reading on asbestos! We are not talking 9 about the other minerals that are there. 10 Gentlemen, X hope that you people go back and ft recommend if this is so dangerous then we don't need it. 12 Let them got something to do it. They can do it with all the 13 technical people we have In this country. Zt is a shame that U a man's life han to be shortened just for a profit. That is : all it in. Our Government is just ac wrong as the unions TO for not roving on this long before. Young men like TV' rr. Sholokoff that got this business moving. He is a good 53 man. I am asking you now, we are going to stand up and prove n it. If the company and the industry says this is so, then 20 let them go down to the work site, with an advisory committee, 21 not only here. There is a lot of industry mired in here. 22 There is transportation. Thin fellow was talking about f- 23 clothing. There is a fellow who is a contractor. They are 24 all mixed into this thing. One i3 pulling for the other one. 25 He doesn't care-about the little poor guy working -for him. 209 Gentlemen, In closing, X want to thank you for giving me this few minutes, EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Leonard. May Mr. Leonard be excused? Is Mr. Luxom here? We have not exhausted the list of witnesses scheduled for this afternoon. X believe, Mr. Rainey, you wanted to go on this afternoon. MR. RAINEY: Yes, sir. EXAMINER GOLDBERG; Why don't you step up here. MR; RAINEY: My name is John L. Rainey and I am President of American Asbestos Textile Corporation. j! The proposed limit of two fibers cc, time-weighted ii I average . is impossible to meet -in moot of our operations with ih existing.technology under any circumstances. It can be i| achieved in only a few isolated cases such as wet weaving or in small units that can be almost completely enclosed and fitted with local exhaust ventilation. The cost of attempting to reach such a low limit would be astronomical and entirely unrealistic. The textile industry is a low profit business and competition from foreign sources make it impossible to increase prices* The added expense would definitely force us out of business and would entail the loss of hundreds of jobs. V!e have seen no definite proof or data to substantiate i 210 I a TLV o too* If a ILV of too becomes lew, and too years 2 from now after considerable research it is found that a safe 3 limit would have bean 12, it is too late. The plants have 4 been closed and the workers are without employment, and once 8 again we have helped our foreign competition. 6 To meet the 5 fibers cc TWA limit in all operations 7 in our three plants will require the expenditure of an 8 estimated $800,000 over a period of about three years. We 9 believe we can achieve this goal. in In the manufacture of textiles, it is more dif M ficult to control airborne asbestos dust than in the manu 12 facture of many other products and therefore should be 12 treated separately. Some of the reasons are as follows: 74 There are many separate operations involved between ID the asbestos fiber and the numerous end products. 16 The stocks, lax, roving, yam, waste, etcetera, 17 must be transported manually from one machine to the next. 16 Host machines arc very complicated and costly. Some 13 could be improved by redesign, but only at a prohibitive 20 expense. In this respect, there is a great difference between 21 a modem plant and a very old one. 22 Many machines have been partially enclosed and 23 provided with effective exhaust systems, but very few can bo 24 totally enclosed because the operator must have ready access 25 to the roving, yrrn, etcetera to mend brakes. For an efficient 41 211 1 2 3 4 9 's 7 a 9 *o 82 53 54 *5 ! 16 17 !0 V-i 20 ; iI 21 | 22 23 24 25 operation, access must be had quickly and frequently* important progress in improving enclosures is being made on a continuing schedule. Most steps in the manufacturing must be essentially dry but moisture, lubricants, antistatic agents and other additives are being used increasingly as far as is possible. Me arc doing everything within, reason and at great expense in both dollars and losses in production to reduce emissions. Important progress has been end is being made, but we need time to experiment and develop new ideas. The technology to SOJLVO Olw.` problems completely and quickly docs not exist at this time. Constant effort and improvement should be acceptable, la the meantime, we are providing our employees with adequate protective devices. Regarding respiratory protective devices when fiber concentrations exceed the limit, it should be sufficient to furnish respirators without a variance. To obtain a variance would be costly and time consuming. Wc feel that standards should be set for industry, but they should be technically feasible, economical!^ feasible and realistic. Thank you for giving me this opportunity:to make this statement. j2X4l-2IIU!?v GOLDBERG: Kay Mr. RaS.ncy be excused? Thank you, Mr. P.a5.ney. 7. believe there was someone else who approached me > >: r'. "TfW1 ' ' "/S 212 1 with a request to appear today. 2 MR, SCHINNER: Mr* Storey and I -- 3 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Would you gentlemonboth step 4 up? 5 MR. SCHXNNER: Mr. Examiner, ladies and gentlemen: . , , i' <; I am Albert 0. Schinner of Portland, Oregon, and am an 7 employer trustee ox the asbestos workers Western States 8 occupational health plan. This occupational health plan is 9 operated for the benefit-of our construction employees in 10 the Western United States, and specifically includes all of n the 12 mo3t western of the Continental States. Our plan was funded in 1S67, and on Juno 8, 1967, the trustees resolved 13 to begin working with Doctors Cooper and Irving Tabershaw of 14 the School of Public Health at the Uhifcersity of California 15 for the purpose of minimizing asbestos and other related 1G problems in our construction industry. Our contractual consultant service- new operates under Che name of Tabershnu- iC Cooper Associates and is well recognised in the occupational I health field. I give this history so you will know we ?.o represent 5 years of demonstrated concern about occupational 21 health and are not novices on the subject of asbestos. 22 At this time, v?ant to point out that the common 23 title of asbestos worker is a misnomer when applied to the 24 construction industry insulator and has been so for some years ?.o Materials that arc involved in much of the applied work today ' .* 213 doesn't contain asbestos. Therefore, we generally don't have the situation where the worker is continuously exposed to asbestos-bearing products week after week or year after year. In a 1968 paper prepared for the Second Internationa Conference on the Biological Effects of Asbestos at Dresden, Germany, Doctor Clark Cooper and Leroy Balser made a then current estimate on their observation of the insulators' time spent on work involving the use of asbestos-bearing material and placed it at 45%. That study is four years old* Noawe use asbestos-free cement, and tills may be contradictory to what some others have said, but that is the case, w'c use an asbestos-free .spray material, just to name two subsequent material changes. With respect to the proposed standard 1910.93 for-: exposure to asbestos dust, I have great concern for the practical implementation of this standard in our construction industry. In construction, an employer often has a few people here and a few people there, and you can multiply this for the number of jobs he is currently doing generally over a large geographical territory. To monitor each of these jobs where some asbestos-bearing product is specified for installation at the proper time, is likely an impossible task for any of our contractors. I want to go a step further to say that it is. 214 1 unrealistic to expect that individual construction employers 2 have the monitoring expertise required and further many don't 3 even have the resources to acquire it. 4 Tabershaw-Cooper Associates has surveyed in the 8 field a number of jobs in the western States jurisdiction 6 and have monitored for asbestos dust the various activities 7 that the employee performs when he handles asbestos-bearing 8 products. X?rom this, they have been able to make some con 8 clusions on what could be a hazardous activity and what is 10 not a hazardous activity in the course of a day's work. From n theco studies there have been promulgated some guidelines n for good work practices in the insulation contracting industry. ti It is my euggestion that study be given to fchse, iA inducting construction industry inputs to arrive at con 13 struction industry controls for asbestos dust, rather than J'J the proposed five-fiber fi-hpur time-weighted average. I offer 17 my observation that the asbestos dust problem today 13 not 18 what it was 30 or 25 years ago, and in construction the cases U that we have seen arc those that occurred at that time. Given 20 a proper amount of time for implementation, X am sure the 2! industry can do oven better. 22 Now X want to make some comments upon a couple of 23 items in the proposed standard. Under paragraph D, particular ?4 operations and products, there is a subparagraph 6 that states 25 asbostos dust shall be removed only by vacuum cleaning. I j-.-y 215 I think this wording is unnecessarily restrictive and un 2 imaginative because there can be .improvements in methods. 3 Net cleaning methods should he authorised, plus an allowance 4 for other efficient techniques that may be developed in the S future* 6 We have talked about paragraph E, warning Blgns. 7 Z construe this section as applying at the time respirator a usg is mandatory. When operations are not of a hazardous nature, in my mind Paragraph would not be applicable, and tfv there again,' X am cure it is a matter of interpretation. 13 In Paragraph G, medical examinations, and fl2 paragraph n on recordg causes uo concern. I should like to S3 advise that for employers in the western States there is, by 14 agreement between the Western Insulation Contractors 15 Association and the Hestem States Conference of Asbestos 18 Workers, a provision for funding medical examinations for 17 lung disease survoilance in each local area in accordance 18 with specifications set forth by the trustees of the Western 13 States Occupational Health Plan. This program has baens2t 20 up at local clinics by Tabershaw-Cooper Associates and they 21 arc prepared to continue this program and set the appropriate 2 standards of the examination and the frequency that will 23 provide for the vTorkcrs* health. 24 I believe the above arrangement does meet the 25 objectives of-this part of the standard. If not, I think it '. 216 is necesrary to revise the wording for the construction industry so that it will. Just one example. NiOSH recom mends that preplacement and termination medical examination be required for every term of employment of asbestos-exposed workers. In construction, as the workload shifts from one employer to another in an area or from one area to another, lb Is not uncommon for a worker in the labor pool to. haye a half dozen terms of employment in a single year. It isn't likely, but if each were asbestos-exposed. Chat would amount to 12 examinations for one individual. Ky last cogent is in respect Co Standard 1910.12, construction work, which is not presently proposed to be i' amended. My request is, however, .that if the proposed standard ,or if the NIOSH review committee and/or the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust recommendations are adopted, that Section 1910.12 be revoked vor construction | appropriate standards bo separately set forth construction '\ Industry in Fart 1518. A similar request would be made for separate standards for work to be done on ships, and other speakers have made reference already to the special problems. IMIHIER GOLDBERG: Thank you, s:lr. tfr. Story. HR. STORY: I am Eddie Story and represent the employee side of the trust of the Western States Conference of Occupational Health Plan. I am also the first vice president of the Western. States Conference of Asbestos Workers and a business representative to the Asbestos Workers Local 16, San Francisco, and Z have worked with Doctors Cooper and Tabershaw in the construction -- when they started the program of investigation of asbestos dust in the industry of the asbestos wozrkers.. Over the period of time Chat 1 have worked,and as has been brought out in these meetings the need of control -- I think we will ail readily agree that there is some need of control, and being involved with the worker and understanding some of the problems of asbostosls and causes, Che effect, and the ultimate death of asbostosis and cancer, 1 had .. :erous cases in my own personal file, of people closely related to me, so X know there is a problem here* I realize the need of controls and I think v?c should put emphasis in this direction. Of course, working around construction sites, some of the plan that is implemented, 30 far as control^ on asbestos dust, would not be feasible on construction sites. X think that the controls would have to be brought about by work practices in a manual or worksheet checklist, what have you, and also ah educational system set up for the workers involved. . X find that more workers are more conscious of the need to protect their lives than we might realize or has been brought out In these hearings. But the problem is that the f worker is not necessarily sure in which direction he should 2 go ns far as protection is concerned, and I bring out n prime 9 example of some .%> the problems of getting a correct, proper 4 type mask to bo used while working around asbC3to3 dust, or S other harmful dust. G We have just recently come out with a proposed mask 7 that wc could recommend, and I would like to say that our 4 employers on the Western States Conference level have been 9 making every effort to get a mask that they can put on the to worker to control some of those'hazardous effects. So I feel ) T that this is just one thing that we should really concentrate Vi on as far as setting up a practice of control,of educating T3 the individual of what he must do to protect himself against * . ' U certain particular cases. Of course, again, r bring out that ?L: some of the problems that are facing construction sites, you Vi canft necessarily properly examine a dust factor because it !7 changes from day in clay. It depends on the nature of the job, where the iiviividrnl ray to working. The 'dust factor could he r.uv:h greeter in or.e particular part of a job-site, and I 'J point out a prime example, a powerhouse iu a closod-in area -- you will find that the dust factor will be much greater. Yet t?. in an open space, it will be rcaltively unnoticcablc. Yet, 23 again, it could be at come time if there is a gust of wind, i. ?A a man could breath a great deal of asbestos dust into his 25 lungs. 49 1 219 l> I do feel as being practiced end brought out by 2 Mfc. A1 Sebirmer here, that the occupational health on the 3 Western Staton level, does have and has implemented a multi* 4 phas5.c health examination for our people. Being one of the 5 firGt areas that implemented this program and, of course, 2 6 have told this in some detail, as to the people who have 7 taken part in the multiphasic examinations, I have found that 5 it has not only benefited our people but it has certainly 3 educated them into some of the problems that they face. And 50 I found that the people are ready to take part in these 51 examinations and follow through with their health program. \2 T. do see that there is some concern here as far as medical ss ij records. I do feel that the medical records should be kept n | confidential.. 2 feel that these records should only be used in behalf of the individual and not something Co be used openly that could perhaos be used against.Che individual, * ' ,:1i bo y. do feel that thcro in a great deal of need in the ? r* >|;f education nr.d control, as trell as physical examinations in ' r I !i .1 so this program, V.'havik you. to ... EXftIXi&Si GOLBI&'RG: Shank you, Mr, Story. 21 t n you? Hr. Sehinner, in -Dr. Kingsley supposed to appear wit! 23 HR. SCFuwMES: Ho, sir. 24 EXAM1Z3KR. GOLDBERG: May the3e gentlemen be excused? 25 Thank you, gentlemen. 50 ml |4bor ibQ8tOS Hearings 3-15 1 2 3 4 3 8 9 10 It Is there anyone else scheduled to appear Friday wlio would prefos to go now? He have no more volunteers. In that event, v;e will stand in recess until 9:00 a.ra., tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, the hearing in the above-entitled mattor was recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 o'clock, a.m,, on Thursday, llarch 16, 19720 13 14 *<" i!i<!i i* 10 IP 20 21 22 23 24 25 J UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LAEOR 221 WASHINGTON, D.C. -------------------- -z In the Matter of: STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST, PROPOSED RULE MAKING ; : PUBLIC HEARING : SDa x-3 tio3Sfl Conference Room B Interdepartmental Auditorium 12th & Constitution Ave., N*W. Washington, D.C. Thursday, March 16, 197? The afcove-entitled ter came on for further hearing, pursuant to recess, at 9:00 o'clock, s.m., Thursday, March 16, 197?. BEFORE: ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Hearing Examiner APFEARNCES: ( As heretofore noted.) '* V " BEST AVAILABLE COPY CONTENTS A,' \ 4% STATEMENT OF? PAGE > Mr. J..3. Jobe, . Executive Vice President, Johns-Kanavilie Corporation 222 Dr. Thomas H. Davidson, Corporate Medical Director, Johris-Kanville Corporation .294 Mr. 2, M, Fenner, Director of Environmental Control, Johns-Kanvllle Corporation - 301 Dr. Fred L. Pundaack, Vice President, . Johns-Kanvllle Corporation.4- . Dr, Kingsley Key, "" Ph. D, University of Toronto James VI. Sawlings, . Vice-President, . Mining and Metals Division... Union Carbide Corporation " 306 370 ; .* , ' 'I 376 Dr. Morbert Poberts., Not; York City, Eew York 382 B. P. Leaner, Vice President, Rational Aff.:irr-CirL"^irteed Products Corporation, Valley Forge, Fenn.jyl7ar.ia Joacoh 0. Hall, !' Vico Pr.onf dent, GAP Corporation's Buiidins and Industrial Products Group E. A. DiSalvo, Vice President, panacon Corporation No. iJ3 No. 44 .No. 45. No. ^1 No. 1*2 EXHIBIT 3 % 391 . 399 407 353 382 . 392 304 321 l parka 1 AV /V 4) PROCEliDINGS 222 uiba 1 2 EXAMINER GOLDBURC: Good morning. If everyone is reedy 3-15 3 we will' resume. ysOO a.m. * 4 On tne record. Taa order of appearances Z have fox ,j 5 tnis morning are Mr. Pundseck and the people who will be appears. |with him. Dr. Kingsley Kee and Mr. Rawlings. j 7 Mr. Pu..u8ach? I ' ? MR. PUM/SACIC: Mr. Examiner, our first testifier will 9 be Mr. Bert Jobe.... 10 STATEMENT OF MR. J. D. JOBE, EXECUTIVE VICE 'lam ui 3 U O yj mJ m o jh.^sa It PRESIDENT, JOBfilS-MAMVXLbfi CORPORATION 12 JT.. JOEL: My name is J. 3. Jobe and I an Executive ' IS" Vice President for Operations of the Johns-Kanvill?- Corporation. 14 Joans-Manvilie ia the largest r.iiass of asbestos fiber in tils 15 Tree World and the largest producer of asbestos-containing 16 products in the United States. 17 Accompanying mo here today are five rasa widely ex 13 perienced in the asbestos health field* They are Dr. George-W. 10 Wright, Director of Medical Research, Saint Luke's hospital, 20 Cleveland, Ohio; Dr. Fred i.. Pundsacli, Vice President for E-:.- 21 search and Dsvsicpivant for Johns-Nenvilla; r-r. L.:T. Fenner, 22 i iUvector, of lF;ivironrtutil .Cou&rclJ`.mn.f.,:cnvillet_'.lrr.UIZ!b. jMoreno/ -Vi-scr r.rciiidBRt;- Innurtrfr. >- Divisions nnrl~\n :err.nfcion^l j. * jiDivisions, Jehiic-fanvilie; cud Di'. T. !i. Davison, Corporate 23 Medical Director, Johns-!*nnsvilla. 4 1 223 1 As an introduction to their testimony, I would like 0 2 to very briefly outline for you the position of my company with S regard to tne proposed OSliA occupational health standards on 4 asbestos. . 9 5 The asbestos industry'in general, and Johns-tfanvilS 6 in particular, has recognized for many years that there are 7 occupational health hazards associated with the excessive in 0. halation of asbestos dust. As a result, tho industry, beginningj .......... 9 at the Saranac Laboratories in Saranac Lake, Mew York, in the 10 late 1920's, has sponsored and cooperated in a wide variety of . '- .v.r 11 scientific research projects .designed to identify these hazards I 12 and to eliminate them wherever they may exist, not only in ruhn5tr t 13- mines, mills and manufacturing plans, but also among fabr5.cn .1 s T K) i) ikS *jIk Q lil' a v-cu 9$9 14 and applicators of finished asbestos products. 1 13 . I can remember in the early 1940`s personally cny Ii 10 ]|on fabricators of asbactcs--containing products to advise then of; i7 |j acilcas which would reduce or eliminate asbestos dust. ~ jj 10 ! In recent years, tho anbostos industry, either as ii :o 1!l troaJ h<tSt A* 1i-!,jinvironmentol Health in Si Montreal, hen been or is ccntinuino to ~ ]i j Sm 1' *!"Pi?D::t ir.ii5.crl research at such highly regarded institution:------ - 23! .*-.* .f tr j V. J 21 j 25 Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital in Hew York, the Industrial 224 J Health Foundation in Pittsburgh, the University of California, 2 Fairleigh Dickinson University in Mow Jersey, the University 3 of.Pittsburgh, and the Medical College of South Carolina, and 4 a number of ethers, both here and abroad. 5 The asbestos industry has also cooperated extensively 6 in various investigations into asbestos-health conducted by 7 agencies of the Federal Government, including the C*.S4 Public 8 health Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. 9 The industry was, in fact, publicly praised -at the TO recent EPA hearings"on asbestos for it3 assistance, cooperation It and responsible attitude with regard to controlling asbestos 12 emissions. *' j13 In the industry's ot^n research laboratories, scientist! 14 and engineers a*re also engaged in work related to health, e'e- {II i15 veloping better handling technique's for loosely-bound asbestes ' ;o products and also developing end impro^inc techniques for the ! | 17 rransurer.vent and control of ccbcrcos emissions both in the work- } 13 piece and in the ambient air. 10 As a company and as an industry, w recognize the r.o necessity of pretexting workers from exposure fcc potentially 21 nnrardov.s amounts of asbestos cunt. In this respect, wc support { 22 thd'intent o..~^e~0acu^fcbifal Idjilifcy andLllealth Administration 23 in'sohking"to"i'stab 1 ish safe"O'ecupetior.a1~heelth standard:; for 24 asbestos. -" 25 However, of all the work described above, thero ic no 1 225 1 credible evidence demonstrating the necessity for a standard 2 lower than 5 fibers/cci. , Therefore, wo must disagree strongly 3 with the content and the extent of many of the proposed OSflA 4 regulations. ,4 5 Achieving a standard of 5 will coat millions of dollar:; 6 and cause a significant number-of American jobs to be shifted 7 to foreign workers to whom in many cases no standards will 8 apply. Requiring a mors stringent standard and requiring unnec essarily frightening lables can have catastrophic effects on 8 10. the vary people CSliA and the industry arc attempting to protect, 11 without really solving the human problem. Where there is no scientificstlly credible evidence 12 13 lemons trati::g the necessity of. such lew standards, it would _fcs _ socially irresponsible to adopt them. 7. will not go into specific 14 i points, as these will be covered in detail by subsequent speaker^. 15 During those hearings we should be concerned with two | 10 I distinct goals. Or. tho one hand, thara io an obvious and recog- | 17 aired uecossity to protect workers exposed to hazardous 10 amounts of ashestou do.su. On tho other hand, our modern society 19 requires the continued availability of ci wide variety of r.ubes'.-.o-j,20 containing products. 21 I Among obhur.-uues r asbestos provides.build in prctoctlo::; 22 igainst five and deterioration in scores of products in daily 23 isc. Kvcry day, it saves livo3 by preventing or checking the 2A jprecd of firoa. 25 -- -- --------- -------- 226 1 Asbestos-containing products'arc used in schools, ' \ 2 houses, theaters, office and other public buildings. The brakes T 3 on automobiles, trucks, buses and trains arc dependable and thus 4 save many lives every day because asbestos is a vital component i 5 of their brake linings. Kany other uses Of asbestos, vital to 4. # * 6 our way of.life, could also even be mentioned. | 7 . This does not mean that we should weigh the life of 0 industry employees against the lives .of the many millions of 9 Americans whose daily safety depends to some extent on one or 10 more uses of asbestos. The many benefits of asbestos cannot 11 provide a justification for injuring tho33*employed in the manu 12 facture of or application of asbestos products. XT Nevertheless, we do have a dual responsibility in 14 developing these standards. We must provide for fcha continued 15 use of asbestos-containing products, and we must do it wither 1*3 harming anyone. Both of these goals mupt beachieved bafcrc wo 17 can root contented with onr c-fforty. 10 To achieve one at the exclusion or e::psnso of the other *i 19 in to have failed. Therefore, great care must be taken to institr. 20 adaruftto controls but at the same time avoid unnecessarily 21 harsh cj; restrictive regulations, the cost or unfeasibility of 22 which might destroy our ability as a nation !:o continue using 23 asbestos. ` t' 24 For those reasons, it is vital Shat we approach this n; 20 problen with an open rather than with a closed mind. Crucial 827 6 f decisions must nob bo made on the basis of incomplete or 2 speculative evidence. Emotionalism or political pressure must 3 not be allowed to interfere in the.process of evaluation. The 4 guiding pliilosophy in developing these asbestos standards should I 5 be to adequately protect the worker and to ensure that the life 6 saving and othor vital uses of asbestos will not be abandoned. 7 Any other philosophy would be a mistake oi the highest order. 8 We recogniza that tho development of the asbestos 9 standard is more or less a test case for OSHA, and that the 10 general principles established here will in time affect all IT American industry. 12 OSHA is therefore in a'history-making position, r.r.d ir this responsibility should weigh heavily now in the decision^___ _ 14 making process. We are confident that 033A will r.pproach this i 15 problem with recognition of its responsibilities to both employ*!: 1o end employee, and to the nation, and with due consideration of 17 all the possible consequences of its action. 13 To destroy or seriously cripple the asbestos industry 19 in this country through hastily devalorjud or unnecessarily sevar-i: 20 regulations will benefit uoithor the employee, th industry.nor 2] the country as e whole, and could quir.e possibly have seriate 2?. uconcur, rocii.1 a.id other consequences both now end in the future. 23 - - Thank you, Mr. Examiner. That ends ny statement. 24 EXANaKEK COLbSUKG: Thank yon, Mr. Jobo. 25 228 Are there any; questions of Mr. Jobe? You .are excused. sir. MR. PUNDSACK: Or. George W. Wright will be our next testifier. STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE W. WRIGHT, K. 0., HEAD 0? THE DIVISION 0? MEDICAL RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE, ST. LUIE'S HOSPITAL, CLEVELAND, OHIO DR. WRIGHT: Kr.Goldburg, oy naae i3 George W. Wright. I am the Head of Medical Research in the Department of Medicine, of St. Luke's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio. In 1932 1 received the IsD degree from Indiana University School of Medicine. After five"years, of Post Graduate Training ' in Internal Medicine, with special tracing ir. pulmonary fiisea;-. ; j ! I spenttwo additional yearn in research training inthe j |; jment of PhysiologyatCase-Waotero P.aearva University. : i. | ) From 1939 to 1S53 2 was a sisrbor of the Saranac Lctcra- | .i jtories of the Trudeau Foundation engaged in studies of the pr-.;u-.-j Ircoccnicsis, including ssbastesis. Since 1353, I've continued IW i . f ;;this general field ofstudy i;i my currant position. ! V j I `I I* J I' My statement will be confined to consideration of : ! ! ! lsingle pr.lmry question. Tliie cuestioa is: What is the qur.r.si; |! I ilor concenVrr.ticn of arbortos, in ihts air breathed bythe;*: i !'engaged ii: the production/'nunvfftc-Sutc, *5?"taiyaf ~arbocto~ J * i!: t j!products, v:hich can ixi tolerated for a normally erpucteci or;: li^a Z<\ Ivithou!: risk that such exposure will cruse disease? H Z. U ' c c. cr ^ L; : 1 The answer to this question goa3 to the heart of 2 those hearings. V/hilo the question is rather easy to formulate 3 it is difficult though not impossible to answer. 4 The obligatory information required for developing an 5 answer, to the primary question on an acceptable scientific basis! 6 if of two categories. One of these essential categories concerns 7 the dose or quantity of asbestos inhaled end the bther essential i G category co:tcsms the biological response. Khat we need to learr. 9 is the dose-risk relationship* -. ' to The doss is estimated in terns of concentration of IS rssoirsblis asbestos in the air multiplied by the duration of the; I 12 e::poauTA. It ic obligatory that vs establish a dose, in measur- j 13 !t able terms, at which ths bio logical nanifsstaticr.j of di.oo.a.e-s---- jeccvrs md then, by observing peculations er.poced to progross14 I! * 15 arrsrly smaller .and smaller doses, determine the level at which 16 the biological i reaction to zsbsntos no .longer oncers. 17 | To make observations v;ith rcuard to the 'various !`t:0S3 lavals cf different working copulations without h;iov;lnic-3 *.> j; of th-a biclecical r'i-ponso of these popvlatior.r. is cf !: ; 20 j use in j aosv; urine the primary question. To rathe observations of t;i 1 r.i ! bin."og u:i response i:> vurions working populations without valid* i; . ! p9' j>*..ludr;e of -he diifw.ronfc levels of nobettoo .::?osurc e::pi::.ic:.. ?3 by-the: 2J zurwor 25 Standard-. for a safe level of asbestos exposure , 230' * 1 proposed or set in the absence of reliablo and valid.data in 2 both of these two categories must be considered ompiricnl and 3 to some degree arbitrary and should be recognized as such. 4 X wish to indicate come of the difficulties encountered 5 in efforts to obtain the information essential for determining ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT G what the safe level of asbestos in the occupational environment ; 7 truly is. 8 Asbestos is a generic tarm embracing four varieties 9 that are in common commercial use. Of these, chrysotilc is used 10 in largest quantities followed by crocidolita, aaoaite and 11 anthopkylifce. each of these has different chemical and physical 12 attributes. Some working populations are enresed to only one 13* variety of anbestos while others are exposed to two or mors *' 14 simultaneously end in varying proportion^ . c t j I 55 Thus there nre several hinds of populaticns each " ! *. lO deposed in quits different ways te one or more hinds of asbestos 17 j each of whi ch might ror.cfc biologically in a different manner. I* JO ij Moreover, workers exposed to csbantoc are further exposed |I1 19 l! oirt'ltunccv.slv to ether airborne agents. ' \U) ~ I 29 j. (i In production, manufacturing, and utilisation procasnai; I 2.1 {these may differ grpatly. For example, the asbestos-produce); l| La exposed to asbestos with minim.;! coexisting rqer.ts while. 22 . __ __ I 23 jin contrast,-the insulation nannfncturnr inhales asbestos plus I' 24 ; silica plus other pneumoconiosis producing dusts. *>. 25 Insulation applicators inhale these materials plus 831 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 10 1 a variety of additional agents present'in whatever the environment 2 is in the place where.he is working at that time. j' 3 Attention to such coexisting agents has been ignored 4 in most studies, especially those of insulation workers. Varia 5 tions of typo of fiber and-the circumstances surrounding their 6 U3e must be taken into account in answering the primary question 7 end would s\*ggast the possibility that different standards might 8 be rational in order to meet different conditions of use of 9 asbestos. There are four totally different biological -phenomena^j 10 11 or diseases thought to be related in soma way to the inhaletier V 12 of asbestos fiber. Thase are pulmonary fibro3is, bronchogenic 13- 2ancar, thickening of the pleura, and mesothelioma*. Not a 14 single one cf these diseases 5.6 peculizirly related to or caused ,J !il.iolely by the inhalation of asbestos fiber. |j 3ach of the four diseases occurs da -novo or for other 17 * ccs ::n parsers v:ho iiu'/c never kson orposed occupationally i J;o asbestos, The feet is, the biological reaction attributable 10 j ID asbestos is not a specific kind or disease indiccd solely by * !u::bor.tos. 2! j j Instar.d, the biological raact5.cn to asbestos ma.rifc.Ji:.; Ltsslf by the fart that in 3orr.e population:; occupationally 22 . J:o asbestos, thorn is, in contract-to r.on-escosod populations, 23 j ' jin sxccsn occurrence of one or ntora of thn fo>ur previously roo:~ 24 t \ " ...... j.ioncd diseases... -- ............ I * .. 232 > 1 To determine tho safe lovel for tho u'so of asbestos, 2 we are required to demonstrate tho leval of exposure to asbestos 3 at which no excess of disease develops when the exposed populati 4 is compared to a non-exposed population. . In order to establish 5 a safe level we must examine ruitable control populations not 6 exposed to asbestos, but aga matched end residence matched, from 7 which population ons can loam the frequency of occurrence of 8 the scentific specific diseases in question. 9 In addition, wa must examine an exposed population, to which can be ranked in various levels of exposure, it order to 1" 1 11 learn at what level cn excess of these diseases occur in the - . 12 exposed population. Tha observation of u biological abnormality 1 S' in only one or two porccns who have bean exposed to tho inhctl- "** -- 14 ation of anbasfco3 fibers does, not .porrrtfc-a comparison fer suitnbi IS .groups, control groups, or afford .contrasting erroooura values. j 15 3uch observations are of no use fer determining : safe* I 17 lavol standard. Isolated case reports of v.aaothslicma, broncho- j 10 genic concur, or pulmonary fibrosis in individuals who may also ; 1 IS have had nr. er.ucsure to the inhalation of asbestos fibers ar. ov't 20 no use in setting a safe standard for asbestos based upon r:v.::vl t 21 scentific principles.- 22 Larger populations in vhich only tho frequency or. / 23 occurrence of-3iseiis:i io reported, withsit: the r.occosary data j J j * indicating .-ranges of erponur.H and in t/hich no attor.pt to rclacs 24 variations of c::pc.*;tn*c to disease is rude, fall into the same 23 ITM *# 1 non-usable category of setting a valid safe level* 233 2 That is not to say that observations In such groups 3 are of no value for other purposes, but the issue should not be 4 confused by introducing data from such inadequate studies into 5 considerations of safe levels of asbestos exposure. Suitable C control populations mido up of individuals in sufficient number 7 vhb ware never exposed to the occupational inhalation of asbeste:; e fiber and occupational groups whose exposures are demonstrated o to have wide variation are difficult to obtain but absolutely to essential for our purpose. The absence of this hind of control data, excused ri tt 12 overlooked on the basis that-it cannot be obtained, is an un- \I 1ST acceptable condition if tho safe level standard i3 alleged tc. bej 14 cat cn the basis of universally accepted'scientific principles- / 15 There ia difficulty alas wth assessing the frec*ur.r.cy }i 16 of occurrence of the diseases thought -'-p an related und?r i! I 17 c.xircunstancoc to tho inhalation of asbt.'jtos fib^x*. There c5.r;yv.| 4 13 wont as to the criteria for a valid diagnosis of "asbsstor-.U'', 1II 19 sj.?;v*.acial3.y in its least severe nsi ifcistatloc, are nac generally | I i 23 ng.vj:a:l upon. j 21 the use of the chest x-ray for diagnosing the early ' 22 i'.r.uiioKcntf.cn of asb.iytouis is a case in point. A recent report ; 1. 23 by iiurphy and his co-workers of a study of employees in a shipyart 4>- c.er.;oustrahcd that tv/cr.t / percent of the control, or non-cnaoceci 9^ population gave evidence of x-ray .Yonormaliitics which, if ob served in tho exposed population in the abscnco of controls, in * S34 I all probability would have been interpreted as being evidence 2 of the effect of the inhalation of asbestos fibers. Zn a 3 population which has been exposed to asbestos inhalation, it 4 is very tempting to ascribo any departure from a perfect appear 5 ance in the chest roentgenogram to the occupational exposure, an3 6 indeed, in soma studies this has baen done. 7 If is imperative to oven recognize that some persons 0 who have never had en occupational exposure to asbestos will shew 9 the samo x-ray shadows that have been interpreted by some as 10 evidence of asb3tosis in populations exposed to the inhalations 11 asbestos fiber. - 12 Studies 3uch as thoso by Kurphy exemplify the necessit 13- bearing on the determination of a ease standard for asbestos. j 14 There are still other difficulties having to do with * establishing the dose risk relationship. The health effects of 15 asbestos inhalation am both dc.sc and lapse-time related. 16 j 17 Over evidences of ashestonic do not appear'until ysavs* after the initiation of the exposure. The interval* between 10 19 onset of erporuro and its effect is even greater for the c.u r. 29 mant of hro.tchogouic cancer or mesothelioma. This interval rcr.g. r.i between twenty r.nd forty years. 22 Because: of th'j long time lapse batwaen ths initiatio.: i of exposure and the manifestation of injury, the incidence c>7 23 disease occurring in populations new under study is the rcLu.lt 24 of, and must be related to, exposures which took place twenty 25 to forty years or more ago. 835 1 To relate exposure measured only now in the past 2 five or oo years to' the current frequency of development of * * 3 disease which actually was induced by exposure occurring years 4 earlier, ic a serious error. During the past twenty-fiv3 or s, * 5 thirty years there .havo boon many technological changes in the 6 production, manufacture and use of asbestos containing mcterl.. 7 In many situations there is much less asbestos now 8 being incorporatsd in the material than was true twenty or mors 8 .ears ago. In addition, there has boon a progressive dust 10 control effort to reduce the concentration cf airborne arcnotes * II In mines, mills..and manufacturing establishments in a deliberate. 12 attempt to rsducs and abolish asbestos related disease. $. So much has fcosn accomplished in this cirsction by 14 nochnclogical change and. systematic r.sbosfcss control efforts, 15 that oantorr.perary n:sasurermfcs of occupational 'environments cannh so asrooted as rnercsentativa c~ conditions twenty to forty yar.ri? !is 17 -C3- '1 1 to To suasr.ari.s2 thin part of my statement I strongly urge*.- . i. 18 ".Than date*. r.f Cared ii: support of ratting a safe level rtcnooK 4**.VA It being jv-dgan, c;:e should ask the following questions: I 2: ^l| at again wara tea different kinds rad ?. prrcport.i :;u cf asbestos used and what ware the 23 ___ coc::istirg /igaets.to which workers ware exposed 24 in tbs different occupations.' . ___ 1"__ ^2^ l :i:;i wove, the Si--3i:ific criteria and i.jthods -o used and ware thay ic:guatc for making a diagnosis ; 236 t of the biological reaction attributed to 2 the inhalation of asbestos? 3 3* Were suitable controls in the senc3 of 4 non-ex?osed populations and exposed populations 5 whoso exposure varied in the intensity and 6 duration utilised? 7 4. Was the exposure actually responsible for 8 the disease properly determined or were con 9 temporary dust estimates inappropriately applied 10 to disease which waa in fact the result of 11 exposure years ago? 12 The demands inherent in those questions pose formidable is" obstacles to arriving at a scientifically valid single nymbo?:___ . 34 which will indic* ate the coocantration of occupational airborne 10 asbestos that can bo tolerated with safety for tha customary 10 duration of deployment. 37 In spite of this, as I will chow later, those arc. 10 substantial data '-7111011 will satisfy tha requirements pcsod by 19 those questions and which again can bo used for the purpccr. of t 20 determining at least a first approximation to the safe level of J 2! occupational exposure to airborne asbestos. 22 Ka mujt now examine tha various established and -;s proposed "standards for a safe leval 'bf asbcctos ~in~ tha occrtp.t riont 'f environment, in the-light of tha just discussed reguiromonts >iz 24 to data needed for cutting a standard on a sound scientific 20 basis 237 5 1 '"-TSystematic efforts to reduce here the amount of 2 asbestos in the air of working places by governmental directive 3 was made in the factories of. Great Britain beginning in 1931. 4 Mo numerical standard for this purpose wa3 set, but Statutory ****** * 5 Buies and Orders were promulgated. Later, on the basis of limited 6 data relating impingsr dust- counts to x-ray abnormalities in 7 several asbestos textile factories of the USA, Sayers and 8 Dreeson suggested a numerical standard of five million particles 9 per cubic foot as a tentative safe level. 10 This was the limit adopted by the American Congress 11 Governmental Industries Hygienists in 194G. Utilising the 12 sonvereion data for textile mills published by Lynch and Ayers 13TM jf the U. s. Public Eoaith Service 5 million parts par cubic 14 coot is the equivalent of approximately thirty fibers/cc. 15 In 19G 8 the Birtish Occupational Hygiene' Society 16 suggested numerical guidsc aired at reducing the rich of 17 developing nsbestosis. 18 The suggested guides indicate that those concentrr.tior.s, 19 averaged c-vor a three month period below ?. fibsr/cc ought to k. 10 considered lev;, and that over tfco course of 50 years of smplcy-. 21 r.enh, 100 fiber years is the level below which there would bo 22 Loss than 1 percent change of developing ssbestosic as refined 23 shiafly by the presence of-rales.------ -------24 If osbestoais is defined by r.-ray vbnon.wlity, the 25 Level bcccaes 135 fibar years. In 1950 the ACGIU changed its re- :onmsndcd standard to a time weighted average of 2 million .238 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 17 t particles per cubic foot or twelve fibers/cc. In 1970 thi3 2 Committee decided to change tho standard to 5 fibsrs/cc which 3 is equivalent to less than 1 million particles per cubic foot. 4 Several months agoOSHA set an emergency standard of 5 5 fibsrs/cc, and within the'past few days MIC3H now proposes a C standard of 2 fibcrs/cc. 7 What is the scientific benis of these various .#standards? 8 The standard proposed by Sayers and Dreesou did attempt to relate dose of dust containing asbestos, as measured by the 10 *J midget impingsr tc th3 risk of developing pulmonary abaor! ualit i: tics in terms of abnormal :c-ray patterns. 12 Their study showed 3 higher frequency of abnormal # 18" rc-ray patterns in those most heavily orpossd,as contrasted .to.----- -- M those less e::pe?ea. They found no excess of abnormal chest x-ray: 15 !'patterns than in these workers exposed to less than 5 million ' v *<i riartic?.os -car cubic feat. Sonce* thoir su*e*g* estod standard of 'i jV ij 5 million particle.: par cubic feet. We no-: knew, however, that too population ekufied v;as not observed long enough for the it ?9 {full range of disease to develop. ZO The author? appreciated this possibility and praposed 1 21 I tha atr.'idcrd us being a tentative one. In rcstrcspc-ct v;a know n* ^ Ik 't the Kter.Jcrd, although it led to Marked iesunr.ing cf tin: *- 91 ! du;:tinoj7o in oor-e ociunrktiens, vrkr not adequately bacud~c:n3 *<d .* j nr.osr.ge of time has d'7.;oi\s;xra':-.:d it to ba an inadac u.ito standard Tho numbers proponed by the Driiish Occupational 839 illeg ible docum ent 18 1 Hygiene Society are based on a study of 290 male employees from 2 a singlo asbestos textile mill* 3 Their employment began after 1933/ all had worked for 4 at least ten years* and the exposure period extended from 1933 ( 5 until 1905. The indicator of disease was basal ralos and x-rny j 6 changes. No measurements of du3tincss'in this bill were availrbl 7 prior to 1950. 8 Membrane filter fiber content counts done in the modern * . . ] 9 manner were used only in the last year of the study and these . I to served as the factor for converting previous counts using other ] * .* ' ' ft methods to an expression in terms of fibers. To obtain an inior' | 12 of exposure for the pariod betwcon 1933 and 1950 - a crucial if period of exposure - the first msasureiuaats z.>ado in IS50 war** M raised by 40 F^rcant. 5 No evidence was given for using this very slight !G j augmentation. Studies in other tsxtilo 'factories sttch ns those 17 ! by Sayers end Drasccn indicated that when ventilation controls !v;ra first applied in thair textile mills the dust counts 1C ! 39 ^dropped 1/000 1 percent or more. 20 | One would assume that the snmo happened in this' !British textile mill. The seventeen years oi* cxnoj;ure cluriv.g 21 ! 2?- j that most crucial period between 1933 and 1950 would appe**-: 23 ; to iiavb been" si^utautialTy^iinScresSLihatcd. i ............... 24 j This study* in spite of its less then adequate 25 |scientific base is important because it was the first attempt j !  . ,i 240 19 t 2 3 after 1938 to set numerical guidelines for the prevention of ' -TV. asbestosis. The number of persons in the study is very small} j the criteria for disease* especially basal rates* not universal2.y H ZLU 3 U O a LU 69 & m rrjwA 4 accepted; and the estimate of dustiness seriously ladling in t 5 rigor. The estimate of dustiness v;a3 on the low side for the 6 reasons that I have alroady mentioned and* in addition* bacausa j 7 no attempt was rcada to further adjust for the longr-.r wording 8 hours and hence of erasure during the war and earlier years. 9 In spite of all'of this* tho study is a first approx 0 imation to a solution of a problem for which there were essen 1 tially no other available data in 19SO upon which to attempt 2 a dose-risk estimate. 3~ It is my understanding that the enforcement agancy_of_i 4 Great Britain looks upon these standards as guidelines and not Li, 5 | Vs rigid requirements for all circvunotunces in which asbestos j;\\s used. Thus -they recognise the iaco-v-ploto. nature of the data G 7 sea is developing- the numbers. j } ! j The lowering of tho 1938 standard from 5, to 2 particles.per cubic foot and 12 fiber*: per cc, adopted by ' i 'r- . 20 !:in ISuG appears to have been based in pare upon the data eudar- lying the British proposal end also v.pon tha fact that th-iro wan j 21 !:' 2T; |a growing arurensen lilac the old standard of 1938 w.-jc act Is 23 :j universally * effective. -- i'!l 24 J i Tho further low' ering of it to 5 fibers/cc was not ,, . . based upon now scientific data, but appeared to have been made 25 841 20 to establish a margin of or "factor of safety." In a personal communication from Dr. Herbert Stockinger, Head of the Division of Laboratory and Criteria Development of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and Chairman of the Committee ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT on Threshold Limit Values of the American Conference of Gcvomnwpt Industrial Zlygianists, I am informed that four months ago, in November 1971, the Committee of the. ACGIH reviewed the standard of 5 fibers/cc and found no ovidence to indicate that it should be changed. There are several relatively current studies which support this decision. * * I would now like to discuss five of thase supporting studies. Murphy eh al, in December of 1971 published data cn j I workers exposed over a period .of r.pprcjiicately 35 years no---------j pipe coverers in new ship construction. The authors demonirtrs/usd; that no evidence of asbestoois was found until at least million particles per cubic foot years `of a;:posv.m had fc?.cn 17 exceeded. ;0 This would indicate that for a forty yr".r paried of i! sjaploymont, 1.5 million pr.rti.clec per cubic foot would bs the i. 23 .clno below which i:o ccbestosio 'occui-r&d. The report indicated I: \ 21 I. that the actual occurrence of asbust03iu was restricted almost 1 !* solely to bki?.;e G:.t.*o3cn to mere than -75 million particles per ii 23 jcuMc foot years, which"would "becloca to a vcilua 6iT~2Td aVillirTT i* 2.1 ' articles per cubic fcot for those employed for forty years. i "' .. .... 2S utilising a conservative number to convert particlou _ 2U2 21 1 to fibers per cc, one arrives at a level of 5 fibers or more 2 as being that below which no asbostosis was observed. 3 Zf one utilises their konimatar data* one can* by * 4 suitable calculations* estimate that tho average exposure f~: 5 those workmen was in tho neighborhood of 8 fibers par cc* and 6 this boo would suggest that a number of 5 or more fibers per it cTisz 7 cc would have been tho level below which no evidence of cabeotoj 8 daveloped. - ILLEGIBLE DOCUM 9 This study indicates not only that the old standard 10 of five million particles per cubic foot is unsafe but also thu...( a standard of 5 fibora/cc will prevent asbestosic in employee? i 11 12 working for forty years or more. . 15H ha ontasnlve and detailed study of a poptilation can- ; M prising thousands of workers* in the mining cud milling of ehry-l i 13 j.sctila in eastern Canada conducted over tha past few years by | I; j |] Dr. Corbett IlcCenald ord his associates is of grant importance i !i' | 17 in our couricr.raticrr: because this study lias dust counts going ; 33 |i bad; many years and chest roentgenograms available from appro::.! ji *5 ) r.Italy 1935 to .date. j 23 Dr. KuEcnnld will x'sport or. those studies ct these 21 [hearings. Zt is my understanding that these studies support th: 22 conclusion that theso individuals cxponac" in these occupation'.* -23 i orj^ore; ycars^would hare to be exposed to higher ) than 6 fibers/cc in order to reveal any evidence: of nsbcsto.sis. 24 23 DechlaUa and her co-workers* utilising a segment of ROUTING SLIP PAGE: 1 OSHA DOCUMENT 1532409 REPORT DATE: 19991007 Expected Pages: Scanned Pages: File Name: Accession No: Cat/Doc: Exhibit No.: Signature: Title: Organization: Addressl: Address2: City: State: Zipcode: Country: Title: Source: Year Published: Entry Date: Hearing Date: 4 0 DOCK S777 05 03 26-234 WADSWORTH THOMAS G ST BARTHOLOMEWS HOSP LONDON TENNIS ELBOW: CONSERVATIVE, MANIPULATIVE TREATMENT BR MED J 294:621-624 19870307 19991007 SURGICAL AND  243 1 the population from McDonald's larger study, have demonstrated \A 2 that in those individuals who have been employed for long .} 3 periods of time in t4e mining and milling of chrysotile asbestos i 4 and who do not even show evidence of x-ray changes, the accumulated ** S exposure must have* been more than 110 million particles per cubic 6 foot years before the most sophisticated techniques can ddtoct 7 evidence of those physiologic changes thought_t develop in res 8 ponse to inhalation of asbestos. f * 9 These data sugg&sj: that something larger than 2.5 10 million particles per cubic foot ever a forty year period can bo- l * ** r u tolorated without even tha most subtle manifestations of asbestos 12 exposure; This number would translate into something between 13 five and ton fibers per cubic centimeter. r 14 In tha fall of 1971 at the Fourth International Con- i ! 13 grass on Pneumoconiosis, held in 3uchnrost, Dr. McDonald v-edat? i i 15 l^s provio'.tuly reposAed large study and reaffirmed that e*n cy.c.ser! 17 of bronchogenic cancer did not occur in tthe workers in mining 10 and milling cf chrysotile asbestos until an uxpoturc eqt;lvalent j 19 to 200 million particle-s par cubic foot years woo ereucdoc'. jI 20 This la equivalent to 5 million particles par <a*b:.c j 21 foot for forty years. It indicates that in ;:he mining and a lill!. I of ohryso bile an e::ccsr. of brc.ialvcccnis cai.ocr would not be demonstrable^ An then's individuals vho were exposed to lees bias * > 5 million partides per cubic foot. Thin is equivalent to 10 or xaora fibers per cu. 25 1 This moat important .finding supports the view. 2 held by Stewart and others that an excess of bronchogenic 3 cancer occurs only in those who have manifestations of asbestos!^ 4 and that the standard adequate to protect against brochoganic 3 cancer is a larger number than 'thi at required to protect against 6 ashestoais. ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 7 Recently Enterline and his co-workars have reported ^ 3 tho results of a study of retirees employed in various ecbestos j 9 using manufacturing processes including textiles and where the 10 exposure was different from that in mining and milling because j 4 IS of the Inclusion of exposure to crocidolite and amosite as well 12 es other agents which might co-exist. 13 i 1 Tills study shows, and I quote "there appeared to be -tli* 14 | no direct relationship between asbestos dust exposure and res- j 55 ! piretory ccr.cef bal&v: 125 million purticlo3 per cubic foot iq niIj*ynnrc. Important irerarants in rr.-spiratory cancer mortality no- ; y: |j>w.rantly cocurre;*: uomewhere between 100 and 200 million parties.*-;:: . i! * i 13 =rv*J"c "'cot years* exposure." i i ID : This would indicate that exposure to 3 million par- ;i .j i' tic.Ts.e per cubic: foot would bo tolerated for a forty year %. iJrnrlof. without n risk of excess bronchogenic cancer in those: cyp*.; r .| jjcf occvyutrV:nr-. V-sirg tho conversion factor suggested by Synch | *, li o!: al, I 24 ' fibers/cc-This series of*studies lldicaten that a lower standardj ] As required to protect against pulmonary fibrosis or asbestos/.." * 25 than to protect ngnii*~t bronchogenic ccncar. Those five studi ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 2M5 offor strong support for the position taken by the American Conference of Govemxsntal industrial Hygienists that there is no need to lower the standard below 5 fibers/cc in ordiSr to protect against pulmonary fibrosis or bronchogenic cancer* Zn my judgment, wo have no specific information of a' suitable scientific nature R;qpressing, the dose risk relation- j ship for mesothelioma. Isolated opao reports of mesothelioma are of no value in establishing a dose risk relationship. Equally ueoless for thi3 purpose ere tho data offered | in studies of insulation workers, asbestos workers, miners end j millers, workers in asbestos using manufacturing, domestic exposures and neighborhood exposures. . $ Rot a single ono of-these studies offers data- comparing ~ variable exposures to the incidence of mesothelioma. and they tI i iI i are therefore of no use for establishing a safe ia^ai of asbestoi- jl!i in tho ocr*.:pntit?n.rl environment. ?hase` studios do indicate 1 J that in some eircvassturcis the risk is present but none spar.!: | to the gnostics of the snfe level on scientifically nccspt.-'bic i. i grounds. " I R?.vortheless, those studies of a larger an.vbsr of canoi: i of K2iiothaiior.a suggest that, .in souu clrcuiT.'.tor.coc tho s.npouur-a no | to asbestos which m ,y be related to the devcicpiis.-nt of mesothel ioma ra?.c;ht bo less thru.* that roruir i to 'rsjxiduco .nsbs-.tdsxP or an o.nccns of bronchogenic c.incur. One factor, which hoc boon demonstrated which is with o&arai _J 246 1 respect to the relationship between mssotholioma and inhalation 2 of asbestos is of the utmost importance. 3 In all of those circumstances where a strong relation 4 ship between mesothelioma and the inhalation of asbestos is su3- 5 pected# two varieties of asbestos, namely crocidolite and 6 arcosito, invariably have bean implicated either alone or com- 7 bined. This is the case in tho .excess occurrence of mesothel 0 ioma among crocidolite miners# asbestos using insulation workers, 9 workers in asbestos textile and insulation manufacturing# and 10 inala^ge multiproduct asbestos using manufacturing plant in the 11 USA. 12 In cost of those circumstances thsra has been a mined 13 exposure and chrysciile has also been present. In striking -- j - -- contrast, hovaver, when exposure has boohsolely to chrycotiio# | 14 j 13 as in mining and milling of chrysotils, the frogusney of ceourr-; 16 erica of mesath-alio;**. has either not bicn increased'or increased I 17 only to the very slightest ongreo. 73 The virtual absence of an erresseof masotbolior.it in J* oorinl&fclcnc exoosed solely to ohrysoiilc has been'reoortud by ! ;o " il 20 Gilson, Viglicui, Uagsar nacl .voDonr.ld on "the basis of sever,:itn j 21 r.tudios. i II 22 With laspcofc to arithophylito# r.o cuca-js of moss ki\ v.Ao- Has' ovWb"bc'dK^aportedt"'Cn'-thc,-baiiAc of information .currsnuiy * 24 in mind# therefora#- masofcno.U.o .v; appears to bo prcdomiirixtly ' J I 23 linked with exposures to crccidelito or nmocitu but the  ' 1 dose relationships aro unknown. 2l7 2 The studies referred to thus far are the only ones 3 X am aware of which in my judgment have a meaningful bearing 4 on the setting of a standard for control of asbestos e:;posuro. 5 Other data does exist but in my judgment, it docs not conform tc! G those criteria, universally agreed upon, for a sound scientific 7 basis upon which to predicate a safe standard* 8 There is an abundant other body of data which indicates 1 8 that the prolonged inhclati&n of asbestos fibers above son level 10 is hazardous, that the biological effect is dose related but that 11 many of the v/orhers exposed for a lifetime never do develop 12 asbestos related disease. 13 This data indicates .clearly that oast exposures in jsorco__ [ 14 occupations, ast for example, the min ing and billing of chryscti.lo, j 15 were far less hazardous than erasures in asbestos textile wanu-i i IS factura or the insulation worker's trads and possibly in ether \ ij 17 occupations ao well, 13 Tha reasons for these differences are not entirely 10 resolved at this time. Until recently the insulation trad:-, 20 used much more cimooifcc than shrycotile and in so:r.o work, espec 21 ially in England, .large amounts of crocidolite have been vecu, | . t 22 Thtijra are coexisting agcnce in the insulation ttuJ: j 23 which are notTpresent in tuning and billing of ohrysetile, The V 24 pant exposures appear to be much highsr in the insulation tradas 25 than in mining, willing, or manufacturing. 2^8 27 1 Peak exposures may be much more hazardous than lower 2 levels of prolonged exposure. Fiber counts in the insulation 3 trada in shipbuilding in Great Britain and in construction in 4 Finland/ ranged from twenty to hundreds of fibers/cc depending 5 upon the kind of work baing done^ Fiber counts in ths construction 6 industry in this country currently indicate somewhat lewor time j 7 waighted averages* but the intermittent high pitics of exposure. ! .1 0 < For example, during the mixing of usbsstos cement, g 9 dust counts commonly ss high as 75 fibars/cc daring a 5 to 10 u o *Q 14 to i minute period ore reached as often as 5 times cr more a day. ! Unfortunately, there are no data in the insulation worker trade is ! 12 that cosr.?:ira degrees of exposure bvar a period of many years ii X ; to the biological manifestatigr.c of oxoass disatsro. Until..this... j__ uni S3 tV-TI M 'XjJ *J !{ is available, there is no way of utilising data from thorn j !i i <(&r' S!? hrades to fsstabiish a standard fof the control of aubei? l! ! ;(u*. S|.i ITlilCliiOil . t. yt 'Xhors is ftvory indication that the lava?.?; of c-x^or/nr i iS;s should be Ir/.rsro asr.ecxally the pack .leva?.."... l ut rnetbor or \v^: J tj ` j -rj !; ?.cv;3:: ti:*/.: woxghted av^ra.ga standard; is nccisO., in idin sul- J I; i 20 j ;:t:.ca trade than in the other trades var.uim; i;:w..y:vt i 21 ! Thera is substcr.ui.r.l v> to bo?.:.y croc:' n ..... ! .-`xeciixs cho'ili Ln controUad more .jcriag.u:t.*y :..u:a i.v ,.h:r/- -..-.-..-.-..-.-..-..--H--2l=^^_hHl; . U-n. 71 info* i:;' *c\tso "rcriT.G *. "Vo' tint tl a *-\roMCtrlo !. ,,. r.`t i esi -ioj ivition of the fib.er's ill tl.u rir.inr?..'in m.iiiiv.v .oC sury:;"- -v !;i t.Lifj 'Muy 1.0 rti.-:far.iit ifren tbo-^a fibers t.-nnrafed suhserv/n cly !' ' ii 2^9 illeg ible document 28 1 in manufacture and use of asbestos. . v'i > 2 ' Moreover; the fibers of crocidolito and amosite oven 3 in mining have a different geometric configuration, as actually 4 observed by Tiabrell in airborne specimens, for that of soma forjn I 5 of chrysotile. For these reasons tho pulmonary retention of G chzysotile may be substantially loos than for `other varieties 7 of asbestos or for the kinds of fibers generated in other ecsu- 8 potions than mining end milling, Animal exparixasnto have demon 9 strated this to be true. * 10 On tha basis of data acv; available and adequate for IT the purpose, X wish to indicate that in m.y judgment a standard J of five fibsrs/cc time weighted average with paalts not to oncGetj 12 ir 10 fiborn/cc such as recommended by 03KA in its present sfcnndnrdj 14 and by ACG3CH, .constitutes a leral which will protege against *' j 13 the cevolocmsnt of csbcGtocio and bronchogenic cancer and indue;: j 10 a safety factor since it is a level substantially below that v-hi'v .i 17 ! has bean demonstrated to be associated unequivocally with r*? ' j } to recces of thosa two abnormalities. f i to I'hnis is ovidsnev relating orccidniiku red pcioibiy r 1 ID j! aT.ooite to ssicasc Koi'schelicmt. which suggest that a more .rigorat" 2i* ii !i centre! of am.^oitc or crocidolito rcnld i>o justified. ;?or thin rocson it may be. rational to r.*r,,v different standards covering 23 dif corent occupations tlspending u.per the variety of asbestos 24 r.ccd. ... 23 Since X am in disagreement with tha roco-omonaction of 250 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 29 1 tho Criteria Development Document that two fibars/cc. be ostab- 2 liohod as the safe level of occupational airbomo asbestos, it 3 is incumbent upon me to indicate the in-portant points of my 4 disagreement. 5 In my opinior. it is novr incumbent upon the authors 6 of the Criteria Document to present evidence, which will aiaot 7 the requirements for scientific validity in support of their 8 proposal to change the standard and to establish a new one. D In the entire document I do not find reference to a JO single study containing data vhich will, on the cne hand meet 11 the criteria of scientific validity for setting standards, and 12 on the other, support tho need to change the standard from 15 1 i fibars/cc or to set it at 2 fibcrs/cc. . ...______ 14 j In fact, the Criteria Document atplicitly cays or. -* V- il!'?.G os Section 5: "The r.UT&scr of studios that have ccllectc.:' j j ij both anvircciraewial end medical data and with a significant r.ra.ic .Iv !1;1 of .wc*pcceu workers, is not si-fficient to esteblf.cU a meeiiingful ntaaderd h-sad tacn. firm cci-anhifin data." IW ,J # i *,r In other vertfo - the authors or the Criteria Docu-.-.vr.c j*.-, J. do net provide any scientific daua upon which to basa their 2j ii to change the ntnudard frea 5 to 2 fibc-.rs/cc or to j <.M I1 rwMoMpovt tho choice oj: a standard'of 2 Sifcers /cc. The 'faJlurn ll 2**` J; i*o t vTbvicTe ` r.Ki.zi sir-norF,"iir"rsr~j`CJlCKan_cc.cts~ttn^ -r^st-^nsr^:vr+-X" cr.*,. * doubt:*, upon tho validity of tha properela. i .. t .. .. _ 23 ' " I sin ia complete ci?/.grca..v.\nL uJ.tl* the Criteria- 291 illeg ible docum ent Document with respect to its expressed opinion that the data" relating exposure to biological reaction is inadequate to establish a meaningful standard at this tine* While tha oviclench may not be as far reaching as we would like# it is scientifically valid and adequate'to support'as a first approximation tha opinion that the present standard# established by 03HA several months ago at 5 fibers/cc TWA and paahs not to exccad 10 fibers/cc should not be lowered but left as it is. I have cited the studies supporting this opinion. Lacking doso-riol: relationship data adequate to support the proposal of 2 fibers/cc the Criteria Document appears to oromota an iurc of extrema toxicity of asbestos | fibor3 in order to justify the new levs!. This is dons chiefly ! Ij . . ............................T'* 14 |j by citing isolated cans reports. 7.n my judgment an inordinate ; |j amount of vaiciVt. is oiven to isolated acta reports, which# thctr.h io !; .. m !! of intarnot and kovjs irportones; have-no socuifcle'utility in Ij " ; i 0m. i*tJ <!>** i *! 1m*. inl V,wP4'1* t- > i"**h? ! * Ii -j 1 Their tire in the Critical Dosiuraist is doubly j .............. . [ I difficu.it to a.cv'.ps: in view of-ths face that cn pngs 2i of <-" x" i* I ; HI t-ierc la the following ctcbcacautr "Isolated clinical c;v... | reports are difficult to interpret in totts of docn^tiro rnsJ^onv. II t j! relationchio c-r.d ::r. only bo used to indicate other pencil* ?.: i J I-h-I TrTe>oa71 ch"clVTT' tt-ort~~hISi.4.* lhl Wlici ht~v:brt 'may-prova -to-bs practicable arc-u.3 j ; for further study. * i ... * .. ... ........... Iu\ i.tt.imou to convey the implication, of extreme 4^ 1 toxicity of asbestos'is again*made on pnge 7 of Section 3 by * A *, , ' 2 reference to a study of 232 former .employees in a plant that 3 manufactured insulation. This i study, by Selikoff, is quoted as revea *ling four * . * 5 smployees who develosd x-ray evidence of asbestosis after only 6 )ne day of exposure to asbestos. Observation of a control 7 jroup for comparison to those who had been closed, is totally 8 absent fren the Tables for this study that aro shown in tkc_ 9 Criteria Document. 10 Murphy's study of pipo-ccvcrers, referred to earlier 11 Ln this statement, demonstrates beyond doubt that in any adult 12 population cot exposed occupationally to asbestos there will be 13 soma individuals with x-ray shadows that could be interpreted-- 14 as evidence of .slight asbestosis. 15 In the absence of suitable controls, Selikoff's stud;: j rennet, on scientific grounds, be interpreted to prove that o:*.c | 16 17 lav of auoosuro to asbestos causes ssbsstcsis. To dr. so on th: i 10 sasio of tiie data shown is spidn/siclogically unsound end to cite j i 19 :his study as evidence of axtreras toxicity of asbestos is cc-r.?5. 20 mwarr anted. 21 The Manner j.a which reports snd data of different ?"* investigate:::; throughout the vend aro utiliuod and criticised deb. iUl sot appear to bo vnifora iri this docu&int. For example, the. "I :omorehuiiaiivci review of the epidemiology of asbestos related .24 :anccrs by Kacnior, ufc al, published in 1971 is not referred to 25 t 253 32 1 The report by McDonald# ofc al'of an extensive * 2 epidemiologic study relating dose to risk in 11788 workers 3 employed in the Quebec chrysotile asbestos mining industry is l* not discussed in the Criteria Document This study# published ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 in June 1971 is the single most detailed and complete study of 0 world's literature of the dose risk relationship of cno kind.of , 7 population exposed to airborne asbestos. 3 The only reference made in the Criteria Document to 9 this study# pages 18 and 20 of Section 3# is a criticism of a ** to "progress report" given by McDonald at the Bucharest meeting 11 in September ox 1971. One would think that a study of this 12 magnitude would rsguira discussion in a document intended to be 13 a fully developed presentation c the evidence supporting rncor.r 14 xssndotions of Such great importsnea. i * 15 11 It is difficult to understand why McDonald's report: IS |! is criticised# at stated at the top of page 20 of action 3, i.7-' # hecau.'JV: of tfco conversion of numbers of particles to numbers i 15 jj of filers. Particles are converted to fibaru by the British j ' j ID icce;.-3;'.t;\c>ml ij Hygicna Society in developing their standard end 7.7 ?!at no place in the Criteria Document, pox*-:ninine to the British ' rccormcndoticn, risen ona aoa a questioning of that procedure. !i ... --i-f--it -ls-acaaa:irhlc in tha cue circumstaaoe it should ( !j .! bo accccutcble iu tha otiv.ir. * .1 PA -It is e'oa r.:cra difficult to understand the 23 criticism ar.t>ros.y;id an the last sentence of the 1st paragj.vph  i 251* i 33 t on page 20 of Section 3 of there to the effect that the McDonald 2 study lacks the evidence necessary to make general comparisons 3 with the data of othor reported work. 4 The published paper by McDonald's group contains the ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 complete biological- data and the. required exposure data expressed 6 in millions of particles per cubic foot. This is substantially 7 more data than that furnished by others since it relates closure j 8 to biological effect in the same population whereas other.studio 9 such as these of insulation workers do not in any way provide !0 this correlated data. It The index of dustiness used in the McDonald report 12 is the same as in those of Murphy et al, Dacoufle-Enterlinc and 13" Williams, all of which are quoted in`this document. The criticier. '"** ......... ... ..... i" 14 that Kcr^onaid did not indicate the details of the method us*d * 15 .fcr converting particles per c-jbJU*! foot to fibers/fcc could t-.aoiiy \\ ,, {[have been answered by a letter or a telephone call, if the au^'ic*5 17 I of the Criteria Cosrr.sni had been dosi:;oua of raking' the cor.^r..: 1 1C Iissue. i 10 Much weight is given to an unpublished pr.par by 0 {Williams, efc al from the ?sn:\sylvan5.a.Depasfcasnt of Health. One 21 wonders why, 3.n such <?n imeortan'.: docunenh o the KTG51I Critari? j 22 Daukagc, I the crude data of the Williarv;*. - study was not she *.; in; i! .........23 i the-tables of-tha- Critaria-Document. _ " '* A.< !i ;tJi That wav in v/lfich UU-: sixty-four cases of asbests-sr.u -referred to ware related to vhat was undoubtedly a variable /.U *1 i ! I 255 * 1 exposures is, not shown. It is very probable that all o those * /. *, .1 ./ . 64 coses occurred in these who were most highly exposed, very possibly in the neighborhood of five million or more particles per cubic foot* # The failure to handle such data in the conventional / dose risk relationships is a serious error. Inordinate and unwarranted attention is given to contemporary du3t counts. [The impression is given'that those present cay counts represent the conditions that existed over tha past forty years. While thifc [may not bo intended, acre care should be given to indicate that counts were substantially higher in the past, especially in , Manufacturing places where affort toward controlling exposures jsy exhaust ventilation has been espended in the- past 20. yaoy_ri. - In addition, the reduction cf the amount of arbcckns contained in manufactured materials has further* reduced the 1G ] exposures, particularly in asbestos .lirsnlation workers. Most of the counts in the tables of this document i 13 ji e.re exprecr.ed ns averages, for example, tables 13 end. 14, r.e::- ij rt.P taini.ng to a::poour<iS ox insulaiisa-workers. This is an inaini; 10 ,!! '-'iu.r.te way of displaying deta, sinre it can give nirleading :j information by racking high :.:xocores if there*, are a lares nwifc?.r 4*1 is . I; of low cxpcs'-iraa to uiJuto the hrcai -on 23. if.................................... !l Siolcglcal effects arc* much more likely to occur in ttS'jcs perrons heavily...s-xpoocci than'in those with low exposure, j thus, averages of all exposures have little iraanini/ or vjo in <. i determining the dose rick relationship. . S5S 35 It is not possible to evaluate fully the exposure from the data shown in soma of the Tables of this document. For this we need to knew not only the time weighted averages but also the peaks,the number of observations and the conditions of 4 the environment during the time ,of sampling. This criticism i3 especially pertinent to the exposure 3 of insulation workor3'shown in Table 14. The insulation worker 22 unci ex"periences g rout variabilit y with respect to job conditions, to a large degree dictated by the volume of the space -in which he works and by natural ventilation as well as the kind of work ho is doing at the time. Past counts under all sorts of conditions, and peal: as well as TWA oxooourss must bo iraamvccd before the 'insulation --* T' - ,, B . 14 | worker'a erraosuro nan bo portrayed. With respect to Table 1', ca i- *S 0 m 3J 15 Sit ic surprising that tho job of "comsat milling", notoriously . -c i! charr.otcrisr.u by punks of exposure as hlah nr; 75 fibers/cc for ! j.. |j v'.riodc of I* tc 10 n'inv.tcs several timsr. a day, is omitt-ad. ii Tho Euravury, on pays 15 c Section 5, describing iha j ,si; 1 !: fcnaia for the new stnnsr.rd y.ccvmi-.enaod by the Criteria Cccumur.t i ii! i.-2 confusing end inconsiste' nt. 1 ovota from the second paragra`ph1. !! ' i -- ' "evidence indicate:; *tct puat and currant standards for fiber n- Ii 1-3:'.c?ntrati one An the woirkine nlr.cos whore asbestos fibers cacT*J1 if " ................; -*............... .. *................ ........ i- (| _ _ _________ ____ J*, !! thuv.c h RC.pu*>t~adly.. cr:itYiWlvcihkpt^r~rgc^.Cti'on~T)'j?~t:htT *cnverity--jrrrr >? I. ** "*""** ** '" - - mmmm -- ` -- --* ' " ' - ...-- .................. |J . ! w-1*i ;j frocuaucy of asbuo..tcsls, ha.ve not *orovidod cc.i.olotc-protection ' Zj ]1 from exposure to " astu.ntos, uec^sltatiiuj du!.'OlvT'i;.CTit of a ;:cw f ; 257 36 i standard* 2 Thare is evidence that asbeskosis developed under 3 some circumstances in places thought to have an average exposure 4 of five million particles per cubic foot/ or in modern parlance, h B thirty fibars/cc* 6 This was the standard sot in 1933. The ACGXH orsated 7 a new lovrar standard in 1SS8 and another still lower/ introducing Sea 3 3 a safety factor in 1970. The British Occupational Hygiene U 9 Society suggested numbers that might serve as a standard in o to 1968. ^ u 11 The current standard in the 3SJ\ set by is fiv&a UJ 12 j --) 09 tvra 111 J 13 * II 14 jj; at most.- cot since three years ago. Tha statement in the l` 13 -h's'-oeiiment,-to xvhi.ch I have just referred, indicates 'chat, the U }* 10 " 1 17 j; mm h S hence a ivav standard is nodded. tu t: r . ;s I; The anthers of the Criteria tocarent should be reo~ i 29 ;;to i: tii.ve ' that evidence and it is obvious that thev n*va roi. i ! Z1 Could in be that they t ure referring to th fact l.hot the; :>t:' ; *5m5 in 1930 in ivu&dcaunta ami that a butter ctantier.i i:: cc-'.;-. c.V- ^ io55r irt.-hxTurd vz.i- provided in i.h.C r.nl still . 23 :i . . . } ;!.lo:;r:.v in 1970, end it le thin standard Khtch was prenulgr.:--;* | Hv 1; i li..r.s an "cucrgoncy thee.!,ire11 by nj-.-iA. 258 t Zt is this\t.O : :S HA standard for which Z believe thoro 2 3 substantial factual; evidence for e supportive nature. 3 An even more serious inconsistency is demonstrated on 4 age 16 of Section 5. Closo examination of Itens a, b, o, and d * 5 avaals in unequivocal terms that in the judgment of the authors 6 E the Critaria Document there are no scientifically usable duh* 7 i which to basa & standard. e Nevertheless, without such data they decide that the 9 irront standard snu3t be changed and moreover recommend precisely 10 let the not; one should be. There is a strong inference from the ii scar.d paragraph of page 17, section 5 that one end perhaps the 12 ilef reason for setting the reccmmsnded standard at two fibers/ 13 :, is that the British have rdceia-jendacl 3osh a standard. 14 I disagree with the concept, if actually Intended, th:-.'-. 15 lir represents a scientifically valid reason for rcnoffmaivding IS ich a standard. Kcroovor, it is r.y understanding that the i i 17 Ld not sat a standard in the scr.-a ssr.se that it is Intended tc hr; 10 :o.d under tha new educational Safety rul Health Act. 19 The British standard ia p ;:orie3 of nunbars proposed 20 fi'.mioh a guideline with a wide range of personal jufigwsr.i cn 21 ih cr::t of their inspectors as to chc need for corrr.ccivn m-jr.sur Z?. :m these m's&ors are ::ccedc-d. Under cur act it dr. r.v inter- - '! <> rotation that a standard is to bo :;ct which, if not complied with; t 24 .acts the operator ;r.der certain penalties. To ny nirsd tl.o two j* i itiona are. uttorlv different. 259 1 X would like briefly to summarise. In this statement 2 X have described the kind of data required for characterising the 3 doso rick relationship in ouch a manner, that it can be used 4 for setting an occupational standard for airborne asbestos on 5 a scientific rather than an arbitrary basis. 6 fiecauoa of the di.ffi sulties described/ ouch of the d.stk 7 new extant, concurring asbestos acnociated disease, is of no 3 use or;: setting a standard. Isolated case reports and data * - J 9 giving exposures or biological effects without relating the two j 10 in the same population are examples of this hind of unusable- 11 information. > 12 Unfortunately* , much of the date, now avr.ilsb. le is coo- :t\ 13 potent only fcc s*.y that cskestos is scores or is Iocs hasardent..... 4* 14 in different groups and that the e:g?os'irc is varied. raversfe:-. : 3 although not numerous, there a::a specific data eer-ratart to IS speak to cose rich relationship r.r.d thee-*: can be used for cr:- 17 purpose. I have citad these. 13 I have isdicr.ced the reasons for r.y opinion that ti-a Criteria Cosunsst have sailed to do what which i3 incur.h-s vt 10 S') Hirer, it, n.-ay%:`y, u.\> provide sound scientific evidence to <r.i shippers their rsques-*. for a char. 5% iron tlia 05IIi\ orrgoncsy standard rhcT for' a *iv:v v.fcar.or.rd' o'f "3T* fifc*a:ri:/'c'c tv.ria 'V.'Sii'ghlrrt- ' j ; l war age itr.d poiks not to exceed 1G faTsorff/cc. 23 I iTioarraa with the viev of the Criteria t'ccu-ont that j 2*i " ........................ " ........... .......r. 1 there are no scivotifically cbcaiced data uc*e;j:.ito for tho j 15 260 1 purpose of cutting a standard. X have cited the studies which 2 2 bolievs ere scientifically valid and adequate for sotting a 3 first approximation to a standard or safe leval of airborne 4 asbestos in occupational environmants. 5 In my opinion, these studies fully support the current 6 OSHA'temporary standard of 5 fibars/cc TWA with peaks not to 7 oxessd 10 fibarc/cc and tho recant decision of the ACGIH that 8 there is no need to change from this standard. j 1 9 It should b-o emphasised that prior to 1940 and for 10 sor.a years thereafter, when many of fchoce persons now developing. 11 disease were actually bairn; exposed, the dust ccv.ats in mining, \ 12 milling, and manufacturing commonly ware in the rcr.ge of 10 to 13- 100 million particles par cubic foot. This was li> oly m.csc _ M equivalent to 30 tr. GC0 fibors/sc. \ i 15 . There in no evidencs hh:h oxpcourss during that ps>::.c-l i '3 for lr.c-v.lr.ticu workers was suhr-.tanti.ally lever, and, on the bp.::..: 17 of Briti^i'. nr.d rinuirk data, it was in that rar.ga. It is slaa:: : 13 -Mvsn, that -the curreac OSHA ta.-irorary standard represents r. 13 fcxcraax'f.ous reduction -:rrr. tho dust levels of previous y-a.v?, v.v. +l'\ in ;r.y opinim.t includ&s a substantial safety factor. . 4* i I baJ.icvs: this leval will protect workers, using y:z. n.c.bistoii vs:,\ a forty.year or vaze. span, of .jj:olcy,tt:t, f::o- S3` daraiopfitg. asbssta:isJor. axparc-racing oi oxciss.of bronchcgvrw'v i * i 24 career. If crocidolit* :.iid perhaps ar..osite aro i.pra stri:i.:e*n:ly, 25 controlled, the liability of experiencing mucotJjfclior.ia will 261 40 H Zui u yj K.-'-.W *V\ 1 be markedly reduced and probably abolished. /'A*. 2 Thank you, Mr. Examiner. \) 3 EXAMINER GOLDDURG: Thank you, Dr. Wright. Dr. Nichols on. 4 DR. NICHOLSON: Z am William Nicholson. I appreciate ' 5 very much Dr. Wright's description of what would be admirable C scientific procedure to evaluate the standards to obtain doses 7 over a 40 year period, but let mo ask some specific questions 0 with respect to his testimony. 3 One is with respect to*the control --first, a major 10 question with respset to the needs for a controlle' population 11 which is indeed a good point. 12 - Could you, Dr. Wright, tell me what the control . ' , l 13" population was in Dr. Murphy's study? ..............f 14 DR. WRIGHT: Dr. Murphy's study, his control papuletier 15 ji v.*&3 a group of individuals employed in the case shipyard which i i! 15 ;; ha stated ware not ousosod to asbestos,. " i! `` . 17 | DR. UT.ChlOI-SOW: Would that group be in the shipyard? 1 i j rtnn j:i "'ll DR, WRIGR.T: I* cja suro they -.raze on fcho premises, but J i Dr. Mv.vnhv states they wore not cjrposul. w |l "* * A 1j!1 DR. UZCt'OLSON: Tits concern for uasctkelicsa.bears i| as li upon th-Jj question of the ir.cic1cr.ro in insulation workers. It \ ?.z i iicio l>c..n doc-ituntcid that tilt disease vacidcaco of insulation * I23 workers--who--work--in shipyards .and: who work in conatrucuier; si toe; 2d ana nevrr worked in the shipyard arc tho ss:v..-:. 23 Could you give us sort:: background as to the nnrvui or 1 crocidolite or amosite which was usod in insulation work other 2 than in shipyards? 3 DR. WRIGHTi Well, as you indicate or refer to, the 4 British shipyards did use large amounts of crocidolite, and 5 in so far as I know the insulation workers, and not shipyard 6 workers in this country# have been exposed primarily to amocite. 7 DR. NICHOLSON: The materials used by non-shipyard G insulation workers is emosits? 0 DR. WRIGHT: That is right. ^ 10 DR. NICHOLSON: X have been led to understand that 11 it was predominantly crysotile, end that the total use in the 12 United States of amosite was only about 3 percent, perhaps, and ( I 13* that was in shipyard work construction. *j 14 D'?.. WRIGHT:fir.Goidburg,there are people in this ? ] IS audience who can answer th'e question better than 1 can. I can 4 t ir> only do it by hearsay. 2 think others knew or*?.ctiy what was ;t 17 in insulation ovor toopact <50years. j IS 2XhMXim 63LK3UEP: Just testify to the knowledge you k'V { 19 DR. vrRIGlTT: Ny knowledge is that :Vt wnn prodcr.d:: cuz`.y; 20 amorito until recently. ** * l DR. NICHOLSON: Perhaps wo can have comment later by : 21 (t 22 othr i5-:jf.bnrn on that point. ! ~~`r~Tr~c~sfiin~gs'.}3?Trx::,`palirlil:5~to~gai'ge~:nn:-i:; witlr 23 crv* jr.-speck to tls Ciscursio's you cods* on tl:a studies of Kurp'iy, T l-reDorold i;i the various'ways reported, and of Hnke.vlint'where 3 2t>3 42 t the dust evaluation was dc'no- In"`terms of million particles 2 par cubic1 foot, and you made a conversion from that dust arpoaurc 3 to fibers par cc. 4 Could you tell, m3 what the conversj.cn factor W03 that 5 you used? 4 H G DR. WRIGHT: Tire conversion factor for the McDonald 7 study he will give in the ensuing presentation. 2 took what he 0 reported. 9 In converting the number that wea givsn in millions 3 to [of particles per cubic foot from the Murphy study, 2 utilise 7 ;0 si i a factor of 2, which ia about as low aa anybody has given, 7. 12 {`fibers ~"2r million oartide3 per cubic foot. Host ccnvsrsicn 134|I factors aro higher than that. \ ra o J 14 The one for Entorlins, since it'involved textile `i: tJ- tl!|i'.i used Dr. I-.`jnah:c. usnvarsion factor o 6. 1G [' DR. Wicnoi-SCIT: 'ere these conversion factors 1/ *;**7 tM4^y \* * j. \JJw l*42 ..w DR. I'niCKi*: Z am sure you art familiar with Dr. Ly . <:o !*'uvivereirn factors. Thsv hava all been published. Dr. McDpsz'. ' v.ll hell yon hoi-7 his wore done, by side sampling of impingir; I; P.i tttr.lv.v.nas, and also'by knowing the percent of fibers is -hers- Mf* V|I>'-'i- t were cr. <iie r.CKbvsr.a and a&ing a conversion in that :.y. , i!* *-i<liu}i .. ." ccmvarolbn-'I"rood' in tJic Murphy study, m I 24 ' [ \d.v.;chs.l to you, X took 'the lowest, one I knew of, which, is 25 1 h;o fibers psr'raillicn, because he rr.*u'.e no attempt >o make: .t 20*1 13 t conversion biaself. The counts are interesting, because it is r.2 ncceptod that the fibers ware faithfully captured, and utilising .. . 3 what was in Murphy's papar, namely an expression of the percent 4 of the dust that was made up of fibers, Z made the calculation 5 end it ccir.c3 to an average of 8.' 6, Mow that means there is a range on either side. Some 7 where higher, in other words, and somewhere lower. 3 DR. MICHCLSOKs 3inca the du3t exposure, that of the 9 iains3r that of the insulation workers and that of the textile j i 10 workers, are so completely different in the magnitude of all thci i 11 other material as presented there, there certainly is a need 12 for this in terms of fibers. 13 Moreover, I would suggest that there is a coii.-iderahl-.-.'-- 14 diffcrcuco in the fiber sice, distribution of fibers in each of those nctoarahe operations. IS *i j * 13 T.7n;:a any Lv.insurev.ents done to indicate that live tots.', 17 sice wee in theso. operations going to irdcrc iconic cir.o.:, 1 13 grsiitav than five microns to tha full range of nub-iaicrertopic ir 13 r|icar3 present in the atm.CiSphara? 20 ' ' DR. WRIGHT: So far ac I know, this was not done, \ 21 but Z would submit we were talking`akaui a standard set cr. Ii::ht'. *f 22 vJLcroucore studied. I am .v.cara of the cv.actioua reined I.y i:V. 23 electron v-icroscopa sinod fibs.ro,-but they have no bearing in:, a.*. i 21 DR. MiCKDCiiOZJ: h'e avu talking about a standaiV. pot . r* in tcr.'.v; of the quantities..of Jiiborc measured longer tlw j fivj Micron*?. 265 44 1 But in addition there are thd fibers shorter. Do 2 those fibers here hot havo potential biological;effect also 3 and should that fraction, if it is shortar than 5 microns, should illeg ible docum ent 4 that be acknowledged and related to other exposures? 5 DR. WRIGHT: Dr. Micliolson, if you are talking about 6 those fibers seen in a roicroocope, you cannot recognise a fiber / 7 8 DR. NZCH0L30I!i Z an talking about all fibers. m 9 DR. ITRZGSTs I don't think that sine fiber enters into our dir.cuesion. We are setting, a standard in terns of light 10 j I 11 microscope cisco, end if wo azo going to talk about the electron! I microscope sice fibers we will have a long, long discussion. 1?. \ . 13 I 7. am prepared to have it now if you are prepared to 14 embark upon that, Mr. Goldburg. 15 DR. HlCHOLSOSiS IJfcat -- ono Bakes a ccnpsricen of data; 16 ij contained in conditions in which the dost is so different. 17 j.and is it r.ct appropriate for a scientific stud** for a desirable' 10 criterion to v^'C that total characterikatici; ai: vhet ifcsh clc*':? If*. I|:: used for the close to which you arc ahtwibr.t5.ng c response? ba no ccoplatcly characterised? || 7A ij ji DR. W.VCGST: On t:a basis of sticuce and a batter * I understanding, I agree- vr* -need infavcutica., .and_thyr.. is cc.::ic arsforattler,of ~ ccirrcsv- on--this pornt7--bt-I-oan-o>l^ --- J * . j il ss^arruin, that I don't sec hew it is gex&anc.to tfco subject vc i v/ i' * " . j 25 i arcs balkim* about. ew i , 45 f OSilA has recommended standards in terms of the microccopo MR. DEGREGORIO: May X S3k a question? EXAMINER G0LD3URG: Go ahead. MR. DEGREGORIO: May X suggest for the sake of a complete record that the witness answer a3 many questions as possible within the scope of .his knowledge, and leave the questions of whr.t is relevant to one who has to make a decision^, so that extraneous information may be kept cut of the record, j merely sn the basis of what the witness thinks is relevant or {not? X think that would be a loss to the record. ! EXAMINER GOLDSuTvG: All righu. | hr. WOLFS: Dr. Wright, since you support the rednntr.on -,f. w 1? l z<m is {from 12 to S of the allowable-norber of pnrticals, this iu itssit?- l is knowledge. That previous thoughts about what vr.r cafe, cr i ^; modifications no-id au for them, wew' e ehangad. You mention:'.! tv.?or-;: .j j at the beginning of your h sitimoay, that a jurabar of workers j h tf u 'i co.ly:a.-.iosad ;i t;ansbustoswithout over devolooircr disease. > i. j{ *: ; Thn JM'.ir as stated, would laws no worker dovolep dis:;^:; !< i j{ 1 `.Mint X -i-.-ii really-.rendering is, oir.ee thetechnicalfeasibility * !j uniats to love:*: levels in plants down to the 2 that has been .i i I i! ! : racer.r.-adeJ by the criteria package, why should not one opt a, You elXv.iad to the fast that tliw new 3 standard coma il 2d a I substantial safety Castor. The quiistio i J. rarsa is, is at ) substantial enough? ' -* 267 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 46 I Zh othor words, if any possibility exists. for any \ v\ Z worker to develop disease at that level, why should it not be 3 lowered to 2 until proven otherwise? 4 You would have the burden of proof be placed'on worker^ i 5 or on people developing data to show that it is unsafe, and'I C thiijfc the burden of proof really in the face of something ce 7 disastrous as asbestos needs to be to show that it i3 safe, and 8 if there is any possibility existing, which Z think there is, 't 1 9 for the development of disease at 2, why can v;e not go down to ; 'j 10 thereuntil it can beproven or shownthat 2 is too lov/, and j l 11 then perhaps it could bobuiltback up? | . 1 13 DS. WRIGHT: S thought I made it as clear as I could j s1 13 that I believed .5 fifcora is sera, I think thn evidanco. clearly 14 {supports this,.in tarns of either xrifcrosin, which ./e call csi*-s~ li . : 15 Mtcsis, i. or baror.chcgQiiic cancer. I don't kncrw what the number sfroul: : 15 l!*?c for m.Tothnlioir.n, but since it is nvr.lr.tsd to z. cvosiclolita Ij . ! 17 jjsnd nmesite, if we cont-rol these two mors stringently ws would in !0 tall probability i g--t rid of any m:cotbeXior.ru - ; : 19 \ \ ilk. WOl'.TS: What would you estimate the sJrstmvij'.al ' ! safely faeces is? * 20 1i 21 0,v obviously eaa gets diseases at a carv-cin level, ; .:a j (i ! i; ?ns suvn, "i.'a w*_t to really-insure protection cr the v;e::k.:a ! {' " .... ; I' ------- ---------------- ....... j , Dn v.hnt basis do you agraa or diyacrrcc witha'clone suhskzniv..1 ; se.icv.y factor? \1: .. . ----- _ . . . ------ j ij Dk. '.KaiCliT: 2 think the avid&nca :s X interpret it is j !! , i '20 1 that every worker would be protected, 100 percent, In my judgmanh, 2 would be protootod from acbestosis or bronchogenic cancer in 3 tents of this boing excess at a level of 5 fibers* 4 You have tc bear in mind that bronchogenic cancer is j 5 a common kind of cetaear. Seise vtorkors will still get it, but' ! it will not bo in encase, and therefore there in no greater vis!;! 6 i 7 for them to g* ot it at the 5 level th. an if they had never wall:ad t* * 8 into an asbostos-using factory. j 9 I-El. WOLFE: Since ws ore dealing with noasurenaat -of j 10 fibers over 5 microns, and since we are-not dealing with the S i \ 11 fibors or fibriles which scino people thirk arc related to ochir j 12 sorts of disease, can we not assures at least in a nu;.>er of ia- ; . * i 13' otancas that there is, partic"ularly wV.en thsre are ' ofciuar forjia__ i,, U of asboatosis mined with tho chrybotila, that gainr down, again. ` '' -1 15 belov/ 5. down to 2, would net increase tho possibility of protect.-; 10 of werkors in sc;?a of these other aronn? 17 I agree with your idea that it would rv.obobiy be more 10 ar'scarfeo to sot other standards for theca smallo,: particles, 19 but at this pus.xit w$. j,c.v;> not, .-nd in x sense geiag down fro:r, S to -1 lor greater ih:*o 5 jjiersa fibers is also going to radars ; ~ o 1 y:y^i;rx"-`5 to care sthis* cos.jjrtfnnta, f ; -Could you i.7o-t-viaxit o:i ---------------------- :--------- ------------- i 23 --Iit. >:iHGIM.'r -- Could you-rephracc--yo'. tr--cj\'otvtion*-o -X-------24 con goc it ream clearly? 25 V.OLF.O: v:a arc dealing c-nly with tbo greater than 269 8 1 five micron fibers* By lowering this further to 2, for instance, 2 or ultimately down to zero, ere we not also decreasing exposure 3 to ca yet unmeasured sorts of particles and fibers7 DOCUMENT 4 MR. WRIGHT t 2 thin]; you have to look at that in this 5 way, and that is, whatever particles you ,uay have in mind, which 6 wo ora not now measuring, have been thora over this past 40 years 7 in that environnent whore we have been naasuriag 5 nicrona and 8 over particles* 9 There are two ways of looking at this. We do hava some $0 documented evidence that the electron nireroeeopa size fibers 11 | are there in vary large numbers in the environment that va new 12 jhnew at the five micron level i3 a safe level', so far as asbestos. 13~ i i3 concerned and bronchogenic .cancer are concerned. We kacw-tka i 14 i.the flbera have been kh-are since asbestos has; bean in use. !! L J5 15 I 'thin!: thin is ny way of nr:r.warring ycur question, that ExJ ;$ j.when wo so a the' light microscope cine c 5 microns as being th* 5 27 1-rr.e j! wc vill look at, ;;e are automatically taking care-of tho r.M size fibers, boenuna thay have been thera all the tirca* ir i what you would like to knew is, is there a direct relationship bit*.`.ten the light sired fibers and the EM slued IM* 21 fiber.;. That is a piece of information va do not h**e. l --sicawimv. SOriWURS: r>;;. Vlvight, let as ask you one 23 qucnticn. I era asking \iccticur; to oOcr.blT.sk' the record; En X I* 24 judarctund you, ( then, that the xuuainvee.v.eiu: of the 5 micron . . . 4| 5 through ti.uj light microscope coos not establish the consent oJ. ' 270 49 smaller fibers which would be discovered by the electron microccApcV '* DR. WRIGHT: You are correct. Zt does not. J' - EXAMINER G0LD3UF.G: There is no established corsol&tion in content? I DR. WRIGHT: iMm MR. SIEGEL: Rot 03 yet. ***** lly noma is Edward Siegel. I tun o ranter of the American Cornell of G*overnme n*tal Industrial Hygienicfcs, ! } and I ha-Su a question la reg*a,, rd to Dr. Wright'3 statement that i4i the ACGIH has said there ir. 510 noed to lower the standard below \ 5. I .I ca coxiawhtt pucsltti by this. 2 ca well familiar with the publication of the LDfg, but in the preamble to this, ; i if'states that thaso are only to bo used as guidelines. Thor^__ !_| r.t 14 is no statement that you are not to lower it below this, c; raise it above that, for that matter, and I as jus't wondnrinc: f if yon have rocaivad ?.ny othtr prer-o*.'.r.(ss*t:nt or letter I.vn.o. 4 or on what you bna.? that rather firm figure. j tG i? DR. WRIGHT: I don't thin!: that what I sr-.id is ir. IQ conflict with what yea arc saying. Vou are .b~olutciy correct il Pq jj that the principal underlying thss YhV*;i i~ that if you want to 2\ f{jgo bel't! then you can. 1 '*** ; The suggestion io that you not go above thorn, -hr ; on llovideiica Vh;*.t I hed i" bv personal telephone call, epeahim* ! ' |i " . * II jj. iiwiti: Dr. tot.*li.--;cr, cud I lia.*e u latter in ay poacossicn r'-v: ; .r IJ from Dr. f.tvtc.tAagnr er.ylr.cj that the masting was held, ana il,.,y :. 2Y1 illeg ible documemt I had considered and saw no reason to change the TLV as it currently stands at 5. MR. SIEGEL: I would say I agree with that, but the preamble to the TLV is not a statement that it should not bo above or below. DR. WRIGHT: I have no disagreement with that; if somebody wants to go below it, we are in the business of setting! something bare which is a PLV. MR. PSGR3GORIO: At the vary beginning of your pre i sentation you sot up certain data of scientific cafchodolcgy. fou' i expressed a view that in ordar for a study to bo correct, in } -- -- i J your judgment tho study would have to shew an accurate-relation-; f shio* between accurate measurements of exposure and the onset > )l | disease. ' . f* | DR. WRIGIIT: The level at which the excess begins to * t cr.C'.'v, yes. . ,5 I i! 11R. Dl'GITTICiruO: You m=sitir.ntd, else, the: possibility . * i !. of asbestos fibtiii md Just with agents , .<:<\ . 'r.-'.y.li the study. Gn that point, am I cor-rwt.fc ir.. assuming ' ; ', J; y-.u r.\uan that tl:o: mixture could either 5.ncr..;;:.A. ;.r darn-usee; j: i-.ii-.i ..-.Vi.jir.c-go.rdc nature of asher.fco:; fibs*:? * i. i .......-I'd. Wr^G!IT----yos" ,-As--Jiho.-qcicbcshJi^,. .iia. mr. t?:griKO?c-Q: Fins. ::cop it that w*./, :inu in the 24 \i.jht of those criteria or mathfijologiis yon have cousicc-rod v.s. I 25 of no value, or so uca, .-and I i think th:*:;o era your words, voir-: t 272 I studies made on tho relationship of asbestos and disease. You 2 have particularly referred, particularly and repeatedly roforrod 3 to studies made on insulation workers. 4 Could you please name some of those studies? 5 DR. WRIGHT: Kell, 1 would say that the studies by 6 Cooper, by Salnikoff, by Hares, theso come to my mind most 7 quickly. All of them spaak of the frequency of occurrence of 8 a biological abnormality, whether it ba fibrosis, or whatever 9 They docel: of thu frequency of occurrence in the population und. eLr 10 study. II That is cne side of the thing. Not a single one of them 12 rani; the severity of the csiposura end indicate by rush a ranking! 13 a comparison to the level at yhinh an ereerss of those disease.,------- 14 occurs. Not ors of them dees that. I 15 Therefore, they ere of ;'io use for the purposes v;o 14 rr-;;: rittir.g ter-- for, sc-maly, setting suoh a level. Teat cluco iI i 17 not r.e.m thay arc not useful fer other things. *iW% MR. C2S?.~GC-Z>:<:0: Ehak the things for which tlvey 19 useful? 7.0 Dll. To indicate chat asbestos is a hr.sard. 21 MR. DSGinGCDIO: 2 hops it has -rora uca tiicn that, 22 surely;-Those physicians clo not warts time proving what I r ::: res 23 'a lot 'oirv-aopioTicve alrosdy~cohc^(jid ion*;, long ago,'that thrrv * 24 ia relationship bot./cv* certain n::cosurris anti diseases, so 25 pronn.aa.bly chiso r-.ct -w. churn have tired to preve* rumethir.cj inure 273 1 concrete, more definite than that. * A\ 2 Do you know them personally? r 3 DR; WRIGHT: X don't know Hares personally. A S prove? * MR. DSGRDGORIO: Do you know what they arc trying to VI t . 6 DR. WRIGHT: X can only react to that in terms of what 7 they write, which X can cramino with my own ayes, end my inter 8 pretation of what they write is what X have said. 9 MR. DSSRZG0nX0.t Do you know what they think the studies prove? X will ha more specific. Co you knot; thet these authors ! 10 11 you have mentioned, Selnikoff, and Cooper ar.d the others, do 12 you knot: if any of thorn believes that his studies or anybody* 3 | studios offer good reason to believe that vs need a standard------ ]--13" 14 over than fibers tc assure tho protection of the health of IS the workers from either nrh^stosis or lung cancer, or whatever? ; to DR. t'SIGhT: I asi only r.ormms fren what I have hr>.a.;d i 17 dr. Selnikoff sc.y that ho bolieve3 this should be below 3, i l 10 Thare ore tin.ee when he cays it should ba below 2. This I have ; | 19 heard him soy. That ia k. long way from saying he has tho evidvicu 0 to demonstrate thot that is necessary. I 2 i MR. DS.iaiCOSXO: Do you think Dr. sslnifccfS is a 22 competent worker in the field? EXnMtM.SS C0X.*Uru: I will sustain \r.y own objection * ?A tc that question. 23 MR. D;;GSCOiMO: Would you cay, then, on the basis S3 1 of your last ancwar, would you say there la a difference of 2 opinion among the exports in tha area, a diffaronca of opinion 3 .as to whether something loss than fivo fibers standard is necas- 4 sary to protect tha health of workers? m rcw* O D 5 DR. WRIGHT: I would like you to loavo out the torn: c I "erpar-"/ because that requires r.3 to 3ay who is expert, and 7 i5j i don't intend to do that. Eut there is a difference of opinion. I 3 i That' in quite clear. I' 0 j HR. DEGFJrlGOUIO: Dr. VTright, ycu have stressed tho to Importance of peaks. During two days of* hearings, cumulative 11 exporionco has slao boon stressed as important in producing r1) LAI 12_ certain cleanses. .... -I13 Coald you tell us if the cumulative onoericncc \r. also. i 14 ' an important factor to consider? f l 15 | % DR. WhlSHT: There is a very scant evidence on hi- A.j. i o \{! Thare is soma to suggest, and perhaps Dr. McDonald will ro.vo.; v.o i 17 j: this, that if you take done onlv, said no time, and this would Y> Ij ' :c> llwhat vr.?. U* i'rc tnEkii:..*/ about, an accumulated dose, that thers As { J 13 a'j! a ro.lvticnahip h::i..von the excess of all pulncna*:;; fibrosis ana j-f) j; c.o-. j, but Ac aapnaro at times equally important, and perhaps i: ?:l 'f2 it c.-hj this in sc:.x ciruunstanccs. 22 ji -^ttov>;r./ yen- riucfc-hava at It-nrr. !j so'.ra <u j*-.. :ct to hard La belie /a that you could operate without j i| I j having 'r.c'xa quantity Accumulating, but to say that the qivnfcAty j* P.5 j in the lent; of r ticuucifcy ir. tw controlling factor an to what . 875 1 v/ould happen later on, 1 don't think one could say that and 2 substantiate it. 3 It is one of the factors. It takes that, plus tine. I don't knot; whether I answered.your question. You see, peaks, 5 you have mentioned'something about peaks, and they enter into 6 the dose. '. 7 KR. DEGREGORIO: Yes, of course. G OR. V?SIGHT: Because, as you know, you take any amount 9 of material end you, within the nest hour or two, you get rid to * of a large amount of it. It does not stay in`.the .lung. There is t. 11 a-cleansing irocbunisia in the lung, clow, the peal: doses, and I 12_ use the word "may" vaty advisedly, because I-cLon'tkncw this, j . . - ---- - -.t 13 but it is possible tl'S peak do3ss muy overwhelm tha cleansing ' i M jneshmirra and therefore you might retain more from-peel: dosen i 10 the:: from 'lower sustaining doses. { ! 16 It is for this reason that Z-1 think par.k doses .may trsr.j Yi be iiira ir.-sortant that the ts.iss weighted averages. IS Mr.. D^CitSGOllT.O: I have hoard said, in fast I have } I j ;s #-.aun it written, that there are differences, observable, in tlv i Vj ho.rv.lth experience of workers in mining and milling and worker*.! ] 21_ in ether oecur'utinnr. 1 w __ _ . ~1 luii;.>Tc~yo,a~rr.antior.cd more or* lass the ecus thing ..' 23 when ycu .vofovjrcd to insulation. lip you.balic-vo that? 2A Dll. WUXGCT; . Yes, I bn1leva it. The evidence indi;?. j i j f 25 thatJ 216 1 55 2 MR. DEGR\fE *G0RI0: Do you knew why it happens? DR. WRIGHT:[ Wall. I touched on that in my testimony. 3 I said it was a natter that was unresolved. I think that in 4 raining and milling you have less opportunity for exposure to --6 5 other things simultaneously, and furthermore, the geometry of j m 6 the fibers may bo different, because fibars bundles, as you handle | trr& 7 them, tend to break lengthwise and split longitudinally. So thrs ' 0 more tho fibar is handled, the more opportunity there is i;i 1:1m 1i U 9 handling of the fiber to have it becom cmallor and smaller. I O 10 The chrysotile fiber in many instances is a curly ui i3 ra r.ns 11 fiber,'which, a.Vchough its dianator let's sr.y i3 of a certain 12 dinsr.si.cn, by the time-you put tho curl in it, it is much broader, - ts i and thsrafcrc it gets iwtarccptsd on the mucocil?JLary cleansing' Y~ i 54 ; mechanism end then comas out. 15 i i Them are animal experimento that show tsar. if you , 15 '} expose % animals to curly chryscti.V.:, fck fibers rc>tslued ar-; 2 17 {than if yriu exsnoed them tc straight c:roeifiolJ.tc. i' . TO J So there are raascus you /sight use to e::pi:\ir the diffcj:ci'.c:?.c b<3twen the minor and the insult.tion worker. F.V*. i,*'*'.'; ^54<, MR. D^G'KGORY.O: We have made a distinction, then, -< i*. j ;} ! 11 ' * ]:bcfcv.t:<' mining u>d milling and thoinsulationworkers*. Do you. i f* it:* "" * ,* -'<2 j'kuow uZ anyotherdifisrounoaobsarvud byycvrsolfor others j ' * ji "" ~ " ' - " ` .. ................... ................... ' ': 23 [j amon 3 ir.oriaLion workors^ and workers, nay - engaged Xu iru:a;;ar.kx<: '! -?.} iis' Cil. WRIGI.T: ` juggai:t thus t:he CJ . ihs datatlvr.t is: i:: the literature would workers, at least, au reported by Dr. Ncwnoucw, a:;vc about cho saino bio?ogival onporiesicas as tha 277 1 insulation workers have. 2 The textile worhors that have been reported thus for 3 by Dr. Knox 2 don't think would have quite the oana. They would 4 be a little less severe. l?hen you look at these, that is about 5 all there is in the literature to look ct in tarns of published 6 data 'that you can cxcraine and make your own nind up about. 7 In contrast cro the raining and willing experiences, Q the experiences in Italy, the Cy?ru3 experience reported by 9 Gillason, and so forth. 20 The chrysotile ajrperiences of these people ars-quite 11 concordant, and all speak to the finding that the biological 12 effects have been far less severe in raining than in aanusacturini*r. 13 !-:K. KSG3KG0220* 'That seeras to ns c very imporfeant- -4-- 14 thing to consider because that scans to caution, at least, to 15 caut5.cn uc inapplying results of studios inraining ar.d 1 i 1-3 to vrorhors engar.odin thoseoccupations,doesn't it? *' il\ c*y DP.. ftliXGS?: I v.-onld grc.;:i with you whole hoartcdly. it) Tho only yiudy that, to ny mind, would go against this is fchr, t I:o unttarivi:::' dtfta which suegests that at least q far as broncho- ' i*'# u* nsia cancr.r is cor.corned, the requirement to develop it is that! l 21 the exposures arc quite heavy, and the .studies ill England which : 2-2- have led then to holiive than the exposure rcudt`~b~a''heavy''anehYjh' i" 23 to have at least prod .iced, asbastocis buforc them is an e:cee.f:r; J 24 of bronchogenic cancer. - - ' -.............................................................. - ................. j -. - --j t 23 This r?cu-;o not apply -at all to raesothollcrau,. to that; . \ 273 57 1 question 2 HR. DEGRSGORIO: I won't even keep you long. Thero 3 is one think you said which i3 very important before those h rfasa U> o D UJ 4 proceedings, and I want to ask you questions about that. 5 You have said that thero is evidence, to your mind, 1 6 that v;c need not go below ! in order to protect the health of ! workers. In support of that conclusion, you havo mentioned \\hn j 7 8 study by McDonald in Canada, which I understood was made on I I 9 mining workers. 10 DP.. WPJGHT: Mines and mills. U MR. DEG3ZG0RX0: Rut your conclusion spoliots ecroan I 12 the board, bocar.3a wc arc considering a standard to qll vrorlrors; 13 r.croo-i the beard. ' ` ......"~ tS.i.'NJ o A 24 DR. WRIGHT; I included Dr. ;i<stardica*i; study, 1 15 |-)which is cr. M-tr.ufaefcuring. li 2*3 'A i] MR. DfrXKDGORXOi P-Lg'.it, yes. 1' i !j * ' Y.ovt vhat 2 would 15J:o ho find nut is this: Do thane :| : !; sfcv.i'l.uR v:hich you mentioned urov.: that .somehow that CA-rtni-* i-.y-ics 11 <9 ;i ** uatiar: obv.o tioii, that r.:s r.dvorco o&?:s?t has hc.-n ' !i I rn :]V-f `-vT.uit frer*. cartcin exposures, c-r do they really prove, ho ! i'j . } >h`.u* iciind, that such exposures, or similar exooraro.:/ will n:-.: : /S' ,| I ...............* - ----- - --........ ......... -- 11----- ----------f- 22 j| :u'.c ill c.u* r.ro? biological effects \u ottor g-o;.r ; in rr.u.m>.?. ; ; ' Xu eth3r words. what X an. drivius at is tai: : can j , l'wo tDOia those rosul-n and apply those rsr.ults to n 1: .; 1: groua:; ."`part i:rcu the cjoa.-.fcior. cf the differences wc have com? ' 279 58 1 DR. mSGHT: Well, your question is an extremely . 2 important one, and a very appropriate ono. jC used the term h ZUJ CEa ID u o Q icril EoJ -J 3 "first approximation" and Z us,ed that advisedly. Zt shou* ld imply very strongly that we don't have all of the evidence necacj- sary to be adamant about all circumstances. 6 What I am saying is that we ro hare faced with the 7 problem of having to do something/ .and ws must therefore dor.I 8 with what we have available to Co somathing with/ and the evidence that Z have citcu includes mining and milling, it includes at | 9I 10 least cue study of manufacturing, and the data seam strong enough 11 so that in ay mind 1 believe, well, when taker, in conjunction fl ^ jttifch one thing that you may hot think is very scientific, end 13 !l hope you will permit me one l.apsa, when yon thin!; of the -aiKiene-v. 1 S 14 '(those p;.cp.\e operated under in the yeaio when they wire hevinc j 15 ji.'snposures that enured the disease they am now evidencing -- i(5 !jjiyou sec, v:e ha-',c. no information cn people o::peoa*i r.oly in the i| y j;!act ten yasrs, raa we won't hove it fer rc/.v.- period of tine. I ,,,, ji-vsccurie it uefcns tiro to develop who Sever is going to happen -- yc-u put those otnuici: together with thv ift.v.t that wo have |i /,,.0. ; *.a crurmsus reduction, ::r.d Z think *. r.m ac cc.-V.pessionato or, ;( !-!.u 2: 1! j-.v-rv-.ent we don`*t naed to go hole*.-: 5 until wo have -eore ;.* TT fcc rag sort that *;e should. ii.MM *1> - rf.4lU* *. TvU- .JAV. ?2\ i.j.*rw l'2 n * Well, vlun- tore evidence comes to b~r.r, Z think any U*4 il*:;cn r.r.t: lei peruc-o would ba werfc et.ly will in.: tu oc;.:.pc n-W " !l SCO 59 evidence, but on the basis of the evidonca wo currently have* and thare is one othor thing X sey that in my mind is so impor tant, and X think v/a are net subjecting individuals who will 'urn work under those circumstances to an excess risk of getting pulmonary fibrosis or bronchogenic cancer. r X made it clear that X am not in a position at this jmoment to express on opinion in tense of numbers with respect I \ to mesothelioma. The route I have gone here is that X would suggest a more stringent control of crocidolite and aroosite, because this seems to be the kind of asbestos than is associated! most strongly with excess mesothelioma. j,l j } I would recommend a maro stringent control, of then? two items. * ........ :A MP.. DEfJREGOSXO s IThat about c&rysafeile? ' UP.. WRIGHT: X would not include chrysotila, be. sou*;: ?c> i| ve hi*v:j evidence that the incranna in jnosothniioif.a is vary, -y . very 1-r.r, and i:i 3erne studies no:.-cxirhcntf with enrysotile. i-.h-n i, . i 23 i: you come to pure chryeot.ilc manufacturing, e::po:.*.ircs, X would Irrrr. Ij` ?> to cv.y u>i have csr.cantiaily no nurdbers, no data. They will h: !: !, f.O coning within the ne:;t two or three yczro, because there nr: j !f ! { studies ".vlerv;:.y nt the present moment that should dovolsp that . kir.u oC information. i 1 ' ?.3 ,* It is hard to find a pure cl-Tysctiia exposure, except iI ?A Jin mininr end rviilliivj. ' 7. have ::oi;.jhfc tlliligsntly for a onr* \ | 13 ! cbry.eoti.li* erpe.turci in manufacturing. I know oi! culy four in th.? 281 60 entire world. X have nob been able to parsunda one to undertoko etuidos in those places. That would bo extremely important. Pure anosibe, X think perhaps Or. Salnikoff's study at the Paterson plant, and X could bo corrected on that, but X Ithink it was essentially pure aaiosite, and that should bring out some very useful infomation, provided he can construct something about the intensity of past expocure. _- . ' That is c3sectiel. Xt can be the intensity of the exposure cr the nature of the materiel, and you nust know fcohh of those factors before you can incriminate one or the other. Xf you want to say that it is smssite that is the horaful materiel, you cast also prove then that .it occurred ia 0!i.e;^csu"..e Which wen low enough not to do it with ether material*.;- ' i | So it gets to J?s vary complicated. I don't Ir&cw whether 2 unsw *: 9 ,, fyour question. /' j; VR. n-SC-SSCOftXC: yes, you dirt, and I- thar.]. you vorv j MU. SuVPj'JE: ,1 have a .few short guaoticna. Vou did I\ j re cer-saoncL the 5 fibor standard. . i ***> ; Dr.. I?sa03?: .'Yes. ( | HR. 2A?CS* <)hlo you did nch go into engineering ! [controls, if; that til a wotlioci you. would auggast. to control te t; \ . . . i IS iliha.v .`Level? it ; Generally speaking, 2 mean? t j DR. b'RIGUV* Tes. X uhinl: that -- X aw trying to chin-; I 5 bad:. '282 61 I don't know of any other v/ay to do it. MR. Aru the engineering controls currently ; in uci designed specifically to lower the exposure level only to 5 fibers, and not loss? DR. WRIGliT: Well, I can tell you that from my hnowlodlj h there ars-circumstances vhero the engineering, and the perfbrmnch 2 D ! 8 2, and the::* are soma occupations and circumstances where I 0 think it is under 2. hut there aro still many places where it i I9i j *0 hs3 bs?n -- it has net even achieved 5 -- and strong efforts /ill .1 O 11 navo }< ts be made to get it to S. j Q ?2 _^u i`iv: other thing that 1 think should b& pointed o-.vfc * mJ G9 S i.- 'ihTt v.v..;r. v:o set r-.n^Msio, tic. thin is, 1 this--;, 'icmpevc'-v.-.-.*'..... - i; i *j i] to i too spirit which the British regulations run it, vihcr. -.-s . l! .15 )i]* ~2t a number, let's ray, c 5, it moan? that r.n operator w.;. 16 jl n:'-v- 5:0 work at 3. 1> ,n . Otnorvrr.so, h-a to ersirg tc be ot-t of compliance ;:: f. -J :r Jj.i-yj.'. 'cij. bcr;:.>;i5 yov n*v.v r.tr.y right at 3. 'ir.u go ei:.'-- ` -.V.` O i .- c." 1 fall ir. : -;r l ? c..*: ,..`VJi t *: 1 tli lai*r :.x th s \?*u.:l.-ar ir soui-wiv*:: di:' vrtiir. <...:. 1; , uc re o u-rctor i;- dlffsroi t, h-j cov.J.d hn i.n i.g. *:. Li* you .-el: it ah 1. Ur- h.:j to cpevn.:e :r; 1, ov - > r7 1 * t * ic' -ir. J. lu-.:: *.o c'.vt*. .a. thac Ut glve 111*.. hi; nu .\>S. of m'.' .:v s t ' m* 1. tor.' : bo out r row-pimr.v. * ``.'Ik i Lis'- -..L';:'. t:: l>i y: n iiiiJu ilirfaivuJl t..i- .. 283 62 They look it it/ what it is at the moment, and then give you acme leeway ns to how you work/ based on what is going ILLEGIBLE d o c u m e n t 3 o:: n:id wart the risks are. To get beck to your question/ X 4 link .:ng-.:.CGrirg is the way to get there/ and Z also think thnfci < ' .i :j | i_-c>:a art tiircurctencec whore it ip below 5/ and J don't knew . j 51 n -j v.:vs v\v. wouldn't eacourage people to go below 5. This i3 easy} ii 1 y \\ do. Thn concern is that if you put a limit that is unnoces;*. 9 \ 3 j you will jnir. the risk of staking some parts of the industry not %I ' 9 j bn able to comply, an3 you will bo asking them to comply unne 1" m 50 {sarilyr which X don't think anyone wants to do. K3. SJiritEs You also mentioned earlier in your \ r-.ntsi.utnt that garb ape there was scroa elorant of mi:: of other ! 1?. (,. -------------------------------- If * . 1 33 |/ c:\bs tmes.': in the exposure factor, f.cd Z sm suro you are avara :i i - il t-.vk <:. : -i atlul^ntir. 7 t; cUiai .'it? cfchrv 3*;rc it\:o~ . ' r ') *.w1: , In light ox the. fact fch.:t. each tiu?. wn d7>l with a s*v'Jr-tenet, or fcsi;v.f*Jl rvivt-r-ce wo nre going to hnr.r; t , . .*..s :.? -..'-.ho.: r ; ?::rhrpc leads to the toxic:.!." :) ' ; v .v. ../.f. do y;:; pro.?r:-o that dafar, t.;vsa[ i-. ft;-..-.; .1: ..is cvc yavtV 7.: . rr.-o:.?.*: c:. yi.j see this ra: r.r. il.-.c: icol. ?4 ; . :: tkiir.: -art woak vo-iid io legion:. i 1. : r.o.v.ry :* f.o>: :c* A:, in th.: urv;> ouVrit.:, In !' v. .., t. ;. i o oic 1).75.ci ;. .v: tlc:-n the ::ond *v .. jI-.i k.o.:. 'iC-r :10c i.ho cv . opi fchei; it is nited 1 t xposuras that do things, especially in carcinogenesis. When 2 you use a pure agent, sometimes nothing happens, when you combin 3 agents, somathing doe3 happen. 4 This is the real world. 'What you strive to do, of , ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 course, is that you know the agents that are involved, and those- 6 are the-ones you try to control. When you don't knew the agent:., 7 you are not in a position really to do the control. 8 Mil. EARLS: But you would agree to attempt* to learn as f I9 amah as possible about all of then as -- and approach them ore I 10 at a time so interested parties such a? yoursa.lt have an epper- { 11 tunity to speak to their particular interest. \ 12 DR. WRIC-IPP: Of course, that is n logical approach, 13 and a very logical and long, hard and tedious one. 14. MR. EARLE: Agreed. 15 EXAMINES COIDE'JEG: Is there ar.y evidence at this i1C itiwa as to the affect of env other substances combined with ssbc-p -.c: DR. WRIGHT: Weil, yes, if you will per,ait me, I will ;.io it briefly. There arc the striking r'afca that :>.. Solnihcff tq ir. which, j 2 i iu,is the fsiffarittne invokers, tha '1 ?r\ jj.rcnr'jogonic car.car viriruiiily vnniti.ua. This can be thouf.I;:; t:> *c . !: p::o`nnt*!*t co**c.1 tv; ><*'". .:n i*.i o thr.: the -.'.ur'-nrs ivv.*. V~v ij ... -.n 'Lite i.on. wi..o!U.ug iireuc. vn..vrj*.llv..A^uii:w...ta4>l 1 -------------------------------------1-- j; ... . * "' .............................................. T-- 23 : M,,* vurlhilecs, tj^veuso the means is guite high, in i.Jt 1 I i ti,. Liver, 1 think i:iiO ::t:.ill nuroer ir r.icnific.mt. So that is ore - '"l. . ` . .1. .... j(i: |, which is itn accepted in the ..i*., j.u i 285 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT world mostly thero are a few pso'ple who don't agree -- butmout of the people who look at the scientific data w< Aid say there is something which relates cigarette smoking to excessive lung cancer. When you come to looking at trace material, you tak --m, asbestos out of the earth in its raw state and from that time on you handle it mechanically. ?ou start with certain things .. that are present in the virgin fiber end then you keep adding thinao to it, end you add some things which are known eercinegeeb -I -- nickel, for example-- it tke3 a vary^hard steel to, especially with thecidolite, fco_rnake it into a forn you can use. So you have the problem'of trace metals attached no g* fibors, and there is scaa scientific evidence to 3rooort the *L 1 idea teat these trace metals may indeed play almost, if not the { rrcontrolling role, tw.il if wc loe::n- that, then, of course l Jiandls **is.r > *-' r.-vit-r, "Don't process vonr fiber with ! I .i materiel suehes r.ickal." ii I ijyl x am using this as an a:uun?le only. There is e ii go;.v.i avidrr.oe which has *iei: be:i published as yet, but I fcav*!. i! j. privy to see it, an which it appears seme trace wafc.-lr; r. A^ t i'. act as ruj'pvcoin.:!:..-. You rsl; r...*c there mixed agents that i..ck :*i it 'y* -.'v. ch.v/ic c unv.v/. Tntre is some evident.* *:h l! .{' this Lr,~ tm; thr.t thum rare cvi i>i:essaVi:3. 2'! i\ Thciv is iiv; whslo v^.vst/.eii of wh.it do other hyo-oc >:rn:n .. -. * 2D i:ouM oy i*jt hor.i.*ei tiio. .* that n::o in cj.crar-.il-fce sr.-c'.*.*. ! I i 286 1,, Wo knew the hydrocarbons are carcinogenic in their 2 own right, and v/Kcn you begin to hva incompletely burned 3 materials, than you form some of these hydrocarbons, end they 4 can be absorbed by asbestos. It is a fiarly good absorber, and *. * i 5 can be carried on end held inside the lungs. e So thore are bits and pieces, tha most dramatic, S 7 think, is Or. Solnlkoff's experience. * a EXAHXKJB2 G0LC3UP.G: I was thinking in products used 9 in tho industry processing. Let mo ask you. an elemental guentl - 10 which I don't think has been developed on the record. X guess 1! it has been assumed by everyono who has appeared here. There r 12 seems to be a general consensus that, a fiber level must be 13 established in the asbestos industry. It appears that this i? 14 banod on crpiricxl s'cnCy ac to the offoat of ilia ingestion of i 13 cusccoto.; fibor?. cv:-r periede of time in quantity, and them 13 dispute os to l:';v xussh of c. period ef tiro cad tha nuubtr ci: ' j ; I * | 1 17 qvav.tifcica. .iva :0 the Can you tell us what J.s tho peculiar nature of ar.h-o - tc _ <i f5.bcr, c.:? tosnerad to.other fibers which n::c u?;.:v.:n: ?.0 in /.in i'dv.3tri.il octnblichm^ntf. which ora ingested by verier? j r ever a .similar v.o.vk .life perio-u in aqu.il or areator quasi ti tv"' - - . t r/. ___ Whnt it fcU-c vooulicr pi.-aparty of oilust, toe v?hi;;l. i..J. -- . ;:3 it c,.si'a:.j:c:.jV;ic w,->an other \U;r:.vj o.r:.- not? *f : ! 34 1.YS-. i I v;c ccjpg 'o a.iGS'oi: your ts. antic;* vut^ Cu ts'.i ? '.r.:: ' . rvi*.i V.s I v;av.?.-! h:>. a vo ;:.iv V cl:.i *!;;v.v ! 287 makes it carcinogenic. For fibrogenesis, making scars in the lune, we have somo observations which don't lead to a final definitive conclusion of the kind you would like. Just let me say that Z don't Know about the carcinogenesis end of it. There ere. data including some going on at the present time in my own laboratory, because I am looking specifically ch the question of what is tho relationship between the goometry of a fiber and the biological reaction in terms of 3car or fibrosis,' and one tiling that is clear, you have to have a fiber that can be inhaled,.and retained. 1 .. Because somatiling does not happen even very abruptly. It i takes time, and it aioo takessomeamount, that is, there has to iti i'jJ'- .oe a valve:a of the T)r*sai'. t. I have aivimaj lungs uhat jlI " . --------- V, i you could lock c.-. vrlio.ro you can see one fiber, n::d no ro.a:cio, I. !3 and in another place in the lung if 'there are 15 or 20 fibers, ihsro will be areaction. :g H !t '7 ii It locks as thoughcue thing that hivs tohappen is j : ! T j!:':het v** ou must here vn--. . 7.t rr*st.*" of courro. oek thorr.* uod J. tu :?----3-f-c--s-tv*- t-h^-ra- lc: jj.. ..eno^c;!. .;*?r rci-x-hhing cc lir.pcfcn. i'hece era cs.iv: M T7 ------ - ,-q jlfibcrs that are curly that fall out high in the eir Lubes. ... *|1;vo:v cfhLluw tho:*! or rc.u^h them up. i|'% /. *.:i1I MJi. 1 r*v fc***/ !>!,*<r* it ^ *iT' A*A a T* " t ..WwJ.h 1 tot' CU w it*^t *4*1 4>. > >m * j|-o go i.i?:r.u,v 'a*1 ,,. ;. Jig It .i-.i a veil ..arch h:t:? Mr:- chillcy to --------- A. C ! :i*. <r.v |j Oi r ::;t. r. i i! i 288 67 1 If the fiber is short enough or flexible enough to 2 be taken into this single cell, or into a complex of half dosen 3 of these cells, it appears on the basis of what Z know about 4 it that such fibers are neutralised and don't do anything, Tbs.,, 5 sit there surround'by colls so'to speak. That is quite in C contrast with what happens with particles where the problem a* 7 tho reverse. a The cell ic killed by the free crystalline ii ? 9 This is not ture in the data that Z know of with respect to I 10 asbestos fibers. YJhen the asbestos fibor is long enough to not 11 be totally engulfed, it appears that then this is the siao fiber 12 that does cause the fibrous tissue. 13' llov; doss it do it? Z haven't the answer. There arc 14 people who are loolcing at whether it is a- chemical reaction i*. 15 tv; sen the surface of the fib ora, or whether it is the fact that IS you have a long structure sitting there which con act as 17 physical irritant. 1C I don't think we arc in a position to hac;5.n to \y. 19 that. Jir.t Z Co think vc have c-i the- basis' of oxijorirconts that lj others have d-us, on t:.a basis of c:;prjri.i.vsr.tc that I knew tO 21 }! th.vt i arc ooi:i:f qu no**short filers, Isas thun 5 Ailerons l.v.g* ; uii-.jv du i cause . 'ill>vcsir in vhi lung. ;l 2.1 i! .than. that, and tlv-fc .. u : ;' iny.o.-t.v.r.' < vs. One . tandoran .:::o anoravset' in t:/.tas of . if ............................ .1. t; -..v v . V.'ti.i;: cu\V; .: !*ib>.o:vL:J. I h." *2 r.o : ! . hour. cava: mI -P'. :.: s . 289 68 1 2 EXAMINER G0LD3URG* Thank you very much. "MR. BRODEUR: Dr. Wright# you stated that a standard 3 of 5 fibers per cubic centimeter would be sufficient and it would not be necessary to go lower than that. In describing * i 5 standards that e:sisted previous to that, you mentioned that 6 the recent standard which hed bean in effect for about 30 years 7 {previous to 1960 was the equivalent, of 30 fibers cubic centimeter. 3 You have told us during that time you worked on asbestos 3 disease and related pneumoconiosis at Saranac Lake# and since 10 1953 in a Department of Saint Luke's Hospital. 11 Z wanted to ask you, in those 30 years in which there 12 was a standard in effect,did you at any tiiso publish recovxr.sr.- 13 dations in any reports to lower that standard? --i-- 14 DR. HEIGHT: No. j 15 MR. DK0DN3U?.: Subsequent to 1S63 when a standard I 13 was * an inadequate standard and was lowered to 12 fibers per cubic! ! ii * Yf jjcentimeter.- did you between 1935 and the present time, cr say l 5i i Ljcs-rbnr when C3L2A tech v.o the ow-erg L-ncatmc'nrd of five j "; " j ' y : fj.be:.!, did y ;v. ;:t e:-y time publish* racomtancatiens. that the j : !I*; .r.h.tro f' -;v cubic oentijr.'ster he lowered? ! Ul .. . *. f ^ - - --*............... l.i a _ #V " _ . V i M .1m . W . )5*1- a, > * know is, r;o y $ j.'fcal t'.i.s : fiber.-, r cubic centime ter , *r*>.* . oily the r.'ybt . r, ' icvc.V, c.r v.'m:'.i> you * I.*/1./.!'; it V*. ' 'i0S| or .-.V !; . .. sir/ .... ;! v:cu;.J -- I !:::ov; you ..vaidii 'o i-.vic.: it dc .:.r. 4.W i! ! rci, whore , 69 1 you os far as what you .feci would bo safe? 290 2 DR. WRIGHT: I am right on the S. 3 MR. BR0D3HUR: Thank you, sir. 4 MR. ST. LAURiiNT: My name is Yves St. Laurant. fr** 5 Dr. bright, you ware at Saranac way back in the 1930's, am X 6 right? p*'* .i 7 DR. WRIGHT: Wall, the late 1930's, *5 .J o 8 MR. ST. LMJPJiNT: The director, the most important' 9 director of ressarch work than was Dr. Garten? o 10 DR WRIGHT: Ha was director, end I considered him m fci kJ fsj| c| iJ n I L'.mJ *j 11 iui important man. MR. ST. LT.URTsMT: His first works wera published 13 in 1931 with comments on inhalation of asbestos <f.uct and the" Id ernerirssntal studies or. pneumoconiosis -- 1931. 15 DR. WRIGHT: You hz.ro reviewed it more recently than 13 | X have. I will accept your 1531 date. 17 li MR. ST. IiiiU.YiJT: hnd iu the years co to his death IS jj he was very clocely r.-wignod, to your personal knowledge I e:.'; #1.1 ID j! ::c the pro>lcn zslzt:-.:'.'; to dust in ouv ires of Cuubsc Provide ji 20 j! ..!:e-e I c.r.i from? i ! dr. res, he v.mj. r r, I - .. Mffh ST. LirrY-.?T:_. i wore fc?:.: ljcut ol* ti- nre th:_ c`.t? r..::v.:r, t.rhirh____ of Vrof::McDonald of itv.'i' 1 v.vL"-.*.'.\ji.v.y,. '..ho > !-.nu fcod^y, a..; 1 right? _ ___ 291 70 1 MR. ST. LAURANT; Do these mines constitute, according 2 to your knowledge, a reservoir that has been supplying the 3 free world up to 35 or 90 percent of the crystals for the last *i 40 or 50 year3f although mining started up there a century ago? wp 5 DR. 17RIGHT: I understand that the proportion of the m 6 free world supply of asbestos is mined thero* f.na ss 7 MR. ST. L/iURAKT: Did X understand you rightly when u o UJ -J 9 B3.5W i* ? L 0 you stressed it seemed to be a paramount, if not the paramount 9 study, at least cs to mining, in connection with pure chrysotiln 10 asbestos? 11 DR. WRIGHT: Tea. 12 MR. ST.L7.DRAHT: Did I hear you say that Mr. McDonald 13 reported that the incidence of bronchogenic cancer there did" 14 not seem to be*in success of the rate affecting the population j l 1 [ et largo? IS t to D?.. KRIGKTs I did not cay that, but I understand that; 17 the study chevecl that. .* I ." * J 10 MR. ST. LhCSilST: i.::c you nwnre, }>r." V?rir,I;h# th:\t you *o* \II\I; ure concic'crtfl *. e bs the v.ou c.c.tvul-ctni in tha i'in.ld in r y fv you c.vcro that tl;_-ro. rare 3tulioa r.t 5-uranno ; I 1, r.i i- tir;: t'* -ur.**% re the Vrerc.v \ r.r/j ; stv.dy? " <;* 7. '*'.* *i*:k. \.i:y. c-- c-.'.--aj.v." w ith tchr: ... -- --. ja\ crx. a \ * .< V fit, ? MNmiI.U call it, aero: ij:1 s.tv.'.y :b\d -- tlu-.t v:;.:: iu lS-li-i or IflO -- . . *. !; I i c-'-iw II * ! : inH*? n.v o ; : ' did not racr.i to be in i ...i 292 71 .excess, maybe not in a substantial portion anyhow, to that existing in the general population? DR. WRIGHT: That is the sub9tcnco of the Drown report MR. ST. LAURANT: Aro you aware of the Metropolitan hs sha 6 V.) r.: 7 fja a *n-v o0 o.. 10 Cl 11 Life -- i .4 , MR. EARLE: May ho anuv;er? DR. WEIGHT: I dor. *t believe the Srown-Trurin study is the Saxanec Lake study. I gather from what you said that you ware inferring that it was. MR. ST. LAURAKT: Ho, it was an Industrial Hygiene roundetion study. I am sorry, sir. I should like to re3pactfull| i.y ji m Kir 1 o EH SBC.?ili Wn3 WB 12 ask you if you are aware, also, that the Metropolitan Laboratoryi 13 conducted an independent study under George Levy, who is' now"" ..... -- *. 3 14 vice president,' and I ara speaking about in tba IS'iO ls, tho i*:;.' i * 1iJft asbestos fecit of Quebec, as to the innider.ne of tufe-irculoRic or 10 iIJ;* pulmonary conditions in Cusbso end they found as tc tubovoiO. ri;.- J7 i| the incidence vac that of about the general pcaulnti.cn . 10 _.**** 13 MR. EARLS: 1: i-Jr. E::anir.*>r, with all dur respect to .r.v r.o 2! ^ >i I't about V.w vV uv.udXo.V. " 1. Mi:. ST. II don't 7. ^iiov.iu . ''* 7 I voulU ): : II r i to er.e or l..;o r.nro r-t.couienv ** vi.i-. ' iuoo:..' tha. ifAurtimre .of nav.:;3. vj m;. It I* . 293 1 ian of Professor Gilson, and Wagner, who have reported as to .5 * .... ,.2 Important data in connection with the problem now under con 3 sideration. ' . 4 Gilson, is that the Gilson that I know, that you know, S *ho is in charge of the pnoumooonio3is research bureau in Groat 6 9ritain? 7 DR. WSIGNT: Yes. 8 EXAMINER CCLD3UHG: I cm going to cut you off on this, 9 sir. You aro testifying, not asking questions. 10 MR. ST. LAURAHT; I am guilty. 11 EXAMINER GCLD30RG: I would seek to save you from 12 sin, sir. 13 (Laughter) ' i :4 JSXAMIiiSS GCIODSUIVS: Is there anything further cl this J 13 v/itasat? Thank yc;i, Dr. Wright. You have been vary helpful. 10 Off the record. \y (Discussion off the record) 10 KXAMXMCn GCLDDDIU** Wc trill racerro. 13 (Whe*r.ve.psn, a brief rec.j*s *rua to!cn.) 20 21 i- 23 25 EXAMINER G0LC3URC,: Ladies and Gentlemen, nay we resume. We will hava the next witness. Imn , tj iM?a (..:> r\iJ U o A t. * J HR. PUND3ACK: Our next witness is Dr. Thomas H. Davidson-. ----- : 5 STATEMENT 0? DR. THOMAS H. DAVIDSON, CORPORATE 6 MEDICAL DIRECTOR, uOSNS-KaSVXLLE CORPORATION 7 Dr. Davidson. Hr. Chairman, rv name is Dr. Thonas 0 3. Davidson, I an an II. D., a graduate of Northwestern University I 9 School of Msdicir.e, and certified by the American Rrard of ?re~ J 10 vantiva Jledieina in Occupational Kadicino. { 11 I am also a member of a number of Industrial or 12 -0c cupatione1 Nodical Organisations `which include being a Fei3.c;.' 13 i'iof tho Industrial Nadicr.! Association, a .'.v.a;ricv of li . A:a::iar.r . ! V> I!!:. r ; ,r `lof 5rov.-v-.tivn Nsdisir.s,- ar.d a Fellow of the iL-.-.erioau Culler*.: of. ! *; * ( ,,,, {`chest ?:v/sic:.ar.r. :: am tf.nd have been involved ir. oiracaircr :i 4 ' : l/.he -/rdioni pro:fr:v.r. for: Jo :::s-Il.vivi11e Corporation for uigbt ye*-!' I* I 0 ;-vu a major nanv.fr.ccuring 1c cation'in Wouhegn*:., Illinois* and fo hJ .J;e i-t last two ye:*..*:a as the Corporate ::>.Uccl Diracior. liw !It' Tecauio of lorg i**voivs::.r:it and basic interest A:i th . I. ,, li-tauoatv.nr.:-! hea lth problems of employees vorhiny with avhnste *+1 li I; .pr ai:'o.:!;tos containing rate::ia?.n, I r.porsuiatr: tho cp.eorlnjuitv '*Tr,ij7`ir____i. i!_________________________________________r. . 23 f f mrhiut; ccssnant wish rv;ra:-:d to tin; nrcviwionsox aha medical A ,. [(ortic;:;! of the or.Lsting i.'/ ih.-.srotinuy Standard:: and those Lvatly L-i.iug proposed rvrma:v.:nt Standards. 23 i i 74 1 2 3 295 .* There is certainly no disagreement among physiciano < such as myself who have had the opportunity of psrforming and < directing occupational periodic examination and health main ton** ance programs for many years, of the value of comprohensivo ft 5 periodic physical examinations end attendant medical tests and y <- .ci ? ) 1 J ) \ J ,-J G procedures. 7 Many of the proposed provisions fox* examinations rnd 6 procedures have long been incorporated in our company's nodical j 9 programs. 10 2 would, hrr.Mvar, like to comment on certain specifics j > 11 contained in thn existing Snargency Standards of January 12, 1j7|. - 1?. those proposed standard? in tha KIOSH Critoria Casement, and I isr those recommendations regarding kora the Proposed Standards for i jl . - - T'' J4 ji exposure t.6 asbestos submittad by-the ivdviso:%y Ccrnmittec, c-.ai:*u j !{ `/Tcbrnary 2, 1372. w 16 !i Mn the Jrauary 12, l.->73 standard for asbestos dv.:t jy j.socti.cn (c./, Msdictl Sacriaaticns, it states that '"Tha V.tt.j.Kc} ii johall provide, or make available at his cost, .appropriate i v -g !r.:odici! X tii.i mining -vrl r-iuifasturing VT* 1 v. ' rs.. Cr-raxv.ti ere tii.ai, I have corn r.f.tseiaicd with.. the amp Icyor U.:.- ^+;. <!if 1 * # ^ M r iirr ft 4 <b*% 1|^W f b * ^/ MMW **tl ________ jr?:.? onr'ilc r>w: feasible for our t.yc.: -.f i ; j>o'.-.;;i:-at.lon. -2 .-rso.i-.-ma.'ib.-thls-provirioK X-o. `.nacJ ~a~ Wart of the ;i ... .. . *; ,,, i - t * * . *; 5.:; a seeo:::.*avy Sc.-.tur.'i to earth.'.-.-, vh! *. . .............. . .. i ;!;.*..%wlit..* >.j -i.. --.......-- i: '.i::s cJjlr'.fntAuu" in jTiJoviouKr i'or appi'cyri*.!-.*' : % 296 75 1 respirator uso, job placement, maintenance of medical records 2 and other requirements of the proposed asbestos standards. 3 I would neat like to .constant with regard to the 4 selection of those employees who would be provided 3*\`ch medical h 5P C5! 3 oU D UJ -J o .J -I 5 examinations, undar the Emergency Standards of January 12, 1372, C section (g), employees exposed above `She currently recommended 7 threshold limit value (SLV) era to be axaminod. 3 Cased on my experience with mining and manufacturing 9 At is my opinion that the criteria for the selection of these 10 employees to be sraminsd is logically directed at these that have t! a work exposure abovo tha rsccas&aaded threshold limit valves. 12 Under the NICSH resomm&udations however, that 13" uolaaiion is docigratec. ao those employees exposed to shove 1 'y i l14 fiber par ex or peaks ?.bova 5 fibers. X sse no need for cpsoial ; 15U j euaminahici'. procedure for employees working vnc*n.f a thrarho.'.-i M VIi:! r.iai* valut tact Ac considered havnrd .'-raa under tieca star 1 * ,, ' :*.t Ac i:iis::sf`jrc my rcc;:ajr.ard.iu.oa that the crit a >.A< I * ij . c.% .` tor the sslcctAou of those omployoas to bo gxnmlr.ed be that ii' .... : -5. An c js'ricr. (c) of tiv* Szeritenoy Standards of ' 'J : ; : i ' ; f.J ;l With to thv cr-.ccuv.ncy of the* oraaiinaticc-.: #w. *j,! cu a "wvricAJ.c b"fi~ . .T 'iot**--1-*-.--v-v-h---t-h---e-- f-n-.'".er~--a:--nc"*--' --S--t-a--n--d--a--r--d----c-l------ 4.J | p?;^asv{.To:j ar.Ay \5TT~a'peril:die brass.11.' ' 'iaotu j...w^AI ... ;:} in ?ir. I'vntti*.! .VlvicVry Cctmatts..-. report and Gcctiou 2 ci I* ^ " ... ................. . - ...... >M . * \*sFt"^T'-'-ind h"a`a7'!vliI^::a:.Iiu'-Cti':a`'f6r`7f.pl<iy ^iTTtX 25 j _ ....... .................._ _{ 297 76 either a history of ton or more years of exposure or such pooltire findings and an examination every two years for workers with les* than ten years exposure. We endorse these recommendations 3ubjo to the exposure Units I have just commented upon. Regarding the content of the Medical Examinations ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT it is noted that the Emergency Standard simply indicates, * "appropriate medical examinations *" The 3I0SK Criteria Decuv ' and the Advisory Committee report reco'darend specific examinav. procedures. j flawed on my personal experience performing and direct:'j.;r such examination programs, those reccri'mandnticns of a 1<1 17 chest x-ray, spirometry, including F7C and F33V 1, and a compre- j hansiv-a medical history, to include smoking habits and couriac;".i:;g-- t I chat yrrakitig ahr.ll bo discouraged, ar;u a gansral comprehensive i iO ' physical examination arc. caric.inly all '-rell fcakan. Such examination prccudures have b:.nn performed for . many ynnrs by tho Johns-Jlanvilie force ration. I would endorse J *1 *m I Z1-1S2. all if fchvco avcormandations for tho scope of the exeminatios*. I wouldlike toexpress the following objections to other items ofthe.examinationracoraasisdationo. The Advisory Coiuittc-j raco.^mcrnlutienc under i'uragrapl: {hj, cub-pj-.rugrtph ~'fTiTT rnqniros ."e-jgxas.Sioau^'fS.l'^orTth^' presence e.nct degree of. . i I ) iJI \ jI rsepiruhery ^ynpioms..." Since there"i3 iin generally accepted j 1 II questionnaire, tfiuT'sir.va this iurormaticn './ill be included in -j th.? unusl.comprehensive .medical..history taken at the tine oi `-ha i examination, z raco-.nmond that no questionnaire be required as pj,rt z of the standards. i 3 With regard to the provision for cytology examination 4 as included in the committee rocorjnendntions this same paragraph I 5 (h), subparagraph (ii), I strongly urgu that such a provision 6 for cytology seminations not be included at this time. At this m 7 stage of the knowledge regarding the evaluation of sputum cytology 8 examinations, they vould not permit a useful evaluation of ouch 9 findings au atypical cells. 10 Zhose are generally recognised to be frequently cf . H obscure etiology and significance, Sinca atypical calls may l>a j l! . I 12 frequently found among smokers and other individuals subject to : J 13 | chronic respiratory and inflammatory conditions/ completely * 14 jifrera occvtr.ticncl dusu azposurus, the responsibility for 2jl.Vv.: 'up of such findings could not logically bi i*r signed under fcho #vm j provisions for theyu asbastos ofcanciardN. 17 | Of particular importance to mo *?s o physician arc*. 10 ]several ieportcut qvortions that umst ho eoss'idevee. tih&t i *.-: ID insulations oro to ba inccrror* l iV>r i-Jia iiaaSllug of tht.-:-: jyj |-iudivf.v'.uals that show a'c/picai cello, the etiology of which .'a O j *V * * lt * * ___ bhe qu.j*_i;ia:i af their continued caapicyisui.t with a: .Iu `-.'tvclirnZ 'Kjare i:?.- fcho roy. i:ibi Ity lie for furtkor - * lt-. j. v-j.J -v. pye;s..w3vr.u, i.u.h as.-bron jhencop;// biepsy, vstc? Further j p-.. jrd?.*3j.:ch,a:uot bo 'Sid^rtakrnjto develop tha significance cf H'ch. j T'"............ ;................................................ "F j 78 findings associated with asbestos exposure* My recommendation is that these procedures not bo included until tho body of knowledge in thl3 cron is more specific. ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT Doth Pre-Zwploymant Physical Examinations and ,* Termination Examinations are provided for in the NIOSH Criteria ! Document end tho Advisory Committee report. While v:e concur in tho reejornmandstior. for tho pre-employment physical examinations it is felt that a provision far a Termination Examination any prove to be medically unnecessary and administratively not . feasible. i! 11 Z draw your attention to the situation of employee*- ,, jj terminating their employment without any prior notice to their IA II * {ienwioyors and therefore affording no opportunity for ccomo. l.j.a. r.c---:--.----'-.---- t;- !i * . * ,, !,; of the em oloJyor. The employer wciild have substantial di? Tic. IVy ;i 15 i{('-in I j schnduling or arranging for :.'.35;.vnatics raid would have \ie authority to rsrjuire an employee having left amploy.r^nt. u . jlto return for jrst an examination. V1 Id : Mc.dicrlly it i felt that the. provisions for the % l ,, :rio0;l*: oxavinetieno o:: erplovu-su unccr one or two year into. if ~ ,rc-:juir:.d by-th-a otanuaulo will provide an employes vith a curie-- r:dica?. status evaluation. This aud.itiou.il examination pru:oiv.re ! 2* t!. -v>. *'-** i1 tar/;?:co^snry*............ .. My fins v no* 'i.rntcs .r.- with regard to the handling ef i t. [ 23A ^ r-Ui ;-.uc.irni ro-rordu ar .chay.~ l;;vcirv .the uvea of coniiu-:ntie. v:y. . liter. rnAuaucr of rv.vU cu.ratsnsl r^*rd-tozs i !! 300 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 79 1 their designates, or other medical consultants, and physicians 2 would be only upon the authorisation of tho cr.pioyco/patient. 3 This is a basic standard of medical practice end 4 ethics. This point of confidentiality has..always been one of * * 5 concern to we occupational physicians, since an employee's medic's! 6 records will contain information completely unrelated to his 7 occupational e:rparicnce. | a Therefore, provisions under these standards must 9 specifically preserve this right of tho eaployea/pntient. It TO is therefore my recommendation that Section {h), Subsection >. 11 of the /hnergency Standards of January 12, 1972, be changed 'as 12 read as follows: 13 m !; u 15 ii 1! p ,7| "Tho records of medical examinations sha.'l be nlr/.c-r *. available only upon authorisation by the employes to the secretary of Zidsor, to the Secretary of Healtli, Education and TTolfcra, to designated representatives of either of them or to the other 13 ji Sjri ';0 Si physician:; designated by the orplpyce." ho you cos cr.e, fir. Coldburg, we strongly eiidoveo 9 20 jj the oour.cl and cc.nprehansiva medical muintcnc.nce programs f; 2,\ S| on.?lc.y ?r.c under the prevision:- of tlis:;:. ct^ndards with IIir;r-iasi^Xonnd e:^ptTcEC:ifcn .'.rgcsmmondrit.ioiVs..'.'".* ; C:3 Thunk you, tor., Chfiir-r.ru, for the opportunity of I! . J|vi nddreotfixm* - this henrin r. -- - ...... ............................ - - " lT>:?./a-vffiTTri,rourGT",r:l- -j-ryair;-J5T: -Drvicinrn.- you *:ro- ! crcuucu. rti * 3ui 80 t 2 HR. POMDSACK: Our neatfc witness is . frt, Fenner....... ...... STATEMENT OF HR. E. J1.- F2MHER, DIRECTOR OF h uudgfea 3 ENVXR0S1M3NTAL CONTROL# JOHJIS-HANVILLD CORPORATION 4 Hr. Fenner. X on Edmund 1-1. Fenner. Director of m 5 Environmental Control for the Johns-Manvilio Corooration. I erj t ! 6 a graduate mechanical engineer and a licensed professional onginr *> N* 7 eer. X have 31 .years of orparicnca in the acbc3t.es industry. j 6 The Jahnc-Manville Corporation" ir. 1935 'e&iablisheO 9 four industiral hygiene laboratories, one ach in I!ev/ Jersey, D oU D a DM & 10 Xllincis> California/ end Cv.eboc, Canada. These facilities pro-. 11 sently are staffed by 20 professional people. Industrial hyqiar.oj 12` surveys have been parformad within our company for over 30 . 13 years. 14 *. Host of cur hygienists have receiv-rd the r------ i training offered by the 0.. 3. Public Health Serviv.a,- For 15 | .: | 10 i*3 yearj/ we have been using the membrane*' filter method rsr.::.-r.?r.cr; I* 17 ! by the National Institute of Occupational Safety . rid' Health f rnii ; j.onicoi.ir.g airborne ]j-Si-ior. fiber in or.;.* plant.?. I: iO { We b-2JLlv.\ :n \u: : t John; j -. . :uivi ha.; 3:;oa\i experi * . so a.n-1 rr.-.;;;'. lurvninf.S'i in avaluefcio-i of .a abe;.-tan fibs;: duct lev tYt 11 :`" <i -*.Y i % 1MilM*k>,.' / . / (.. ' | or groi 1. JtTl j. ' I'li a vo.r.'.;.; -ac. 2. .> i.Vl v'.`V: cc:iku rni:;g the proper ;:a i;i. **%..;* *\i! _>::Ov.*.i ;; ?<:)! ov.r col.V: ;hiva co.' ** * P. <.uvnr.'.. 'j.; /J 1: * I**-i y-:-V . c-vv. I lit .-iVj'O'i of ;:iio Hs: a:;.`-eiicy 81 1 TLV of five fibers per milliliter. 1 will discuss five major 2 areas cs proaentod in the WIOSH criteria for the proposed stan- 3 dords, in the advisory committee recommendations, and in the 4 Emergency Standard itself. H Z m D 5 The fivo areas are monitoring# engineering methods, 6 work practices, signs, end protective devices. The first part: 7 of the HICSH criteria fiocumant states, "This standard is G amor-able to tcclmiques that are valid, reproducible* end.available 4} . 9 to .industry end governmental agencies." | 10 V7a believe this sentence refers to both monitor!*:*; O 11 and engineering methods. labile v;e concede that the monitor.'..?:: j 12 jl uetheds r.r cirtlined in aunsr-div l of the iTSCSE decnagnt are J DT!9 O 13 ;! valid, v;o cannot agree that they are rtproduai.blrs ::cr t'ir.t '-rr^v v [;- ' -- 14 J* ora f7or.o;.vi.M,-` gwgf Jr ir-T ,. __r~ ~.n r:- :o3 Ability of ..icuitorir.r results r.t fiber lovsii; of i:*. to i r i-. i v-illll..is possible but ocr oxrsricacv* hr:: .wV ft* ***% r/ : >.. . & lii . ::r.?:.uibs the 2 to 3 fiber: k *h -- `j I -*"*** * 2. o:l the criteria pucka s coiita;.no *>i.I *>. V* - aecLv:v-i* of the :::!3iy="i.: r~. '..*1 i. > * . f***)r not dispute th.v.ue, b;U < i .-*. . ***..*. . *!-*. " *iO . i..'i ''.r-AV/iy.y rfj-n r.* a ;,j the ti.\j .icr.lv-.' ;:.r ..:c`n.;i.. lev,*In nv - co ~ i:.'.y.i- ::, >.ili!.-*. v, i . :;.:r.;::.c r\ ! i..'-v. v.y' c\:.r:i-.: .:.i . ':rOi:tv.v.; <'uu..* ff ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 303 82 1 Additionally! vo understand that the enforcement 2 of the standard will be such that any fiber dust level above 3 the TLV of S fibers per millilctar, such as 5.1 fibers par 4 milliliter, will be held to be a 3ariou3 violation. 5 Appendix 1, air sampling methods, of the NIOSH % C criteria documents states that 95 percent confidence limits < 7 the analysis technique would hit plus or ainufc 20 percent, 't*:< 8 recommend that the OSHA enforcemsnt practices include nrovi.:.. 9 that talce into account every variabili-cy r/hen considering r, 10 citation. 11 While monitoring facilities end personnel 13 |javailable to Johns-Mauville, they are not at thin time avail, jl ;3 jj tc the thousands of other asbestos usorn. O:-;:-?. * own shr.~::;;--- i) . I; problem'* vill attest tc tira shortage i' * i3 I* hygiMirsfen. t % . . *.*!vVv^jlI I 4 .<I .Sr. O ilc'ivrci, at -this ti.ma, at t .; point, in ti.'i, in * IJ -I the intores to of time,r 7. vor.ld lihe to conclude ny* ver*bal i*a i; tr.rs.vao .y. f?/**. * a | l request thni: ell ry writ i, r.-.oni to::i"7 f .nojiurerxi-.g .v.sthocls , prentice." !? j: eorecir. a-:-vicar be included in the t-! tbs e/'f '.ei.-l i . __ * .. mwI *r>. . . ... r. i-:i; ... . . if thi v-o!. :: a `<ll * w-v* h'>.<, v.' :> Vv v. .-.y c f 1. thi * h*.s-o. >.1*1 w * > l >:*i 1 30i|- 83 1 marked Exhifc.it <1.. . 2 ' } (rhe document.rsferred to was marked 3 for idontification as Exhibit 41 and xxxH 4 5 was received in evidence) EXAMXBSR GOLDBURG: It is received in evidence. G May Mr. Fennor ha excused? 7 Mr. Stockier. \ '\ fc 3 MR. STECRLER: Mr. Fanns;-:, Two questions. Number 1. 9 if those services for monitoring and analysis are available to l JO the thousands of users, could you give U3 soma idea what tha n !i cost to those users for the service would be? \ 12 MR. rpiMER: Wall----- 13 MR. sascirLER: Could yov. give us a brief idea of'vlirV' cr/a o It J 14 it may cost? * 1C i! MR. FENCER: It is mv u^c'arstanair.c; that most r.onwr-.v JG | cagegad j] in this practice charge Lv tvoon 250 ..rd 3GC .dollars >\ 17 ! rran dr.y. 13 &<4ia U i .< ^ 4 < V ^ * a L I * to L'> land il * V hjv.; tha sst?.'/j i.u.'.'.yri::'c* c, ave l.borafcr / ^*1i **. .<* m *.** .< t.rM( ^J* {* - ' *% I. J ***<i ' V* T.\ f. i i . I t i.. ....... , t !* U A . .* .......... .. > . / ' .* !.' 'i. h.v" .::t< ! j:*: *. * ivii'1. ..r; 35 84 1 in the record? 2 EXAMINER GOLDBURG: Just a minute, Mr. Fenner. 3 Dr. Nicholson, the statement is available here. Why don't you read it quickly over the lunch racess and X will dircc BCn, mV u oO ciro o L-j rauS oJ 5 Mr. Pundsack to keep Mr. Fenner available for questioning aftor a the lunch recess. M 7I Do you have any additional copies of this statement?. 0 MR. FENNER: I do. 0 EXAMINER G0LD2URG: Could you get one and give it to 10 | Mr. Nicholson right r.cv:? I11 Mll| :i 12 MR. FENNER: for., oir. I EXAMINER GCLD3UF.G: Let the record note then Mr. Fanner II 13 is bonding a copy of his statement to Dr. Nicho`.?;oi. Mr. 14 >.l\, EARLE: Vos. In reccnenending corns flexibility in ! IS J the enforcrmtnt policy because of incooar:;to rncl iradacuttc : ^ |i readings, what kinds of flexibility r<* you suggesting? 17 M 1; ! +j X *;* you .\*Kr-# S-EliK -`ri>l * *tir fcvo :o, I fori i? * t% \ * j f\ * ^ r; .< <*: r ** .. '% ^ ir.r? i.. the r.r.r'-c. a. Y^ ........ *. rr; iv. r* *vi.U! v .. ... ,,. ..... _ .. **XV *, .,1 f ** i 'V *' ..-3 1* :.j.; * iv.: . . * V -M .t. . ! _ i < **.' .'*.7. j *. . i I ii.* ni . 3b 'STATEMENT OF DR. FRSD L. PUMD3ACK, VICE PRESIDENT, JOHNS-KANVILLE CORPORATION Dr. Pundsack'. ky name is Fred L. Pundsack, and 1 am Vice President for Research ancl Development for the Johns- * ** i Nanville Corporation. I have a Ph.D. in Chordstry, and I have boon involved with reso-orch ancl development work on asbestos for almost 20 years. _ The purpose of my statement is to discuss the several warning leboi requirements for asbestos and asbestos-containing 0 i>products which'are specified in the v2.rio-.2s posn.'.snsnt standard; " for asbestos which have 'cucn proposed for consideration by the 61 Q Occupational Safety end Health Administration. These hearings have' established clearly that the 12/. rule that i3 pic^iigntcsd with respect to the permanent oc2 cmXI* !' ?. tar-dard for asbestos extends far beyond the direct, effect o, try and the people who work in it-. "hr. Ccon^rtionr.l Soak:tv Vo-ilWi Act olacos in .. iv? c grxynv-isa?; ?ad &15 :.rimr-frw*rt o>: av.vinr.srt cu- I* .%** * 0m *+ .*.{ ' f V* **V iu * * * * ' */ * ! ;. * .' *>V|C I. > . I' ' ! ****. '* '* .tl * * . ' 1ola urea*. >:vr sibil:*t. . ' . 1 .* r " -i-* . ' ` * . * ' c; A *, *. * , >,* \ * i **.* t I *!%% M ** ' * '! **.*. * V *(i i'/. *r' i' t. ' 1 ^ * l'i% .1 ' r 1 1* - # * 14 * - tu* C * t ; .> .. >. * i .. oi* .. \ cl . i: * l,,4 ,'* 307 86 requirementsIf theso label requirements are adopted in thoir proposed form, they will in our opinion destroy large amounts of the industry ana eliminate thousands of jobs. And they will . do this without any significant evidence chat the proposad types of labels are r.eceooeryT^ *5 I would like to spend the rent of my testimony to point out why the proposed labels arc unnecessarily destructive to the industry, and to offer a constructive alternative which j I will accomplish tha objectives of protecting tl*.& health of the i i worker and maintaining the useful products end the viability cf { f H !tho asbestos industry. ; Tho purpose of a warning label is to nlcrfc the Ubtr, . >i 13 {jin thi3 c->ne the worker, to bar.ardn -.hot :.:aV-be narn.^.auod :*. v.h. j #(4> J. i, >! * S"*'' *'i* '/ .f -- i i': ie r.pp> indicate !:ha p^-or.-:tic.r.sry sto::3 the worker j * | : w **'" * -- . cl. 1 1 1. 1#,* !#,# **. >.** v* . 1. , " JS C*!V-' . ** ; .^* ----------- " " "s " ^ if* -i . '# -"V*, t.J m. -- vi 1; *, v . . .... ;. > vi 5KJ,. *;? j..* x---- r >__.L*.. t *___ ^> ** t* **.r* *1 ' s t *; *.: M *i. # < ^ t * ***.-, i'* * \ | ^")*,* 'Ni ., V*.. ' . I ... I ! -:;, 308 87 I rapidly, ofton in a natter of minutes or hours. In addition, 2 the chemicals sometimes pose additional hazards because they may h 3 hove very lev flash points and they may be highly flammable 4 or explosive or corrosive. 5 Asbestos, an inorganic substance, which has no vapor bno 6 prossura, is not explosive, does not bum, and'in not absorbed B&XJ 7 through the skin, does not fit very well into the-numerical m ! 8 hazard rating system for these types of properties. Heverthelssb O ft asa 8 fcho HIOSH raccrsaendaticas for an occupational exposure standard j j to for asbestos in Section 2- Labeling, of their document rccer-fumcl' 'i !1 a warning label for asbestos which uses the toxicity sfcandr.r.vi.'; ^ 12 j developed in 1SJSd ar.d resorted at that time new .in an article * i ! 13J viiticd "Safe Handling Procedures for Compounds Developed.by the--.- I 14 i Patro Chemical Induntry." i. * I; to iI!V Ke boa levs th2 application of this typo of labeling to |j ar.b*s:r:tO ir. :'.n?ppr3p:ci.ate. Instead, v.*o recommend that a ccavtii. !.! ! ij or va.cx:.r;y .label with the follovii:`g typo of hrxfc bo used on bags* j| j|or coufc.o.r.crc of .-.nbsstoc fibcc: 15 ;ii<;' f*. fn '.`'..is h;..g cox tains nx.y.-oltile arbnrios fiber. r j J'v.':vi. y *. : '5:e tyre J fib .':: v:iiivolvci, ji . : . ,, t. ' .-"j . .* V. . . b . U.J J ..|'I... . - . - ......................................... -- '.> !! o:'. . r'^ _. i.i ;.v:t qwentitic:.* 309 88 respirators approvad by the tf. S. Bureau of Hines for protection against pneumoconiosis producing dusts should be worn. Z would like to direct your attention now to the ( Advisory Coimniitea rocomendations. Tho Advisory Committee recot.-' mendations on Asbestos Dust standards go far beyond the lebelingj recommendations made by HXQS2I. The Advisory Corsaittoe in so US (f) - Warning label and sign part (1) propose that a warning label be affixed to all raw products, mixtures end finished products containing 5 percent or more by weight of asbestos - The legend proposed for the label utilizes the io-rr: ^ ology "viay csitse aabestonis and cancer" in large bold typt. On. the ofchar hand, the label dees not.rsally cats the precaution ia 'i<} the worker should take to p* rotect himself*. ... .r. 11 i 1? J \'.i keliova this proposed label cr erbastos-contr.-iAtWT i t- itprcdusts i:: unnacaasarily frightening and s....iy.:>u.::g, and it world; n ; have a very ruvr.re and v:e haiia^e undeserved. economic imp--.oh : * ' 13 tithe in it:.:;! try. '.7hn73.-srcr.al to 1 .hoi ell asbes :os-ociitaini:t i0 jWadnctn else ign-irau the p.vlni t'.ir t in ..Ivj ..i jri.: y c AW jj I Is 2i ;; 1 pivveci-.-.j, Li-.e srbcslv.:.; is f ** !*. **? #*s* r 1 .* * Umi I l M Iv loo.'; in : 'r ` ` il t*.' 1 .. . . 4V ' 4 * *** Ar^r* u'Srf -l.V ^ ! i.o t'j ; -o\ , > !: : ...V.' ' . 1 i 89 1 *3*U I * . pipes hos bean in use within this country for 40 years, and 2 wo know of not one single case of asbestos related disease 3 associated with the installation or uso of asbestos cement pipe. 4 Yet the Advisory Committee recommendation would require that t.i.%. ' i 5 product carry a lafcol that it "may cause cancer." I don't believe that it takQ3 vary much imagination 11 " KEra acJi o o ft t& J Q K3C.9 &yj j 7 to envision whr.t will quid:ly happen to the &cbecto3 cement 8 pips industry if this labeling requirement is adopted. The 9 industry will singly cease to o::ict, and I beliovo it will .soar, e 10 to e:cist within 2 or 4 years aftor the adoption of tho labeling { 11 .requirement I have just discussed. 12_ St will cease to a::i3i bocau'e of the unjustified uerr,; 4 13 "cancer" in the label will frighten and terrify;people. * 14 If the asbestos comant pipe industry should fail.- j . 13 will mean the alcring of mere f:v;i a doccn i.-i-.rufacturinf-- pi* nt *iJr\ in this country, and it will pat thousands of people out ci v:. rh f ,, M, i W,`, J WM to k > *#W 4 VV^Um toU to. > - * I I ; * .. r*f". *? nl t ? " 1 * t".-; **c* * 4W .:. ; -l'!.!. '. * ':.r 5 t .*: -.n h p t ^I .. .*/ / ^* .... 4. . --... - ... ..`I:' to ; :! . i'/.;* * * 1 . *, ,*4 t* ** 4. . ;* - .. h u.-.: :;.e :! j. t * - 1 .: ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT - 311 90 Committee, is analagous to sentencing to doath an innocent r\ victim. j Z have cited ac an example of the labeling problem only asbsstoa-cenant pica. The o;x.& general arguments, howevn::. * i t would apply to products such as asbestos-cement shingles, flat and corrugated asbastos-combnt sheets, vinyl asbestos floor tiln, asphalt saturated rooming felts tad a number of other products. ] * Wo believetherefore, that inproducts inwhich the Jt asbestos is looted in lilacs with a firm binder such as portlo.nl ji I coacnt, or plastics, no label is required or should be requir*:!., i Instruction in* r,ccd workpracticesin tfco handling end nppli- ji! cation of these ttv-oerials will provide .axcollont protection -to tha vorhors installing the materials. fra strongly urg-sl-hnr:, . * . .ihr.u I--.'*.sling ' lo.rti:.-.' in nr.be"t-is n.'.nt.-.iui'.g produces roc ts IJ ;* ir hind, v>n----.v--\iO--.--'r.::fc -\v r ' f * ./ . * i, * 7*' * *, `** V< "mv*1* ">***.. *** *** \ 1 . ,t j r * . V' .1 i' ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 2 3 4 5 6 i\ - ' 9 10 11 12 13 j l! M H!i /y * ;t ( 17 i. CAUTION THIS PRODUCT CONTANS ASBESTOS TIBER. INHALATION OP ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS 0? TIKE MAY 3S EAFwlFCJL. DUST MAY BE CREATED WEEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED.. I? PROPER DUST CCIITl'.OL C7JBK0T EE PROVIDED, R3SPIPAT0SS APPROVED BY T23 U. S. BUREAU OT I-lIUES PCF. PROTECTION AGAINST H-SUMOCOSIOSXS PRODUCING BUSTS SHOULD E3 /"OPM. .! t < i > *I t il* ! * ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 323 92 We bolicve this label fulfills tiro requirer.iants of a good label. It alerts and instructs, and it does not terrify.- Zt uoulc! like to make one last point with regard to labeling. If laboling is required for asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold in the United Staten, then pre- | i vision shoxild be made to 3ce that ainilar products produced t abroad and ir.prted into the U. 5. bsar the ji^ma labels. ^i Othsrvrina, tl:o imports will enjoy an unfair competitive advantage. So. far as I am aware, 0532V does not have ; the .authority.to regulate those imports. . Than!: you,. Mr. Golcburg, for the opportunity to . testify at this hearing. ; j t' J lo }j :i 14 vji aanzs: 13 %* *:> ^/ 3ng to <.*5 i, ! " iridi'datod *y* ou lint;-: of no inutr^ven-s wher$ them ^have boo-;; I If i9t* % individuals v:Uo ;'.uca-*.*".' ir. this bura s'a?- have bad asfcs:-'.:o...:.c .,v- 0. . <.nil ha^ j tlvr:e h.vost any studies?* 0 : \v:.. .Vi V: .v.t ..v*.-.:; mi-.Jc. cn of ;*ny in d;*v*-.i* * !S ' * i *..* * *, ,* **. y i.w *i.* wi* " * * *\ - - |T < .V. > v>i * :* . I- z. m & D Uo a m j m 5 111 1 MR. EARLS: Whan it is cut, would a torker bo exposed? W. t' Would the asbestos fibers bo released by the cutting? 2 * MR. PUi.DSACu: Us could be exposed to the dust containing 3 4 asbestos fibers, but a proper work practice would be to r.iehe I '` that a K8t cut. That is what we mean by instructions in proper 5 work practices. C I MS. SARIS: I believe you indicated in labeling o2 that;. 7 I ** ... '.Tow would hn knew to do that? 8 DR. POKDSACK: By inotructioao and by a coda of proper 9 j;;ork. practices is the installation of asbestos cassnt pips. ,0| 7j.?hat would bo true. Tha installation of the citing and. shingla, it j 12 `too. | UR. CSGSJ7G02SI0: Tfco'ro is one ouastion 1 tUiisl i:: 13 j1 ` iiwortaa%, end n cuashicn that has been brought up before. 14 Ii! i( .;oko (! a distinction between, eliail 7. na"y, loose fiberz and lo'f -s- 16 17 ;; ilzv these a.sbes*:oa jcibnro locked in, cxz Icokorf . \i kind cf iui'it'tre. :3 j: it a shew* anl r.r.'..io;i the!: ke-:*j uivo ;:** hc.v.vj ii.ic'xwcC;? 1U .I .? %fc >i . . ..* . S M I ' I-.-... . ii.; ^ ^ ** **' ?. :i; *: : .* J'! ^. i .. . 1M .1*4 ' ra:. . . V;i 1 I* \ :ic-; *. :i > . $ ii*n , ' ' i 1. >vrs*v * 315 94 I" wrpjj wah'. -5 *v*u S o D kz:y fa -J is bound in piece by the resine that are used, in the case of 1 2 a vinyl floor tile. MR. DSGRZCOniO: Then the fibers are released by 3 cutting? 4 . DR. PttfDShCX: If duot wore generated in the cc.cn of 3 cutting, as in the case wa just discussed in asbestos cevwr.t p:.**r.. 6 dn3t which '70old certain fibers might be generater.. 7 K?.. rSGSSGORIOs Hew much cutting nsd abrasion ir: ::or.;h..l 8 in fchs. use, in the installation of products with asbestos rihc-.trj: 0 looted in? id . %. For o:;n!T.plo, in laying down pines or whatever, &*>: n4 much cutting is involved in that hind of work? ` w* D?l. PUITCSICK: In the oaso of pipe-.- I indicated 13 M jKti are relatively, few cuttings. It ir; not uaeomvon now on a oi-v- . . \ = I }< job to have tot r.oro fc!:ar. 2 cute during nn o.ntJ.re day of l-\;-: v..;r j;.' a ' i ol-v . :*!:i this car.: cf installing floor idle, floor tile >.; cut bv serr-ing it cr.<1 *ksr. breaking it, and the amount cf <?v ;h 17 i;or th*. mot*'.rial generated by that action is o::hrr.r;ely r.:w:. \i. Mt id ;:I **. ,.4i x.i.... .**. f s......:....... .. 1 |i *'.'*,: !*{'...*! <"|.*1*.11!*'* ' ' I i . .................. I' i. .. t *, .v"' 'vV-V**L': 1!: ii: vc: v* ` VV-rl '* ; * Wr. ::*;o 5; *:I * w **. - 95 been concoraed with this problem in torw3 of whether or not 1 | tharo is any significant release, in the ease of a built tip roof, for example. V?e have bean running accelerated weathering tests on thii* type of material for almost two years now, and 55* in which we run it through a cycle of simulated sunshine, simulated rain rnd collect all of tho air from the chamber emd all the water, and wo can report that in those studios, in r,o3t cases it is not possible to even detect light microscopically any csbostos fiber, and ve have on occasion detected electron microscope fibers in extremely small quantities, cr.d l am baiting . 1 in terms-'of billionths of a gram of material in gallons r.a.c; j J Cfi sssa O BcJ J gnllcnr. of vrtcr. \ 1' 33 ji . l-td. riiGSEGOPJOs I.uadorr.tand fror these hearing:. 'i,:. :; ii ` . I.j in c.r.zun uf :si:-:ttros the proportion of asbestos to tha otf'.er *i:j * Yv :j jrvfcstancss or substance is small. I hoar percentages iilc-j cv: . **} v? t-j IS. ?.ti that co::rr.<cit? ** </ ii . <; .m.*?.-, * t . 'fills i.'ov.ld 'deuoud .* :n the material. i| # 1-T "* *,% p% j J* r. !%. ri* cemont oiT-a, l.'n roec a for :znst uiv; :.. i' i? ; t r.;w: I J . 4 . .* t *4 . . m, v ; 10 ip 13 i r.-c-:,.t r.V Oititcs that >u;. t .5 ; V, * V I-*- - V > l.' .i i; J'f V", "l *..* - - ... .2..*, ^*I W l ' * f.? !! .f.v ,...,. :'t ..:i ifl' 1 I;.- V.: ... -A . i` . .. Wj it.' a a product w... . :;: ?,,*s** {: * it. i 317 rtv " .' 1 any way of knowing what would be the percontoga of the asbestos *' ( 2 dust and, briofly, what would be the percentage of fibers longer 3 than 5 microns,in that dust? ... i 4 DR. PUNDSAa:: X do not know of any studies which 5 accurately define the answer to the question that you have posed. 6 X personally do not have knowledge that would permit me to 7 give you the answer to the question. 8 MR. DS6SSGORIO: , You have made now a distinction, and 0 X won't keep you long, please, X assure you, you have cade a 10 distinction between what X might call hard products and soft 11 products, both containing locked in fibers. i2 What era come cl: thoec soft products? Whit arc they .mV* 13 usad for? . -* 14 DR. fJIlDi'ACM: v.'lr.'ia you talk about *nOft products, I j 15 I ussrt the terra "friable". J\a 'example of this would be the 12 cc: v.:.ly irw density typo pips insulation V.:ich i:'. installed \ ii i y ?y vr'.t t'j.*: :.i'.'.i..lr.ticn. 'vorlcera. This would ha a axatorlal \r. 10 rust eaves that i*.<u2 a dtcif.ity of jvsvhr.^s 10 t..- 1. ,yAmv.-3z *, : !.o 1 yj':.. you ~ yuu: on ':h :?.: a aid . *? ?.{ ,V*Vi, ,r,*! 4' .*;*f .*1* .1 * . t V *' *'') .1. .Vn / iC* *sV}. '. . * ***i .'< ** if ^...>*.**.1 * . 7. T..\-\ xv ;v r *v c..Ivat i*: 1 > y.\. *. ... : s*. -.'-.J r.:'. z..:.': /.* J 318 1 generated. These ora the materials that wo believe should have 2 cautionary or warning labels on them. 3 This is the thing that posos a hazard, we believe, to 4 the worker. 5 MR. DEGKSGOKIO: Can you offor a test, a v/ay of dis 6 tinguishing those two kinds of products? 7 DR. rUKDSACIC: 1 believe we could, and I would certain 8 suggest or acknowledge or urga that we would ba glad to work wit 9 Dfly appropriate cor,mittso or group on a definition that would to be satisfactory for products that are defined as locked in, or tl whatever would bn the proper term, versus not locked in. 12 MR. DEGSZGORXO: Thank you vary smeh. 13 MR. SklVCC: Along thoca lines, could you provide fc:.- 14 the record cf thus* hearings a list of products that you ccr.slr e 15 So be bonded, and not naoaesarily a list of the soft .products, rad perhaps, if possible, a breakdown of those products thr.t 17 co:a:.r,nly are sue, c: in w..y tr-.aiov u' 10 do:aetir.S you uiuad csb-.-sior. -iii.-., :sd.:r::taad, > it if vvn c*a tka floe; for s::*.crr.l years. ~ cssure that .:vr. . 5c.;2t t+ t j c-,: .* vihera. * * i, St; 11 InSo .. ir^o * * 1 I *" *' X "*! V * * *" * \ I >1 4|,^* . J*.. tlU - Of , v - /. . . * * <i % f* * * , , *1" * - * / f I . y. t> t:i _j at our .vrl: la' a ' I ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 319 98 1 that tho record would bo kept open for perhaps ten days aftar 2 the close of the hearing* - 3 I would like to submit that notarial next week if 4 it is satisfactory with you, to submit it into the record, a lis'i 5 of the n&tarielo that wo would consider locked in. 0 EXAMINES GOLEDUHG: Mext track will be satisfactory'. 7 MR. llICHCICOy: Dr. Eundeack, since Dr. Wright indicatod1 Vr% a special concern for the incidence of mesothelioma and suggou : i 9 that it might perhaps be associated with the ssbosfc03 varictiou,', crocicolito ar.d emosite, could you, for tho purpose of clarify*./^ 10 11 the record, give a brief history of the asbestos ccnoapt of \Z insulation materials that wore ucmd in. non-shipyard work for * i 13 tho past ?. or 3 d^ccd-sa? . ! i 14 I; DP,. ?USi)S2~:' if I mir&fc; Mr. 3:w.uei:r, tho witrsas ! `i {who was c.o.iog to fellow y.\s, Mr. Mareno, is prepared with infor- 15 ij , *IJ^ Ii;t #Im* CI/W.4Xw*! .O.ha** AUJi *4 WJb*V **4 V*WAW** **. . ' m 1 ^ Aj v,' >.< < ^ ^ # * * i. to ;; hi:?., i?.e thon if it has not fcv.nn cnv.werecl .to Dr. Uiehclcnr.'n j \ *U^* ' X rj-irt be h-ppy ts return end amplify it. ] 13 ~ hr:!-: i; II :. '/-v.v * !'! > V . *,* * vv* * ;' *i v: .T.d r. r .v J , .............- . . ;oi.O..vr..j v.v.t-av'.al-irt-.ic:: oI" oi*:: r. 320 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 99 1 in those types of insulation is several fold* It formS^a cohooivi 2 network through which the calcium silicate binder* which Is a 3 major component of both of those insulations* is interspersed. 4 It functions, then* as tha temperature increases* to ' ' * 5 form a cohesive network that holds tho insulation together* and 6 gives the shrink resistant characteristics. 7 MR. GRILL t V.'ould you say then if it is cut or scored 0 or abraded in any way in the application of-this that it would 9 be surrounded by these other materials because of what you just 10 said? 11 DR. PUNDS?.CX: It would b3 present* certainly with' 13 these other materials* and there certainly would be some of the % 13 aobastor. fibers that would haye adhering to thn pieces ana 14 fragments cf the calcium silicate binder that makes up the i I 15 1 insulation. IS MR. GRILL: Thank you. 17 STCffiSSSR COXiCSDTjG : hcvik you * Mr. Pundsack. 13 Off tha record. * 10 i, 20 j? I; II r.i !. :o 'uiscussiou efi tha record) SJanIdSR GCVAUUUG: '.la will rcsiisn at 1:20. C't.'naroi.pcn* ;*.t a.-'.) ij.u. tho hearing ::aca.30d* ......... t i*r !i it * i1 H* Or.:* rnr cw* D O Q m txsm & 1 Henry,B. Moreno, and X .am the Senior Operating Vice rrosiaenc. 2 of Johno-Manville responsible for the company*.n industrial and 3 Interactional Divisions. A X am a graduate of the University of Southern Calif 5 ornia with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and pc* 6 graduate work both at that institution and at the Harvard i 7 Business School. For the past 22 years, X have held x'orlons C |i sales, narksting, production, general management and senior 0 management positions with Johno-Manville.. 10 ' Ac our testimony thus for has indicated, ye support II the present OSEA emergency standards if they are modified as !2 suggested by Johuo-I'anvilla associates here today. -I 13 X would like to address my remarks primarily to the . 14 engineering problems involved end the economic impact of ir.ple- 1l = 15 wanting the standards. I will do this by relating personal 10 parlances and by presenting other information tliat v:c havu -; Ii j 17 developed for this hearing. . : * 10 Five ysnrs ego, 1 v;ao given responsibility for i ... i n iiFackinco r-:d Friction material:: C?.viaion. Vhin is the divis.'.'.r. ! ' ; > in cur co.irrr.y i-hich h?.3 tr.'.ny of th* .'cbar.'tcs hendiing prc.:.;.: / ; I {,l1i'i. rprcirjly in 'its c t -.i.r .*.s r.-tu r'rrictsr.n roioric.* ? * , * .. , r U..1. " ... * ! hh. ,'ivs o..?o ivc' right'vp t> the p: j' * 1!1! 1 krv; J :v*: o.-.i > v-ertis:; cl r.y ti.-r :. .-or*;idly ' ;..v>i:; y I. i; -i-w:. jyi: ji'c;1. co-i'h'.tioru for :*ur U ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 102 t particularly those working with asbestos fiber. 3S3 v 2 For the last four years, our goal has been to bring 3 all of our operations to a Threshold Limit Value of five to 4 six fibarspcr cc, which i3 half of the orovious LTV standard 5 ,o 12 flborc per cc. /[ ...... G Since we at Johns-Manvilla began our active dust 7 control program many years ago, we can spaale from experience 8 about the difficulty ehoed of achieving 5 fibers par cc and 9 solving environmental problems* Perhaps a specific example will to help give soma insight to cur activities. It One of our largest plants is located in Manvilia, Few 12 Jersey. It is a multi-product plant containing, euong other 13 things, a fairly extensive, integrated tc::tile operation. 14 Z first visit 3d the Kanvilla plant in IP`3D. Evon i, V/ 15 jjthcucfh v;e wazo unaware of specific health hazards, 2 con rr.;.-` c >} 1G lithe high visibility of dust which clouded the ambient air inr.i.o i! . . ;l-thc twitile baiidlng. 7 . Tte ::3ri-c:ne.l rnmuler rithcd of ivmnurisg dust wen i ' :ci {.." i2i!.: iht.A, but certainly -- if w;i could have measured * '?.y -'fiat m^thed -- vo would ij?.va determined tlxct the covii ' r.v-.:*.;-5: <vv:V " r.nt v.ive Over ?.0-1 fivozs: c.:r cc. * . J. ! : * * *m** i <m. /S W i .,** u :.< <*b * *.UJ sT. r:.i; ourjjral ; fchet a -- 1 - $ :rt\!;t Hit* w .i : .-.ti il .\V< ni. j'.tn I .1 i.i ! 'v. s\.>r.y / "3* . 103 J ` Extensive dust collecting systems were operating, 2 and the plant wne using much cleaner aobootos fiber now ' 3 available because of improved oguipnent at the mine3 in Canada. .it*' 4 tihen X assumed responsibility for fcho Packings and 5 Friction Matorioln Division late in 1967, the Manvilla textile 3** 6 oparation was included. WcxirKun cuct counts were about 30 m 7 fibc?3 per cc. D8 When we embarked upon cur program to reduce all covr.ts i 9 to five or six fibers per cc, it noon became apparent- that vto ha^ reached the practical limit of improving the system by collectini O 10 a 11 dust and other similar mechanical means,' i 12 A comolc.to redesign of process and aguipmpnt was * a rt mandatory. 'We aesesiblcd a fcsom of the host exports available BO: I >a 14 ii-.hiij our comprx:,* r.:\d talked fcc rraufactwa-rfi in beth f.:i tar':J iij United States and Europe to dstorrino if improved asbestos 'text;' -J . IS {:machinery Wire rrailabio, that weald perform within the dust lv*v* r 17 j|i;o h.*:d specified. i 10 ;! .Ift^r several mouths, it was determined fiat if i~;;;cv:> ' I- | 19 j^uiyisrii < * rtr. U r.vnilahla, v:c- vMu.'.d -..o i I 2J i'-iurral^'o. wr pros ;<* 2nd to co, and after a - ;i` m ' ifc '*!* ** .4 r> , ^ I4i I. fct'i , 2i i;i| # / * *B | . 4*,\ . f f * * * O ' !* 4**v ; 1 * % M>. D*k '* f. ( JL ml v % ' * . *f f . ; .. iv/ir.-i uiK. juvr^is *; i.hiii. ir ; a--- n vis jl'.v'isi.i r.ti.-.l'.y /.i.7C*-rs;::*. .v *. * . . .m i*: v : |( 9 Vti t .# ii !, Vi > k < .<41 i ^ . r:v ;t; wf:*jr. r*;; * .v'* .'V .> ****. ,, .\ .. . uk . i 325 104 1 fif&yporccnt duo to-our stringent operating procedures, we 2 are quite pleased with the results. i . 3 One can now look down the full length of the appro::** 1" Z m % 3 U O O III' -9 GQ 0 U 4 imat9ly 900 foot building through nearly cryrtal clear air. 1 . 5 This is a dramatic improvement from the appearanco throe years ; 6 ago and fantastic considering the operations os I first vir.r.r.d . ** 7 it in the late forties. 8 Host of our dust counts are now bolow fiva fibers cc. 0 Koto Isold" five net two, fibers par cc. If va sru rsquissC 10 to operate r,,t tfcs> two fibers per cc level, X can see no other SI solution for us but to shut down seme equipr^nt. Having brought 12 the counts from ICO fibsrs per cc to thoir present levels hut) m 13~ been a major accomplishment particularly f*Jhnn or.a caaslijars that a 14 radical results that censam uo all wore incurred under the far * i 15 wore dusty operating conditions and not Had*:: our current i-Xatr:1 16 methods. I .j 17 .1 have selected the textile o"peration for. my ccvc.tt:vh3 ;1 10 today bacr.v.ca .that is cuo whies rcsqo.iw.ict a c:;~ut r,. rtior. ; personal effort ntd is typical of cur c >:;oo:.v.ts 19 raw. ^ 20 iI are wcr.'iinrr cv. rll of cur othn ivrsd'.y;-.: Idiv:-1 1 | . j| >! * *.e .* I i ^< . V*. : 4`* \ t ( . 4 * * * * a*'**t i* ****n*' i wol?.. 'I ur !oo I, m W '.*** 4 It'.Uj* l< . .< *.%'< it f. <?<. ! fricV.i ~ i: UC-uiH w'..t3 .u\.n :o;\ xm. i..f i *--/ i. * die*. 4 * # **H # rl ' 'il.Wa't +***' *m *** ' ' * * * *'  '; 386 105 I sufficient to reduce dust counts to an acceptable level* compict 2 and sometimes radical changes must ba employed. 3 Theso changes moat often alter tho finished product 4 substantially. When the properties of a high;performance frictiun h 3 U D EtD *3 n K> 'i 5 material ere cnangefi for instance, oxtaneiva testing in labor 6 atories and in tha fluid nast be conducted in oresr to be * 7 certain that the product will performran required under all C conditions, as a failure eight coat hundreds of lives,. 0 you imagine, for instance, a one hundred car 10 freight erain operating vith unproven braka linings? Or a wate*.! * 11 pipe that has exploded because of inadequate fiber reinforce:. - 12 In soma cases, av*tarial tests and validt ticn'.a rcruira a*j :v" r'; : , 7<* .J four to fivs yosrr. . j ji w 1; It is* obvious that protecting `our environment is a of coattan .-il evrlv. iicnnry preresa, not ore vrliicii could 5>rs t i ! I .*8 by 'eb.vupt :.r.d soraro legislation. J. fcjj 1/ !i w r> i. In 1 < , i.. l: * ! i * . : * * . '1'C.v: i:*. thu .-!rrrent status o>? our dust control : * the iia.u..d. cur concerted effort r.nd a :.* ... f 11f * V ,ft > J * ,v*| iI>l.,4,, ,**4 w4. *,-,?<U ' mi. ,U** *. j* w>. V<* J dir.l: ./ . \ ; .vu ,,* , , -i,, ' * , % i?3 . *3 ! :v.r *. * , V*-'. , - 1 1 I'^l * * M W \ ' , * * w,%*t l .> .Iki M.* *. "<**/*'* **lv> > *V* ' f S ' ht , ` H' i, I l` . .i.. V. .... ,-V.M ... C*. - . I V i . * a ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 06 1 of a3bestcs-containjjLng products onnuaily and have thus had. to 2 put over thron hundred workers into the unairployad ranks. 3 As I said before, all of our work has been directed 4 toward attaining a TLV of five to six fibers per cc because our 5 experience and medical edvica indicates that this is the most 6 practical approach to* providing a safe environmental atsiosphoro 7 for our workers. 3 To do this requires extensive engineering. For tills 9 reason -- to reach a TLV of five fibers per cc actually waar.s . ` 10 doeigning equipment v/hich will operate* at about a three fiber ' 11 par co iqvcl bacauso t;s nvot allow for nseasureieent inaccurccion, 12 human error, r.eintcnance, and clir.atis variations. !iT: iS end f3 ( -Darkc/rrsba:/. I; i) irobol Ruffs ij . ..a ,, rrl u It! 59 Ij ?. }, Si i, a ri f * Mm -robol 1 * Tha cocfc o redesigning and building equipment fto . 2 operate at lower dust lavols increases exponentially**-cot'in 3 a linear fashion. If the TLV were to be set at two fibers 4 par cc, it would require capital expenditures of $12 cillion ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 end additional operating t*3ts of $5 aillion par year to bring 6 our operations to the two fiber-par~ce leva! in thsae proces 7 ses tihera we believe we could develop the capability to do so,, 8 At the present tine, scprcnircately half of our 8 present du3t stations gL:cu consistent readings over two fibavs TO per ce. Included in thin grou? sro five nanufcctcrisg plsntc. u invoivins apprenienteir 11CQ worsero, As we oca it now, it 5?^ would not be'eccnondcslly feasible fez Jobcs-i-Smvilla to 13 ntteupt' to opsrnts ttene pJrJitr. at.c standard c> t::i fibr.vs 7 nr-: u it cc, v!n eswitnte that 11C0 workers would bo out sx ;;-.v.c at ti\.cv 15 ! LccOi^v'--"** And whan you add Cu/?3 * clow Vi-.:::." ,6 i r.nd r.dTi.aiatrativQ personnel, we ere tr.Airicj'i -.bout: a total tv ii iv VIt sccm. :.: loyw- ho wop 1:1 rr~a to T,oi:\ tic? tree:: c.-I, 10 * Riuce v"`I.i:n-'Jxv5.11o in .rite ::v i*. *.l -tlnua/'t: S M * / * I ? t *'*\^|* I. J1/*!* . 4%*( H'V ^ # ' *,{*-*%%(/.,* ! ^ Vt $#** *i*W *? 1 . I**t* * ** * / '****** # >W * ( III, * # .* * 1 rt',M ** > *v * ` / *{ ?*> \* f\ r* * {. < t * w* .* ^ r* * ' -* (M ..... -#i. f:) 4 {****. v . .%* **! * * I* l f . * .* C i *# * V *t;lkr * . > It %,* .J **. ,*..* ; T ^ r ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .8 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 ! j ..*. |;<i$ 1C. ;i 329 there have been two sources--1, ocher manufacturers in the United States, some c whom have not as yet experienced the economic impact of attempting to achieve five fibers per cc; and (2) foreign .manufacturers, Sven though John3-Kr.nvilIo has the financial re sources tc.pay xr.r more sophisticated equipxer.t, higher costs must u itinutaiy be reflected in price increases. In cur industry this, in many casco waid just rcaan paving the way for foreign competitors. Already substantial end increasing quantities of fabricated asbestos materials being imported .* from Japan, Hainan and South America arc Invading the U. 3. J markets, Some of our c*on surplus cauicusnt lias bean sold to a ccrcpauy in India so we pr'ecua-a that Lidia uur. isssibiy ctao;.. ' . < Asian coratr5.es will increase their :t;o Suet A:r. and sniss nC j ... I r.sbsutofl -Eaturials to our country as it becomes r.:r-:o unaccrrv.-j ioai tc r.Uc those produsts Insidet!ieITnitcd f>;ri:<vj. j AttoKpcir.,'? to achiv.v a standnv ?:: '".o fib ;** j I * ,n% ; ' At. :**Ir? 11 * t * i/vfi ft a. *?/* i * f* rt i ;V * / > * #! **( , * *,***!< I M**M4/* > * ? /"I ? ** * .** * * ' * ( v tfU* | ! W *4 W ^ < *4, w i .:o ;:bif<:o xr---nion vorkar-'j for 5`\ . "0 r:. r:i ucr.i* \i .*:tcii.,,v.v'c : *T-*.t.<i:ie*,s:: *. VI- iv i U MM if , 1.( i .,, *. ; * tv ' * , ** < *. * S <* . , j k w.i r i * 1 i , t -- * . * ' ... .. .. . . .. . . , i 3I 2 330. ** .I install the necassary equipment end implement process changes. 5 v ` V' Tha establiah^ant of r.n URnecasaarily stringant - 3 standard and tha requiressnt e ur.neccssr.riiy frightening 4 labels, as ccmirtmtod on by Dr* Sandsack, would msrely cause i .. 5 confusion and rorhaps harra to many very reputable corr.pc.nic3. titan SA 6 In conclusion, I ;ujat to nay this quits directly wit 7 no ocicntif.icallr cred.lbia evidence tc prove ths scad far -a? o a 63 caoi 0 8 such a low 2L7 standards cf 2 fibers for cc9 it ;:ould be 9 nothing lass than complete cecici irrecponsibility to adept * * 10 Wa boliave tha Boparfcmant ofLaborreact setcblici* { * 11 standards that protest the worbar, but at tbs *3ajtftwD iwO {*. 3 *- . | 12 practical 'ltd * realistic--cad tastly-~afctainar;la- 1 i is" Ca behalf of ays elf znc ny associates, tian'c y<v: f -rl 14 pcrnifctiu; rr, .to testify tocay I 11 .13 i !8 i I1 ifc : !l . *I li;., Go libers; thatcsr.sludrt r.v? testir* ! ycu tear? c t n saJIm ii-i aii opportunity tc rescind tc r;e:;Licu i t-viwTuin.i its12latie:- f::.'!tarir.irf fr'.'/wtJnSUG: Co youwith tc r'nc .? I iltah'xiycu? i i ? i i U.||0.4w% *., W* V2. r will bs-flcroei; t.5 spc:.:: ffi.: - ' i i . *. . '.**.**% * * -".i ?{"5 r ! s ...... '/! tV - * ... I:i: :r. .*.! \ :'* ' :;> i ,.,1 ; TV.- #*V- l * 7'V*` \y *.C *:*.:! :v. ivvJ.y.'li- s/. .*u. v. v; J: I M' , rt(... . . i^r r- t:/ -. : !i --v. i # i i  331 * 4! personal observations over the last 22 years in which I have z boon invoJved end X think that Is probably what you are affcor. 3 Twenty years .go or twenty-two years ago, almost Illegbble document 4 any high temperature insulation had aooaito fiber in it. X s would cay every ship built during World War XX end afterwards 0 until within tbs Inst ten years had large quantities of 7 Aao3its insulation because there was in .-effect a closed navy 8 Federal opsc, specifying c rarticuln? type of insulation with fl a high pareantogo of Asosite. 10 Thin war. done, I fchinh, because no one ftally 11 realised the dangers involved and secondly because this asbestos; 12 fiber with litosifco fiber in it had greet taschsuicai strength 13 and could withstand the eechaaiesi. abuse. Tills cateria.l was 14 also used -widely in industrial epplicstibus. "/ae other materials! \ 15 U3cd iu these davo were gencricaily called in the industry Sfli5* i i 15 jar ca-.t ,;v.;;aes:.*:r. a:::? eoiclai rletisaiona earth iaaulaticus ; 17 of a iuea *p?roxir;ate.\y: li.ptr eeniv.by weight asaaitr ; r 13 |2 fi;^Wl # ?/<*, s**Vf* *'X# , | 15 1'^v * "n* I C'mf1, i'V^ :T'.*iV* !',#V .?). {! i! .... *% r.. .* <W M' < '<. >*> V l* <*V`*. #. Wnf*i.i r-rf- -v-U vM'*' f. :.. i i.ir Ci'.'Vl ..''.''COGV.i'i'i *V'-.t-iV 'v. f v; ' .. ..i . f ; ' . . ' I".* h; a.J .ti*, -a ; i :o i 5 1 332 , * 1 Instance chat had ah operating temperature of 1200 degrees, it 2 was necessary to apply two layers of insulation, the first 3 layer that could stand tho 1300 degrees and then the ncs:t 4 insulation which was 85 par cunt magnesium that could only ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 stand up to 800 degrees* 0 During tho late Jifties a new insulation was devel 7 oped and tills is a catarial ciest: is ceiled calcium silicate 8 end this is reinforced originally--I fcalieve it might bewo 9 have had coma A cosite in it hut during the past '1.2 years it to had cnly had Chrysoftiic fiber in it. Thin is a r-aterial diet f! tedny has replaced all of tha other three materials iu al^.aut 12 ovary application. As a matter of fact, the Acasite ivntet:V-.l 13 that X referred to ir. the "aVy specifications ns longer is 14 produced, Shu calcium cilicats materia I originally then wa *5 introduced it had 12 to 15 par cent ChrycotiLe fib .r and is s tcicy ua are opsrtting with about 8 per cant Cb.'yrstihe f5.aa.:. l !7i `i'hviu in cr.*K:ar tio ycu; question, if 7. rcraftber i:., thari 15 |! I to i js a t::nJuus cSv.nra l-\ ::.iz Icvadc s insulating niter ,<> * ..;-*'r*.*.,* wl* iijil.v'Wt 'M "*' 'V#i J *-.we * W T m r 23 1 4* ** .`rv |*.*V ".a;* TV f^ j * O r* ft' ft V * w at r,i m .(------ - >y\- 4 "** - . --i|. < ' * l <* w..< .* f 'a, - * * *> - f *'.** J . , * .. * . / :r.i .:*.c >* . W i am* . 4 * i ,:li ? . 24 ji d tc i:-' " : i ..... > j..... i ... 333. 1 11tele in this country prior to World V?ar ZZ,, Tho total imports 2 could be listed in tons of. thenBunds of tons rather than, millions 3 of tons. Could you give ns an estimate of tho fraction of 4 Arsoaito that would hove been uoed in cn-.Torcial non-3hiny-ird ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 or Industrial non-shipyard insulation work from the-period of 6 say roughly 1930 to 1943 to the current time the period'of 7 ties being that over which ws have experienced the health effect 8 upon the insulation tortars uoing that material* 9 MS. 1J5SEH0: Kay I break it in two periods* Tron 10 1900 if you .want to take it or the thirties until about I960 ft and then froa 1960 to the present time* During the earlier 12 period, to cry- knowledge every high temperature insulation 13 except rock wool which was need in oca-e areas--every high' 14 temperature insulation had Asacite fiber :in it beut:.r.c tr.ey 15 85 par cent n:\gncoiua. sho cslcioi Aeccito, si;:. ,x". tho I10 j ether enterici we toita 1 about so every product tmVf X Iwc:? c-l i7 j; h.?.*' i'.or.i A:unite :.n it. Since I960 there i. :o brtn n da owlcs is i 2i~cri8;t it. r.nr'. 7. wsv.l 1 f-ny altoin' tU-r. lest tiir?3 to five ! .;?t ................................ 1 vv.iL ^ i. M i*. J *. JL i t> L*v* *,.*. V. ** # .. . ,;<; i*. -r-.*l * *** ... , c -i..!-: *A v: a *.1 >*1* * .***> ;!</ h ' ti -'I r. .1 iU*`!*'" *" {I. - t {*' *; .. .! /O , iM . . * . 1 \4 tv :* *1. I. -jT ''C'* *i' .j*'* -- 1 * ** I A.*' - * * .* !* *'III '*}.s ,tia I u 7' 33* ILLEGIBLE DOCUMEMT 1 MR.. MORENO: Had Aicocite and that quantity varied .J -- * * 2 from as let; ao 15 par cent to eo high co 50 or 60 per cent and 3 I am riot certain about the 50 or 60 per cent only because via 4 didn't manufacture the product* I know in my own mind 5 it was at least 50 per cant Aftocite fiber* ur om produces 6 had 15 per cant Aaosito asbestos fiber in thorn. * 7 IE* NICHOLSON: Fifteen per cent of the fiber of 8 ths asbestos was Acocite. 9 MR. IORENO: No, si-.*. Ail of the produnto 1 was 10 Involved in was all Amcoito. 11 MR. NICHOLSON: Thanh you* . 12 SJIAifiSHR GOLDJjERG: Tronic you, Hr. Korean. 13 MR. FuESSACK: Kc. Goldberg, that conr^-tcs the 14 teotiesny cf those testifying cn behalf of Johns-"! -lvilla. 15 However, Dr. McDonald 3 whose work Inc been referra*: to by i6;; Dr. b-rirut cr.-.; also, cited in too 1TIASH dcr.u-cat wSbhea tc 1.7 S t:an individual wiftaei.'S r(spreeanbir^rlr.. to li UilliiMX:'. K:i,'2: 7Z\Z: ::* JfeJfocftid- wa jtppreeiafca i! ic p y :u'.r> f:;oa ur.\traai. to be with !:'j 4 ii il 4 l) r '?:i +s*-- %y* v . v '..*) i. ('. t.%*.. J;\w?r.3 . `/-VITsX^ .'"V??/.??. *. 4! r.,:., n . <?^ !.* ii,**,i1*. , J . h. *v ..*.* ii .f. *. . j j i.; j I Civ::"";'y\ --jy -- *." *; * ^ * N .. ''**.** f 1 !l ?- * I* ' I'vp i < ij il ;i M '-at ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT specialized In epidemiology and related subjects for tha past . twenty-four years, 3 X would like to add hero cae cr two points not in 4 my written submission to clarify my por.ition hero* Tha first 5 point is that X am a full-tine employee at McGill University 0 cad &a ca independent research worker* I do not week car cm 7 X cacaoiated with any asbestos produce? or manufacturer, Tha 8 research which X shrill be describing is- supported by grants, 0 not to re bat to 2!bGiiJL University from a nurber of sources, 10 the institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, tha 11 Canadian Gcvesnma&t, the British Modi.cni Seccerch Censeii er.ci 12 tha United States Public Health Sarvica, X am not fcnre to. 13_ support the 'testimony cr oesitica c Job: o-IIauvilJo or any 14 other body affected by tha proposed renv.Mtiouc. * 15 I r.n very grateful tc these iriisponsiLila fur those 16 hearings for permission to testify toCvj t for two ante rovacas 17 which ore as rollers: 10 1, Substantial research teas at L'cSiU. has dovot-.id 19 tha-last eis.ysnra to a wide verf/aty r.i: studies, uedor ay 20 ifrvctlea r'.uto t'-.s i Zi ! .*/cni:oe i'.cr'O'uj-a n relit?* arKics -:ii:*.ch c.-w.vt: h cf/tritc c: r-n, V-e Ir^lievs th::.:. * . 1Ii / K :r - v f * .y - *- - *4 *, , *, . ^'* *k 1 ' "**. X,* #' . V ... *** .* * % ' - M . ......... < WV.n. * . . f , 1! .. * 336 8I insecureto, oat of context:, and seriously misleading,, They were . oiade without By knowledge or advice and I a3k that they ho discounted* I am very glad, therefore, to be allowed this A opportunity to place on recced a more balanced account of our * 5 rosecreh and its results. / 6 The rest of my presentation is in the form of a li 0 report entitled ,!The Ifcaltfc of Chrysotllo Aoboatoa 25ina and Mill Workers of Quebec* which cy colleagues end I have, prepared i for publication in the'near fa taro. This paper sumsesriccd oar ; 10 rain findings to date and I believe it appropriate therefora j H to ssU that it be `included in* the record of these hearings. 12 This papsr is net yet Sc its final form cad still subject to 13 revision br.t is unlikely that we shall find reason to alter M car ccitsirsions in any important: ros pact, i IS ! SZAI-uES?. 6313157.2Gt /l*. :-Jc3 canid, do yea wish to iis; read that paper into tno record or present it. 17 IL\ IfCCtliVlS: 1 wish to r-iud certain aorticns ~ > !i of it, sir:. There ' ill be parts cf it hick arc in tr.s ilov \\ i-j,rrt 1C reals like to rcr.d tbs heat l.:it not i:>c '-VM !*, M .% 1 m'* ( ' . V*' ` * * ' ^ * I , Vi */ . < M****W*I !**< * >.**2* r * . i 4* Tr* i# I !i l.1 '*l*tlra* l* 337 illeg ible docum ent 1 in puIconary fibresis,.lung cancer and uallsnont tcasothelial 2 tucors. Hcwavor, exposure has usually been complicated by 3 the presence o core than one form of asbestos and of other 4 eateriais in the manufacture or application of aobestos pro ! 5 ducts. In tha mining and ndiiingindustry of Cuabec, whore 6 einost half of the world's supply of cfcrysotile is produced, 7 there has been vary little espssare to other types of ascootos 0 or tha saferdels used to caha asbestos products. An cpictett- 3 iolqgicai study in this industry was started in 198$. to 10 assess fchs effects of pure exposure to chrysotiis. Car eisa SJ were to relate dust exposure assossesnts to ssertallty, radio- 12 graphic ebnesea, lung function and respiratory ayaptoius*. 13* 2ha reo: Its of these studies .ere presented in separate capers 1* 2,3,4 .5 * 6 7 L 14 on mortality < radiographic chrcgo' , lung feetioc ' ' 9: 15 ancVrdS'J'Sratory cyiptOLJ.. ` 16 The* ttsrpooe -of-.this re;crft is to r.ynthsoii.n 17 thssa and co;tai:i cvbP/xiat? fiasin.ro and to discuss thiis: 10 j .,4-.^1.* Srt '** %> * * W 1 13 J I."it .:e out.these stuiiss. I'.r.ucrvs wf th.i w: in3 ~ :i * \ ! -<v ------:j 1- .i * '*>,* *1 ::./sr.:V*jS r.r:a used to ilar.tify c>}J. :..rinor.* \:;iczst V.*. tea 'uttv;' its :Vvt 1*.:":.' * ' ^ * ' * A *> ' ! f'ii* ^ |*M ** * * * ' ,* *** | V*I * *,*** * '*' r , *'tp | ...................f J , . (s . ^ i . ! ... * w# * t*v* . . v..* # * . ^ *i*\ I*-*".- * * * 'r .! ^ *t*v) **1aI* -**% j '*! * Of v.*;Cv .V.1',* it.. i'.'lW*, on L'-i . v:'vr/vtvi; irv',': 1t 10 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 1 parson consisted of data of birth and full industrial history, 2 Tao latest chest radiograph for each eapioyca, lfavailablo, 3 was provided by the indtGtrial oe^iccl clinics and read by A an international group of sis readors using the UISC/Cin5 cinncti Cicscificatlcn. A foliar-up of eK-er.pIoyeee was 6 cede and death certificates and autopsy repsi'te sere eraoincci 7 for.those ebo hnd diod, One.section of this pacer daaio with 0 results in rosea end the rest is concerned with sen only, ' * 0 Lot ca outlino the profcJ.owa of dust mposuro. 30 Bust, acpooare JLqvaJn ware detoroincrl for each II recorded. j.h vg&hln fcfca Industry and for each yssr cforiployrecat . 12 13 14 These ievcin ware used to calculate a total dust caposnre indcr for each worcer. Ky colleagues Glebe end. laehansa.described the techniques uood end Gibbs conaldarcd certain IQ qualitative a^ranta, '.'he 02S11 index res fcenea on particle .10 equate fron midget irfringor ccr.pla3? expressed as (<I Trillions c:: particles per ciwis foot (;3C-7}, "Sy* each uerher, i tot**.! .duct exposure i\e3 calculated by u*uit:l?lyi*.g the dust 5 i; or i infer: by the nunbej: cf years of c:;;;.ocn':c at that *' i:! inin::, a::;;.:?5US'i r.e' r e?3. ;i - >:<i ^ .! #-- . ! f"`' :**'><*/' *r-4 "#l''.(4) T.y , ^ * * .% (#> M...|.(., i7 1. ! *' ' .* ..uwL ^vu* J* .' t'.'.k yi f.., .'v ***2*lLj .\V* ..........!** * m' * ^ * * * J ** *!* **.* * 'mm . 1/ *.' <'?** ] !vr "*- !a U * w^* u c -* #!, r. : ji el'.e i-i a:::: l-'ra... V" e in-iines d i:; a-j i*|' r 1'..;:: t .::! {:::iru.1 ur.h:. an r/i'il-.vilense fac^er o.: 339 ' a 1 .1 apcf (midget impinges) aqualo 2,3 fibres/ml (raaabrcne 2 filter). Thi3 331innto of equivalence wo3 based on 32 side- 3 by-side cacpieo taken in the summer of 197i at three, ccrroonics 4 at Thotford Minos, and at present Is the best available for ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 the industry* Tns midget inspirger technique was tha ssrea C so was usod to assess du3t etpccuro irilceo throughout our 7 3tudieo. Fibres of 5 ntlcrcns cr mere in length wars collected 8 end counted using essentially the* method recommended by the 8 United States Public Health Service. The equivalence ratio 10 increased from mining (1.1) through crushing and drying (. 3) 11 to milling. (4.3) but the nudsor of readini gs in each situation 12 333 small, nevertheless3 tbs scan fer ell areas (2.3) nay 13 undcrestiEstc the fibre exposure cf zd.ll wor-sorn and overU :istirste that of-minors. . 15 .\n altcriu-itiva ap^veach to tea car.3tion of 16 jequivalence rr.hos use of infortraticn on tfc3 f *%- .indent o': 17 (V.'St obtained from nssbrane filter ccucire-cr. to. <V sarins VS ... *' 31 obscrvf.ticno roc trade in the same tlrrco trines and Mills 19 in*5 t`.:a cat -nriod cf ti'-.e ritii fin-jingo rrjii'ji.nj;; fivr.i i. ~j Jf*.*, j| |> *r*i * * -- (? O r, Wt J 21 .1 #****\j* t J * f* ^ *?*t*.* v * , ^ j t. . w. , i , * law !.* '! V %* * i! . . - * i'T .-V* 'V'Sv ^a.-.*( iL......M...' *i'r*i^#*Vf*!J**% r # * I* ** * A *.s. |l1l . t *.,..***' |I ** l .fl f 2^ j.'.'Lo r? ?t srr.tir o: .............. .w .. > v. : . .. . . I|' * - .V * %* I i:;s i*r*:V~; ;<::: * ,*' >-*. ..' IT ^ i. i*"* V M4 "*** ##*,%( ...*. I^uli 1 calculated by sitiple crithsotic from these data was 2.4. 2 Agreement between thi3 figure (2.4), based in pert on 3 independent data ca fibre content, and 2.3 estimated by divest 4 coopericon of midget ic-plngcr and conbvanefilter is reassuring. 5 Hoverchoices, a JLcrgar aeries of parallel msasorements la 3 naedod to establish tbs relationship in this industry with 7 certainty. Sen current British atendard for crpccare to G Cfcrysotile is 2 fibres per ni. aver-agod over 3 months for s 9 5C-yoar worhing life (is IP? fibro/yoarsv) Tha upper limit 10 of car ccccnd highest dust group (230 fibre/yosrc) is If equivalent to urea than triad this level. 12 Tabic 1 also lists the punhar of c&s? included in 13 the sain analyses considered in this resort. 14 The- provelance of parenchymal .*nd pleura! chrn^c.s 15 res highs? in tho ara-i of Thwt::c:y' Unns then of Asbestos, 16 Quebec, though the towns ore.only cbout SO Jailc.a .apart ?n' 17 tha ::nbaotco icieed is geologically olrx.Icv. The tre sain IS indices oi rrafonso tc asbestos cttpoccrn ware ii:regular IS s.-.-nii c: '.cities tul ylsarft! thrVahcr.irf:, ' At ^vatfe-re liina;. ^ 1* i/,'vf.* ( *#%. > V.v . t. ..*/> .j . #. I, iW* % .\ * !***. .^% * A, ^ ' t 5 *' * * r ! 1..w i.i .. : C* .*s1 /aa?** *v l*t:. * ,i . . . *i. v* .... * j * %* ,, .. i*V, h' ^, ^ . .'.*Vi'". / .* #* ' , a V *. 4-*.- 4* w 1-3 ` ;!: *\ r ;# c \.\y jr.a ' ' ' 13 1 i at Thetferd 2-Iinec 341 t The big-ost difference coons all tho 2 radiosraphic featiizofl was in pleural calcification, for x-:hich 3 the prevalence of grade 1 or pare were 0.4 jar cent at Ao\ 4 bostoo and 5*2 per cent at Tlictfcrd Hinas. Although these ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 rolatloiuTla dust aepoorze were clearly present, no correla C tion enocedod 0.3* Shio lo- largely a reflection of the 7 very high proportion of con who showed no radiographic change. 8 Soas of the differonce between* the two areoa were not surr?:i3 9 ing since tha level of cost eznosure at Asbestos was cons id cr 10 ab ly lower than at Thetford Hines. but other differences 11 cannot yet be explained in tosaa.cf dust exposure or gaolcs.?; 12 If variation 5a fibre content of drat were an cportr..it * IS factor, the results in nine corkers for whoa the fibre, pro- 14 portion war. loV?. should differ free those for sill ;:ev-*crs5 .Jo., 15 rl.ox. the fibre provert ion was higher. Aio2ir:s there IS t-T;::c L*3o ko;: liars who hc.d worked for- ten or r.oro'jVvas c::- 1? !! oiuoivoir in nSafcig or entirely in rj'.lii-';;. Aanly-ir. of t:;..*r to;! A i -*.T ,n--*|n fi .*! ***?%--J % -- --* *< ' **Vjv -T.'t'!"5 rr#`'. V/#y*" {Jw.flj I*-! J ! "t<' it ...'.*. t-w**"*l !i~rj ..-l- **'.* -- 4m% >< >*. * !*.* n>, ' m * -Ina* i i * - * * i t t* t * #< W . * * X,l to 1 *0 * J* ^ * ' *" * < 1 . >, *****< - i; ^ * %< #* F HD i{ i- *> *s .j; .... I. r J * **-V 7.V` i'% ...*' to .-; f `i '. - /> v i -- *-1 * * Ml.. i l. to . .*# ,t 41 *.* - * II If^.j * , 'I > , 1 . *t Ml ' *?** david/1 . 343* It seemed possible that tho radiographic dlfforoncco between Thotford Mines and Asbestos night also be refloctod in mortality. There was little ovidonoo of this. Age- standardised death.ratos/lOCO for all causes, all.Eall:;i:ar.nieaa all respiratory diseasG3 and all circulatory diseases uero 342, 54, 20 and 120 at Asbestos and 562, 61,22 and 121 at Thetford Iiinoo, All detailed coraparions showed the sams . , remarkable similarity. For-example, in Table iregp standardised death rates by dust exposure arc presented for lung cancer .and pheuraooonicsio. The only apparent.difference, is that tho lung cancer rate rose in relation to'duct slightly earlier but to a loss extent at Thotford Mines. Mortality and radiographic changes: Of 10,120 persons trailed in tho mortality ctu 9,692 ware men and of those 5>CC2 had chest radiographs 7G5 hod dlod. At Thotford Minos, there ?:c::e 354 doatho 2,443 man traced, paath rates-wore calc Hated by date dust exposure and the croeon.ie cr ebsonea of ivr.rc:'.ofcyr;al rr pl-nval ic changes. Tim death rate free; al?. er*:r:rc cr;;'iVec'.' ,.:er. rained in iV.n h:'n'mnt Must oroeisiv. -r- -cr;,- into; vt t :c--rs,e mo. dote of birth, ; ('-jo/ju\v) 4 o.-.o uithovi: vUirjvrr'Jiu -hr.; (1;/ `1* ;i or IvJ; hr v lor:: lh;*: : ; ..til ;>? 'rl (Ic.r.; :r. TP -SO r ,, Ih. Pb: . ,\v..i r.,:::'-:v oi* \ !* * W\\* . * * ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT david/2 ** * 3M4' yi birth and radiographic change is compared with the expected number based on those without radiographic change. Of 97 deaths In those with parenchymal changes33 were in excess of 1/ the expected figure. Considering only deatho from respiratory dincase, Including tuberculosis and cancer, we caluclatcd in a similar way that there were 32 deaths in those with paronofcyinal change compared with 3 expected, an oxcesa of 24. Thus of the 33 excess deaths in this group at Thatford nines, 24 were attributed to respiratory causes. At Asbestos, the difference between the mortality of those with and-without, radiographic changes was loss. Slmils.- calculations to thoso used for Table 3 shewod that only seven of the M3i total deaths wore associated with parcnchyrcal change and of those an estimated 2.M were in the respiratory group. Duet exposure levels at Thetford Mines were natch hiry.cr than at '.otssbea; thus, in the highest exposure gro-u there- wore- ?..3 and 6? ;.:en ree peotivvly who had boon and cub'.?recently traced. Though -the c-;-:.ic-as death.rate it: il::`.s highest e-;:pcnu:rft g.'cup was about S;.i at fct-th places, th: tv.i of V W..I, :c: v.siorn:-oro 53 r.\n o r; i * * Y* ,*4* ' *** . k ..* .... . - ...... \ trV.l a;.' X,C?S cvr v.nve .`wont />.. ./ CVr.cticn r.t;v.'ii/;. d;u-i v; o? -it- ?.'0'"0 . ^U,.*.'tun for ;.v r.'.tj.j'-f <1 to :ii.O.t:if Vo-*ti.-: of cv: t'r.*.n :*ov?s,:.r vi.-rv.-1 , an david/3 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 1; 3**5 likely to shew lung function changes. Those tasted comprised 8355 of tho sample selected. The variation In some of the lung function Indices by dust level In smokers and non-snokors are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, The results of eaoh test were standardized to cgs 50 years, height 170 cm and weight 70 kg. Total lung volume fell subtly with increasing dust exposure but exposure had little effect on eithor functional residual capacity or . v residual volume. Thus exposure to chrysotile affected only.the Inspiratory capacity portion of the total lung volume. Forced vital capacity and forcod expiratory volume (1 3ocond) both 1. declined with'increasing exposure - the forcod vital capacity falling by about lG;1 in tho highest du3t group and the forced expiratory volums rather less, neither steady state nor ningle breath diffusing capacities shewed any effect of exposure at rest: cn exercise, tho steady 3tate diffusion declined slifihfcly. Analysis of the*"relation between lung function an:301 radio:;:;aphic oJ:a i;::e3 has been prbliaJvid snC shewed with s:.,;all epaci ties 0)7 catcgary 2 or were thare t:c reewotv ow*' 9C; indices ! t IIMM * - slciual r-3ic!r: i vr*'*.* . r.'.:s a ?. *_.b:v' OU<r_.V erra-.i! ?4 *.V**i1*'w !, ifl | r% ** 4 weci a c ,*n`| * . .r'.d'.v.vti", inc-vc; 01 * *> "i I I! .lit'* -- {'or*-*-;] rii !.' ! 1 u. lif,r < i. l<* W -- i < I 1/ m uLw V mV 4 U .. m.* . . . ft ^ 4*.* f.ft *# * "... * v/c i-l -IrwyM. MW** alw . ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT uavid/4 '346 associated with depressed, lung function ranging from about In those without parenchymal changes to about 6;5 in those with advanced parenchymal changes. An additional snail survey showod that chaug33 in pulmonary moohanics possible precede both 8 X-ray and other function changes . Respiratory symptens: Each of the 1,015 worleers in the function survey answered a slightly modified version of British Medical Research Council ar.d the H.R.C. respiratory questionnaire given in Proney or English by a bilingual interviewer. ` Persistent cough and phlegm (bronchitis) and brdathlossnass on erercise were ralr.tad to exposure. Table 6 shows,, however, that after standardising for age, the provalonco of bronchitis robe to about 50;J with either increasing dust or with increased smo&ng. The effeel '* heavy oxposure and heavy sraolcing together were tho same as tha, of either separately. In contrast, the prsvalor.ee of brcr.th3.ee:* neso or\ c::orcico wac unaffected by siuolrin;; but increased r.t ir.hU1 with dunt hxprr.ure. Effect c? n: * W !.** (I W ' . iat'.Vi f-tl. % flirt, witli lTt\*;-fi*.n3ticn-"iVvcyV; - k.?vrta 1, :i c.w\. ? \y r.;' i:M; ICr.;: fuuot>cn indiv.-n, the e-\-.\.-cl: .. .nuoliixy: i^vatpr f rn tV:> Cv 'c;:p.?;riTi! c? ?.rAn:r \iiv.t. ' I. ,VT>rt .Tlmr Vtn* i'.it ;.i .~?1 .vi.lt/.ul : ' *, . rcrithnl r:'-> -v: n.op ..'V fjc rMy-'.sti't;: i'vM : 4f 2-5. I*3* UW!P ml Kt u o Q ,,3 63 ES7M o CjJ ' . -3*7 oapaoity at rest.'. Fproed vital capacity and forced expiratory volume at one second v.'ere both depressed to a similar extent ulth InoreaalnQ dust expooure but only forced expiratory voluna was lower in smolrera. Aa discussed above, omolcino and dust expo3uro were both rolated to the prevalence of bronchitic but smoking was not associated with breathlessness. Attempts aro now belns mado to collect smoleins historas in the cohort study of mortality both for those who aro still alive and for those who ora dead. This may eventual!;; provide prospective and retrospective evidence on the interre- lationahlp of cmoicins and asbestos expeaura. A controlled 13 retrospective study hr.s beonmado, based on deaths from lunj cancer in the.cohort study. Each case was matched with a d'.-vch from lung cancer from the earno hospital records in a sen r.r.-cr employed in the industry of approximately the came ace ar/ year of death. Thera was hichar. proportion of non-snoher .t i\\ cansa than controls which suso-esto that Iv.wj; cancer may b- caused by oabJittaa exposure in the absence of -cmowlns. ccv.Vro?.:- '.ere on aver:.,-p heavier smokers which ah'O ov.*:^ ' t t %*' i ^ * .* w * . w ^ I* v i* | ' *3| s ,, . * i* * * . ?%. -** r^'t--* .iv> * " 'V * -* i *;* ; * 111* ^ "* + ** f '] ) ! '* ' * 1 rb;::'r :* .?; ;;> 'o? .%?.?. known r.ar af l.r.:e-. ro'::\i this fchu.u-'*: r.'C'rt ' ' *. SI ) . ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT industry is amnll. In the mortality study, 428 of 465 women in . the cohort wore traoed and of these 5^ had diod. One death was ascribed to lung cancor and none to pnoumoconionisj only 79 women had worked for aoro than ton yoara and few had boon exposed heavily to asbestos dunt. Thore were 847 women for whan chest radiographs wore available. Most of them were aged 30 or less and the total prevalence of radiographic changes of category or grade 1 or more was 1G3S than 1#. Detailed study suggests that women In the higher dust exposure categories had a slightly lower rnte of radiographic change than comparably exposed men. . ' Discussion: I will now discuss these findings. Though death may be the moat definite and serious manifestation of exposure to asbestos, it need not bo the most .sensitive. ~**.;*Ci:urs--related oxcoao deaths altogether were probably no r-iore than 2# of the" 3,270 deaths in the cohort eSui'y. Vlost of these `.rare attributed to lung cancer and pneuno- rtoniesic. dm! air.cat all wore in the two highest dust exposure (|:icrg.r..'i;n. tY-zs, c::ccso mo-rtailit;-* nr.*: virtually confi.tr : F.*ibTi o.v-rev-.-; tvv teat lonst i.*ibvy;.'; a);c , i.. vh.t ;-.-lti:Ui~ut-^u2ai-l..vramlrr ' \ the rsatb ohm J no ;*r r'r. . nOnr cav-s-;. e^-.i/.u mn.:..... --...... co.uc. i.O; v;i:--c`:cr. V ':: *c f 1 }::;: >.?I.:: 11 Arcs.! f` i' ,::vl Li'.-a ;% . An Irv-aticii-of -h'* } iv.rnn cir-:- ' a? : ' \' ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT dg-7 }% . 349 mesothelioma from ail parts of Canada. 1959 through 1970, % * showed definite or probable occupational exposure to. asbestos in * 23 of cases, and in a further i thora may have boon indirect ,. domestic exposure. Of tho remaining 58of cases, not ono In 7 ever lived within 20 milos of an asbestos mine or mill. Of all known mesothelioma casest only 7 altogether, and 5 in the cohort studies, had worked in tho Quebec chrysotlla mining and milling industry. Theso death rates are vary low by comparison with, ths . 14 studies of tho Sew Yrlc insulation workers and the London 35 crocidolito factory workers , in both of which there wero much higher rates of malignancy, particularly of ciasotbeiioLa. Obliar 16 17 ^studies of the chrysotlla industry in the USSR and in Italy confirm the conduction that only high levels of exposure to clirysotile drying cininn and milling have an appreciable off-:.*. on mortality. Although radiographic changes had coruc r3lcfcir.rV;>:l"*; to dust exposure, tho clinical rM> 1i 1I.MW iicanoe Ox... /./ AS mir.rr changes is uncortn in. Usually. . # .Tj ilav r a'''' or. aclt:'" r.atogrr:* c ami pie urni thicks !.* ng cl **> f: cli-.i'.ca 13 y it. oC thl ; o; t:: .. wv l |V *.vu J V. 1/0 5 m:ci 0. 7,. '!* tto : i i'..*.vo v:\'v vrl %-* yn ; vi-, -1. . . ,c;-ror: . .. ** *i * w. %. r # ... 20 y:r..j in l h.3 i V* \::;vvy.. tv.* .. * i )" : Till *. 1' cov'ivahtnt to j i'lb v vu c>' c* . standard. Thoso rates aro very similar to those found In tho 18 ohrysotlle mi nine and milling Industry In Cyprus , but are . 14 rauoh loner than those in the Mow York insulation.-Workers , or ' 19,20 In the British Kcyal Kaval Dockyards . ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT For lung function and respiratory symptono, the effect of sacking was generally greater than the effect of exposure to asbestos. However, for inspiratory capacity, forced flow rates and breathlessness on sxeroisc, relations to dust exposure were found. With those Indiana a 50 reduction in non-smokers occurred after a total exposure In excess of * 100 mpcf/yoorB {220 fibre/yaars). Thl3 Is cloco to the lower limit of tlie dust category at which of subjects had grado 2 radiographic changes and is approximately equivalent to exposure % to 5 fibres per. ml for SO.ysarc. In tho Quebec otudles, information on cu3t exposure was obtained, whereas in meat other otudiea quantitative 21 information is not avt-J.labj.o. rlnrpby et al found 11 cases . aabestrsin in 101 Mew England shipyard w ortors with an avaraga o*:.cr:*iv.*o of 123 -;.'5f-years. '.There.workers-appear to ahr: ir.vfj'ro relates exposure -than I'lvno o.-gagotl in eh -y- .sotilr.. tha .vain.ct,r.'ti;AI::f.uS of. the. ;.`at;?:*ia?.s vr;'0 uiv. V-b"^Lfvl JZZl 1,-:,out .Us n'ra:.-. Dl , , KO**!* ", . *' 1^* M t Hi CypM". Mliii.i'.w 'iU*: pi5.!*.*..-; i if V \. 1 j! ft *'*?;* \ Hi* . 'Ik: v;i *' AV... * . !' dg-9 351 change for the san:o exposure levols wero very similar to those In Queboc. Exposure indices have also been assessed In'a study of two aabe3tc3-cement plants in the USA by Weill et al, whore the main exposure has been to chrysotile and silica, but the reeulto are not yet available. The limit standards for occupational exposure to asbestos aro bssod solely on tho airborne concentration of dust or fibre, averaged over a lifetime's work and the resul.. in this report have been presented from this point of vie:;. There kgs some evidence in our studies -that longer exposures for the some total dust levole aro associated with slightly higher prevalence rates of radiographic change. xowovor, t::a radiographs were ell taken during working life, so ths corre lation between total dust-and yoars of exposure or years *T first exposure is high;. and tho spearatlon of the contributions i'rcn those two factors - duration and concentration of ox.jsoure woMl*] bo vory difficult. Thc cohort study al3t> showed tlx;;; lunp: con ezr me-*'.{y t ; ty rctoe wc* * higher in then z who to .fit ,# *Vi*ian C\: n'c lev el so. in an sconi r.g th: km*m** * M%If-. .V vt* 'V 2Zi:.:rcr.v ntiLee cf - 1 . M ohov.: CTT*VtV-A V - tvV*pA%*-'tj'm| * \U i T A? ci* U1) rrr.*. **>: rV -(1 trii r-'OT" r *i. v *' # . t M ' * Wit :i:.- i: v cv:: ; ** 4** ;.-:.o.V Tl: IVi ;Ii ir; . * V *, i* . . ..'.I: r 'il. ftvo >. ' nr i i 9 ^.i Li an >i ca i!l dg-10 0 ' ; . 352 3# risk of acquiring olinically significant diooane in a 50 ' . y . . year working lifetime of exposure is aoeoptable. The evidence from our studies suggests that if in the chrysotiie raining j and milling industry of Quebec all duat exposure were reduced to the level of this standard, there would bo a much loss than 1# ohance of acquiring clinically significant disease. Con sidering all facets of disease (death, rnciographio chanson, lung function changes and respiratory symptoms) fcho 1# rich is reached by men in our third dust exposure category (230-mcC I fibre/fyeara). Thi3 implies that a rcaaonablo standard for chrysotiie mines and mills would be botweon 5 and 9 fitres/ml on average for ?0 yoars, and corroopondingly higher for i ohortcr periods of osploymont. 1 Thlo terminates my report but I would libs to add 2 one brief comacnlv Shot is3 that though I have described has 3 the results in miners1 and millers* crysofcile, ca did include 4 ;fn our study a.too tjerhero ia an asbestos products factory in ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 Actostos, Quebec. 6 This was, included-in the radiographic study and 7 2 would iifca to cafca the point that using identical methods, 6 tfco duat-raspoaso relationships in this pleat ware essentially 9 the saco as in the sines and mills. to T mould also to add that the masthsliora It ccrtality rate, and here wa appreciate wa era dealing with '/err 12 tiny figures, wee moh higher in this crai! factory, then la 13 tbs miner's sad oii.Uer'c and 2 thinh it io p:oc:.bi.y rclovanu 14 tSsnt die factory worhexa were also exposed to oronidolitn. 15 .33ttaE53 S?J3?3?Jj: Shrafc you, '>2- Ib'.s3ci:;. 13 Us yea ton r. copy, cf the report ynu rich -to rut iv.o 17 -T.-ideco 3. .reshape *n hnc tr:i copf.cso. 1G jj ! r: . ir??)?&2Z>: Severe!, n 'ir.- "rn, /*- - 1 I.Vi A.i, > . -v/ -a . * !. OC-.l# 'C <' . .... v..J. ... t * M. !MIK*t tji 4. i! i;;t CG i A /1 irj': ,* !' ii 1 1 } . 1 *1 1 -- ^ > * ^ J% i* t.-ivA .v -::.V...v 1'. I f.. f.. y .. V*.. V .*.!: 7- .............. ...... -- ' . ' .. i*.1--...^ .....-------------------- 1 -- w'~ " *' *'*, ** i il(f t.' V- *# J i , / * * / m , 355 f taken over tha years'and tha fiJbar counts Co give 4 fiber ysor .}' ' 2 dust level which hca^o upon tha iosua of the applicability 3 of yoar data taken in mines and radii** to data taken in other *. 4 ' 4 aabeatofl opacationo involving rJliryaotila daot. 5 There vara thirty-t*:vO sida-by-aida osasusarmta rann- 6 ins In the raining and ciJLi2n3 croa. 7ou found theca was seerly 7 l four-fold difference that-was possible in tha ratio of u-iii 8 psrticico par cubic foot to fibers per cc* Tha conversion 9 io JL.A to i. 3 which ic also found whan ths some conversion 10 err in textile sills. `Etc problem, that' is the conversion 11 io a very variable an a, 1 12 Cede you give ah ertiente of rcusbly tha amiber of 13 paoy/js exposed in ndnias versus railling; for ejcspia that rcvJ.d 14 bava different cnpssuras. IS IGk IdcDOnALL': I non id really be greasing but :? IS .Irc-reocion ia diet very roughly the corkers divide Sr.to eocnt 17 n third, 10 A third reiuers a third, sillers r.u;. a third r.v.;. 10 tend os. X &> net itcu n.Vise that :.c. 20 *M* * ............... . . ''''""IT *m\ 4< .if' W*** f .t *i> ^I. ,,* 1* 4*"{,' <! <' ~*f *' r n '* . ` !t ^ ( i ' l ' *i * ** *, \t' < , /* {, < ** ***{ ** ^ T #-* * < . ! * ^*1* >**** w * w ^ . ' t 1. . _ V w ^ | * # ifli i.i *> J, 1 . >. 1 }t*^ | 4 !# I ' | I ! II I I I ] ' *. ' ** . * _' , _ * , #' t* ** i ,i t) * !"* .% it % l^ 11M . f i \m v v > . /#*** % * 9 >. * # to i !< i* i'. ,% '**..* . 356` , * 6 t needed in order to establish this equivalence level, Wo do so'xa2 vhnt support it, o2 course, by the other cpprosch which is basad 3 on other considerations using the ecticate o tbs thing a 4 leta contribution, crocideiitc, 5 22 wo nro seriously ir.taroshad in datorsdniug the via 6 correct level core cork is needod on equivalence, D Uo Q (U m a.:2a 7 151, HIGHOLSOil: How arch do you think would 'ba 8 this ratio which would hsve.bocti effected or do you think it 8 is possible that Share could fcsva been an effect due to various * ' ' * 10 dust control censures that tore taken in the plant in the 11 wg jja end the mines ovnr the past decades, where they put back 12 house filters onto reduce dust at the drilling cpara.:iona and 1 13 the vuricao ccntrola that yen.-say did take place, could these 14 not have r.lsc- affected the ratio in that that weald have boon 13 different :ratio in tl a a.u:Aicr caeades? .13 :2S. i&E SEATED: 2 think this ic qaiio pr-cclbic.. 'da.esc 17 not rpcvida evidence either ws? on teat point. 13 m,| <ttV 9 mm iliiM ,(i W |*4 m+ls fc,U U W !# ^ ;i */ *> i\*i' ,#?*%%**? f *** Pi1!*] ?/* % ( ? vfl*' * ?t; ij....... ij :*o #1. l * fv.o.fiac.'. <oint with rsenoet to that rC * ; | ! r.? I- * , ,. ; i*.,v .... ^ * i* * rt* { *,r '* , ( /*V V.* lit <i i ** , ** H r* * V 'LiC.'* ? ,, STi "sr.T.^rJkaktp-.r:-- T3 jj V.\i ^ili.:; .-.hit S:-s 'xc-.r.i' :Vr"5*r; w ',{*% ,S*i *"* i> *, ** * 3 i:!i `..t ;. r .* ` i V'.u *J t-*A ......... / V * 1 ** * # I / li# U4,tVi #,,/ M I .,,#M *J ,, , *^ ^ ** .-. ;;:-.vvi r:. t- 'r;.\'.'.: **** J* ^ *I * V* #*# ! I * ..~i V * 357 t That io an additional variation in addition to the 2 four that you havo haze, Kars' any eotimetea trade of what .3 fraction was represented in the total fiber contents of 4 the ai?; in any of these operations? 5 NR* KcRCliftID: flo3 X don't think those era EeaBurea 6 that era token at their face value. 7 1-31 KICEGtiECSI: Shank yea vary Each. 8 W8SE8SR GSIC3SHS: Ifea, sir. 9 E3. CGIS 3II2U33: Cole Erourcr of the Ken Yorker 10 Ifasscina. II Dr,. NfcDpncis;, 2 have a copy of yew !parir 12 KcrtaAifcy in the Chrysatiic health volute. I have a copy of i 13 your papa:: catitled "JfortaXity in the Okrycctiia-antjcstoo 14 linos and Iii.ilc of as pul-lislind in the irehivse of 15 Euvihriniffiuutc.i Inal-a Voiuaa 21 of 1371. 2a tl:a Xtalln?*-- IS po-.TV.irr.-; ` hn~:h\niur; of nfcstf it soya that sCS 11.7^3 pazscun 17 * .m ' f.'.' J *IO *n {`in `.Nrn'^/in .''"./."{j j * 13 ii*3 :;*.vu:v':':;,r, C'1.4 r-r cent worn trraod. C thane 2.437 .'II i S3 r^ir r.died. :.':.c ;ccura istssoeo for earh rjrksr 24 :rra cr.i::*.V.;;rj ro:j jol: r.u.;t navels ruii dur.v.tii.i of *1* n* * <iO* * * * ^ . _ . m* ` i, | . 'm * ** ,..! i % ,, ^w .m........t..... I .....................*..*.*......., >, # . ... ' *' ,'%.' V. . . f **Q* * " 358'' ; I in equal proportions accounted for the eseeas, There were V- 2 101 deaths from respiratory cancer including 3 from ' 3 calisnant caStfcalicrusa and an eoticated excess of about 15 . i 4 deaths. The difference in rates for respiratory cancer i ... 5 between those cnxicelly end minicaily exposed one C five fold end thsugh perhaps eirecgorated, "Jto apparently 7 <icta?sit>ed by cecumlatcd ctest enpocere end duration of 8 ocployjEeat,u 9 In that five per cent of the highset dust category 10 5 per cent of the cohort is. that esyroniantcly 6C9 corkers 11 the highest cast category? 12 E?.* KdHKIdliD: If your caiculcuicn is correct, I 13 think it is. It is in that order. 14 SIX. .ESEUaSTls.: Has the excess death costly in this IS category? 16 !&. ttcfiCSMS: Tfca. 17 v:sse the three ccsotheilocns in 13 er.tc;:c::y? ID M'|# . rt, T * i i.lUn # *n -- * i '> I sch-hcw cr.ny rscethnliosto * * ** * ,#**/,. * * > t r* tmt, .. 1 Y'.'.I T ,*M *. *3 3 r* vn . 'I * o -;u ** * ' * "* ' <#. I rM% I* * ..*#. t > M. I,. Wm **I.t' ,*>^.*(* * 4 t no 1 * , # .} '. 1 t >* * * ......... I U,N..!** ^% _ t *, .**M .. . 4 t .. . iW,,s ** .y 1U* '. ** *!;' *" " r--.., m vm , * . '# * ... N't I '* LU U O O omi LU 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 t.* to S! s .^.. i;!j * i: it ! :i ilw *!i independently. 359 MU. EeDONALD: That io correct. Ai.l things ere relative. ? 13. E2EUHSR: Mr. Job this corain-j centicaee that the Johas-i'onviUa Corporation supported research ir. sebestoo. That is other research then what you are performing right? . E2. KeBOiLYLD: I geeaa wfcat fee lb referring to Is the fact that JoIria^Ianai.Uc, together with other caalr-T companies help support the Xs&Situto "oZ Occupational r.ru Environmental Health which is a granting body which rr.r^iver. great application research tppiications and which,* therefore, . Indirectly supports oar rsnesreh. .` ......... Haw. it is a very indirect rci'.'ticaeuip. Idl. I-?2&v3S: One other question in 'this v-t.. I ootico :Vi this parcr tret yr.y have referred to yacr it-:;--: Vvh'.:*::-l:a.1 in the c.r.nh.ivea o: JTav'ireuirxtal Health j*i refer to r. Curtcy of ^rf-t-nry tLr.fi yvAisiial '7 Alice cad 3. ir'&casld d .> Lra Alsfie.V: I ,;# **"* .i,*.,* w*.i* i**\'t Vm - * Vj* ' w* I. I ... *. .* & ...J. | %^ 4 I i -!-- *4 *I I *.*......`.`J?'"'.*r* "*. * . J l * ....... .. . *# Vl. . v ** * '''# r* .v /.f t. J t. . | <<<. > /it . %.\\ %** * * ** M * . . .n... V, . # M ' 4*\*'| * J'1, 1 * t ' I 360 1 uhca you refer to the Canadian Survey which was conducted, 2 Khich ycu ir-cntici'-cd at ecas length, conducted "by ons o5 your nm o a m ml a: a O n S 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Iis i 17 ,j coauthorsc the report, 1 sac tho ucto"hi3 uork as undertaken ti?,h .caoiafnacc ofi a grant ron the Tnotitofco oy. 0,-cupationo.l c3(t1 Ikvironcantoi Hoc.ith of She Quobcc A bogs ton UZndn^ AcsccistScD, VSm lasDOH&IS: 'Itsat is correct* K2. But that refers to fcfca Canadian Survey, y. Vfbi.ch .you tfcutiorcd. R. T^rtaRs era. , lei., 3J.13ITE5.IZ: Shank you.. adr SStfiSSER GOlDSirj.S: 15::. SaGresorio. ?r^.. IVPrJG-T.^:. I-2:..Wl?3cn.;\JLdr aiJ* yw $ sn hue cries cioac. please-,;. t *.;*.r. cir<3:pr:ir.c:~ >c Gs*\rV:: i5.vds5f*.or about 50 ox* cr.:*f: of tha sJl rycuti'.-s :; ir ^v.n i*.;:.v.flv tO Mi i! if !: j; r.u i .!! /. 4*1 :...!!. ..TS .11 . i. ;i 4i v * ***** **. % ** s 1 i., * V* . 1 . !* *% ''#*A**M* %* **^* 1 *.*' i* W >* MU ** S*`J .U U* w %\ 1 t<* | jMt*( r 4*, .-.%*/ . l* * jiw %.*# -*. "1"" * nm % 4 . TVn .r:*:!:-.':-. *V' ?,* *. * a T ' r" *1 V i* t *.**, *-*. *., x*\ If M * ` ' * * . I ( # ( . * rV v ii*---; "** ;r-> V`<> (f * b>* * > t < w .... M* ' i ^ < it ."i^* .. ..VJ **1 ' ' f . "t * * ' 1 1 " I * * IiM*: i ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 31 . . 1 in this relatively Iced eras of Quebec,, 361 . - Z ' . M3. DcGSJSGORZO: Bo you happen to knew the. 3 total nuc&ar s rarlxrs engage* in those minaa derinc 4 the period aS yocr ofcudy? 3 !H, KeDgiTATJD: Edl, aa 1 cay'in my report, bo 0 far as vs can accentsin siasa tbs industry star&3d in 1878, .7 approximately 28,000 persons fcsve tamn employed, 8 m. Be CQ3-3D2Z0: year cohorts ineladc about fi in round msr&cre? 40 MU* EsBC^aia; Etedvo tacsdv 11 MEL BflG25S$l5D: ffrclvo tasuooed? K 1EL .I&BEffiHZ?* ' Yss, ia IC, B-aiS33'-23>s X uadershsed yesv cfsaiy taaa 14 K:C*rr. in IC'tO so that esuratldiy ycvs- vosh hsvt btsu 13 .BGr3a?3s&v& end yea fcuve got:.ja yci:r inuuscxtica, ea I 16 wrong? IV I-:Ty cTeIiUS&7Bi lie?* 2 fcl.iuh yoa ere Sbo ccwioyrwaa -vaxa vsnfcpKcd afc tfcr.s hiss bet ::I:c .Isfsviastirs Shr*r r.3 ir> ckr,fc iKp?c.r,td to Shu 'rccvtsrs v.\3 c'c.r.*.ci.sl It is iweistisdiy spt.h5.*:.s vhr.- Kw t . *# ' f. ^ ` l .%* ^ PI ,*ly A.* / *.%#.-. * "v.%;%v.^* |. 1**,, J...U..... "i'*{L'!*.i Iw*/. ' *)!*,.'< * I I %* i .. .* |* *^4 1( ^ * *|< * ,'** i >; . '*- I V ' * '-!**r, *! . '.*.> *.** I * * * < A >| * M AM#. i'fT/* :'* * `: - --*.* * < ... i!i I. . * m 362 MU l-foDpC' n* AU):, Sow. \ *\ KEU DaGDEGOnXC: Or before and after? . ** , HR. &SGEAIS: Sons before and ocsa a&er, IS. DnGKSGOEIO: Thai: o vihafc I bed Sn raind. i have been corrected, of course. X Hey, 2a doing that, 2a otidying diet: relation, ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT yon Baat have relied cat onaniuatloa es dcsr.c?.ats prepared fcy other people. IS. t*r)C2!AlD: 'Jos. IEU EoKSSGOUIC: And that brings up tan question o2 the acc;jsr.r.y o those cocansnfca, dees it not? IS. lfcSCS&l3: 'ioa. . ia. EsSSlvSEiXO: For eraciple, hco do 'ee iena ho:: accurate io ctr tarowlr.ege o;-T the JLo?aJL of erpsscret: in tfca IblViiATT: Tes, r.:x 7. uewreni: cn tlir.ti raX'.3cr;P V2: .. r.oa,, Vb^vHiTJO: *s..w: .-src co.*:::z 3t. o/? %#*/>.%#**%*. *a. s * f .`f/ 4**iMl.i:i 'ji.*. X* j>u* * #* * iV #. .r * i! ?i*i<i, * ** . * /ijrvt thet IK: 3 </ *i,*# i' *!'ili*t* * * * ? 1* *# **4 . #.! r /* t!, a* *!f'<* ,* ... - :V*-i-tr/. r-..-.?.. i:*: ; ivrj.i-i i:iv. .'.: i . / *. , , ^ Uf ,,\*....... . --- . j* -> * . /.* i , 363 331 over appro:: irately IS years. Me have since in parallel with 2 him done a parallel study and we find actually that we learn 3 rare from Tiio than he does from us but certainly at the present 4 time he is as good an observer as one is likely to cocoa by. ELLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 Row, it is tree that no dcubt he has learned corath:' 0 in 'IS years, toe. But that is the source of the information. 7 How, of course, prior to 1550 there were practically no objec a tive measurement? recorded or otherwise and before that wo 9 are having to rely cn estimates. The may in which ma estimated to thc3Q exposures is certainly subject to error but X think that 11 one of the reasons that X think me can put some reliance on s 12 then is that they were extremely high. Bust control, made 13 practiaa.U.y no impact on tha industry so far ac mo can hscc::- 14 taia until after the war. And in fact, we sti.il had until 15 very recently a plant which was operating which has ' 16 nr:gone out of basinets at stiJ.I very dusty levels ard it v.r.o pens lb in auing rancourevents in that plant find by set*:!-.*/;! 1? m`w ijii observers tji.o worked before aai after to try to estimate :o .j ,.0 |j . I < !! f ji j! ?.? i! i; ,,. V11 as wo could want condltirnn were like in 1550. A?., Z-: rZClCC..VlC: .ira Xc arrest cj.cc .in ua.-arr-t-nc:';:: i.m| *<t- i k< L..1 .! . 1 ^ ' V..-I ^ w^ . * '&* k* to U <it..t'.I-* > < * * * v* i.j'; rm!.c::jc. i *..`.'i: r.ll o ;r . V s-./t. '.'.'.aw :. c i rc.su ' to .f. to '.to 'a* *v# -tn!' V - ** U to 5- > # n * . to\i* '\<.s . ; ,* . - I . . (i :3 i K.< ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT . # * . 364 . i*. 34 MR, MeDONAlD: Tile fact of death. MR, DaG33GttnO: The face of dOfith' MR. McDOHALD: The face of death, yea. MR. DaGREGGRIOs The face of death, yes. But not the cause of death? MR.McEOKAl'i}: The cause of death wa then' attempted to cbecfcsfchsfc is to any fos all lung cancers and o wont back end essoined, the data arid looted for autopsy information and so on'but aiusyo of source or.c is dependent on eliat otter, pathologists or phyalcicns have recorded. You appreciate that this error applies to all leuolc of -espadura so iliat the error, if it enisto should not produce bias., la a rsfctar of fact, there is a bias and`it is a bins that is ??orth benrieg in nine in ail studies and that is that ix a person is knnrr. to be an asbestos sorter, is is rani*, more litely to.be ran: :?: .as lung c&scer or ir.actheiicaa. ile ie roorc likely .to havr-. an autopsy in general* This bind of bias rith idv-ntit;/ tor.lr. to'exar^crate thi duct rr-tWonse voletionshic but :/<?.: .r:n I'uitn ri-.tiu it is upon ham-.-/:, yss, & ! 111. v^JCinXC: k t-.-f.s rresfcicn of Vi-.*:, d-v;--* .. ... , ' . %'* i. * . ' , * <........AC"! . J 5* -' . Ar^^ t W' { {<* f% .^j % * *'M* * ,* i.k. . {! tl* **M. It . # m;* ' (* . .V* VMMIA * Ik f ,f. * m .'V{* ^ ** *. ' *' vr'.-T.t > '. L'. u' " ....................... V.\: r x:.-'s~.ni:,, ' ... 365 . the core certain popplo are that there is o risk associated with tha job, the sore liUoly in this bias to ccrcn in. But I think this bit3 has boon pretty understandable because, if e worker dieo, the fact of kunan ''connosist'1 has been known for a long tiisa and tha way in which conpensclon occurs is by suopacting it and a3king for an autopsy. The autopsy rate ic cnch liL ghcr in heavily exposed people than iu lightly exposed rrobebiy because tha relatives are core aasioua to have an autopsy because they may have a claim for compensation but the lung cancer cay be nech mere reccnto * 1Cay I add that very few. of cur deaths n Car cohort occurred before iSSO--issst of our mortality is since than. 53 DaSStiSGCRXO: Ko;j, a r^iat bout which *i nr. juct curious.. Gy.'-uiisse: you arn yjse curious. IG ^ 'i i-'`.17.^: ria^cc,a--wail.,'.am I . !i 13 5!jl c^rreut in ' that tha * ; rirrr.c :V.v thr.na '.vinca ' O'.: 0^ |j V....vo sir*from thecur rvrrdies nnic-'.borboc Jr-"::.; t; 4* * AU 4.% i V <i W soars ! fc* %< 4 0 u M *^%/lI <m**,4 . !U<* >p ) .*!k !? .**.. i '` II *P- */ ,i*j Ii II I*W I c.:* * i*... .. . . ciic * of i "r:' .nr.":y.'cC *...*....**- .*. . ,,* O^*^. *jl % f %'?' * v'm ** M.* t*<lf * p **'*, *. ',, -% **.*.? . *1 * f ' .*.** M l**, to '-.o ::v c<.> %*<'*o* ** !;%} l . i ^*` _ ILLEC jBLB DOCUMENT 36 1 erposed to lower concentrations Indirectly? 2 MR'. KstuRIALD: Yes , It ia possible and in fact wo have 3 made several cor.pariooro,,. If wo compare tha ainera with the 4 local workers with local persona,that la where we find car bis- 5 goet dlfforar.ee because the local rates of lung cancar are 6 much lower than in cha province ao whole. 7 In other v.oi:Ca9 if re ccc.eare the rartnlity ir. 0 car raiesro with some that are away froa the raining area. 9 cay, Montreal and Quebec, there is no euceso at all* This is to whit someone has referred to, the fact that cur overall 11 mortality :lo in fact for this industry slightly fch*"Tl 1* 5" 12 iho gcanrr.l population,, 13 uow, that obscures the fact thctr if yen start 14 srstxininj; the. people in relation to their dent crepesure, thou 15 ;eu find that tbosa at tha highest level fc?.ve an arcana of .Vr:.; 16 ;oncer. Do you follow tsa? 17 vEU DaST-IG^.IO: r!o, 7. am sorry. ia 2D. KcSST'aTd: In .other wares, if :::a ^VrSwt you 19 eve r.alrV.iij, there wen!*.; act be .*x;r arcana, b'lin crly rcrsrr : 20 there in ri\ rancsr in racer.:; c .-ora ecny?rl*v; it 'Ith 21 ' "* *> i U .* f. > I** ,.w %4* * I V* # l ^ *-. t - . * ** * . ' f *S`* .> m %*% 4 - # v .4 * * /i i !< **y * V * ^ M j :*. i! ' ll f M - i '"' **"'.;* to Sb:?TM:-.'!'. 1 ;%*: ------ r"j uo:.. vi lr:?u i b*: ' V 1 367 1 you studiad with the control groups used by other researcheirn 2 In ell occupations. 3 HR. HcDONALD: Hell, there arc practically no other 4 researchers who have U3ed any control. lih$t. has been usee! ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 3 generally has been the general papulation, the general 6 popularlen, shall we asy, of the United States or of a 7. nucttor of ofctco-in the United States, 'Ehia lo the otondr^d 8 procedure and we, certainly can do that. 3 El ether words, if you did that and you Imon the 10 general level of the mortality from lung cancer in Quebec 11 is loner then in the U.3., so if we were to ccmpcro It with 12 other people*s controls, we could possibly find that aabcato:. 13 was good for you bncsr.se our rated would be loner 1r.it ftfcrft 14 hind of concerioen is not valid.. .In fact, than no exo 15 very reluctant to esha coaoariocno with rjimorn! p::".ulaticr. ! cnrpicD to be quite strict--2 -loubt the validity of i 17 !II bleed on tl.r.t. 1C i The standards of cbaaruafcicn era not zr.sr-iiKi.c/e * ..t tJJ :>i| /ift ;! asi: v-.io r:d .*::* a?.c that you -sro 2fiC'ir.<3 a different sta tl r.n Lufcrn, Z:-\ :t wV.y J. it io <0* % *'' l,* .*. * % *4 '!# *.. -. ::.. c v:.r.-mv o*i `:.ie l* .:vc ;:i uAa*::v?n. *iv:-.v ..... i' !** '.''I' *`*1 v* ............................. <.*4?*.?...**?*...;u' | . *r.** * n *n 7 ; v'::,v.` J.!-.*: n:n veil. EXAMESR, GOLDBERG: M?# Earl, I want to coil yotft? ' J * ' , * attention to the fact that Dr. McDonald was scheduled to- 3 testify thlo earning. / 4 MR.} EARLi Doctor, have there been /any sfcudi03 done Ille g ib le do cum ent 5 regarding tha effect of smoking if Chare is an effect and haviu?' 6 ouch.studios broken down between fchoca that amahs on the Job 7 end these inhale tha dust oiscnXtaceously with tho smako end 3 those who ssoke generally bat do not scokn on the job. 9 K2. McDOlSALD: X an not av?are of any studies of to this kind. The nutter of studies which have touched on smokin-`gj 11 at all in.relation to asbestos have bona very few and wa have \ 12 dene a small study but it is still, 1 think, a question as 13 far as X aa aware of that hns i~-G~ been strtiiodo 14 E.'.TVL: rJitlvi-. year c'tsrertise. ds you think it 15 could cosnibly bn clinically sigeifierv.t tin fact tint a * 2 ; :?n ; ; n;:*!C cr: ?:! job a::.-' i-*I:r.icu tho dust ci:uiitcacc:3ly rs 17 yjjov*? to a raa-wha crakes generally cn thn- Job dons not., i to < v&. t'csClIATD: l?raa!c.?.y. X do r.cfc think co. 1 th:V;.k Ya !! i! * '* ,r:* *" cvrrral.V duct cursaarc eiu''overall nrobiat In*.'; iv if . j #*J <<*{w ^ * i* e il i ;i i -............ I ^ * * , , V#ll *** ,** - * -* * <J U}\ .V . ** 2 ) - V* . t. /* a t .A . v J5.\^ W* .* uw' -1 * " ^ \T^r ......................;. V ? ^# f* \ .m'i **./ I ** h, ! w#^.. .1. Wvt . ; V. 1 ,i . ; i: :! -/arv -an b; ckir: .nc.jfcl.:;.. . 1 35 fl dose rosponoe relationship and the concluding point that 1 2 sake is that If wo accept British constant of a point at 3 which tha ono par cent risk of clinically significant dicor.st 4 is achieved in fifty years ^o^hing nu- .it5 wa find that leva! ill S our asbestos minors in ths cat-ogoty ^hich .lies between five 6 and nice fitora. So it foliaus from that that in cy view * 7 tho concept of five is entirely renironabie, 8 231. SAr.L: Thanh you, Dr. MbDonald. 9 Yon are excused, Br. JJbBonald, 10 Dr. Kingsley Key* 11 SS1232CTT 0? El. K37G3l* E37, 2h#D. ' 12 crj -toilc^o,. * * * ** 13 I an Kingsley Kay, as a b.3v in physical * 14 cfcoreiatry of the University of Toronto. Sosa aod3idcrafclo 15 Uiv.2 ago --and cy special field ia Ccccpaticral Utoaieoir..-?"** 16 I cetvod on tho Threshold i&wlfco Scs^ittca of th1*.'craric: t. *7 Corfcrensc of Gcvornrantcl Industrial Hygienists.. I have 10 fcacn a !.'a;.;o;: of thn rubccrjri'itco on `iV.bc.Ain.? of haTardc'i:: 10 clroninVi ths OfcaciccX Tccr.e trios O'.vv,,d`:'.--tho tr:V" i:o tit', nn :.. *.t'r*oo of :c::r.r.tir .vii Labe? Crcr.i:lr;.vt:l<r.i. .vr.l V. tA m * 4 f* I. tA' *1! <1*44 /L>*** #tl** .#I A|.'- # , ? f V"*.n >!/ ** * '* /* f V I* tW f *4(i'(. < .# 1*4 *f*?t A4 *.**>4*V *' W,M* W i* M < * **!' * /n,' r . ^* A irf.^ . .*f, * i*:.V * t 1^ *7. Mi t*ii . ff* **f,*# /* . . _^ * .i % ! . 25 -.. , ; cv;:?; . ntly in iv the v: *- Ceccrx'*. 0 US -J. . o Cancer. Ecaeuao oJEthio bac'cgrovtni which X have . . *. just described I have been particularly interested in the 1x31 eir stender d propcoed under tUi Occupational Safety and Health D5.il, Also, no Associate Professor of Environ- tcantni I&dicine in tfeunt Sinii School of :*dlainc9r.n. appoint- * ** . * ' cant which I Lsr/a hold for two yearn I have had a contact wit tha work c?i cessation in that c3ator. The naw law o 1571 has the intent o preventing dlEinishea health functional capacity or Ilia expectancy a a result of work experience and fartharEora 1 have lx.tod in the ESASS criteria Socncaaft fleetica9 two pasan 2 and 3 ' thet "biological sanitising by periodic chest rrocntogrc&o end re.vnvai froa further eogof/ure after -initiating pf- --------- fibraoystiSicatica cr nephasici nil! net project 'tether retfr-sSoion of asbiatc3iu or -linics.! - of nocnlasiES arJ therefore it is absolutely essentia 1' that e very low Ir.rai cc i pracluca tfca in?.tmt uca of ii'-V; re!::;;; ton. Xt is to this Sj.'l... -. M*( # *1* i*<***V?U* * **V>. . * ^ 1 <u* #V ^ !j r.w t| ii * -3 il ^ ? I * **n ' Iv***;*! * k /I. * #* !,, /f>** V ' 7 t'*V^ 1U* ?** ^ *#* M * *,'*'* *! * .5 i|/la*^ ^<,,k<i*. * . .V. *.'stti..-.* '; * f?.?-rsr.r t *' * %%* ** *' j ur'jji c:*i: !:e :;^iva.;:wd cut. of th:j l ;. *1 r: %A *.r;iir.jr l.'. ecu. lures l . 41 nr*.] ky-j wrJ the ycnra. 371 7- Ji>3t of'the investigators either did not oramina c otcbinti.caliy valid sample of workers or they did not adequately deacrJJbe the asbestos exposure by aimotric seal- *. * * fcoring, Tills statement of affairs baa been covered cosprahoncively la the 2HASH report end need to be enlarged upon at this ties* In the brief that 1 presented,I took the opportunity to esaoina the iSbuat Sinai data jyrapaio'ally and' if anyone were interested there are copies at tbs table that you coaid take. libat X found nan that the work ca the 111? s .. insulation workers, the clinical work plot;; a soroth _- sstfccaetieni relationship* witth sfca* j&egrcaslcr of* .l~cg ctr.:v.;t .clitics and sore years after 'having bad .the erposuro, laolcstSsr; that the cohort rrs adequate end reassuring in r^gord to the validity of fciva study, Xii ailditicu this :V.v:cr.tigr. ticesi i&crr. ran able tt : I .':c::rav;vi:e <uu". aiiaicai evidcaes rich sons recent aur^Kstyi-:. *'* C1 H >( ( , ! 1M J ' *! ll l#M I 4 1 # *#<l^ ^ 41 < . *4 .%*.* . i" i I i,i #!*.. I'lt w a i ' i' 4 it*^#f..m *.*W < I M * ,, !!. .a I, t.Mu I,.. t^.. . *u i .v # *v*t **o T;. *>* S > <*/.* *. * .*; 23 j n - jIl! i itJ i * -t i; * * * ,*! v* ' 1 *, * * *. ^ ^ r* M * i *!** tit | \ l t t j* *S* \ M I* *' * . :; tcskro.'.wv o>! :*.< cv.'vJo Iras regains:' M,v,,'*m *.*^>1j .,'. v***. **.* . v\ i-' >. ;:> ;: .i.t.v. . ti.' :.v>-;o- .:;t.:v: 373 t be a challenge by Cha data in Cable 27 of Che NIASH Report 2 which shows that very short exposures to asbestosis lead to 3 Iocs abnorcalities with tha passage of tire, . 4 J^pbcrcore,aryls evidence is provided in the 5 MItiSIl report that Ecoyir.oia. cay also eveatuciiss from 0 Qstzexaly ah ort orpostires, 7 2b Che foregoing cSreuisstacecc it ia n$fc clear C at what iovoi to sst an aerotnafcrie standard of asbestos - * 9 sKpssars for precluding diminished 2t*ncfcionai capacity, SO diminished health, diminished life ercecfcansy as.fcha law U deesneo.. 12 F: c stance, if ?0 per cent of tbs roriccm si: 13 teresni 5 fifcors gsr cc show-lens abnormalities within :> 14 ?c.sr:* af'-nr onset of esi'oou~a i:: 50 per cent srorad IS rune tic uni capacity as measured by shortness of braath c:-.i 1C if ncjoiaair. '.w."; e:-:ier r&y *.*:-secure aa Is a 17 u ,n .*) *. **k*l * v . * '* , . ,v*>i 70 '*v*l r #v# t M ^<? *!! * W - Wa 1 *1 . 4* *1 ^*!v>***(*. *I Min14 *4* * * 19 #%l|*#r. *v1 V* | 23. *** tt **** .*Ir <t%in V# v m(S *!'\%f* !/ * *#p i **' 'b k.s . < * ****'*.< **, .*.* ft ,| ,t - >it * *s *, .......' .V | ^ ,\ { % . * * % ,..< % *r - *!* , .,*'. m . .* 4 *.<.,.* r`- ' #-* v*-*' . it..* | *. * ' * * * * <% m * . 1 * *.* j ?* I i * .* MV' * * '* > . \ #*< . *.. , i*r\I .* ,-* , ,'mT i 4 j * * * i* .*4.% M{* al* ** ** *## * 1/ '. .* .1. .. . I . . # . T * 4 i i 37* .. 44 in&ent:ions o tho.Uniced States .Occupational Safety and .' 2 Health Act which, ao./X see it, ecens to be intsndcc to-protect V S all W0?fc3Z3 4 Viewing; ths data la. Pigure i.asa?ja of ay brio*, 5 a reduction in the cir enpeeuro froa, let us say, five 0 to two fibers po:: cc cr four would even, If the effect wars 7 linear leave us with 36 car cent c** tortore chewing Sang 8 abnorcalitica, 20 per cent with functional incapacity in ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT terns of elicctr.ens of breath, to Tfca H2&8H Report refers to oafety Saotora and 11 stcnlrrd sotting, Zt io eubaitcod thr.t the esnsaptisn c-f 12 safety factoring implicit in ITZiSH proposal end the rriti.':h 13 Stctdcrc which inspired it is-for ahert of whet ic conceived 14 * of 3a other fields ns for inotcnce :"coe. ccata:.vxti:ioa.where 15 safety facto: a eg IOC fcava long men the vroc'tice ci 16 ittznCvvrl rolitins, the rccstiei of course 'to bo ?:' r. 17 I *:Ly tho-?'.,* indrctrial werhera be subjected i (v> level of rich torn the general rublie* li/ghit. r !; :U'Si:-*v".c.i. :*.,, mir.eaura os: 3c::o Np* * i< * r :i. *j 1 !'^2 ',iS'if " ::i . fc ,,* v'.t1'ji"'** ' :>#F: (* 4nm!i(/; O' i** - - ;.o t !>* * * '-'c _ :;i-.:nraAiy ".iV; .. : '"V.y * ,%***. ' i0l * * * '!- *v * * <. H > I a m # J, '<*! *4 . 4 4*t< I >a I **' ***.** I ^*L , ...., I/t*# m4 * i s' * %*##* r 0 tm ' < W ' * . * | , : nii #*.*-It 4^ **. \"44 .*%^' o ,'. : ..... v\ i;.- * * 375 45 ' suppose thct cigarette seeking of workers are mainly chose at risk. However, it io nowloom that polygenic carcinogenic hydrocarbon to which the neoplasias of c 1322:121Co scoking arc present In air pollutants present in the air adjacent to . cigarette geohersj a feet which has bean recognized in n practical cay by the currant nvre to separate caolvars end aonronoboro i-a transportation end other occupancies. To suaacrise it is ssbwlttsd that tho preposod iIZ&S3 standard of 2 fibers par ec asbestos exposure is within the health injurious rears cad as finch it is in of tscoedtv t. rrotrtc oi for human, cssperiasafcf.ticn n ` ever a long period that it t?il taka to validate fcha* CU0S3* - Eiaally, wrd on labeling. Tha propose.:? .Icfeollns uu ccp-cer^ to be fully r.*ie:;ur.te for trained kc-r.iah Ji it (.).! l| R'`t,i"ri ("'f. '"^V5*:?**' !; ef t!ii! zativvi p-hui, that in the yiun with tfc: frur .vr.e.2ctic*../ c i !. 1 . ,* .v!'iv[ .,** >' l *. U,* mm%%m '*! - r"i*>*rbjl^ M}'t 4mms* r*wt^ i*l--.m << *P"r.*t * ' ' <1 " V,* f +* .* . '<? w i % i l I- w . i V%i bv ' # k * I /! . **. ** %> t*4.' # !# ^ tiV'*-' . ,* {! * - >' w . ... - -I. m {.] * 1 U'rf*-* c . .,1 MM ' . i .1, . ^ **#4, ***m' , .' w , , - . ' ;. A i. V * * m4 %m I v ' <>i1 ' ** v Il LSEQISLE DOCUMEMt * f 376 46 nSaoura if it ware nat,than coco tcoro realistic sycbol along lines long ago accepted at the Internationa.5, leva! cacas to ba .* cailod for in that attr ition. EXAtiSKSa Q01S33RG; Vlhcnk you* Yea are asccooecu \ ' samaras* .c? j&as k. &m*vm9 vies siaaissBs' imvms akd sums Drresscif.. raura emits . ccnreuTiOT 13. S&V7&I5GS; 7. an Jams U. Settlings, Vice Preoiccofc of tbe Kining.csid Ifctulo 'division of union Csfcida Corpcratic. cad Erocsct Ssnercl'Sina^er for tbs Division* a aabsotoo cuoinaco. da..arch, I a;a concerned wife nil activities of cur sobcctcs ccev&tioas fraa mining to ccicfl. !?d.',va 'sr-coedlng viifi cy pressed resari's a yen j.jhnuld J.5.?:c to noto tuc priiriry reason for sr;v spjcr.vanaa jl Isre tcfiy, T7n?.c.s Ortrj.U-o has developed r. irc&gc* of. I! jj cute a ::::c.*.'rssc fer ococin.l little laora-a;?lieS&?:v. !| i) I* ) [ V.' * J > 4r I j* ^ . A J* t.ii** rt, Vti /.r Stvft rfV. ,'tV^ft.*' ! .' 4! . > - t* V ;vi'!* in . .* * , * * * i (ltd *iv 'U / * / ,*!. ? * ; * ! v! ** Mr-*,*' a*`* >!> r v.*vi***C In * '* * . i -' # * V /* `M i . .* * % * * iS J * * / t * %. < i - ?^. r.v* v,**.**,.* .*.i ! v ! * y.:<: .iiv,1: '//* ` */**" i*.oC#i ' u; f CCtW s!:3 ; i ,'.G 47 1 377. *. * s Union Carbida5 soingio asbestos oiae is located in 2 the rcrofce Hen Zorie mining dls'rrictof California end the ore * 3 is proceeded 55 tiiio3 r.rsy at a alii near ICing City, California* \I 4 She deposit tree discovered by Union Carbide geologists in 1253. ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 5 Zfc contains several hundred clliioc tena o q 50 per cent 0 cryootilo short fiber ora end is ora sf the wrld'c significant 7 ninerni reservos. 8 Dar.pito the vast sisc of the da?osit, the decision to 0 develop it was difficult. Ehe complete Inch of long or csdiun 50 fibar3 preclacsd eny cartisipatici in cocaoni'jrJ.ly Si. 3" 51 aificant esbeates markets ca teatiles, ir.au ir.tier. cud ciz r.r;:. 12- 2!srocvor, cur ability to dirsetAy c.cncatc rich ca-^ria^iepc: ______ T 13 Canadies short sibot asbestos in floor tile* tape joint end 14 :tfcsr tradition;:! short fiber cru&sts located in the. 15 ;?!`cnt,.v:n ft.? tec ?:as ar-rginsi dr5 *.0 <1.<>1 *.3u *>.*^ .* . :s It r.io;-. i-.tyr.r-.nt M:.:s even r.-ji;:: yareiilireticu i;i t.j:oi:V::.r..K;:: 17 './ort fiico.*'T..::r?wtn in the Ucstern United Gtetei.csr*** { 7w i rf:: or::*. . tic it ey'rv.iio jasfcifi'U.ti? - coveion rv: !0 i ri"liA.,. . t ">,** m m' , mV iS r.r ''S"A ' *1 ' *>-* *#' jav I.' .' * *\ * 1 . ,| V W j ? * *. * * ** f . * r>k **.*> *? 7 " .*'** i . M ' * ,>>*.' i* * h> ** . V " 22 \ 11.. i *I !l ?.a n* :--: v tii #i * .* -1i. * *' . a r : *r- rv.: 3\;V:' 378 . 1 research co?ca hsve continuously boon- directed toward the 2 devolopcont and solo of asboatos products for new applies- 3 tions which- ac a group* wa idsatJJiy aa. "onscluity prodncfcc." 4 The ef.oaoaic viability of Union Carbide's 5 asbestos fcufjicd03 is dependent on its ability to uaintain its ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT G specialty -jreducta csrfcat. Certain of the proposed regulations 7 seriously threaten this market by isscocias rcstrucCicnB which, 3 in cur opinion, go beyond those roes cunbiy required to protect 9 the health c individuals wcrldjcg with tha products. to Ilcnauar, bufero diuoussiug the specialty procures crrfcet 11 end the itviect of the proposed rogaiatioao, Z ucuid iifos to 12 briefiy cutline ths econccdc benefits which directly Slou froic n-j union Carbide's present ability tc panticipate in the rjarht.'/o. S4; Uhilti tin will act parrot n easeriptf.cn ~;2 c-csi\ 15 of our r.pseiaity products, a acnewlmt detailed ccscripticr. pi; 1G is ucanrcary in order to piece our ccr-osn';:', rr. ;y:c p*oav 17 >j i irxirryZwl ec-utcxt. By fsr cur r.j&nt: o m* *>c cl: ir cLc^iuc.A,;.;' 2i;5r:h 'a < . * i*i - * '.0 ! li. / >%* * i7 V I# * V 8l^i * L* even tins -.n *: iyaetsr. 00:::;;/ pii pal; vioyJ. 0n'* . /**/* ' .** . U.kt ^ < ', #^ f "* I. *-* l Jb. ?% , ^ . * * ** * *, 1%-t *' ^ ; '* */.. ;.''i , .... U * .r n ^ > a / t * * , / 9* *. .. *M U ** ---- !# / t* #* 4.* t . 3 : V* * * r.i I M * * * r . a* * Us a %*. # * I I 47 f 2 379 mhos contact v>ith c o totic curface, almost icmsdlatcly become a solid ohieh wiiinot run or di-op. A vary substantial ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 3 application far cur cabaston thluatrope is la polyester 4 resins used in the'^sbricaftioc'tost hulls Typically., 5 tha bail io built tip on a met:n::kius from t ha c.ntsidQ in. 6 A fclyocto:: cant is sprayer! on, olio;cod by a lay: o 7 Sibar^itsa and fcten by chofchar pa lyester cr .t. This prcccsn C is success valy repan tad until Chs hull is built up Co 0 the rcT'.Srnd thieinosn. Ssoeatinlly, the sans arocadare ic 10 ucllowad tvi rrodnaitsg variety o other products such go 11 shower stalls enrl rutcriObilo bady carts. Ar.plicntionc eS this 12- nature *:ouid not be possible witiiout too visr.ooity control------- -1 13 I # *,** :J ci hy an oii&sctira thisotropic g%&a't,, 1'4 Tha only s:>a:iJ!icanl; nitarc^tiver thirxftrQpic tgr-.v. , 15 1 r.-:j v.xaiir.l in 1.*; nrxx-pbov.s ail*.^i.'.0 The silica product fc:c *. 1 10 !! ic> ..ir-bulb ir.-icivy t!u:n cu-: .'.sgCiVuOS yuciunt rn-j 17 U* ic lohtt.'T.nt/.y *.-.:ch ...-.stir.r. T: io txrn eupansivc than cv.r ;| V'j > .*:;r *: 1:., in ex: o^5.'.:irn, r:oh 1* .* * t %* >M a&. << i .1 '. ( ' * * ;"** C* ` '*. "r "V ' ' * *1 ' W **,! 't< M '# !r* m.M ,U*| A #' * k. **'1 ' v* ,.* i * .< '<# *** f.* ,............... >. <r >#. If. fr ,* J ,M J * % "* a* ** 4 *,*V 4 tf ' ! % ' !(. ? iia,'* . ^ T n i* a. t i a a' . I t i*. . *L ^ ` > i, ^ Ml S) 1 < k*. % * ** * '( ) " a.r *. * * i * * ; ""i* ;*' * J * * **' . a* t. V |l *i a. la * U ( 4 .1 >4 I > 14^ * ** * *.*< ** **; i /*.*';* i:i.r ' r r;\v: o': *.v.V: \ 48 380 1 plantic uaterfci1 which contains a half par Rent of.tho thd:r?- Z C'X`. tropic product* - i 3 Earlier today Dr. Funsol: diecusaed a, list of 4 problems which or3 enc.iozsC ia atrong; binder rosins end i*. 9 i-:c rovJ.d very .rack iiha to war!: ritfc o;: indcj^vident/.;/ to I ^ jjjl "ii'.iiii '.ii y.iU^ #v*t aif vil%*. i Aimiiivwu ciS ai.1> %j*im : >Tj**rt- ci*r c yns'eieity 4p**rverhieto boct/as-i i! * / ttfcr,- 'v*il in fcfeet cctar.osy end X thin?.; tLoy are.not tnrny of ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT tea.?, era nor saiicreJLJLy haem. 0 SXA&Si&V GtfiXDSilG: Shs record ai.il bo topi open to } y.n:: ten ityz ;:ov tLo reed-pi: of. additional otefcoajoat3 cod 11 ! t'utvtis.i. ita yea :cny subr-iit v&o ea:*?ino that 70*4 rich to 12 do cat rl:na yet do ?. notice that *.flhafc yea held up 91741 13 r.br.ri ti:o air.o of a ai.Vrnr ooixer. .. --:----- 14 I'z r> f-T*vVos 15 * Iva arc coins tohfivs ii:rfic::Aty 'W 17 # *J* .*::JMi'.:..yjx\'\ tl* i.r. till .roue:: :i,, 'V: ` 4 `I 4 * . I; 0 n -. t t ?*t*#/* *.n w **,.%l* a* '* II* W ... . , %'* . 9 *%.**. ^** ^ tc >5 in?.:.cu A | T *. 4i* # w^i*Up * * V* *# . . "3 !* *** ^ 4* I ' ..** '* ' 'i r.n ! * i 1 V; * '* > - . /. -t; ***. v m* i'v 2 *>.*< *. 4m* ^ .*.* j *.. ; t.V ll 1* .'.V.i I' I* ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 381" ' 49 1 THE WITNESS: To this point, ue have not cosumhtad 2 on tha proposed regulations ao thoy would apply to our 3 own operations. Hero, wa do have a number of advantages* 4 Tha natural coisture content of tho ore in ouv California 5 deposit runs rrgn fifteen to twenty per cout. The moist 6 ore io transported in c&rte&s-ccvcrod truafc bods to a stock 7 pile at the Kins City mill, A sprinkling systen oa tho 8 stockpile adds additional moist re to the era* Tho adi/.rjir; 9 process at King City la a uniqv ii wet system (the ore 10 is introduced and processed in a 3lurry) which inherently If nSniniscs duct generation, LToCrwithctending those admntr.ncs t 12 we are plcnninj to caE cn additional capital iursotcsnt o>: 13~ apt-rcnics.teily $300,023 in cider to further reduce aoaesu- 14 trrtirac of Airharna asbestos filters in the raili* 15 TTn ere confident ws can cosily with a Tits:err.- 1C old T'.ri': Tclue of 5 fi&ara ,milliliter on or? eparnti: 17 -.".r I'v.V.i'cn. i ::::cvor9 that a tlvccohoia iirdt rclr:c lo of :1 ::;7:orc. r.c:: cc.i.M.'.itc;: ere:..,/: or: -'cl'lev-cd is*. err U lev:a r;r an rrniiy-known c:or\hir.:t:*^n of sv.^iv.as.viv'.;' i1|'* ,i u f ; *. ** ' r. , *, .. * , I * \ *. : z\ vi*: :-: it !*tv:r h"C" -H- : i .-..I- v.V. -*# . I. -- v.'..** . I *... ,, .i'i # * i f .. **? V?- -t.? --V - - *<t* -- * ^ .,.* * * <.# t tt:; * $82 * ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT SO 1 BKAMIEEF. GOIDBERG: Ihcnl: you* Hr. Rawlings, Do 2 you viohto Introduce at; this tlno two copies of tlia dccutcent? 3 M2. RAtvLxWGS: Yes, Ido 4 EXAK23n GCIDT.G: Twa Gtsfceacsnt of Jacas W. Raw 4 i 3 lings will bo narked i&hiblt 44 end r.s rccoivcd in 0 evidence. And fit additional ctfeuranta that you wish to rubsifc . 7 in ten days,. cSr Doss cnyoao wish to esaoiac I-STa RctiHass? 6 fflrenl; you very each. sir. 9 CCahSMt 44 ansrkGd and received 10 in the record.) 11 rflll-IIESR GjnE','25: ^ tate * fi/rtocn- 12 trisasfca b?:c?.l% .. 13 CSastlss). . 14 IZi&CT. &K2QS3& Xs Ite. Robartc kero? 13 .vl i .Vi.HuC> XCu) * ?*?c !<3 L\-..i.vUv-/i.A v..r i-.i * 1. ..K.a iv j 17 tV"? VC.'lt* *fyj iTif'VT * *1 J. * V-V,) . '* 10 ICii# CX;13.V?Ci X r.i' ;co::t >. ex Hr: K*V 19 '"j *1 + ?x f'.* ' #' ** ,|1* ^ *'* At ; , .V % ^ *# -* .* f.i .* * : :*:t ftstiuity :. >: ttj~. ... ... t. '* * . m*.-*** ?*,* ""i-p * * '` i -- 4 ... i m 1 a # . .* % * '* ^., * - V 4. . -- ~ 1* # . }. 4V.fl M. M. / ! 4.1. . V ^ ***% ', f * v -.i m' " * - V; ." . * 7`ir v. ::* r * * * ' 1. . i*. . . ' , * it*** , .... ... * a * * "/ V .* . **' .* * ................................. *' *# * !H **i . *r ?*"*,, ,' * 1 - . .................................................... / /i i. ir\i|<!: i : ' - i, ................. 1- v-.i.'!< -t 1 . .. \ * 1 |>> . .. '* .* l *, ^ . 'I'. * * ;> '. > . '*l' A.* i '< ' . ' V * *.** ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 51! a 3 383 primarily of which I nta cha current president. This is an .- * > v\ association of ovtr 3690 physicians who spend all or I ' ' part of Chair professional working time in the service of 4 Occupational Koaltfc Progrr.trs. It sounds a iifcfcln grandieso, 5 aaybe end pretentious to saggedt Chat with the iicitdd com* 6 cents I inton-i to cake that. 2 also envision myself aa opoaUinp 7 for the people who designed the Occupational Safety and Health 0 Act of 1070 end for the several Smndrod thousands of works?;*: $ 9 many hsadroda of thousands of workers for whoa it coo 10 deolcned to assist, tut I think that you will unds^fcond why 11 2 ccn imagine n^salf speaking on bshalf of than when you 12 hear the content of try ronsrke. 13 v?a would like to corcosit only with rcnnr.st to -- 14 the ?4e-a?.ata.iraaicai e::f.wiarticn portion .of the 15 ncVsiJtca r.&ar.dnrOs end net oicentisily cr. th:: rsr:?.;:c2:i*i 16 ctint p;:a,vV.:a5 by l?XAS& or *ap-"C <:'co Advisory-Ccstr*<<* i" i |) Ln Rav.ami n'v .frr.iir^eata.'.JLy n r * 4j t ^ InI J; i * # i*m " * /' * vM ,, .*< .. c:: mi ' * * 4...V.4* # U t*k< *^ii*i#4 * W* '\v: crkf.ok ................. ,* ,** * \:y:,iA like *'?, * 'f > * li ` " / iK- : ............... *' *, * * | * i* * .'.* **. ,.* * J , .*[ * * ' J* vT* ' ! * .> . . tm * '- ..I n * I;:i f S *% ,*.i *.* * . i* ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT '_ 384 52 1 empioyotl In Occupational tlodiccl Services end although X will * 2 refer mostly to physicians in the course of ay rcrarfcs ere 3 supplemented by a greet nwracr of industrial hygienicts and 4 a great nut&er of nurses and other parnprofcsoioncls who 5 are engaged ia trying to serve the welfare with respect to 6 their health of the workers in our nation, .Car gonis cv 7 coraitcttufcc c.s career efforts wore .to the goals theft the Oecu** 8 pntione.VSr.fety and Health Act jopsr.ho to, j 9 !-7a enforced tha. passage of fchi Act. Sfe-Se osr.to judgrcrant chat if traxicaai lover-age ware desired in trying to IS atsnia the iz^iaecafstlaa of it, that those frofocoi^aaln S2 who UcvQ t3?nzu* their whole, cursor working for tbs s, ao a gy-Ja 13" would he- iv.-.-Vists 5 fully in the*ssana of elwoct beCag rifrura-- - S4 SXvoi*: .'dapuftiued to bale .the Eepssfiisacft of labor vad Dtpsrftm.S 13 of ITi:-; vr.' V, l:i r. s-ssis of Sin Act, ' .' IS Zt. t/irre fr.ro ir- a erasice;:able di.cnprsiatflaa-: \ rt 17 .to us to 'o-rar 13 ! j .T-MV-i* o.: : !:*:: : j 19. .! *. I* . ,,,%* * J 'i (* i >* * i:c Jti>:y ft? the effect-that tin nieftla i: lr*eio who .'..eve worked' _ "ir ^ * i*r j * * v.** *i ' *^{* ! # .**** W , ... ini T* +% * . I <1 I % * I , , I II 1 *** "*** " 'mi * W '* I* II * * *** r *. * * ......... ! I i >*' ' . -<*? /* * r * i ' l ' I " *> . I III l| || ! ** >1 J Ij itr,s lj# **J V J i|'i.i,ti'^.. ayM ^ >. m ii ,i !' -- ... ..... ............ ..- ................ . , , . * ********* i ''ilt*#-'/J ** ,i, , ^ \ *4 j! > i|*rt' . J. st-c.u: ar.lt'.: ; wofu.ciuvu." in erplsyof * '-M,, .** ^* f ** *.,* '"............. ' .........*' ............... '* * *f*t l #* **> i *. .. . ** > I . . to *i^a '*'**, !< I | 1* I r Cilia % 3 o Q UJ _J r3Q $ 33 -385: 1 because ho .is paid by on employer that: ho is beha Iding to him 2 and can not remain detached and scientific and objective and 1 _. ' 3 truly bo devoted to tbo welfare of the employes* 4 I hevo yat to mast & physician that want to medical \ 5 school who uorksci for a company tint manufactures asbestos cr i 6 a. ctssi ccnvpr.ny cr on of.l company or any other each organon" ! 7 ticn. I 3 T ea stop to think of the goals of msrccGEent 3 versus the goals of ergo^^-d laboi? ens would eldest coxa to TO the conclusion ttzZ a physician10 goals would be more aetorent- u isalZy compatible to fchpso of labor who concern fcfcamceires sa ifcfc tr;s interacts and roifsra of the individual* 3Sa fact t 13' ' ic that the rest me^orilty nS physicians, rureso end T 24 2a&3*itrial Hygienists rlo.aro engaged in this ~,c:;k year in arJ ! !3 year cut &&d ion*; before fcha *;r.3cnfi cf has esusssfiic.v... 1 2G Safety end Hcr.ltb Act sr.d with V4ry'consicarab`lo rscorrvSi-: .*". 17 V.'.ts nsrsr hid hhair integrity or tuc.ir r-atasurant. their Iw f if* *v*?rt W MCl-MMiNiatt* 1 ?/*/*?? * *?r**v.l ***!*^ W< f V>> .,v*v^ l* ''-.5 ''n 'iv>'-> 1 ** 'id ^ ^ -m v # if* t*u# W*# ji . r'V* * * v if * * % * , . ... W M 1 -**1 i ^ f " y** v *:' * ! < * m < .# ^ < *4t %* * >*V t*1/ lt I I !! s .*, k > . > 1 1I ( m ** 1 .* '*%** **** V V* ! * * '*** 1 %*V I * 4n. . |; -- -- ,, 1 . _T-..r ; .... ..... ! # . .| >,..- .I*.*.. .--,.--** 1 . .1x^14 . .*. >. ... * . % r *** :* > ........... :.'i 5.': ...!; . * >r;.51*:: x .c:: ... i' v: y*' *^ !|!' I 1* I* . ^ ii ^ "* (n<J f , > ' W ^ . 4 ! % * ^ * *w t {** * * * * i>4i* 1.' *** I I'. s* !i rjrf 4 386 I Che worker end of behavior Chat we would just os vigorously 2 condecn as anybody else who has spoken against it. .< 3 Wb do net deny that cv.ch crcbiens h&ve existed 4 and that they do still exist., What vie are concerned about 1 5 ip the natter of perspective and the natter of the proposed C solution to these prob-leas. Ifa think that it wcuid be eoei 7 unrealistic tc expect that cnlisbtpncd ipauaseaaats that krva I I 8 aupperted ve?:y generously good,high caliber occupational 9 health progratr:, world continue to support thosa as they 10 .-hove if-their involvesent in ernainatione under CS2L were 11 precluded by regulations. 12 Tc us it s aces, that nothing would servo corn 13" poorly tha aai&ra of the hundreds of thousands ere workers------14 who cure being nerved by oeeup-atiensi health prensars sati 15 than to have support fron tires?, cup-sort of then uithtes:::. IS Tie, in ether words, weald like to K-.rt 17 ^1 *# j W #* l ,M MW** mU e W* 13 V*.!* )* lu !' .4. W a<^ti **'. \> |,U 4mA *,* *, v" ill* *t I* * * ^*i*^#* w^ ti5 j'* mS' m ' **** mj 4*. mm> * r* * wi V * '* U Vm4 L / * .. r.w <- %",.* ! >! ^**-.* ***<'**>? ** *,-** > **! * s.'^v * ' i # M.S <4 M *M * #'W (>ll I* ^ V V* # W/tOT'W *< *' 4. J * % * / *., */' , < /***.* ,?*! ' ' *, 1 ", f *% vt * ' **. * *' k * J, ' . ., f ^ U * Im * * . I < III* 1*^1 . * * I' ..*.! / .1. ^ utl. u'.'r' AVf'J'n.V * i t ..** , k. * I. l t * t 4 wT.. 4/ H4 * 4 * 4-4 ** 1 .'*, `"I1' .- *t* I 1 . ? .**/**" I V;>** * *B* 2 * r * * 4. J .* * #>*4 .. ** * * 4 ^ ,< * ' ' ' It* 4*#* W m 4^|> 0 r.r- ....... . 7---.-. - - i-y-.? .'.*.v, Mi* ! l 1 Occupational Health Personnel In the omployMni of nsaagecants 2 j of organisationa froa the "par for&snco of craminations required 3 under OSHA* ' : 4 It is true that the vast rcijority of us ore paid I 5 by rcoaasacsnt but that io because alcoot all occupational health 6 z iu. D u O a 7 0 9 W 11 12 lf 8 43 K,ai o 14 13 :G services aria supported by insu^aasnto Enlightened nanasasent .. doaa uct do this for as alt*ruistic! parpens* They do it because it is just good tesinass. 2hoy alco appreciate ths fact tint if they ash us os physicians to put the welfare of their corporation cr Sfcair tccfitcuilifcy ahead of the welfare of the patient that la in the chair nest to cur desl;9 that ro era net `likely to go ca bolus professlegally natlcfiod rith the sort of a carasr cr that cert of each csd that v.z arc cot ^--.... likely to stay in their Corsica .and that we are nv!: litsiy to bo r.blo to enlist tie coepesation cf asploycoa in a ..cw.yrrai share t.V: Vat- to v:s:.v-'e:: wboa'o welfare is to be *7 ; id la. this icrsssc,. 'i! f-S ^ j b: vr f? il *:r. frc.l that cnilfiit&iad arar^iuata that is presrarr. r.ui l:.io r- r.uy p-o;;!*- that '-.s r.i *A Il , * lm*. 4 * * r.*.**i.* -; * #* w i^ , '..*! I.;. *m"* -,.i . !# lV"'. I Vf *1 . *? ? V * r*v .m t , < I *":i *,** * \ * * l i I V* *il b * r.o i ..... y *i \ * V**T*' i* **#'**1^*1* *M * *" I 1 *** ' *%' * " /*" ii ,, !i24 : 4 * * * #,- ' vV-' ....*..,.*.'.*.'.'..*<* *"'* ***!*** **.*'*|fcv* % Mf I -' |*?*' I? !! ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 1 Our loot peint is this. We think this is an 2 incredibly big end important subject and literally 3 cony people v.ho are cencorccd would have valuable input A on it but they have net been alerted at all in any ray to 5 the feet that it- is undor consideration here on this 0 occasion, bscauso nothing in the original dectwent or in the 7 Advisory Committee1 s revisions oil' it suggested that this wac 3 * s subject for consideration* -.'It has .cniy coarort in the 9 teofcimony. Ifa, therefore feel it could be tremendously 10 inapnsoprista or such r. essjer precedent to be set michcat it full dscusoi& and ..aril testimony by-all cf those who as;o 52 iwolved, beccuoa of the e.zt that Br. Ear la Bundy, *itrasdis':e 13 ,# " 1" *" * pact oronidont t:cs going to make this presentation but caul-* *4 not today, the acsteratat that ue have prapsred in rriting 15 bears his nar-e. IS ?S: 7. ~r.y, - should lira to retain it no long me the I17 r- fceprison reyaiu open to try to go to it and submit a revisit- 10 !i Ii that will iuso'rr.crcctc his fckiir.hin-; cad c.or:s of the co&ssntf:;: I l'4 j Ci:at 7. have ra:de* i CO TI- f* Pt1''.'' Il'.'ff'l '# V i > ii* iL*/ {(*< "! n-rv ^ "* \ \n 1 >M ^ * m * /.t *- T r!i:.i l! *3 ii V r.v.* :-.r - :y ?.'v::t!:&nr if ;vt wi.:*?, L ' * I . * 't '''? !* . ,# t `"II- ^ . . *-%^*#*I- .%* * ^ '% !*-r1 ?4 ' W<-Vo ^M ' v : f- i- ^ * ** ** l ' v`? :i: . I f M .1 57 EZAMXKZR GOLDBERG: One, v. V. 389 2EU DEGHSGCjIIO: Dr, Itobarts, so far as you know, aro the msdical records made end kept inttha ESdicai dspartreat of aa employer r.vniiabio to nsoplo who work in tha personnel Popartoent of the scca employer for purposes of administrative actions? D3. S03SPT3; Elis t:ouid very fren corporation to corpcrcticn cndsdbtadly. Wa would vehemently disapprove b'TI of their bains available ia any way. To illustrate to you the entant to which ea go in the organisation with which 1 c.a employed, Standard Gil c Cocynny of Hew Ja:-:ccy .under no., circucstonecn wonid any fi ** * infertior*. be siren to anybody in the porsoncoi dactrfcFsr.i:, ll anybciy ::n ccraseannt of tha company, anybody outside of the radical daper&KS&t that results ?oa our oboervatiorc ?n <s> the cour.cc c a Radical csciins--ioa, C-*:: records crolu;/; vtdar Acc*-. cud !::/. They r.re r.7r/Vi.:/: ie to no cue, la say rcssoanbla efcniicard of a * W v * -v^-.! ! *. v '".'u .** <9 >}!*{ * > ^ ^ .* , w* , ,,*a**J #* .** *M . *** -- ' t . ,* i,*.!.1 !/ iU*.. \lr* *. "?. * *> 1 < !M*rr *%.IJ'* As- *> *- * .* *t \ r ? * J * V. v,v.% ** ** .% * * I I ! > l, *I(V ,< ! I, If ^ *| !' v* -., , r.js i ^^ . -- vt #,% . ! V'.* 5-* *. ** r * * >,l * . ` 7* ' It |4.^4 ^ * ') * a. * . .*% ,, V ;> * * , I .. ,* * * .., 4*a, **a I**I J .*.> * . *M I MaW(* , < < V. .! * ' * .* . ^ ** vi ll a.ii a ,, * ***,#'*' # iv^/*.* f v ; *' % a * - .# I ' ** * *** * * . #\ .* ` -. . a, a. f * > ............................ ... ILLE&SBLE DOCUMENT 1 We would provide then only with the Infor&ation 2 j% . that law requires us to provids about tha specific disability; 3 For example, if one of our employees --if us had much other 4 medical inforcation on him, which me would consider totally 5 confidential and which is not partinont to tha subject of the 0 suit end which wo did not have to reveal by lew, we would 7 not provide that even to cur own attorneys. 3 This material recoins in medical hands. We 9 are proposies, cur association in conjunction with a nuebor to of ctlisr hoelth associations, is proposing a system of It accreditatica that wenid allow ua to have a detached ceicnti'fie 12 body ensh as now hospitals cr secondary schools or univer 13" sities which would conacre the fitness of an occupational ?4 cs&Lssi Servian for such accrediteticn. 15 One of the standards fchaS would undoubtedly 13 * * * bs require:! multi be the vsurad confidentiality of the j7 r:e;!f.cai rsserds. -2 feel jer;ft as strcn;jiy about that as | i '* ! ii - i!! * !i I* !i Ii 1! if we ::;v:e in irivets practice. And t eight oay X have hc'.r . bVI w*i..* *. *.(v i*Vm ^ 3 jiV^w * *4# tm 3 tit #n (** | | 7 . t) % * a . . . S* Mb*U #',%t!V**,***.* i* ? %*l i * **1*** " IIt t vl*C'f> ^a* " . M >* * * *' m f* % * " ** ,| % # h't S m ^ * ! ( >*! 1 * > ' /*t? %' * * 1 m Iji <* * V .'! ! W'` . a ' '*' >i| ^ ^ a*' * # * a Wj */ a a *I a* * ? *< 1 ;* --*** .' * f ^ * ^ ! . .. a ' * *. * #!. . ** * .. , * ('* >, r !". *1 rr*>** I;'. i?' r,,.,vi' *7*' T J ^ i r; 7 I * r* * * T *,*v . i ?, r>::. '} ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 59 1 2 391 . DR. DOIBRTS: The accreditation. program is something Chat has progressed to the point whore this 5.3 the initial 3 manual or document intended for serious study end 4 review by the ain or 3cven organizations cooperating in the 5 accreditation process. It will undoubtedly take agood 6 sasunt of tits to get it into * .corking state. * 7 Ha. hare e prslioinory inadequate eccreditaticn C system that ha3 gone on for: pome years., Ho era very dissatisS fied with it. Sain is hy this effort is 'feeing born. 30 Wo ere as anxious to see standards of p2fufeiihce 11 and integrity established go we ecu possibly bo. Wo era 12 aarioiw sot concert of: this effort by 'all of the organisa 13 tions tfhiaa- are involved and no ore presently moating ne:;*: 34 reek in root in Washington in pursuit of funding for this 15 af'fcrfc* 15 :r>rg'^: usuli, yon r.efcua'J.y be abis to 17 do yei: think, conduct inspoeticuc credit to a 4>V .i l iJ ;i - r.r. i > l*a 1* a.^* \ V/ a* iiUk # ^*L**" VI J iliiU.vt M'J*# *** # I a *' I. *. <i. # * 1 I ` *,'* * * # . * .1 . .* ^ "* . *-* * > ** '% . j * 'H **. * P it.. UU A * pW il 'T f*"-- -rrt -- I---*- - *?*.*! **V-V .,.MV'Vr":i'T.____ **..< I 1 ' I ' ' .t`Al * 4* t | I l , . i ,* .i.... .. '*, v..*.** \:., **v*../ . i .. ., V. . - ' ' l .1 ` 392 60 1 MR. LEAKAW; I am 2. F. Lean'an, Vico President for 2 Rational Affairs. Certaintead Products, Vniioy Forgo, Pennsyl 3 vania. 4 Before submitting ny an remarks, I would like to |n J 3 ftU o mu3 m a BT 1 o -9 5 present--'Which I lisvo dene for the record in duplicate tha 6 writton views cf ay censany on the proposed ctcndnrd for 7 exposure to a3tsotor. iasfc. e 3IA12I'<3I1 GSLDZGItQ: {' * 4 Ue will mark ths.subnicnicn 9 of Certaintesd Company as exhibit 45* And it is received. 10 (Erhibit 45 is norlad in eviderno. 11 MU. LS&&N: Certaintead Products Cnrpsx&lsn t 12 is a diversified aanufeetiwrer of asphalt roof5ns fibcsglrnn 13 insulations, polyvinyl fluoride, pipe and siding tniil work.' 14 csrpetiug asbestos co&nnt pipe and other items &i tbo * 10 i<%1 VtW Ma(A * C7*L. | l~ J 16 Osj:*::.:s.utr.Cv c.ise who loss, las' buildin*; rtfccriala c.l- P17 ylvisi-i rr.Ti'uets in *.'rric;ia locations around tta caxtwry. C:.'.c: lA *1 J A t 9**/f /i* ****t.* si * %**"!* * ** * ^/ p ( J f ? ft** rJr*,#*,Jv * * ^ w*,.^ #iW>/> w*%A{ *-.** "*"* w !* . * ^ '*? ** >7*> ** * 't*ft iv** ft#. vm'' *4** i f* v**#pi !l *,;*' 7-'*,* * V* ' Ja*** ***i*,**r"***' *****v/ v *^Avl ;M*tl** aV.* - !} * c*\ ft'.*i fWt.-," . <*!*: VWll i*!''*1 M< I *". * ft -** I * I <* Mtil.* ,*| ^ *t # t <-i ^ ato 4*Mt t Mt y .* * i , * *.' ** 4. ' * V > t 't^ w * i , Ir,t **'****** ; . ? *\*i** *.* * * * * j * i % ** ! **!> M t* l !* * : ft *' ,** *.*?* " .*...* * t '.# J-Mr* i.t M M > . `*i * * * f .** v * -n * ! j..* ,.> ,! **t* : # I M M M ilt > M a . , O l' \' ^ r***** I * '*** ** !i I .'*,* n -*t* r^ ' * , /' '* ^ S* * i.!. '* " r. W *... ttMlf , ILLEGIBLE. DOCUMENT . In the written views you wiii find o detailed analysis cn the effect on Corfcalejfcscd, ics.eapioyot end tha publicif, taaussa of tl fncilgaCiou of too harcU a standard 4 by tha labor dapsrtirsnt we aro required to toraiaaf.c our I 5 csbantos cetnont pips 'ehuug&staviss bnsinoso. V/ 6 I weald x:L!:j to highlight just a a of tin statis 7 tics that aro in each granta:: detail in tha written report* If 3 it should bo nsoeoenry to curtail! production and in frflt gone 9 cut of tho fcrsineoo of srt:iaxv>ctiirics 'asbestos corse*: pips, to Che gross profit would be coapietsly lost to tbs cor.?any, 1! obv&tgaiy* ip. :*:a cidlfcioa ;T.:.chir,2ry end equipaant .-ha is ^ i.*il re 3*^** xi- Mii*i i tiv # - 14 ;f -v * , m .* .v* ^ I .* * ,^ l*i % * to< ^ rr*> ^ < t<al^ jf y Mi V to 13 t3. t ,* !** * > , I1,* . . I / * Jr ]* !,%! ?.**-- r<~ '* M **V|T(|t / C^;U V \to* iil" *'to j mU . * 'i** -V| ' -7 ** * I * *, ivf * #* to *,* Tir i?*,v '17 * 1 * . *ti * ' <(*)'* to*** \t *> *to to m! 10 ^;-cr c:V:.r! *::!; Ve.v.: b*:: ::. uhn purposo of . vn-i** *:: to p.f-si.vw. mi: bode r-:>n ro wseoverod cvrr r.n f-rstended 20 1 1 ,1 .> ....................... .. r*\ ;i V j** **%.*. tlo* -' *J* * ' J ,*<.** % 1toi ^ t*o * I*V* jf to ^ *! * . * '* * * #..** *,,! * >.** * * * l; /P.* fl II *1I l .% . . . .* A, f. : 'x * fn 9 . 394 Ear finis,hod ccsest pipa inventory, no ore assuaihg 11 , - . , a 25 per cant loss ok finished *xd in-process inventory,. Tho profit loss free co stos ccrcnt pips operations veuid be aosauhat reduced from the cocpsny's standpoint dua to tiro corresponding redeemlens in additional oparr.';ics and, thoroforo in parccaael. The e:tc dinndcosd above can fen dollsricsc*. as foiioes: She net isooh veins of our asbestos caasaufc pipe j orc'rr.tion is 26 aillico doHera, wo could enocct a loco write-- " . ` j coca of 0lO,4SO.'ODO, The effect cn people employed and coges paid. In considering the effect of c shutdown of a-he."t -- .to cazs&t r-i.jo sparotishs ca an??oyxcnt. and wages to hn~c ured tho naan acau options ar- for the preview'. and ir.-'i M W< <V | i iI * In ohh's.*: cords,. ?;a siiXi nsencc flic iceic.:ci. cf - ' j .I , ji tX ^4<4< * * m * wi ^ /*. j Ia mm < % / * U - I* *, ; x.1.* 3V >/ .. -xC/.wb ^/ */-J <c?*aS w,'Va * 4A t h ,*#* * * 1 {* ** -I**.!,, *.** ,*, J k> A, I**,. '' * . >** * i i . I l*-t / < ' ,,t % *, ^ *** 0 0* V.' *> V . * * , *1 # I * A ' >( It l 4, M* * * *,,.,/** J f *1 * | /* ,** r :.v\..ru.'.-i r! : v.r- ,:.'o.'..'.*'/: I f .* !* r .*1''' *"; }! * * , n . I * < I. * h1 . .1 i. ' --mmtiAm ** ! 1 t *|B1 . t <" ji i j J *L*j jt ... ::.'. ...va . c.is.*, a:-. ..S . I O *** * 0 , . % . , ^ * - ' * J I 4 4 . ** ^ ft I *. ` . 1 , * -- 1'*^ ' #il, !**, , I 63 t .2 393 largost employer ifl rCho coscusnlty, All paopla dismissed fron our pay roll with almost certainty would be added to Chp ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 3 uncnp-iOTSJCt cad welfere rolls c?i those cossunitioo. 4 Thirdly, fcfcf. n&st o2 abutting dawn on oupplies 3 end othnr reolpisufcs. Ivo 3used about $30 million a year 6 to cvjppxierG cni. fxc lulling tbo pjy&& o fcCarr.i ter33. it '' 7 cppssro to bn a oee eusuxptf.cn Shut about psoplo toroid e ba fcfcrcun out c rerk by our voaeora end isrssSsesa. c . Eteuelly icyorSunt a- stso&g, viebia cntcrcrins 10 living -co&tsCa^tad $93778C33 in iladsroi teorca fcensas plus $5-33,030 &i iocti property 'rrWS ^uouir: bo forced out 12_ buoiacco by gorutKtant ecfcioa at a tiuo \*;heu our scrnrsxrii: ?.$. .13 actus ily subsidisius 'sway rttsSroieisd msb-c^rsical J.ac'uc :.s * 14 suziali lir.ra boon in fcueir.ass :5c;: aauy ynuro si-ip.ly to psa^auvr 13 Snba Scu: cs Asnrise?. Tuirtkarswo, ns should bn 10 .a ii-.le,---: in'-ioasira ii*.t3:-.v.occ end 1:5. i j'rbn rtnu.V 17 !k/y **v V r% *>* ft ? **"! l,f, ** **** * a ' ? A1* ,0 1! n r* Ui* -'1***s L'f * * lay aa * < a ^ J',*'**# *- t?Tul mivI a;A**m m lllaaaid * CM ' M V ia'ld V t*4 a * *? *J .-*.*%!* f* * ** 5 * ); "" *' * '!<% !*?r^ Ay * # < ^ k **# ,* .-a *** . t *!< H`(t<aHI '/ ^ ***** (|a****** t.. t. I A ** /** | .'la * M i5'M a.^.**^M '**-**'^ a " ** a* * (i 14 t W M * a * **' *** 1*11 * Hl^' H* i . * '' V * !* n,a.ia/i * *, * '.1 ''Vi**'*!! ' * . ................ * . h . ' l.i.l^l,, V 'if * ** a. * * * '..* **! 1 .. V * . a^ a * M ; i! M. I* lMl It i t ........................................ I,, t . ^ *% . .< . V%al a a# . . it 1^ * ^ / *, ! I t f- * j II a -a.,.' . Ja I * * *a -^4 n. tt * ' ' j *1 I I * '* '! *1 ' f a, a, I -!***% a < *# IMI 'f ; I M 64 ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT . 396 1 . Wo have cede 3oca rough calculations as to the #* 2 cost of. compliance with the proposed rules and she. Advisory 3 Comaittoe Report. neaping in siad tha t each plant has 4 certain podulicv problems all its oua, it lu our best estimate 5 that cufcioAlanea with the propoted rules will result in en G average per~pinrfc euponditura o $200, COO or o.ith cin 7 pleats j a total e&pitsi investrant of $1,200,000. 8 . Boca rifih this aapandifccra we vie? at least 9 three operations within cur plants that under the Siva fiber 19 Coat :riii rcqrirs thJ -expz&jca parfarcing the job to near 11 c racr?rr.taru n auditisa this dsaa act estimate the 12 ciditlcnai anivni operating cast that would be required 13 tr c'.T'ainictar .sirs progras, So i~ef: the rei-uivamenta c the 14 Adviccry Ocrr/aittea 0i:;:zo.zv:r. ih asticsta the c-rtninnl ceJt 13 !:* c*auhie that rc:iu:'rr.a uiuer tla pro;:racu ata&sarci iTv.r 19 * ' #4* "* * *' 17 4 <VS it#*1*** Uw* w w'yi <# ,..v *...* --v* *. w _>; iu w^i-v uur.# us (v4 uU*v * ' '',! *. f*{ # * T**i #* , % . !*-* f * 7 ff d* ! . * *. W ' !* > *4 * 4 ! * *, * * '* * . * v ** ** /'.**/ *" ' * #* * . > ' -,* <1 . * 2 da ' * '*W` . a tVa. / I l. i! r- * A> *f '. r, **** * , . * * i '.*#* it * ' 0' * -#* * < . !.*,_ t ! , tUM . I- m [ . 397 ' 65 1 proposed standard which la set forth 2a the witten enterla1 ti Z adopts cony of the poo it Iono cspoucod by the Advisory 3 Corsaittco ropsrt, 3y our proponed standard, tie are subrittirc ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 4 Cartainteod to cost of the expenditures set forth abovo. 5* / ^ sincerely cats. that tho labor EapasCcsat not 6 now .ctasSdcr solus to a tee-fiber standard and tfcsroby > 7 increase thccc coats to chat csy be au intolerable Lcnoi* 8 Certeistasd to a diversified scauufceturar end our icanccessnt i % 9 will net ceizait capital funds to one scsosnt of cur fcssitsce 10 to the dairiaciit of other aegseuts of our business oose^tdn^ . . .* 11 for the sens col.lore if the espenditurss con not bx i:esa?crcd 12 and cay not even preserve the life cf that clvloica^] 13 If there is ar.y doubt cbont the future of cemnt: . . 14 mrasneont sill 1t.vq to divert funds. 15 Cur ciivi^sneat to iniiested it will cosrJ& tho 13 ioiiruro necessary to cn^inne:-: to a five-fiber: nT:rr.;'v & f;o 17 extent t**.-:: it to?.lT.c.*.r;;ical2y crruld be deno. They have Z3 seusi&uraf bet i^fc e-aiiittcd tc \hi esepenCitusa of rzi? :vrv V*. 19 i *. tit*. ctu.i:hirj2-i3 cat at tse 20 !.. 15 || * i; 7 '.ri.-'iV us ervh-.ri-'.n ,n- :`:.f.v.te&i,o pcsitirr. t*n:: #*,% *f* * * 1 '* > * <, * ^ * 0% * a'<%m ' W**` * V . # * * . W<* * V.vtn ir;........<... *..*' ?- *..*.............%............. '. /.' ,*.? | , .*** ir # k * ., * .,* *J t| # . |-*** > <^*/ l! ' ****? J *f i *. < / * *.% k *>l %..* . ' fil Wt* fc I % .c.: ii..- , ' *.y **! '* >*, !- ,vi ('.T;.* J.. . . 66 ! transniaoion wculd iamcdintaly mdse it unsalable. > ' ' ' 2 KjalcipaiitAaa aubjccC to political precourasuou.ld 3 not tata r. ch:rca ca a product fio labeled. Share is no 4 evidence that I in. sosfcion of esbootos 2>.hcr in a, ny v.zy la ' 3 harmful. Ho-jsverp ell ;j the public and the public officials 6 vill nee uboa Shay cos the label laths ward ,,onr.oc'Xu end ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 7 Uha "Ho-Ssis" o$u Mill go up. a Shsrc33, In ccbcstcs pipe ceatsat the ciobaatcc o is bound into the product and than after iecvir.s sfta plant to it coges tsarc then z little drscuic to Icihei the pips in *ft J ounh a sis* s. ies ae to eshe it uuraia blQ. 12 .Its certainly do sot quarrel with tic desire to 13' dir,peso of cr confirm locos aobeatoa fibers cut \:c hnve 14 net i*:u:5j cut fees pea put tea to twenty tons par day of 15. rcbactoa Snfcc piratic br.3. 16 It eon be iicr.e bat tbs cost would be prohibitive,, 17 t.'e real rcL-actrs co::ap end waste. ine.b.ieinj cafesctoc * t:.- |i.Vrt ec- Lr. die pace, l o:: in cj-rntity only in r. Ion:* fi.ll i.k'svc I *' j cv.::s :.rs bn r*#v:ac zrnli day and willpmssal: r.o can* II l}1ii;.* i; 'f * * . '* t ***'<'# * * * r a***'**' > ; ^ * >* M M Iff/ ir. ' ' *w ' 1.^* .. r <> r ' ^ ,#' . /; i... . * * <*, . . ^ * i<f j < j.. . } ...'.*.1 fio'i Vi nut be ** :wnv:'i Lv . li - l! >! ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT fl *v: - *. 67 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 11 12 13 14 tS 40 sv | jl - v.t.!; I*. v ,J * ii r, #. ;# :a!i !! r- 1 t ; v.` 1 399 Xa conclusion.Csrtointead would point to :CV **?-* A ' ,,- ; - - ;; `', - . ' those areas inubiich we have tfcs. greatest conceL*a--fibcr. count duot, and wsate disposal, /label} repeating Certain- teed dees plot foot* whether the standard it, proposes is technological cr ccaaonicaily feasible but if eo can have o realistic atnadard in the forts presented hero ua eel at can have a real possibility cf compliance. Shoals 70a very coeh. ESAcEtSli GDIS33SG: Thsni; you, Hr. Loanan. Ycu ere csccsed* eir.. . Ifc. Hall. ' S^SStHSrJT OF JC23J3 G* EALLS VIC2 F.13S33ISI2 / G? C?TJ;T3ATI0a* S 20HSSIG AHD 2E2I?ST?.2iZ Fr.GriJC2s ^^3?, E&. EStSiS 'I aa Jcaaph G. Bail. X -etc Cfcroup. Vine mrocidcnt of G23?. Co;:pr*?Ow:V/iV . i'#*} * :ct.*j fenup. * <uU 44. |# .ub %hUn 2 hr-vn hsa;i . '* 4/*7U4t'.`(>l . *f %rv* * i -- wJ ' \**p>*~,4r*v* >:i*>u1 <^S #. 'vi;f . % i i >,v " * - f !*%* .. #- .4 * %* ^1. t<va. .. t , *> I * ' .............. w*#' ' I'.tV" *'.{!**< {<, .. ' v .* "*, ** - {*, /? *v. ^ '/, * * ' ^ #*%. ***? ' /` ' ' } :, *, i i r t* i ' , ' ' J 4 i t* I t I 4 . ; .*vj.Jr. r rc;:r::'. Zi; ?|.; r.`; v.. 7:.'y :<l- .W; i 68 H Z m % 3 6 D era US-' .J 1 i would -life? first to give you a brief cutliao 2 of GAP activiSLes and. policies*; 3 -' . GAP corporation is a acrid-wide conpeny which 4 manufactures end distributes a wide range of products in 5 five related coROussr end iadso trial oarhotareas. She 6 arena czo.CUeKica.Vs, building materids, photographic fi.V-i 7 end soaiproat, office systems end industrial products S&a 8 ccEzca bond xiniticg the product groups is chatted' research 9 and technology, from which GAP's "congcnaric1? nature 10 evoivaa, Hcadvinsrtcred- fa Eeo York City, we employ appro::- 11 iaataiy 22,GUO persons* u At it*3 *\ore then 79 csnefacturiag and procscsiz.-? *.. - 13 plcnto lisrsnshoui: the i3aS.- Gaz?1 a`.policy. ic to cr^trats in 14 a safe esnara. consistent-with sound tar-inaoc principles, 15 in cor. alienee with ail Faderr.A. State and Leer.I Icwa* 13 vs;; j/vi-'a objestivo h-s lens end aoniir.ueo to t-s r? stated -A cstr.r^c critrycreai: policy, M,Jo pro*;Ads ?. end 'bi:.:i 10 :::>r:v.Av/; arr:if*:o:'r/:nt for SAP or;,,v.r,y::cr ti.nt wi'.l "irsir/Ace 10 , * V **^ *. * * l ****** * ***** 4**<*'J /\* < A A* | M . ^ ./ * % **' *** ^ . 0 *t| * *'* M ' (t\ 0 'if /% ! i.''cji . ^i if % -- <** 4 * '', I* ! ' I* V*# ' >. il % (** r. , ' ( , 4 ***** * t 4*1 *' ,*! s,' >** # *t V .* ,^*** *,* * , \ *4 * ,*'*.* .% . * m- /**** i. * ' * ' . , ** **.(`***, ** ^ t '* <% * ,*'.< '* **!? Y ' **i**#^# /^. Ji : / % ** ; * i< n V .** * i ' ' ) .' .-i i.. . *i . ' .' /. '* 1 1I tv'. i'.f ; .*:.*/ ;. cci.*. i. *01 . 69 a regulations of the nouy. agencies ocoratiag in fcho health, ' z safety end cnvircncontal control fields necessitate out 3 having a full-elmstoff of professional safety, and enviror 4 cental control fields necessifcats eiir having a full tisa 5 otaff of professional safety end osyircnrental engineers 6 Co update and coderniae our equipesat and facilities Co cent UL 7 otcnchrds* 3ho effort also includes seccarch in those m 8 areas whore Chore is presently no.technology to cosbnt s 9 certain prcblcna. Oar Corporate Health & Safety DeparCcniC to io resrausible for fcrculatiag, developing and cocrdx cting o It a ccrpisfcc health cad safety program. a sa The Ga2?.Bui.VJl2G, Fleering and Industrial ft?R!iuct m 13 Divisions utiliaa" asbestos in -Che srngfahtura of a seeher mi 14 of pre.-ucto, Shoso p.vocuss consist of tha fa 2.Jawing: (1; ffi 1 15 aoUer.yoa cacont products, consisting cf cJ-diug, 'roofing, O 16 fiat sheet?, canal bulliicadiug ana ciurictc:! w:ii:; facin'* 17 (2) or-bestes felt end rllibcrris (3) aryhr.it saints end 13 !*<*** f:\\ >*#* V.V.*/- IJ'.. ID * j % * / * ! J hmJi* ' UmCi^ fv v. > '. *. ,.w. ED '| **T* Vr <V .i*4 *** j #*; ?*V ***.? * iy *w i. -< i# * r* r*-*,^*?*^.*^* f i,- *** * ** *; ' *v** -i *..< '!% ** **.- + /** ^ * rt* r ' * . ' *!* ' *! ? . ' m - . .fc ***-. ^***'#*. *v,*^ t *v^ i, ,dy . i .! \ t *. * ".* # -^> r}i;*t ........ < * > i ) **: % ,** * " * ! / * * .' ' ^ ` * ? * | * ...**' * U wi .. ' / .V-''**. V| , . *) 'n '*|in 3..**, .' ' -j !! ; ** T * .. -. ` ! < w .Ai,. ... .-*. , 70 1 '-- . atocntirg to ever $30,000,000 yearAy, $02 .. 2 Sims vci'uill bo cubaitting for the record, o 3 detailed written statement, I will hishXJ^ht cur position 4 aa to the proposals-, v * 5 GaF has, -is. pa3fc yoara, oyant cavcrcl cdllicn 1 6 dollar3 cn aabaotoo dust centre! and believes it will bo ILLEGIBLE DOCUMENT 7 able to comply with a five fiber oten-Jturd, oicb. tha CKp^nclitu 0 of an estimated additional $22 million dollars, However, 9 this standard cannot bs fully met for et least two years dm 10 to the ties siceosary to desire, order and racaivo al-atccnni: 11 im ,c -'."ipKaht. . If a further astorisrl. reduction bale:: 5 fibers ^ 7"' 12 is intor called for, the progress would havo, of naoeosifcy, 13 to be cccaidorod slower, wn believe that a standard - 14 g-.betenuir.V::j baler five fleers e.-enct bo ^cneroli? achicr/ed 1o i*.i thv docc.de '_ar.fi that, if such a reduction could he csocja>. !6 tha coot :;cuiili.-.ba euca ticrable tiro.eccnerri.c v: ;! ! *t if/ * ! i-r%7 iI` 11 cf coptdirect operations of certain of our facii- f *r, # ** r^Vt fi IJ* *# \ J* ^ 7'*' * ^ * * .i, * i <4 V ' ia ^ ii'.MJ Mi. M ' \f< *> * - * * *; *." N* # r ....................... .. % , > .* * . , mM** f**?*'f-'*MV** * V *.l # 9 I, aiV I ,tf % * !i - * nt -- i. !! vj ji l: (}... * **' * .* j **,' t .<* *, *?!? . * , . ... ' * <* M ' t I i .i * { ** ' , J *+ /*. ^ * <(. i. .0 ,0 M .*** . , 00m m *0 t ,.W< 0' * ! , <?' 1 *MI| f ' < | - H .t* ! >>, 4 ' * i* :* .. .000* m .w0 *W - ' > l ^ 5 0 <*z e: i t* .* , m0 <*** C* <! *, V 0 ' * ' | ,  403 I as to the proper limit. At thee tica, if it is ahean that 2 a hem tica limit is required, it could ba sot with arealis- .3 ' tie time schodulo for achievement. 4 Xn addition, I cun extremely concerned with the 5 poooibiliCy Chat a label will to required to ba pieced upon 6 aobsacoa-containiag rrcdaci#. I strongly urge that Chia bo 7 reviewed in light of the i,icek2d-iaM h*itnre of tho azbesteo ..u 8 cany products end the delaCsribta offset a taming label 9 would crests with regard to dlotrihsCion of those products 10 in the market piece. does act oppeso labels when they II serJ0 a iegitirsto purpose se shorn by our ian^sttndies 12 practice cf inbalirg bogs of tosi:r.to3 fiber, but X sta uo . 13 ** maocrrblo purpose to bo achicvsd by c label on pscdactc in 14 ruioli the asbestos is thoroughly bended. A scorning label, IS 'in.'onr csi* eion, :.r*ulcr serio. u sl.y affect the Sneers norh ati^s 13 of a rnxfbor cf on: pi* care ffayl floor tils, >:cr `ins'.i"*" so 2y *_ is oftea cjS.5 ' * ;.y to the eonenenr and c.octaiua nnp'rori- 13 pr.tcly 17 par cr.nt cobeotos ti.:V:e lr. ;*c.erro.V; 'v'lzi*v r 20 t4 <*# 4i w . *. 'i *< M it|J >*s ** * V ^ a* W vA J f.wA rtv ***v***# ? iv " p .'***h** *.^**V' * v ' V****f \ >a m Mi ># ' %>| .1 # % *k ( '! i,,mv * /, (*' 1 r* ^ ' . Ml* M *> . * 1l I. ............................ > ... {.,, * *% . ^ M< | .** J..i. y ..-------V* -*, , il. . . . .. ^ - ,If - 7,, J ' i* ; J . * :*(''* ' . **> I* * ** **.* * f * ^ **# J . V * * . ' i / *i --7.V -*: v *' . . 0 *v- *.*.-- `* . #..# I *! I J ! **, , 'i % V'i * * | .I'll, ,* i"n, ILLEOS BLED O C U M EN T 1 pleat closings. W**91 ^ore la no need, those chould ba no 2 warning label. 3 It is important for you to have an understand ins 4 of Cho also rnd lepertcnco of the osbesCos industry* Asbestos 5 corveshundreds of essential upep end has brought safety <5 from tha Ussards of fisc to ail of ns* Asbestos constitutes 7 a C2lti-bdii5.cn dollar industry and provides the livelihood Q for cany thousands cf corkers. It Is a strong, durable, 9 fIprihio end fire-r&odstant eaterdel. It in unique in. the 10 sense that no ether csterini duplicates all ax Ita nst rai . 11 Sueidfcica* ' A i 12 ..On the other hand, we do not cuestion the potential 13 ztv'.-jr.z effest on henith of this nateriei when ono do 14 crpsncd for reny yuerc to sisnifdcsnt coxicojitretio.'.o of 15 fibers, 3ii this regard,, rew nr.bentos fii:or n'ac.uK ho 10 controllf.d ns trail -y.i any heanrdeva e?i..Tni::tn fro:i r.nhir. 17 oontnitiiBS. prostata* ,, !i i; 1 t...' ;i. . > In ::M%h M *rf ^ vl? dern cot c.np;:vn .'..ov: lo t'-.e p:':.:b.\ir :-s b : d,*^**** <. `i , '< it < ('.iVit* * *^a i w r-t ... t i. " i! !' > ,* II t* % t #**<*.* <' (<* *,>' *%' ' * JS *. a ,. *' *! V 9m0 * * * *-. % * *. M . t /, 4 .. . * :,.,M t * I . * >* .-.. .. **i ......................................... M < * ^ i ^*1t 4 * * ' * # " i 4 # *l? ,* ' 4 I. V l . # 4 ' * ` \ l II . M i < \ .4 t lit 4 . . t * ^ *' llj '4I 'I * * 4V .4 # I1 jVI h Z m % 3 U o ca 5 73 1 GAIT end, In our opinion, by the Labor DocarfcrcQnt. GAP j a>. .>' 2 Corporation plbrisos'jifcis cooperation tothePepnrtnanfcof 3 Labor-and requests chat aJJ. tea facts be considered boforo 4 a Fcraancnt standard is enacted, and that each future atcr.d.v?:1. 5 whan enacted, raill regulate only zh& problem areas and not a needlessly psnr-lisca vorkars ana industry through GcacfccGnt 7 of cupnrflucutf controls. 0 Thanh you. Ho uL* bo forwarding for the record 9 a detailed etatsiDsni: the first of tha weak* SO IS. ESGESffiHIO: A fen questionsv Do S *. \ .* 11 understand ycu correctly to cs7 that 70*4 can ccrv5i:oi ccceen- 12 trntiono of aobostbs fiberc ui.tli engineertrsthodc dptr* "* 13 five fibers. So that whet yt>tz said? 14 iiaLL: % think vz can 0 .that- uitliia teo j 13 yea;:a at an eiiysadituze is essacs of '$2* sailiioa. T?ox:j -ao ii ;; y j W II l 571! - Ital |# '*< V 1VJ /rV .** jjj -* li 't "Y 5 /4.U*.*..! W *# m >^> fc f +-*T. >\ >,i ^m*/*** 'l , M I * / : :.o ,! M.1 > / 't !.;* v * ..w.*!., #*. . i i v ' /rV f * --v. li ' li 1.. - *<\ ) .... 7 .*. . ** *M f * /ill li , t * , % '** V'* * ;* *]* ' * i* *' '*, * l%,,, { 4 . / T .1 % tj i! |: *. iirtl .v.V*il'.L ,, -l* ...... . > ~ * ;.*. r>.p *. . '-.3 *. i< . * W ^ . . '.*. . ... . ## ^ * * . I j - la our plonca that: technology Just doss not exist end those Is no way froa what I cm inSorcad to achieve that- 3 within the fcreaeeabla future. 4 IS* SCTiEG2?I0: 2?otj, ifyou con bring the 6 '5 concentrations dotn to five s. ite , engineering ' c. 3thcd39 it . 6 oesoa to ss that if you cuppieaaatv those tacfcr.ologicr..!. I^ 7 controls with resniraters ana good' hoessheening cathode, ua you should be chic to bring do^a tha ccrceatreticns to ir-:c, o u 9 io that raascadblo? 10 K2*-H&LL: Ist\u cey^it*~^ .i'n'*sibic, ,JIhe uce of `s SI respirators will ba nsesssary even though ;?a got down 12 to y.Zvz fibers. Xzero wii7-.be penis levels os thercrwiil bo ua 13 * ,' -* . : certain parts in the x-lr^t-ecrtniti iasa;:?.cv.s in the plant 14. these 'sill bo r.esor.rary- 0 fjaa O IS JJ 13 Getting doon Co Che txb fibers procuring fchj t the t6 tcsbrclc j iJu**% #3 developed, you get into an nrnr *o the 17 cccaa-v.;'. fc.'s:Vo:U:V:y of coiusit. .Eos, if ?Jt cento no ;.T'; 13 %: c3.i.Ztz\ to gnt closn to five. 2 could act--2 r?:;12 net 10 -> t J r.t '! j-/:apd hew v-ch rwi >A: uru-.V.* ac"fc to get dawn to ir.o b:.:C X /. err;:e:jt thrC ::e oov.il Vova.to-oihwiC*.:;' vesr ** . ' v, ' ' * 4 w * t *%4 * . ivy * J *' *^> i . '/**% ' .%**. v *. * * ,< '* !* *<? ** * -** to * i. i * * HIMi;: J " ** * ' " *?i* ^ W* #. t V,"1*v - - *{** *,'*? A'^r**4 "T*' V (* * * MM %! *l* , '*-* * M . t ,.*. .. .' -T *'*-.< i. '* I *. *%< % 4 k * **. i.fc*" **<.* * .> | i ^ . * '*,** ' f 'i r '#* * * M * " " ** l * I * ..... ** ** ` * 4** t r ,|| ,<. t|^ . < I W * #*.* !** m 1 . *S I* i1* *** ** tM*.1 V***' ' ** I- ILi.EGl.BLE'. DOCUMENT 75 1 hat scbcstca cc^at piaat 6paratS.oa. 'Shis ia ftarfcSauIaxJy Z 'arao 3n l:ho nine. Ms hcwo a scaiova problca et cr 3 2jnIo Parle M2no. tfe will l\v:a u,m7 swl ov.o probAera getting 4 down bo xivo* 2 caaaot ccosoiva, and ny caginesring paopAe 5 hardAy cnc coi:vcjAvc fcbat its elLL ever fce pocsibla..Co gat 6 down bo f:uo vjV 7 ' , . . iliiih ghat. Jensn&ssl,- 2 ;:ta very certain that i&e 6 probability r-2 onr e5x:oiy afcittias Che nine down uauld bs very 9. good. 10 SB* XGSiZ3SIlT: "Sicafc you yaKjr wich, n { -SSilEiS^ G-TK-rSiSSI:.' /ibanU y.us/ Br i { 13. !4 S3 CTi{:T;r;.X:-r 3. 'A. SXS.YMrO.V-... 9- vtv^v,* .,,CVM'T"r? r*.a*Sr>`^''*#.At k.lP* *4*A{T*a,*T * *, , tWXiZi): \l? nasa !$p SJL'/>` *v '*$#>> .y i' t m -*r 13 ::*r.2 v-racf.daiib.'on Irtufisea''.OccseBacica c-5f P.A:scfciasfc,. Ohio- c-.d 17 .'.'ccaArent. .f.ad Auase.;.' Krsu.jj&r .& 5cnr.conlfi. S%2?'''5*g<. .13 ^iAAir Osrcy.nin pfcn&a' Sis'- Ohio*'Sow- 2-i:3 Sccnis* 19 It 20 5:1 I . *> ^ :t c-*.5 *'::r:3 &&aa irrevidrs jets '>>;; cto: AWii ... . r: a-.:--: tm; ;;r, . ;:* :. av. in a:'bvJtc^2Cei*ta. : t.v'-nS .**; nUu&n ': ;::v. * * '* * . i I *, \ + *.' ' Kl ( # *, . . ' * I* < .. . # t. , it .. ,, 1 ^ . , t t, * ................................. ., |* . I # *f. I St /- * '.%* . ' * ** -. . < * * ..*.** **'*1 * "*I*.i f*. \ .' #*: i!- 76 1 areas which require.. bettor cssns of dust control, /1 2 7b bring ell of cur operations under control, - it 3 is estimated that it will tafca two years and a considerable S" 4 inveotcont in idust control equipasst, approximately one 5 million doHero. 6 ** .*^9. V.o do not boiiavo wo ail! bb >.hie to naefc the , "** . v 7 standard of two fibers per wl roseacandcd by 217.&3E,, Turtfcsr- $8 o9 a 10 noze, we doubt that Che techniques available for saspling cud _ m> mm counting fibers in the nsbiont air arc.sufficiently jaccnzatc* to give reliable readings at fcho tro-fibor par si 11 lavsi, 2h fcfcs crane that the 2 fiber jar si stasdard is 12 13 5 11 adopted, :! is car belief that oe will be forced to dissentin'; s w *f a nuriscr of our operations and Chic weald result in the siir.ic:?.~! 5oa of hundreds of jobs for our employees*' ,m I 15 -- t"o can ascent prrssrrvphs <fc> <1> r.r.n <2> 'Ssraui/.:?. I# 15 j 1:V.0.:?Sr r.c prepared January 12P 1272 which ::cvida..for 17 i jr:;lC:'3 czctojtiUn e: err a,a;::br-7.'r..i is. after ai.% the raZ?-; :.* j'cf ^srusatiKVii f3cfsi:y ?] lionl*:h Avi: of .v?VC - 1? * m w * i I* w"i.V I"...'.'.V. .*iJ t > .f* . ( !<lV j -..O'w -^ mm* * . . ^J****I f \* {*,*/* * * *, J IM * * -v* !>. a, ',# ^ t> (i ,. i / \ v 5 I t`* VWV/ t ' 1 % ,f *.** ' . , 4 a . fc. . .*! * * la < I b- * | M ' /' M 1 ** * * a a a J J* i 1109 771 Most asbestos products produce no asbestos dust 2 whan used or handled. An c/sanpXe would be an onbentos ceoant 3 chest, a floor tile or asbestes roofing materials, Asbsstos 4 products are, in fast, caking living far safar and core \r X U3 5 pleacant for a large eegreant of our population* nuataplos 6 include aceh critical and important items as brake linings, 7 fireproofing for at: heman, fireproof materials for polin&it/n 8 control, protective clothing, and safe insulating mtcrialo. o 9 A lesion of products cncmaly used in every household contain U o a awIfilp1 SB 10 1! 12 13 14 aebsstes to protect cox3n and children, sad ovary industrial *. facility has ascestoo-contSaing products to protest its. eorlruwu do not iialAnua time labels era necessary :`ior products of this nature and will, in fret,' ciciccd ccnsuuers and the pubA`.c as fcc the safety of these enteritis. A crsvisic-i for a C 13 us *15 17 safety cV.tr, chrnt tubs sent to tun cxrcimor of tin ruMuurir.;.:. cL'-j7- Ifj >*.s ada?rata tc p* rotect his a r.oiav ces. v\\.1 Sv) ftur-r.:.*i,,:o swd baiinve the atnnikj.'ds prcpsoc-d CftWO J in *- rcircjai L'criiotcr Vbiur.a 37, S!o. 7 to V?. rare than 19 |! ^ * ^ ' <*'* * '* (/.* %*%*>! iVal f/m .> *.!##.** .*? <* I t.t f ! ... * ' I ?.0 )l *i. '?, *.! 4 ft ....*.8.* ! **y**/.*.**..#. *i;./ t I &i iIti. ':;: *-'.- .* # * '` ^ ,,.! * .... . *# . * *.. t.t w W t* * 4 \ ^ l I .- - ......\ . ri ,.r . **n * * * . !. .4^.nu .ui > . . . j *.. . .i ,* ... ..** j * * **< * * * *t- Vv * ,*i j# ,t I!i, , . .w^ . i. ; I- " .4 * - * % ** * */ ** * ** < * . v< **. *. (#1 i**----- * I f ' ." .............. ......!..'.............'...,..*.........*.- .**;.. `.'a" : ....... J| I I 73 1 ` 4io The job Igsoob to tbo extent of 400 of our z enployoaa cautioned Above*, can Also occur If labeling 3 rceosucssdationa ore accepted which can recu It in eliraic:ition 4 of 3bastci3 from cor may products, wltsre the fibers are, In H5 'gP '83 7 'iff*** 3* 0 SO 0 a" 12 fact, locked in. A * Other sc3cific esenpias of iacoeuccts /rad hoar.icso cafccride that eocld ha branded by tmsh labeling rpuid include fire-rcoiosanfc roofins sainsueo, containing 17 par coat aobsnt03j scsives oiipcaro, ccnfciaiag CO per cent ocbcafcoa; ccbcofcos rcofias iicitfljccnteinins SO ?sr cent oabsstea; uadar- ground pipelins crapping cateraialo.. containing 60 per cent: usbentoo; end adkoiivec containing 10 per cant cabas-tos* C0M ^'J> ^15 IU?" 17 * * Hess of shoos p:;o:hts can oait cabooses into tha ariviait sir cl* cou.V: bo ccnoidsrad trsnasdaus in cay way v&s&saever. Cb-appm slate thio opportunity to testify cad i Si-uni: yna for year nttiinticau v:c crruastj.y'kopa that rcclicf: t sr;i ;:j.v:Cu:tca.t nkan&rcdc ensuo no n rsialt c:: thsr.s iolitcv- * ticas; * I: S3 I: ii # j r;.*. ii to to * 1 * *! #* * * * | '* .*. Wt S #<!*>% J j * f*- #*{ r-v U *...... i '# ' (>*\f * * ( I'O '{* * * * e**% * * ! ( * * * laV ''( <4 . * ^ . 1 J *4 J* ''l* * !.)<* A 4>W*^* >*ft*1*' * \ 'f* S3 !l * ** .*4*.4.. * ..**** 4 "' * ' "^ . * ' 4 * ' ,** v .-*, * ** *7^ .;*** .% I *,*<to 4!.4**, .#I,4..J<| 4 I !t rs> ij lj 4^4. I II i OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS before the of the U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Docket No. In the nutter of STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST, PROPOSED RULE MAKING. PUBLIC HEARING pinTM.Washington. D. c. iw March 17. 1978 P.f \ 5*6 HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. Official Reporter* Wuhingtoo, D.C. 546-6666 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP LABOR * WASHINGTON, 0. C. 3 x 4 In the Matter of: 5 STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST, PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED RULE MAKING r; -X 'J Conference Room B 0 Interdepartmental Auditorium 12th 6c Constitution Avenue, N. W. 0 Washington, D. C, 50 Friday, March 17, 1972 I if The above-entitled matter came on for further hearing.,; 52 pursuant to recess, at 9:00 o'cloclc, a.m., : BEFORE: '4 ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Hearing Examiner y APPEARANCES: iG (As heretofore noted.) 17 73 13 20 z: 22 23 24 iid I CONTENTS 2 STATEMENT OP: 3 JOHN W. KNAUBER, Director, Environmental Resources, Division of >6 Public Health, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania LOUIS J. BIBRI, Vice President and Director of Employee 5 Relations, Armstrong Cork Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania y W. H. BEASLEY, j Manager, Cement Asbestos Products Company o GUY GEORGE GABRIELSON, JR., President, Nlcolet Industries, Inc. w STUART G. LUXON, 3) Her Majesty's Superintending Chemical Inspector of Factories and Director of Industrial Hygiene 12 Unit, Department of Employment, United Kingdom S3 GEORGE PERKELL, Research Director, Textile Workers Union 50 of America JU GEORGE H. R. TAYLOR Executive Secretary, AFL-CIO Standing Committee $3 on Safety and Occupational Health Vi SHELDON W. SAMUELS, Director of Occupational Health, Safety and SO Environmental Affairs, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO !3 Exhibit Number 46 20 Exhibit Numbers 47 thru 4g Exhibit number 50 21 Exhibit Number 51 Exhibit Number 52 22 Exhibit Number 53 & 54 Exhibit Number 55, 56 * 57 23 Exhibit Number 53, 59 & 60 Exhibit Number 6l, 62, 63 & 64 24 Exhibit Number 65 25 *****# 413 PAGE 414 420 442 447 463 504 519 529 443 503 504 506 520 542 543 544 545 546 414 g E.2.P,, Endings z EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. 3 Mr. Walla. 4 MR. WALLS: Mr. Examiner, thank you for calling upon S me to speak. a I waive the opportunity to contribute to the record. ? EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, air. o Mr. Knauber. 9 STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KNAUBER, DIRECTOR, :> ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF it PUBLIC HEALTH, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA n Mr. Knauber. I am basically in agreement with the jj proposed rule on asbestos dust as presented by the U.S. :-3 Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health ti Z5 Administration and published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53 37, No. 7, Wednesday, January 12, 1972. Review of the 57 Information available to me on the problem of asbestos exposure 13 has caused me to reach the conclusion that the proposed IS exposure limits are the bast that can be reached in keeping 20 with present availableinformation. 1 regret that there is no 21 way of verifying that this limit will prevent asbestosis in 22 those previously exposed to dust containing asbestos at higher 23 levels. I feel that it is technically feasible to meet this 24 limit provided that sufficient time is allowed for the 23 necessary engineering control work- up, obtaining material and 415 equipment and for installation of the control equipment. I do feel there are changes in the wordage of the proposed rule v/hich should be made to prevent problems of misinterpretation. Specifically, I foel that where the term asbestos dust occurs throughout the rule, e.g., 1910.93a, it should be changed to dust containing asbestos; and in 1910.93a(i) the reference that the sample be taken from a point located on the exterior of the respirator facepiece should be removed. After reviewing tdie publication of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and liaulth or. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, which apparently is the basic justification for this rule, I have reached the conclusion that they are essentially referring to exposure to airborne fibers present when workers are exposed to dust containing asbestos. Without this change in wording, I expect there may be some difficulty in the application and interpretation of this rule which would disrupt the goal of the rule to prevent the occupational disease, asbestosi3. In regard to my comment on dust sampling method, I cannot justify requiring sampling at a point located on the exterior of the respirator facepiece when all other sampling relating to asbestos exposures is to be done within the normal breathing zone of employees in their normal working posture. I feel that it would be far better to define what the normal breathing zone is and leave out the reference to affixing a 416 dm 3 1 sampling head to the respirator facopiece. Although I am not jj 2 certain, there may be some safety hazard involved from affixing! I I3i a sampling head to the respirator facepiece. I feel it would i <9 be far better to establish a definite breathing zone to be S within some distance of a man's nose and mouth such as within e 12 inches. This number is merely given as an example, not as T a true distance. G I must also comment on the disposal of asbestos waste and scrap. I think it should be clearly stated that it should !<? be disposed of in such a manner that there would be no other 91 problems resulting such as open dumping of waste and scrap %Z which would result in a future air pollution problem. In summary, I wish to state my support of this proposed rule and that certain changes should be made such as changing the wording from asbestos dust to dust containing asbestos and revising the requirements on dust sampling so that !7 they are consistent for all dust samples taken for evaluation 18 of exposures or potential exposures. 19 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. 20 May Mr. Knauber be excused? ?* MR. EARLE: When you say you "support the rule," you 22 support the proposal as submitted in the NIOSHA document; is 23 that what you are referring to? 24 MR. KNAUBER: Basically, yes. 25 MR. EARLE: Other than the changes you have suggested. 1 MR. KNAUBER: Yea. 2 MR. DeGREGORIO: May I ask a question. a You mentioned two problems, such as dumping methods. <5 How large are these two areas? 5 I MR. KNAUBER: I have no idea. 0 The problem is when you start dumping materials such / as this you create potential problems. r k,' MR. DeGREGORIO: Yes. I have seen it. C, MR. KNAUBER: I have seen some waste piles contain to ing asbestos that are quite large. ui MR. DeGREGORIO: Can you suggest ways of taking care 32 of the dust problem, some way of keeping it down, of enclosing S3 the dust so it would not fly away -- i U MR. KNAUBER: You mean in dumping? IS MR. DeGREGORIO: Right. iG Not just during the process of dumping, but a way J7 so that the wind would not blow it away. IS MR. KNAUBER: If it was put in a container and put S3 in a landfill, buried in some way, and would not create the 20 problems if the area was suitably identified. 21 MR. DeGREGORIO: Would you define that phrase, 22 "approved landfill"? 23 What do you mean by that? 2-i MR. KNAUBER: I know it is a national program. 25 MR. DeGREGORIO: Let's talk about Pennsylvania. I 4l8 1 MR.' KNAUBER: For dumping of materials, it is allow z ed in landfill approved by the Department of Environmental 3 Resources -- in other words, before dumping can be performed 4 they must have a permit to do it at this site. 55 They are looking at a number of things, and one of. i G them is groundwater contamination of the Commonwealth. 7 Those are controlled operations with control over 0 the operation of the landfill. 0 In other words, it must be covered over to a certain r. i depth at the end of the day. Things like this. 10 MR. DoGREGORIO: For a condition of approval, do you 3 require the digging of a hole where you can put the waste in J3 and cover it? 15 MR. KNAUBER: I do not aatively work in this program. S3 I am aware of soma of the factors of it. SO The procedures -- I understand it -- is to operate 17 a landfill, they must first apply for a permit. :s Supply certain information, and you said "conditions. 13 There are rules and regulations in the Commonwealth covering 20 this aspect. 21 They must comply with those rules and regulations. 22 This is in the operation of the landfill. The site must be 23 suitably researched to make certain that it will not cause any 24 problems to the Commonwealth, or its residents. 23 MR. DeGREGORZO: Thank you very much. i 419 I EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Knauber, could the future use 2 of landfill for asbestos, for either residential or coimercial 3 construction cause troubles such as the press last reported 4 In the past where uranium landfill was utilized for ccuefcructio: S purposes? 6 MR. KNAUBER: This is a potential problem. This Is 7 why I say this is going to have to be handled very carefully, 0 this problem of salt disposal in Pennsylvania is really just 9 getting under way now. iO Control of where things aro going to ba disposed of, IV control of future use of this site is definitely a problem. S2 I feel we do have many areas in Pennsylvania who could handle this type of thing without any type of problem, because of the nature of Pennsylvania. i3 I do know we ran into a similar type of problem t3 in decontamination of Verillium structure, and we had to 7 develop a suitable burial ground so it would not cause any 13 problems, post it, and it is on land owned by the Commonwealth, 39 no we do have some control over the future use of this land. 20 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, sir. 21 Hr. Bibri 22 23 '4 Z6 420 STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. BIBRI, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA MR. BIBRI: My name is Louis J. Bibri, Vice President and Director of Employee Relations of Armstrong Cork Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, with headquarters in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. With me is ray associate, George W. Nickel, Jr;., Manager of Corporate Safety and Health. Armstrong manufactures and markets a comprehensive rango of interior furnishings, including resilient flooring and carpets, ceiling systems, and furniture; and a variety of specialty products for the building, automotive, textile and ether industries. It has annual sales in excess of $500 million, total assets of $389 million, with 37 manufacturing plants located in 11 States. Additionally, there are a number of subsidiaries located in the United States and abroad. Total employment exceeds 21,000 people. X want to thank the Office of Safety and Health Standards personally and on behalf of Armstrong for the privilege of appearing here today to present our views on the proposed regulations setting standards for exposure to asbestos dust. Company Experience: Every day for the past 25 years in the manufacturing facilities of our parent company, wo have had an avorage of ; ' ' 42X I 770 employees .involved in tho production of materials contain- j; |i 2 ing asbestos. During this period voluntary X-ray programs l iii 3 v;ero periodically provided for all employees. Although chest j 4 X-rays are not mandatory, almost all Armstrong employees j 5 participate. Neither these x-rays nor any other examination C or notification to the Company indicates that there has been 7 or presently exists any aase of asbestosis among our employees. e Labeling: o On February 23, 1972, the Advisory Committee on 30 Asbestos issued a recommendation on a proposed warning label vi for raw products, mixtures and finished products containing sa 5 percent or more asbestos by weight. The wording proposed by 13 the Committee for this label is as follows: 54 "DANGER (5 Contains Asbestos fibers. V so Do not make unnecessary dust. 17 DO HOT BREATHE DtlST -- MAY CAUSE ASBESTOSIS 10 AND CANCER" id On behalf of the Armstrong Cork Company, I submit* 20 that any such warning label we might be required to use in 21 connection with our products containing five percent or more 22 asbestos content by weight would be unnecessary, inappropriate, 23 ineffective and potentially damaging to the sales of the 24 products and thus to tho job security of employees engaged in 25 their production. dm9 / i Armstrong manufactures flooring materials in both ? sheet and tile form which contain 5 percent or more of asbestos! 3 by weight of total product The sheet materials consist of 4 one or more impermeable wear layers compounded from polyvinyl 5 ! chloride binders and other materials, and ranging up to .053 . C inches in thiokness. The wear layers, which contain no asbestos, are laminated onto a backing sheet. The basic construction of this backing is felted asbestos fibers. 9 It is important to note that a key step in the SO production of thi3 backing material is a "beater saturation JS process" which coats each individual asbestos fiber with latex. sn Tiiis latex coating binds the fibers together more effectively. 33 It also acts to inhibit fiber shedding or dusting. 14 The vast majority of these sheet flooring materials 35 ^?e installed as permanent floors. Thay are cemented to the ? subfloor, or by the application of a band of adhesive to the 17 porimater of the subfloor. In the completed installation, the 1C portion of the flooring material containing asbestos is SO completely sealed off by the impermeable wear surface and by ?0 the adhesive cementing it to the subfloor. 21 In title products, asbestos fibers are used to 22 prevent distortion during the production process. To be fully' 23 effective in this regard, each asbestos fiber must be firmly 24 bound in the product mix by a matrix composed of a synthetic 23 binder such as polyvinyl chloride or an elastomer. This 423 composite is exactly analagous to the space-age high strength *1 composition made from ouch exotic fibers as graphite and boron 3 blended with a polymeric or metallic matrix. <4 The asbestos fibers thus bonded into a matrix are I ) 5 not readily released and restored to their original fibrous 6 state. None of the techniques involved in the installation 7 of flooring tile -- cutting, scribing, fitting, cementing 0 or rolling -- develop a mechanical stress level sufficient to -reak down the asbestos fiber-matrix composite. The face of 10 tile is sealed by a factory-applied finish. Its installation !} involves cementing it to a subfloor. And its customary u maintenance is the application of wax or other floor finish, 13 which further serves as a sealant. 14 In summary, then, the installation and use of 15 resilient flooring materials with asbestos content does not 10 present the likelihood of any release of free asbestos fibers. 1? The one possibility of airborne asbestos fiber 10 emanating from resilient flooring materials occurs at the very IS end of the produat life cyole -- during its removal from the 20 subfloor, or during the procass preparatory to installing a 21 new floor over an existing tile floor. It is sometimes the 22 practice to mechanically sand, grind or abrade tile for this 23 purpose. 24 Occasionally, residual patches of sheet flooring 25 backing material adhere to the subfloor after an old floor is 424 1 stripped sway, and this is removed by mechanical abrading. 2 Airborne asbestos fibers may result from such practices. I 5 repeat: This situation occurs only at the end of the product's 4 use, when an old floor is being removed or prepared for a 5 replacement floor's installation over it. 0 In light of the foregoing, I submit that a cautionary 7 labe'. on or in a flooring material package, or attached to 0 the product itself, would be unnecessary when the product is 9 purchased, installed, or in use. There is no possible exposure 39 to airborne asbestos until and unless the material is removed as or replaced by a method using mechanical abrading. Consider 2?] ing the fact that removal o.r replacement of a resilient floor 5-3 is normally separated from its purchase and installation by U a period of many years, a warning label would not serve any useful purpose. 13 I would like to go a step farther and suggest to you 17 that the label as presently worded would unjustly jeopardize 13 the public acceptance of resilient flooring materials in the 19 marketplace. The phrase, "MAY CAUSE ASBESTOSIS AND CANCER," SO which appears in large type on the label as presently proposed 21 is a harsh and unwarranged indictment of flooring materials. 22 Even th6 warning label on cigarettes is less explicit and store 23 moderate. When a consumer who buys both a package of 24 cigarettes and a resilient floor might infer from the respect 23 ive product labels that he faces the greatest health hazard 425 ! from the floor, then surely there Is the basis for questioning Z the proposed label's ultimate oxfeet. 3 It seems clear that the proposed label is the result 4 of conclusions based on a questionable premise: that any raw 5 material, mixture or finished product oontainlng 5 percent 3 or more asbestos content by weight is, ipso facto, a source of 7 airborne asbestos fibers in sufficient quantity to be a health 3 hazard. This is demonstrably untrue as far as resilient .5 flooring materials are concerned. ro h much more appropriate and effective remedy for 51 possible hazardous conditions which might arise when mechanical 5)2 abraders are used to remove or scarify resilient flooring is 33 the creation of a performance standard that would cover persons 3 5 actually engaged in such work. This performance standard 4 31' would deal precisely with the 'crux of any hazard which might 33 exist in connection with the installation of resilient 37 flooring. 13 Virtually all large flooring installations likely 13 to involve subfloor preparation by mechanical abrading --* 20 and this would be a floor's replacement rather than its 2! initial installation -- are performed by flooring contractors 22 or large retail flooring dealers. Communications within this 23 relatively small and specialized installation profession is 24 unusually good, and continuing educational programs enjoy a 25 high degree of success. Specific and exacting safety U26 practices and requirements in connection with subfloor preparation can be quickly and effectively promulgated,.and we believe that thi9 procedure would, of itself, serve the intended purpose. However, if it is the sense of tho Office of Safety and Health Standards that cautionary information is required, it is our suggestion that more effective than a "label" would be tho inclusion of a'passage cn installation instruction sheets and in specification and professional installation literature as follows: "CAUTION TO INSTALLER: If subfloor preparation requires machine-sanding or previously installed floor tile or an asbestos-type sheet backing, do not breathe rho resulting dust." This information, widely disseminated, would adequately cover the one circumstance in whiah resilient floor ing might be a source of airborne asbestos fibers. Moraoever, it should not cause the general public to fear that resilient flooring might be a health hazard during normal use -- which in faot it is not. Asbestos Waste Disposal: The recommendations for an asbestos standard now under consideration call for asbestos waste and scrap to be collected and disposed of in sealed bags or other containers. In this matter, just as in the case of the warning labels which I discussed earlier, the proposed regulation is based on the assumption that all asbestos waste and scrap contains loose fibers which readily become airborne contaminan|s This does not apply to scrap resulting from the manufacture of resilient flooring products. Vinyl asbestos tile scrap consists of broken pieces of tile. As in the finished product, the asbestos fibers are entrapped and locked in by a fused binder. Similarly, resilient flooring in sheet form with a backing of latex-coated felted asbestos fibers is not a source of airborne asbestos dust, as I have previously pointed out. Handling and transporting this typo of scrap does not release asbestos fiber into the atmosphere, and therefore requires no special precautions. At one of our plants in Hew York where asbestos is contained in the wet slurry from which the backing sheet for flooring material is formed, the industrial waste treatment facility products a wot sludge cake which contains asbestos. However, the fibers are wetted out to such an extent that there is no opportunity for the fibers to become airborne when the sludge Is loaded into a disposal vehicle and trans ported to a landfill where it is buried. Wo recommend that a performance standard be develop ed covering the disposal of asbestos scrap and waste, with requisite air measurements used to measure compliance. Such a performance standard would apply to all types of scrap and 428 1 waste, including fluffy asbestos fibers, scrap tile, or wet 2 sludge containing asbestos. 3 Medical Examinations: 4 I have one further recommendation regarding the 5 proposed standard. This is in the area of medical examinations. n The proposal calls for the employer to provide, or . i make available at his expense, appropriate medical examinations 3 to any employee exposed to asbestos dust. However, according 0 to tho proposal, the records of medical examinations are to ro be made available only to the Secretary of Labor, to the 39 Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, to designated 2Z representatives of either, and, at the request of the employee, !3 to his physician. 0-) 1 recommend that the records of medical examinations ;3 of employees exposed to asbestos dust also be made available ss to the employer. iv The employer must have records of such medical 13 examinations if he is to be in full compliance with the 99 standard. The standard requires employers to monitor employee t.O exposure, and to take preventive measures where warranted. 21 Medical examination records would certainly assist in complying . 23 with this provision. 23 Moreoever, the standard specifically requires the ?A employer to maintain records of personal and environmental Z5 monitoring and medical examinations, and to do so for at least dm 16 a 20-year period. Thus the employer faces the awkward situation of being required to keep on file for 20 years record^ medical examinations to which he is denied access. I hope this inconsistency in the standard will be rectified to permit the employer to have medical examination records made available to him, Summary: In summary, I want to restate the recommendations I am making on behalf of the Armstrong Cork Company. We recommend that a performance standard be applied to persons actually engaged in removing or replacing resilient floors, whose work night involve machine-sanding, and who therefore might be exposed to asbestos dust. The warning label * il as now proposed for all products containing asbestos is both inappropriate end ineffective for resilient flooring materials, we recommend that a performance standard be applied to the disposal of scrap and waste containing asbestos. Such scrap and waste from Armstrong's production operations are not a source of airborne asbestos, and it is not necessary for their disposal in sealed containers as required by the proposed standard. We recommend that records of medical examinations of employees exposed to asbestos dust be made available to the employer. Such records are necessary for medical claim 25 administration, and, in fact, the employer is required by the 430 g proposed standard to keep them on file for at least 20 years. R We recognize that the entire proposed standard is 3 intended to encompass all industry, and that regulations which .3 are so broadly applicable may contain inadvertent inequities. 5 My purpose here today has been to assist in minimizing these G inequities by shedding light on certain aspects of the proposed 7 standard which unfairly and unnecessarily penalize some users 0 of asbestos. 0 Again, on behalf of the Armstrong Cork Company, I so want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to make *1 the foregoing recommendations, and to present this information 32 in their support. 13 Thank you. 14 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Are there any questions? S5 (No response.} JG examiner GOLDBERG: Mr. Bibri, the waste from 17 production of tile or sheet flooring, is that biodegradable? 10 MR. BIBRI: I don't know the answer to that. ID I will ask Mr. Nickel, who is a chemist by background, 20 as to whether it is or is not. 21 George. 22 MR. NICKEL: I would say most of it is, yes. 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: So in the course of the time 24 the material in the ground will break down? 25 MR. NICKEL: Most of our tile is limestone. Maybe 431 dome people In the audience can tell me whether it Is bio degradable. It is not. So the answer would be "No." MR. BIBRI: We are returning some earth material bac* to the earth. MR. NICKEL: An inorganic going into an organia. EXAMINER GOLDBERGx The question goes to whether a bonding material xtill, in the course of timer break down so as to release the asbestos fiber content. MR. BIBRI: Well, if it does, of course, it is buried. It is dumped into a trench and it is covered by earth, so it is hopefully buried forever, even if it did break down and resort to its original fibrous mass. EXAMINER GOLDBERG] So this would go to the question of future use of landfill for residential or other purposes. MR. BIBRI: So I understand. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: My second question: As you interpret the requirements that you maintain madical records and utilize those records far the purposes of safety standards in your operation, will it be necessary for you to receive the reports of those medical records identify ing employees by name, or would summaries as to medical history by group or length of employment, or by some other method, as you understand the regulations, enable you to implement the results of those studies? 432 I MR. BIBRI: i think we would be inclined to feel 2 that we would need the individual records for each employee, 3 because I think we have to look at each employee as an 4 individual and determine what his health problems may be, if 3 in fact he might be somewhat affected by exposure, let's say, 3 to asbestos dust. 7 I might add here at this point, in our company we 3 have a practice of giving every employee that we hire a (i complete physical examination, including X-rays at the time to we employ such an employee, and presently we do have a 3J medical record in existence for every employee that is on our 12 payroll. 53 And periodically, for one reason or another, these U medical records are adjusted for some activity that takes m place during the course of the employment with our company. is Well, this is not an unusual situation in our 17 company right now. We have, I guess, as complete medical 13 records for every employee that we need, and our purpose right 19 now is that we understand the proposed recommendation that we 20 are going to be required to deny ourselves certain information 21 that we have been getting now on sort of a routine basis, and 22 without any known problems or the unions who represent these 23 employees, and it is awfully difficult to understand why 24 the employer should be denied the information. 25 ^33 1 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. DeGregorio. * m4 MR. DeGREGORIO: May I have a few questions, please? 3 MR. BIBRI: Yes, sir. 4 MR. DeGREGORIO: You say that your company currently 5 has a medical surveillance program and, of course, you have O records of all employees. 7 Do you make administrative use of the information on e those records? i- For instance, let's start at the employment point, JO at the point of hiring. : J You give a pre-employment medical examination. Z MR. BIBRI: Yes, sir. 13 MR. DeGREGORIO: Do you use the results of that exam T ination in deciding whether to hire or not to hire the appli 15 cant? 1C MR. BIBRI: Yes, sir. 17 That is one principal reason that we give the employee 1C the physical examination before being hired, because when we IS employ an individual we take on certain obligations. 20 We have a recent experience where we employed an 21 individual in one of our outlying plants. 22 Unfortunately, the X-raying of the back was over 23 looked. This is one of the things that we do. 24 That individual crime to work for us, and about two 25 months after he started to work for us he told us that he had 434 disc problem, and the result is that he has had to submit him-< self to surgery, not once, but two times. Now, we have undertaken a tremendous financial responsibility for that individual, and we are certainly financing all of his medical costa, and we are also continuing to pay this man, not at 100 percent of his earnings, but well over 50 percent of wljat we hired him for, and this is why it is so important to us to have these physical examinations at the beginning of th employment period. HR. DeGREGORIO: Sir, would it be fair from what you are saying to say that if an applicant should, on his X-rays, evidence .isbestosis, or asbestos related illness, that your company would nor hire the applicant? MR. BIBRI: We have about three or four different categories that we place applicants into. For instance, the person who comes to us completely healthy. There is not any evidence that there is any sort of disease or disability that he brings with him, and there is no problem there, then we have these different gradations. Now, if we should X-ray a prospective employee, and he has some shadows on his lungs, we are going to take a look at that and decide what it is, and if we feel this man is not employable in our operation, we could make that decision at that time, and it could be that we would not hire that individual* depending upon the overall evaluation of the serious ness of what is uncovered in that medical examination* 3 MR. DeGREGORIO: Take the case of a current employee, 4 who after years of employment is discovered to have some ill 5 ness. 3 Would the policy there be more favorable to the 7 employee? a MR. BIBRI: Yes, sir. <\ We have assumed the responsibility, and I think our jr* company has an excellent tx'ack record of taking care of all of i* i the employees, including those who become disabled along the i)2 way. 53 We have an extremely liberal policy in that regard. .14 MR. DeGREGORIO: I would like to ask you about the '5 communication system between personnel people and the medical 15 department. 17 When the personnel people need some medical informa 13 tion to determine employability or fitness for the job, do the 19 people loo.< -<t the whole file on the individual affected, or 20 do the people me ,ely ask a physician whether or not the affected 21 employee is fit for certain occupations? 22 MR. BIBRI: The latter v. ;.M be the more usu-1 circum 23 stance, on going to our medical -'ieperta-sist. 24 If we have a need to question the health of an employe 25 we would ask the medical departaent to answer any questions B m&m* that we might have. 436 We don't normally go into the files, using your term "personnel." We don't have that free access to them. These are medical department records, and we go to the medical people who can answer our questions. If they need to go to the file to sort of refresh their memories, that is their decision, but normally the personnel people do not climb into those files. MR. DeGREGORIO: But if any person needs to refresh Ids recollection, that person would be the nurse, or the doctor -- MR. BIBRT: Yes. MR. DeGREGORIO: In other words, you keep a separation of medical information and personnel files? MR. BIBRI: Oh, very definitely. We have a scheme in our company of personnel records, including 'uch things as the application blank, and letters that have been written back and forth, and things of that type. Those are called our personnel records, including the histroy of the individual's progress in the company. Those are kept physically separated from the medical records in two different organizations completely separate to each other that they have access to the different records. There is not this crossover that you might suspect f 437 or might be in some situations. MR. DeGREGORIO: Now, as you pointed out, we are talking about a standard which would apply to many industries and many employers, so I wish you would answer some general questions on this general subject. Do you know how other companies are related to their medical departments? Do they follow your procedure, or do they have their own different procedures? MR. BIBRI: I am going to have to beg off answering that, because I don't really know. I can give you an opinion, but I am not basing it on my personal -- I have a feeling EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. `.bri, would you answer the question only from personal knowledge? MR. BIBRI: I cannot answer your question from my own personal knowledge. MR. DeGREGORIO: Just one question, please. On the abrading of floors, do you have any reliable estimates of the fiber concentration released by the operation? MR. BIBRI: I do not. We do not. We have never made any such measurements to ascertain just how much fiber might be release! into the atmosphere when the operation takes place. MR, DeGREGORIO: Do you know of anybody else who -- 438 ! MR. BIBRI: I don't know of anybody, except that 2 criteria issued by NIOSH; 3 That is the only thing I have seen. 4 MR. DeGREGORIO: Thank you very much. 5 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Should a floor in a home be re G placed in that method, do you have any knowledge as to the 7 residual -- I will put it another way. 3 For how long a period the fibers raised by the 3 abrading process would be maintained in the air irf the home? S3 MR. BIBRI: I have no personal knowledge of that, Ji and so there is no point in me trying to luck it out. '52 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Earle, did you have any questions? * t. 4'm MR. EARLE: Yes. Of the 770 employees you mentioned that worked with < r* IV asbestos in your operations, you indicated that your X-ray 37 evidence has thus far disclosed no evidence of asbestosia. JO MR. BIBRI: That is true. 13 MR. EARLE: This sort of means that you have taken 0 certain steps, engineering controls, personal respirators, 2! and other measures to lower the exposure level of these 22 employees. 23 Could you briefly describe some of these steps that 23 you have taken? 25 MR. BIBRI: I can't describe them precisely in 439 1 engineering terms, but v;e do try to live within the regulations 2 as we understand them, and to the extent that we can reason 3 ably provide for dust-free operations, that certainly is an 4 objective in engineering into being certain types of equipment S that we use, whether there iB asbestos dust involved or not. 6 We just try to minimize the dust created in any of 7 our operations, as well as minimize the type of fumes we might 0 emit into the atmosphere. fi This is a natural and objective thing for our engineers K* to want to do, and of course, recently, with the emergency II standard that was published on the fiber level, that has caused us to engage in a practical crash program, with our engineering "ili people, to further reduce the amount of dust that may be 'I emitted into the atmosphere. d*t 'JS We have taken some measurements with industrial 1C hygienists to see how far away we are from the five fiber 17 standards, and in some areas we are in good shape, and in some iC other areas we have a hell of a lot of work to do to get down 19 to the five fiber levels. 20 Our estimates tell us it is going to take a minimum 21 of two years, possibly, if we can make it, to get all of our 22 facilities where we do use asbestos to get the range down to 23 the five fibers. 24 MR. EARLE: How long has your X-ray operation been 25 in operation? mx hwa-fl 440 I MR. BIBRI: This has been going on from the year one 1 in our company. s In some departments we have annual X-rays, and in other departments there may be a schedule of an X-ray every s two or three years,, and it is obvious that we are going to have to do it much more often. MR. EARLE: This has been going on for as much ao 20 years? r\ MR. BIBRI: Yes. !P MR. EARLE: If the X-rays do show possible asbestosis, St would vour medical department automatically inform you, or would they inform you only if the employee requested that they tz inform you? !4 MR. BIBRI: Well, what we would do there, if the ii X-ray showed a shadow on the lung, we would evaluate the X-ray to determine what caused it. 57 MR. EARLE: Your medical department? S3 MR. BIBRI: Yes. 1$ If it is caused by exposure to asbestos dust, and 20 we have a legal, corporate, and oral commitment to correct the 21 situation as far as that employee is concerned, we have to 22 help this person get back to a healthy condition, if at all 23 poss5.ble, and so if we do uncover such a situation, and let's 24 assume, just for assumption purposes, because we haven't encountered this in our company, perhaps we have a number of 44l 1 people who show evidence of asbestosis. Our medical department 2 would take the initiative and come to us, and go to the line 3 operation and production operation, and say, "fellows, you 4 have a problem." 5 And then they would describe to us their findings as G a result of these X-rays, and from that we would have to initi 7 ate action, whatever our problem is. 8 MR. EARLE: Would they name individual employees? S.' MR. BIBRI: Oh, they might or might not. 10 I don't know that that would be material, do you? : 1 MR. EARLE: Well, you are leading me to the conclu .2 sion that the reason you would be notified that one of the 13 reasons is to create bettar control of asbestos dust in the < i areas where this occurred. 15 MR. BIBRI: We would have to do that, but we do :g not have a medical department proceeding of the department 17 saying, "Ann, Billy, Johnny have shadows on their lungs," and 15 it doesn't mean we would 1-ronedintely single out these fellows IS and put a tag on them, and they would be under some threat as 20 far as the employment status is concerned. 21 MR. EARLE: If a final standard, for assumption 22 purposes, allowed the employer to see the records, but only 23 at the request or permission given by the employee, what are ?A your opinions concerning that? 25 MR. BIBRI: I think that is unduly restrictive. 442 I The employer in this scheme, in this act, is one of 2 the key partios to seeing that there is a safe and healthy 3 work environment at the work place. A That is the entire thrust of the occupational health, S and when you prohibit him from carrying out the act, I think 3 we are playing games with each other, and I don't think we are y going to meet the adequate procedures when you do not permit th; V employer to see that he provides a safe and healthy atmosphere 0 for his employees. i'j EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. 9! I3 Mr. Luxon here? ',5 0 0* Mr. Beasley. S3 STATEMENT OF W. H. BEASLEY, MANAGER, ' :? CEMENT ASBESTOS PRODUCTS COMPANY MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Examiner, I would like to submit SS these two copies as exhibits, and summarize my statement. n EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The written statement submitted J3 by Cement Asbestos Products Company will be marked as Exhibit 10 46. 20 (The document referred to was 21 marked for identification as 22 Exhibit No. 46.) 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: And as so marked, it will be 24 received into evidence. 25 (The document referred to, I heretofore marked for identification 2 as Exhibit No. 4G received in 3 evidence.) 4 MR. BEASLEY: My name is W. H. Beasley. I am Manager 5 of Cement Asbestos Produats Company, Ragland, Alabama, which s is jointly owned by Mead Corporation and American Smelting and 7 Refining Company. 3 Wo operate two plants, one at Ragland, Alabama that r. manufactures A-C pipe, and one at Van Buren, Arkansas that + J manufactures A-C pipe and .PVC pipe. ii I am here today to express our concern and interest 32 in the proposed standard for control of asbestos exposure to 33 employees. We are interested in providing a clean and safe 15 | environment for our employees. Therefore, we are interested :s in a standard designed to accomplish this goal . 15 At the same time, vie are opposed to some of the 17 methods used in the proposed standards to reach this goal. 13 It is apparent to me that there is a need for a 13 standard that would have flexibility enough to fit every indus 20 try represented here and still protect the employees included. 21 For instance, some testimonies have been concerned 22 with fiber levels primarily, while others have a disposal of 23 scraps problem, others mixing operations, some want confidential 24 medical history, some recommend that the employer have access 25 for the benefit of the employee in their particular situation. 444 1 and some products may require labeling, some do not, due to their particular physical makeup -- what I am saying is that ? if we all here have the desire to protect our employees, and 4 at the same time, the desire to be able to continue the oper Si ations on a sound business basis for the good of the employees 6 and the companies, then I think this standard can be designed 7 so it will be workable in all different circumstances. G Our concerns are listed in the written testimony r> submitted, but I would like to emphasize some of the problems ID peculiar to us. S! On the fiber level we recognize the necessity of :.2 controlling asbestos dust in our plants, and have endeavored S3 in the past to do so by the use of dust collectors, exhaust \r. and ventilation. W' This is an expensive item in our plant costs, but St- we are desirous of having our employees' environment as clean 17 as possible. We feel that the proposed five fibers level will SO be extremely difficult to maintain in our operation. However, if this is the concentration level required ro to protect our employees, then we accept the challenge to stay 2! within the limits prescribed in paragraph (a) of the emergency 22 standard. 23 However, the two fiber proposal is considered by our 24 industrial hygienists as an impossibility to achieve and main 25 tain continuously. 445 I With the data available at this time we feel the 2 standards should be set no more than five fibers per cc. 3 On mixing systems, some have proposed mixing in plastic bags, bu1 it is impossible to mix the quantities used 5 in our operation in bags. This points up the need for wording 6 that would permit mixing by other means as long as they are 7 controlled by the introduction of water or other methods to L prevent the dust from becoming airborne. c- On disposal, in some operations it may be possible \r, to dispose of waste and scraps in bags or containers, but in our A-C pipe operation a grtat part of the scraps is in pieces Vl of pipe that cannot be bagged or containerized. 13 Different treatment should be provided for the 14 various types of scrap. 15 For instance, scrap that has the fiber locked in, 1C as in A-C pipe and other products that have no danger because 17 of its physical makeup could have their own disposal require IB ments or be exempt. It We suggest a landfill area. 20 On labels, we object to labeling all products that 21 contain five percent or more by weight of asbestos as being a 22 health hazard. 23 For instance, A-C pipe has more than five percent 24 asbestos, but it is locked in and is not released while in 25 service. Many other products fall into this same category. I as testified to in this hearing. i46 2 We firmly believe that if we are raquired to label 3 our pipe as has been proposed, we will be unable to sell our 4 product and would be out of business within two years. B Why should we not set a standard based on facts as a they relate to each product involved? The cost involved in staying within the five fiber 3 limit and complying in these other areas mentioned would be 0 $969,000 initially, and *148,000 annually, assuming it is S3 technically possible. 3! At this time we have no figures on the two fiber ?2 level, if it can be in fact accomplished. These costs may S3 keep us from boing able to operate, but if they didn't, label i J ing, as proposed, would surely put us out of business any way. 15 Thank you for hearing my testimony, and I am hoping ts that due consideration will be given to all parties concerned S7 in the writing of the standard and its promulgation. 51 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Beasley. 13 Off the record. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. 22 In calling witnesses, we are now in the schedule of 23 the afternoon, and I am favoring people whom I know are from 24 out of town, and would undoubtedly like to get home this 23 evening. 1 I have next Mr. Taylor, who is from Washington. I 2 am going to pa3S over him and go to Mr. Gabriolson 3 Are you here, Mr. Gabrielson? 4 MR. GABRIELSON: Yes. I am. 5 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Are you ready to go on? <5 MR, GABRIELSON: Yes. I am. 1 STATEMENT OF GUY GEORGE GABRIELSON, JR., 3 PRESIDENT, NICOLET INDUSTRIES, INC. f. MR. GABRIELSON: Mr. Goldberg, gentlemen, my name is K> Guy Gabrielson, Jr. It I am President of Nicolet Industries, Incorporated, 12 a manufacturer of asbestos products. i3 I first became acquainted with asbestos when I visitec n the Nicolet mine in Quebec in 1930. 15 I worked briefly as an hourly employee in our Norris i& town, Pennsylvania plant in 1941. 17 I became an officer of Nicolet in 1948, and its 10 President in 19S7. 19 Since 1930 I have made frequent visits to the mines 20 and plants of my company, and to the mines and plants of its 21 competitors. 22 I have never made a dust count, but I consider myself 23 qualified to testify to the vast improvement in dust conditions 24 in the asbestos raining and manufacturing industries during 25 the last 40 years. hws-16 448 1 I personally have been exposed to high concentrations ?. of airborne asbestos on many occasions* particularly during B the years prior to World War II. To the best of my knowledge, I am in excellent health, 6 but then I have not smoked during the last 20 years. C Nicolct is, I believe, the smallest manufacturing y company which ha3 presented testimony at this hearing. We have a net worth of $10 million, and annual sales a of $16 million. At the same time, we may be more heavily dependent -i on asbestos than any other manufacturer. Virtually all our products contain asbestos, usually the shortest grades, those grades Which contain the most dust. We are perhaps more vulnerable to the negative Im tr pact of the regulations here under consideration than any U' other manufacturer. 17 We no longer are miners of asbestos. Our mine, which If) also was the smallest in the industry, closed in December- of 19 i 1568, essentially because we had exhausted our ore. SO Today we manufacture only at four operating locations. 2! Ambler, Pennsylvania, Norristown, Pennsylvania, Hamilton, 22 Ohio, and Hollister, California. We employ approximately 600 people. We use about 40,000 tons of chrysotile asbestos per year. 23 Our processes involve primarily the handling of 1)49 1 asbestos in slurry form. * m Our product line includes gasketing materials, 3 corrosion protection materials, high density asbestos cement 4 boards, specialty asbestos millboards, asbestos felt, and 5 specialty asbestos papers. C Although our processes are basically wot processes, 7 asbestos must be received into our plants in dry forms, stored fc there, and finally moved to and introduced into our ra'.Ming l equipment before its dust creuting potential finally is to eliminated. ; I The magnitude of our dust control problem can best be expressed by citing these facts. 13 Our average dry fiber inventoi'y at Norristown is 14 2,500 tons, and at Hamilton is 1,000 tons. 73 When operating at capacity, the Norristown plant will 1G use six tons of asbestos per hour, and the Hamilton plant will 77 use three ton3 of asbestos per hour. 7S These are not small volume specialty uses, where IS mixing might be accomplished in a plastic bag. We are handling 20 significant quantities of short fiber asbestos in relatively 21 large factory areas, servicing major pieces of equipment. 22 We face far more difficult engineering problems than 23 the simple fitting of a dust collection device to a band saw. 24 Nor is dust our only problem under the proposed OSHA 25 450 1 standards. Our Norristown and Hamilton plants generate more ?. than ten tons of trim and waste oach day, and our Ambler plant .1 generates somewhat lessor qualities. Z Most of this waste consists of asbestos bonded into a matrix of other materials. Packaging all of this scrap in the manner provided 7 in the regulations would be extremely financially prohibitive, i 0 and would serve no useful purposes. 3 We have spent a long week hearing extensive testimony V) concerning the health problems of the asbestos industry. Vs Much of that testimony has been technical in nature, and much of it has been contradictory and/or ambiguous. I am not a doctor. I am not an engineer. I am not a chemist or a hygienist, or do I have explicit competence in I any related field. n Nevertheless, thi6 testimony is of immediate and 17 vital concern to me. !0 At some point, in both economic and governmental 10 processes, technical data and expert opinion must be received m by non-technical people, evaluated and translated into action. Non-teohnical people in the Department of Labor must 22 promulgate regulations which will have far reaching affects. 23 | Non-technical people in manufacturing management must i 24 decide what products will be produced and what products will a.J be discontinued, whet markets will be served, and what markets 451 I abandoned, and where moneys will be invested. In the final analysis, the judgment of non-tcchnical 3 people may be the most significant step in the process. d Technical people can define the area of doubt, the 5 gray area, and step aside with imputation unimpaired. 0 Wc non-to.chnical people must grope our way into the 7 gray area and make those technical decisions which, if proved 3 wrong, will cause calumnies to rain upon us. 0 It behooves you, those in government, before you make r> your choi css, to ascertain what fateful choices I will make. j i You should take notice of the technical data and :;2 opinions presented here, because knowledge of ray probable V;3 response, whether you accept its logic, or challenge it, will M assist you in predicting the economic consequences of the action which you will take. i I have been in faithful, albeit somewhat tiring, J7 attendance at these sessions for three reasons. 13 3ne: in response to your request, I wished to 32 develop a better basis for a critical evaluation of the criti SO cal regulations. 21 Two: I wished to observe the hearing, and in that 22 way try to predict the probable future course of government 23 action with respect to asbestos so that I may better plan the Z4 future of my company, and 25 Three: I wished to enhance my knowledge of the 452 health hazard of asbestos for the same general planning pur pose. Had the hazards appeared to me to be of high order, I was prepared to dec.'de that Nicolet should abandon all asbestos operations, whatever action might be taken by OSHA. In receiving my opinions I trust you will bo toler ant of my limited technical knowledge, and make charitable editorial corrections of my misusage of technical terms. Based upon all that I have heard this week, and all that I have learned in prior years, my conclusions today are: One: all commercial varieties of asbestos can cause asbestosis; but none of thorn will cause asbestosis if care is taken to avoid both high peak exposures and heavy cumulative exposures. For a normal lifetime of work with chrysotile, peak exposures of no more than 12 fibers in the plus five micron range per milliliter of air and a time weighted average of less than ten such fibers probably provides an adequate margin of safety. Two: any inorganiz particulate matter entering the lungs might constitute a primary carcinogen (if this is not proper terminology, I have devised it to mean a substance which alone causes cancer), a co-carcinogen, or simply a vehicle for transporting into the body and retaining there any one of many primary carcinogenic substances. 453 Whatever the role of the inorganic- material, it will be more or less offi dent in penetrating the organism, depend ing in large measure upon its shape and size. The filter mechanisms in the upper respiratory tract may fail to arrest and eject a thin, straight body which passes through end first, and a fiber which finally reaches the lungs may be too long to be enveloped by the contaminant-neutralizing aells which are found there. As far as fibrous bodies are concerned, it follows that fibers too heavy to be inhaled are not dangerous, curly fibers which will be trapped by the filter mechanism are not dangerous, and short fibers which can be ingested by the neutralizing cells are not dangerous. Three: any one of the commercial varieties of asbestos might be a primary carcinogen. It is possible that crocidilite is a primary cause of mesothelioma. The same may be said of amosite. It is probable that chrysotile is not a primary carcinogen. Four: anyone of the commercial varieties of asbestos might be a co-carcinogen. Five: Any one of the commercial varieties of asbestos might be no more than a vehicle for transporting into the body a primary carcinogenic. Six: Whatever the carcinogenic role of the different 454 hws-22 D varieties of asbestos, crocidolite and amosite would seem to 2 be more effective in penetrating the human body and remaining S there than chrysotile. 9 Crocidolite and amosite typically are long, straight G and stiff or ridig; whereas chrysotile is ?ore apt to be short, C curly and flexible. > Seven: the susceptibility of different persons to diseases associated with asbestos varies, probably because of differences in the effectiveness of individual lung protecting, iI C 5 ii purging or neautralizing mechanisms. Eight: Environmental conditions which provide ade I quate protection against asbestosis probably provide a greater 52 margin of safety against lung cancer. }/, Nine: Smoking while inhaling asbestos is several tirac3 more dangerous than either smoking or inhaling asbestos H alone. 17 In the final analysis, however, we are dealing with IS probabilities. When the last statistic has been cited, and IS the last interpretation given, the studies taken together say so j clearly to me, "be very careful of crocidolite and amosite, 21 and avoid massive doses of chrysotile, and don't smoke." 22 I would like to repeat here that these are my personal 23 opinions only, based upon all that I have heard this week, 4 ) and all that I have heard in years past. 455 1 chrysotile asbestos to be a very hazardous material; I believe ?. that it can be used safely if reasonable precautions are ob 3 served. < I shall not recommend to my Board of Directors that 5 Nicolat abandon the asbestos business because of any inhox'ent 6 dangers involved in the handling of the material. 7 My obligations as an employer will be fulfilled to 0 the satisfaction of my conscience if I keep dust- levels in my factories at the lowest practical levels, make sure that peak 1.0 concentrations never exceed 12 fibers of plus five microns . 1 per milliliter of air, provide* respirators in the event that :z concentrations shall exceed that level, endeavor to persuade u my employees not to smoke Cor forbid smoking on the job if 14 union contracts permit), and ban the use of crocidolite and 15 amosite in all manufacturing operations. 1G Let me turn now to a consideration of the proposed 17 regulations. The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health 18 IS Act, of course, is employee health; and we have devoted the 20 greater part of our time here this week to that subject. 21 We cannot, however, entirely ignore collateral factor?. I 22 I am sure that there is no one here who would wish to increase 23 the margin of safety in our dust standards so far beyond the 24 point at which employee health is adequately protected that, 25 as a consequence, we deprive of their means of livelihood the 456 very persons whom we are trying to benefit. This would be an action as foolish as it.is absurd. Nor can the Department of Labor forget that it is a part of the Executive Branch of our Government, a government which has many, and often conflicting objectives to achieve. In the final analysis, government is indivisible. Where but here in this room may we balance all the consider ations that may flow from the regulatory provisions which we aro considering? The genius of a republic lies in the fact that it provides forums such as this where the total impact of govern ment action may be considered, to the end that any negative consequences may be strictly limited to those which are essential to the achievement of the desired beneficial conse quence or consequences. Any regulation pertaining to the health hazards of asbestos in industry will have some undesirable results, to the extent that it discourages the use of asbestos materials, it will shrink the market for asbestos products with consequent loss of profits and loss of employment opportunities. To the extent that it makes the manufacture of asbestos materials in the United States technologically un feasible or uneconomic, it will force the purchase abroad of products for which there is no non-asbestos substitute, with consequential losses in profit, increases in unemployment, and 457 ! deterioration in the nation's balance of payments. Z To the extent that it forces heavy capital investmenti 3 by manufacturers, it will drive smaller producers from the 4 field, and tend to areata monopoly in the hands of the largest 5 and wealthiest competitors. 6 Since it is national policy to encourage profits 7 (and tax revenues), to increase employment, to strengthen the 3 nation's balance of payments, and to encourage competition in r* a free market; regulations affecting the use of asbestos in JO industry should not go beyond that point at which they demon '1 strably and defansibly achieve their basic objective. 32 To do more would constitute an unreasonable use of 13 the police power and would result in an unjustifiable depriva U tion of property (as represented by the loss of good will and 15 decline of asset value in the companies affected) without fair ' 15 compensation. 17 Nicolet subscribes to the following views, some of 10 which already have been expressed by others at this hearing: 19 One: There is, at the time, no sound scientific 20 justification for a mandatory limit of two chrysotile fibers, 21 five microns or more in length, per cc of air on a time weightec 22 average basis. 23 Two: there is, at this time, little or no scientific 24 justification for a mandatory limit of five chrysotile fibers. 25 five microns or more in length, per cc of air on a time weighted hws-26 I average basis. 458 i Three: there is, at this time, adequate scientific i s justification for establishing a mandatory peak concentration 4 of 12 chrysotile fibers, five microns or more in length, per oc of air. 0 Four: there is, at this time, adequate scientific l justification for establishing more stringent limits for air f borne crocidolite and amo9.ite fibers. v-f \ 1! | i'Z l Five: there is, at this time, no adequate scientific justification for requiring any label on chrysotile asbestos products, except, perhaps, for a cautionary label to be applied to . ags of free asbestos fiber and to asbestos containing materials for which free fibers may be released by routine s< handling.. V? ! 17 Six: there is, at this time, no adequate scientific justification for requiring that all asbestos waste materials be placed into scaled containers! when many of them present V 3 no hazard to health, and there are satisfactory alternative (6) 19 Ways to handle those which may be hazardous. 29 Seven: to achieve the five fiber limit in some 21 asbestos manufacturing operations may be impossible, and in 22 many it will be very expensive. 23 Eight: to achieve the proposed two fiber limit in I many asbestos manufacturing operations is technically unfeas I ible or prohibitive in cost. I !II li 459 1 It ia not feasible for major critical Nicolet oper z ations. 3 As far as Nicolet itself is concerned, then the <S situation would appear to me to be this: 3 One: if the labeling requirement is eliminated or 6 substantially modified, and the waste removal provisions are 7 eliminated or substantially modified, and the five fiber C weighted average limit per cc of air is adopted as final; o Nicolet may be able to comply with the regulations at a capital cost of $.1,050,000, and an increase in annual operating costs I of $120,000. I cannot say with conviction that we will be able to 13 find or attract the $1,050,000. 14 Two: If the waste removal provisions stand as pro 15 posed, our annual opex'ating costs will be increased by a furthe:* 16 $780,000. 17 Since this figure exceeds our profit before taxes 18 for 1971, the continued existence of Nicolet as a viable 18 business enterprise would depend upon whether or not our very 20 competitive market permits us to pass this cost along to our 21 customers. 22 Three: if the labeling requirement as proposed is 23 adopted and the five fiber weighted average limit is continued 24 as the permanent standard, we will lose that portion of our 25 market which consists of backing felt for roll vinyl flooring. 460 our other markets will shrink, and wo probably will be obliged to close our Hamilton, Ohio plant, concentrating our expendi tures for dust control equipment at Norristown, Pennsylvania and Ambler, Pennsylvania. Four: if the two fiber weighted average limit is adopted, I would predict that we would have to close both our Hamilton, Ohio and Norristown Pennsylvania plants. These facilities are not practically or economically suited to the manufacture of anything but asbestos papers and millboards, 90 our equipment would have to be sold for its salvage value and the plants offered for sale as real estate. The two fiber limit would, in ail likelihood, reduce sales volume at our Ambler plant to a level which no longer would support its overhead. sale. In that event, it too might have to be offered for As I said earlier, I see no hazard in chrysotile asbestos great enough to prompt Nicolet voluntarily to abandon its asbestos business. The proposed regulations, however, if adopted, probably will foroe Nicolet out of the asbestos business. In summary, then, the proposed regulations could have a very serious adverse impact on my company, an impact which cannot be justified by any demonstrable benefit to our employees, to the employees of our customers, or to the 461 I general public. 2 Fortunately for all of us this result is not neces 3 sary. 4 The asbestos industry can bo preserved virtually 3 intact, and the nation can continue to enjoy the benefits of <j asbestos containing materials without endangering the lives 7 of any asbestos worker. 3 In my opinion, we do not need to trade the health f, or well being of our employees for the lifesaving properties of asbestos, for jobs, foz the balance of payments, for n vigorous competition in the industry, or for corporate profits. 72 Wc can have our health and all these things, too. I propose that OSHA adopt permanent regulations which One: require the asbestos industry to use every .3 reasonable engineering method, and the best available work 19 practices and standards to keep airborne contaminants of all J7 kinds in the working environment at the lowest feasible level. 7 D Two: establish a peak concentration of 12 chrysotile 19 fibers, five microns or more in length, per milliliter of air 20 in the working environment and require that employees be 21 provided with suitable personal protection if the ceiling 22 value ever should be exceeded. (This peak value automatically 23 uill assure an average value which i3 much lower.) 74 Three: establish a concentration of two asbestos 25 fibers, five microns or more in length, per milliliter of air 462 1 on a time weighted average basis in any work environment which 2 any quantity of crocidolite or amosite fiber is used. 3 4 job. Four: forbid smoking by any asbestos worker on the C Five: require a cautionary label only on packages 6 of free asbestos fiber and on any asbestos product from which j ** 0 free fibers may be liberated by normal contact with the hands, & and 9 Six: v*equire all persons in the asbestos industry <C' to dispose of wasto in such a way that the designated limits 5' for airborne asbestos fibers are never exceeded. In addition, I urge the Department of Labor to do 3 whatever it can to sponsor and encourage further research into the biological effects of asbastos, research which will define ?5 the distinctions among the biological effects of different J varieties of asbestos, will define the impact of low and 17 medium concentrations of each fiber type, will ascertain the te significance of fiber dimensions, and will identify more 19 precisely the specific carcinogenic agent or agents with which 20 we may be dealing. 21 Nicolet Industries stands ready to cooperate in any 22 such programs. 23 Mr. Goldberg, this completes my testimony. as I thank you and the Department of Labor for per 25 mitting me to appear at this hearing and to present my views. 463 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Gabrielson. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. We will take a IS minute recess. (Short recess.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. Mr. Luxon. STATEMENT OF STUART G. LUXON, HER MAJESTY'S SUPERINTENDING CHEMICAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNITED KINGDOM MR. LUXON: Mr. Examiner, I would thank you for the opportunity of appearing here today, and would, first of all, like to make a brief general statement which may assist the hearing in its consideration of a standard for exposure to asbestos dust. The use of asbestos and asbestos products in industry in the United Kingdom is controlled by the asbestos regulations whioh came into force in May, 1970. In addition, the Inspectorate has published a Tech nical Data Note Number 13, setting out the standards which they will adopt in the enforcement of these regulations, and a copy is available for the consideration of this hearing. 464 9 It should-be noted that references in the regulations 2 to asbestos dust, and hence the application of the regulation 3 are taken to be references to dust consisting of or containing 4 asbestos to such an extent as is liable to cause danger to the 5 health of persons employed. ,v Under United Kingdom law it would be for' a court to J decide what concentration of dust in any particular situation 0 might be liable to cause injury to health in the light of all 0 available evidence. '.0 The Inspectorate, however, in the TDN referred to >} above, have set out the standards of asbestos dust concentra n tions which they regard, as falling within this definition and l.J the methods whereby these concentrations can be measured and '.1 evaluated. 4 .'Z 4t It must be appreciated that the Inspector has there u for a certain discretion in his assessment of risk. vt Perhaps I should, however, comment on the principles 13 underlying this standard. <9 We believe it is acoapted that available information 20 cn asbestos health hazards over a variety of industries is 21 sufficiently documented but at the same time we must, in order 22 to achieve uniform acceptable working standards, adopt a 23 practical working value for asbestos dust concentrations in M the working environment. In the longer term we have decided 25 to carry out a prospective epidemological survey covering all hws-33 1 persons exposed to an asbestos dust concentration of two 2 fibers per cc or over. 3 This will take the form of a medical check on such 4 workers coupled with a selective ten percent environmental check which-we hope can be extrapolated to cover all such exposed persons. It must be appreciated, that it will be many years before such work becomes meaningful. c, i As distinct from this long terra exposure vie have to control the dangers associated in the peak or ceiling expos n ures. For such exposures we have adopted a standard of 12 52 fibers per cc sampled over a 20 minute period (duplicate `3 i samples being taken to avoid any possible gross errors). If the level exceeds this, we require immediate action -- in other words, respiratory protection. 76 This standard appears to be similar in concept to VI that set out in the document entitled "Criteria for a Recosa i; monded Standard for Asbestos" which suggests a ceiling figure so of ten fibers per cc over a 15 minute period. 20 Our work leads us to believe that when the airborne 1 concentration on an eight hour basis exceeds four fibers per 22 cc, there will, in the great majority of processes be excur 23 sions beyond 12 fibers per cc, and this peak value may in 24 practice therefore be of greater significance than might appear 25 at first sight . 466 I believe a concentration of two fibers per cc greater than five microns, with an aspect ratio of three to one is a correct standard in the light of present knowledge to minimize risk of disease in the long term. It could ba argued that, given a lesser period of exposure than 50 years, some relaxation may be possible in view of the fact that the BOHS standard recommends a lifetime exposure of 100 fibers per cc years. On the other hand, we are dealing with a serious hazard which results in over 100 cases of anbestosis in the United Kingdom each year. This figure of two fibers per cc should be related to a time weighted personal exposure over a working day, although for practical purposes we have chosen to measure this concentration by sampling over a four hour period. If the exposure was, however, substantially less than eight hours, allowance would be made for this fact. We know that there will be processes where even given a high standard of control the nature of the operation makes the achievement of such a level very difficult. Certain textile processes and handling sheets of insulation board may be cited as particular examples. We have, in the United Kingdom, for obvious reasons, concentrated our activities, therefore, on the processes giving the highest exposures, while exerting the maximum 467 I pressure for the reduction of asbestos dust at all processes V where the concentrations have been found to exceed two fibers 9 per cc. 4 In the longer term we are working towards a reduc S tion to two fibers per cc in all processes, but in certain o areas, clearly time is a most important factor. As we approach 7 the figure of two, wo must also, I believe, have regard to .5 the estimated sampling and evaluation errors which may be of t\ the order of plus or minus 30 percent. :r> For crocidolite, we have adopted for this form of i i j j asbestos a much higher standard -- in other words, 0.2 fibers r !a* I per cc as a ceiling value evaluated over a ten minute period >3 ! of maximum dust emission. p 'I ** I This standard is very difficult to achieve in prac- i1 7j'j j tice, and it has, since the passing of the regulations, resulte I' *'3 in a greatly reduced level of use and almost complete absence 37 of new processes in which corcidolite is used. 33 For respiratory protection in the use of chrysotile to and amosite, it should be understood that in the United 0 Kingdom, if a concentration of asbestos dust in the breathing 21 zone of an employed person is found to exceed 12 fibers per 22 cc, respiratory protection is required as an immediate measure 23 until other remedial action can be taken. 24 When the concentration exceeds two but is less than 25 12, then the use of respiratory protection must be considered i68 in the light of Regulations 7 and 8 of the Asbestos Regulations and in thin context, practicability of control and duration of exposure are both of paramount importance. A copy of this Technical Data Note dealing with the approval of respiratory equipment for various types of ashestos is available for the information of the hearing. This will not be directly comparable with American practice, because of the differing standards for respiratory protective equipment as between the two countries. Again referring to crocidolite, with this material respiratory protection must be provided when He concentration of 0.2 fibers per cc is exceeded in the breathing zone of any employed person when measured over a ten minute period of maximum emission. The standards are set out in the Technical Data Note referred to above. Concerning methods of sampling and evaluation, in general, the techniques proposed in the criteria documents and those used in the United Kingdom are similar. Technical differences in procedures will not be discussed here. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that in evaluating long term exposure measurements are usually taken to evaluate asbestos exposure over a four hour period using personal sampling equipment. In considering the index of concentration, it should 469 1 be pointed out that the fiber concentrations referred to above * are considered to be a measure of the total asbestos dust 3 burden in the air --in other words, they are an index of the 4 degree of contamination, rather than an absolute measurement b of the number of fibers. G Recent work has tended to indicate: that the longer 7 fibers may be more biologically active, and this has added i: further weight to the use of such a parameter. L Because of the difficulties which have arisen in in recent years in regard to the measurement of other dusts -- * for example, silica -- and the tendency to move towards gravi .2 metric techniques, we are actively pursuing methods of eval 12 i U uating dust concentrations by the use of gravimetric size selective samplers, and subsequent analysis of the respirable 73 fraxtion by X-ray defraction techniques. 1-3 Until we have more information we are carrying out 17 occasional check determinations by thi3 method so as to keep 18 open the possibility of converting figures obtained by count IS ing with possible future gravimeter standards. 20 In summary, the techniques used for the measurement 21 of asbestos in the United States and United Kingdom are Bimilai. 22 It is considered that two fibers per cc is a correct 23 long term standard in the light of present knowledge, and 24 that 12 fibers per cc measured over the ten minute period of 25 maximum emission should be the ceiling value. 470 This could be held to be very similar to your pro posed standard of ton fibers over a IS minute period. In view of the sampling error, the difficulties in . setting an "absolute'1 standard and the engineering problems j ) in achieving it, some discretion may be necessary in enforcingj levels of four fibers per cc, and below in certain processes for a period of time. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, sir. Does anyone wish to ask questions of Mr. Luxon? MR. BIBRI: I have two questions. One: are there any labeling requirements provided under your regulations on fi ashed products that contain asbestos fibers? Two: what methods are prescribed for disposing of scrap or waste that contain asbestos fibers? MR. LUXON: To deal with the first of those ques tions, the only requirement on labeling in our regulations is for crocidolite, which must be labeled "including asbestos .' MR. BIBRI: At what point, sir? MR. LUXON: At all points, sir. MR. BIBRI: Including the finished product? MR. LUXON: No. But I must point out that this is under consideration in Europe, and the Council of Europe on the labeling of hazardous substances, of which I am chairman, hws-39 1 2 3 4 5 7 r> n 3 l/T 13 0 21 22 23 24 25 471 is considering thin at the present time, and we feel it would be improper for us to apply a form of label before that matter is resolved in a wider context. To deal with the second point, scrap within the factory, by the regulations, must be kept in enclosed con tainers. The ultimate disposal of scrap is not dealt with in the regulations because these regulations are for the protection of employed persons, and the disposal of scrap in its ultimate form is a matter of general contamination. MR. BIBRI: Thank you very much. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Savbrouin. MR. SAVBF.OUIN: Mr. Luxon, it has been the under standing of some of us here, and the opinion has been expressed from time to time, that the interpretation of the so-called regulation 13 that you alluded to was such that it could be said that the tolerance takes place in the interpretation of same in the United Kingdom to a point within the province within your jurisdiction, to a point that the ceiling could be here and there, four or five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and possibly fourteen, and yet you would not stringently interpret the two fiber per cc, and thus would have quite a degree of moderation in the application of the standard. Can you tell ms if I am right? 472 Possibly ray question was a bit lengthy, but I hope I was clear enough. MR. LUXON: The question of the concentration, of course, has to be viewed in conjunction with the time of exposure. We believe that where it is feasible, in the present state of the art of control measuroG, that the concentration should be reduced to two. We feel that there will be problem areas, perhaps from two up to four. Two up to four, where, with even stringent controls, we arc not yet in a position to reach a figure of two, and in those ax'eas, is a need to apply further research and in vestigation into reducing the concentration, and I think we should allow some element of time for this to be done, but clearly, as we go up from five, we must be ready to take further remedial steps in a shorter time. In other words, I believe we are here weighing con centration against time in the immediate evaluation of the environment, and concentration against time at the lower levels in regard to economic and scientific feasibility of control, but I see no reason, and I must emphasize this, in the vast majority of persons where we know that two can be achieved, why we should not achieve that rate here. I am speaking of the United Kingdom, and not the 473 hwn-41 1 United States, but in the United Kingdom, where it ia feasible 2 and possible in the economic process, we should arrive at J two. A MR. SAVBROUIN: Yos. 5 I think -- if I may be allowed -- X understand you ii to say that when the feasibility may be envisioned, and where 7 it may be possible for the party to respect the ceiling, well, then, you aim immediately to it, but where the feasibility may not, in the opinion of the Inspectorate, may be, owing to 70 the prevailing circumstances sometimes, because a plant has ;1 been in existence for some 20 to 25 years, and where the methodology has not been transformed recently, that more time should be given; that nevertheless there, in view of that It feasibility aspect, you will, according to circumstances, i 1*3 17 somewhat subject each case upon its own merits. Am I right? MR. LUXON: Yes. 18 I agree that in this area we must, in our opinion, IS in my practice, look at the prooesB upon its merits, but we 20 certainly would want to be convinced that it was a practical 21 possibility at the present moment to reduce the concentration 22 to two before we could think in terms of allowing some slight 23 lattitude along these lines. 2* I think we have to keep in mind the fact that while have a serious hazard, and we must do everything within our power to reduce that hazard as far as possible. MR. SAVBROUIN: I thank you, sir. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Perkel. MR. PERKEL: T am George Perkel, with the Textile [ c j. f f ^ Workers of America. Mr. Luxon, I would like to see if I understood your responses to the last question, and pose some questions of my own. As I understood you, you said that in the United Kingdom there is a fixed standard of time weighted ".verage of two fibers per cc, and thi9 is the standard that your department enforces. In particular cases, you might find that there were problems in meeting these standards, and you would provide additional time, if it was required, in order to meet those standards. Is that a fair understanding? MR. LUXON: We would provide the time if we were satisfied in our mind that this would not involve a signifi cant increase in the liability to health. We have to look at the length of exposure to the individual, the general supervision regarding medical atten tion, and other factors, and we have to look at the feasibility of providing control measures, and we have to take all of thess 475 things into account:, and I would not want it thought that we accepted a figure of two, without any evidence and consider ation, and we wouldn't want to see just the acceptance of this higher figure for a long period of time. Labor"3/17 -alvin/ms i 476 MR. PERKELi This sounds like the provision in our Tape 8 fls. hws 2 law for temporary variance; that isr that in any circumstance 3 where it is found that technical feasibility cannot be achieved immediately, the Department of Labor is authorised to provide a temporary period for reaching the established standaz 3 Is that essentially what you are referring to? MR. LUXON: Mr. Examiner, I find myself in difficul 3 ties here, because you clearly held a different approach I14I I S3 i legally to this particular problem. The laws are slightly different, and the arrangements for enforcing the laws are different, and .1 think Z could not V ^ answer that in saying how the variances are given and the way the law operates. MR. PFRKEL: When did the two fibers per cc become 1? A Ia! effective in the United Kingdom? MR. LUXON: In Kay 1970. MR. PERKEL: Was the industry put on notice when that I; 53 ! regulation would came into play? MR. LUXON: Yes. A year before the regulation. 20 But, sometime before that, we had held discussions, both with 21 industry and with unions, and we reached this standard in a 22 consensus opinion, among all parties concerned. S3 MR. PERXEL: Rave there been any cases, to your 24 knowledge, where plants in the United Kingdom that discontinued their operation or curtailed their amount of employment bacauso of their inability to reach the two fiber limit? MR. LUXON: I know of no case which has boon directly attributable to this cause. MR. PERKEL: Thank you. MR. LUXON: Subject, always, to the factor that X made, whero thore might be some maneuver at the low end where this is not economically feasible. MR. PERKEL: Well, with respect to the maneuver, what has been the actual experience that you have mentioned? One is the proportion of cases which you observed where it is necessary to depart from the two fiber limit. Would you give us an approximation of that? MR. LUXON: I think, Mr. Examiner, this is a very difficult question to answer. X couldn't suggest that we knew comprehensively what this might be, and particularly when we are talking about judging cases on their merits. I am afraid X can't help on that, but there are some areas which are necessary, but the great bulk of the manipula tive work in the various projects can be brought into play. MR. PERKEL: And from your experience, the plants have met the two fibers per cc measures? MR. LUXON: On the manipulative side, yes. I wouldn't want to say they have all done it. MR. PERKEL: Would you explain what you mean by 478 "manipulative side"? MR. LUXON: The manipulation o asbestos products. MR. PERKEL: Does that include the making of textiles# MR. LUXON: No. ! MR. PERKEL: What has been the workings of the tex tile area? MR. LUXON: It operates in a different category where you have different concentrations. The concentration levels fluctuate very widely. I think a great deal has been done in the United Kingdom, and a great research effort has been carried out in the process of revamping materials, revamping our methods process, and the problem is coming within sight of the lower levels that are mentioned. MR. PERKEL: Has anything like a manual or recommended procedures booklet been developed, Bay, for the textile industry? MR. LUXON: The industry itself has developed leaf lets, setting out the sort of ways in which the regulations can be met, but we, as a department, have not published such a document. We believe it is the responsibility of the industry and of the employers to comply with these studies. And I am pleased to say that the industry has, in fact, come up to its responsibilities and has provided these documentations to a great extent MR. PERKEL: Thank you very much. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Dr. McDonald. DR. MCDONALD: I am Corbett McDonald from Vale University. I You said that the epidemiological evidence upon whici the rates are based are rather scanty. MR. LUXONs I didn't say that. I said it was insufficient. DR. MCDONALD: Yes. In the event that the epidemiological evidence is produced to indicate that some modification of that standard should be made, what mechanism would exist for doing that? MR. LUXON: We made the very point that you brought out in our publication, when you have an opportunity to see thi3, that we would need to modify the standards in the light of further knowledge of the hazards, because the regulations talk about liability of injury to health, we don't have to order the regulations -- we only need to order the materials we are providing as to how to interpret those words. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. DeGregorio. MR. DeGREGORIO: Sir, will you permit me some ques tions, please. It is my understanding that the asbestos regulations of 1969 do not contain numbersdescribing levels to be attained, 480 is that correct? MR. LUXON: That is aorrect. MR. DeGREGORIO: Nonetheless, in your presentation, you havo referred to a No. 2 standard, a No. 12 standard, as a peak, and also a No. 4. Will you please tell us where you get those numbers, please? MR. LUXON: Yes. The numbers are published in a document which I will make available to the hearing entitled "Standards for Asbestos Regulations for 1969." MR. DeGREGORIO: Are those regulations, sir, part of the substantive regulations, and are they binding? MR. LUXON: I tried to make the point in my opening statement, in the United Kingdom it is the court to decide what may cause injury to health. It may have regard to such a publication as that, but that is not a binding legal requirement. MR. DeGREGORIO: Are those regulations which mention -- MR. LUXON: They are not regulations. They are information in a technical data note. Mr. DeGREGORIO: Is that the information, please, binding on inspectors of your department? MR. LUXON: it is given to them as guidance. We 481 I would hesitate to use the word "binding,"other than in a 2 legal aoncept. , 3 MR. DaGREGORlO: Sir, do you know if the standards A in your department do substantially comply with your instruc y tions? 3 MR. LUXON* They use them as a guideline. 1 Where further information is needed, they would 9 refer them for further advice. 3 MR. DeGREGORIO* Suppose an inspector, during an :o inspection, finds that the concentration of fibers in the air :j exceeds 12 fibers? 32 I understood you to say that a time period is -- ;2 MR. LUXON: For 12 fibers, the inspector would U require immediate remedial measures. L^ i'j MR. DeGREGORlO: Now, when does an inspector give :-3 some time -- under what kind of situation does he allow some a time to bring down the concentration, and down to what level, *3 please? ia MR. LUXONt The time factor depends upon the con io sideration of the particular individual circumstances. 21 One would have regard to how much the figure of two 22 is exceeded. 23 The duration of the exposure of the person. If the 24 exposure is short, then the eight-hour average will bring 23 dovm the level to two, and the economic and scientific t feasibility of soientifio control measure/ and the work and time necessary to get these figures down to two. J MR. DeGREGORIO: So, just to test my understanding, I if the level exceeds 12 fibers --* MR. LUXON: Yes. MR. DeGREGORIO: An employer is required to take immediate correction. I;!i !l MR. LUXON: Yes. ) l %t . r C, MR. DeGREGORIO: If the level exceeds two fibers, cl. then there is the question of considering the action in time fc :* (iilii ;! V li !l necessary to bring the concentration down to two fibers. MR. LUXON: But only at the bottom end of that, because we are talking here of two different things. We are talking about the peak value of over 10 or 15 minutes, and the long-term time weighted figure, and the long-term time weighted figure of 6 or 7, maybe more serious \ i i i z > . >i than the peak value of 12. So, it wouldn't apply. You would still be able to apply your control measures at that sort of level, but as we approach the two, S3 II 2! !| - l!il -- !iti ?3 1} there has to be a greater level of flexibility of the economic and scientific knowledge is not available to reduce it to a f figure of two in the immediate figure, but only at this low end. 1 published by your department* please? 483 2 MR. LUXON: Yes. 5) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Let me ask one question. -fl Who exercises the discretion in granting the addi 5 tional time to meet the No. 2 level? 6 MR. LUXON: In the final course* it must be a court 7 of law. n But* of course* the Inspectorate must clearly* in n its day-to-day functions* consider these various problems that SO we are discussing* and the individual inspector subject to II guidance must decide in his mind where the figures* as found o2 in a particular situation, are allowable to give injury to 13 health. And it gives him a slight measure at the bottom end K in his approach* where the process cannot be seen to be 55 readily controlled. tic MR. DeGREGORIO: May I pursue that point for just a 17 moment* please. 50 Suppose an inspector* after considering all those 59 factors that you have mentioned* states that the correction r.o has to be made within* say* a month. 21 MR. LUXON: Re cannot do that. Re must then apply 22 to a court for an order. He must himself conduct the case in 23 court and convince the magistrate or the judge that he is 24 correct in his assumptions. 23 MR. DeGREGORIO: But* who determines the time during ( }7? f , 7hr u 1 which tho inspection has to be made, the court? 484 2 MR. LUXON: In the final circumstances, yes. 3 MR. DeGREGORIO: But let me try to explain myself. 4 Is it possible to have an agreement as to the time 5 of correction without the resort to court? C Can an inspector suggest a period of time during 7 which a correction has to be made, and can an employer agree fe to that time so that the matter is not referred to the court? o MR. LUXON: No. 10 I think this would be a wrong approach. I think the 1 correct approach would be asking for a reduction to a level, 12 but perhaps not to depress to that stage unless the inspector 13 felt there would be a threat to health, in hie judgment. 14 MR. DeGREGORIO: But if the inspector feels it is 15 potentially serious -- IS MR. LUXON: Then he must go to court, and the court 17 must determine. 16 MR. DeGREGORIO: And it is only at that stage that IS tho time period for correction is mentioned? 20 MR. LUXON: If there is a liability of injury to 21 health, and the employer will be in violation, if this can be 22 shown, 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Let us move on. 24 MR. DeGREGORIO: I would like to ask a few more 25 questions, please 485 Monitoring* Are employers made to monitor the ambient air of the work place? MR. LOXONx No. The largest employers do this* We have carried the whole operation by discussion as far as possible, and agreed. The large companies institute monitoring. Their association monitors for other users, and we ourselves, of course, monitor from a point of view of checking what has been done, but there is no legal requirement for checking. MR. DeGREGORIO: With regard to your monitoring, how often is it done, please, more or less? MR. LUXON: We do not monitor on a routine basis. The requirements to comply rest on the owner or occupier of the faatory. We monitor to check to see if what he is doing is the correct procedure. MR. DeGREGORIOx Could you give us an idea of how often the checking is done? MR. LOXON: It is not done on the basis of time. It is done on the basis of requirement. If an inspector in the field finds that a process is giving rise to dust, he will ask us to monitor the situation, but it is not done on a regulated time basis. It is a fire brigade basis, if you wish to term it that way 486 1 MR. DeGREGORIO: Do you have any regulations against 2 smoking in concurrence with the manufacture]* of asbestos? 3 MR. LUXON: No. 4 We feel it is important, but we feel ue cannot 5 control people's preferences in this respect. 6 MR, DeGREGORIO: Is there any requirement in the 7 United Kingdom regulations for medical examinations? G MR. LUXOH: No. c, MR. DeGREGORIO: Are there any provisions against -- If* adverse personnel actions against employees found to have il signs of asbestosis or other asbestos related diseases? D2 For example, specifically, may an employee be 53 fired because of such signs? 14 MR. LUXON: I am not sure I follow your line of 15 reasoning, exactly. 15 MR. DeGREGORIO: Is there any action taken against 17 an employee, or firing the employee, who has been found, by 10 X-ray, for example, to have signs of asbestosis? 19 MR. LUXON: This is not a matter of protection for 20 the employee. 21 This is another matter altogether. 22 ThiB would be a matter of employment between the 23 iosn and his employer. 24 It is not something with which we are really con 25 cerned in the context of these regulations. w MR. DeGREGORlO: When you talk about controlling the asbestos dust, do you put any special emphasis on certain kinds of controls ? Specifically, do you prefer engineering controls to respirator systems? MRi LUXON: Yes. The Regulation 7 deals with engineering controls. Regulation 8 deals with respiratory controls if the engineering is impractical. MR. DeGREGORlO: I understood you to say you have some labeling requirements, but only in connection with crocidolite. 1 also understood you to say that the question of labeling is under consideration. MR. LUXON: The question generally? MR. DeGREGORlO: Yes. With regard to chrysotile. MR. LUXON: 1 couldn't indicate what might happen, because, as 1 indicated, this is a European exercise, as against one country. MR. DeGREGORlO: Thank you very much, EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Earle. MR. EARLE: You referred earlier in your remarks to a hope or desire on your part to reach the two-fiber levels in all processes. Do you have any time in mind for reaching that? Have you set, either by regulation or -- 2 MR. LUXON: Well, the regulation requires no injury 3 to health. 4 1 think we can't set a time because we don't know 5 what the future holds in the way of methods for suppressing G dust, but we would certainly keep pressure on the Industry 7 where it is necessary for industry to reduce its dust level, e and to look at possible ways of reducing the level to a satisfactory figure. MR. EARLE: Am 1 correct in the information that we i . j hove received so far that Technical Note 13 in your regulation)i '.2 is designed to protect workers against asbestosis and lung 13 cancer; however, not designed to protect them from other 14 malignancies caused by exposure? 15 MR. LUXON: That is very true. 1G MR, EARLE: In arriving at your technical note, 17 could you describe very, very briefly the procedural nature? 16 Did you hold public hearings? 19 MR, LUXON: No. > 20 If we can reach agreement with the parties concerned 21 both the unions and the employers, the manufacturers, then we 22 don't have a public Inquiry. 23 If we cannot reach an agreement, then we have a 24 public Inquiry, and in these regulations we did have agreement 25 from all concerned that these were the right regulations, and I we felt that these were necessary, and therefore there was 2 no inquiry. 3 MR. EARLE: Before taking action, would the party 4 have to go through the Court 7 5 MR. LUXON: Yes. 6 Every inspector, during the tern of his appointment, 7 has to conduct the case in Court, and 1 think this will make 3 the difference in dealing with this difficult situation in 9 arriving at scientific and practical possibilities. to MR. EARLE: Are your inspectors, then, lawyers? 11 MR. LUXON: They have power to conduct proceedings tZ in Court, yes. 13 MR. EARLE: Just for this purpose? M MR. LUXON: Yes. 13 MR. EARLE: How many actions, if any, have you 13 instituted when you have discovered levels between the two 17 and twelve fiber count? 13 MR. LUXON: I haven't the exact figures to differen 19 tiate between the various levels. 20 I would estimate that the {great majority^of the 21 cases have been taken over 12, but, as I indicated at the 22 beginning, it is because I indicated we have to deal with the 23 worst situations first, and we are facing a vary large 24 problem here. 25 MR. EARLE: What are the penalties involved hare? 490 f Are there Injunctions or monetary penalties? 2 MR. LUXON: There are two different systems of 3 enforcement; one, a monetary penalty, and the Court ordering 4 what must be done within a certain time. S MR. EARLE: Does the Court assess the monetary 4 penalty, also? 7 MR. LUXON: Yes. 3 MR. EARLE: Could an employer have a monetary and f- an injunction issued against him? :< MR. LUXON: This could be possible, but not entirely. 11 There are two different sections of the Act in the J* point you are making, and one would proceed on one section 13 or the other. 14 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Swetonic. 15 MR. SWETONIC: Sir Luxon, I just want to differen 13 tiate between two things, as I try to understand you properly. 17 You have said that in that low gray area, and I 13 think you said in a range of 2 to 14 fibers, great discretion 19 is given in describing -- 20 MR. LUXON: I think, sir, you are putting words in 21 my mouth. 22 1 didn't say "great discretion." I said "limited 23 discretion." 24 MR. SWETONIC: I am sorry. 25 Now, what I wanted to do is differentiate between 491 that, and, say, a level between 12 and the higher range. Are employers presently being required, say, they have a level of eight, nine, or ten, and when they improve, do they improve to two? Or is that discretionary? MR. LUXON: No. The discretionary idea is not on the question of how far you reduce the concentration. If you can reduce it to two, then we believe you should reduce it to two. MR. SUETONIC: Thank you. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Holmes. MR. HOLMES: Mr. Examiner, Mr. Luxon was not present when I gave my testimony on Wednesday. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: You won't repeat it. (laughter) MR. H01MES: 1 would like to ask him a question which clears up a point which Mr. DeGregorio has been trying to make. In. reply to a question on Wednesday, Stuart, 1 was asked what action is taken in the bridge where concentra tions were above 12. 1 said, and I hope I was right, that the immediate action would be to put anybody working In those areas into respiratory protection, and time allowed for the necessary engineering controls to be provided, then there would be another check, and it would only be a failure after that secoid 492 1 check that would lead to that correction* 2 Was I right in saying that? 3 MR. LUXON: You were right in the first part, but 4 I don't think we could agree in certain circumstances, and 5 this would not accord with the conditions so far, that if 6 the conditions were over 12, we would not take action in the 7 means of prosecution. 8 MR. HOLMES: Thank you. MR. LUXON: We have done that already* 70 There was one'point I lost in the beginning ; V I of that which 1 wanted to take up. .2 MR. HOLMES: 1 was asked the question: what happens 13 in the situation where the levels are above 12, and are K confirmed above 12? 55 MR. LUXON: I have the point. 5G You said that a period of time would be allowed. 17 1 wouldn't want it thought this would be a long 18 period of time, weeks or months* IS MR. HOLMES: I said the period of time required. 20 MR. LUXON: Yes. But this is a different time scale 21 altogether on the bottom. 22 MR. HOLMES: Thank you. 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Holmes. 24 Mr. Scannell. 25 MR.. SCANNELL: Mr. Luxon, you said that the medical 6 493 1 examinations are not required in the regulations for 2 employees. 3 Yet you mentioned that you are conducting some 4 tests. 5 MR. LUXON: Yes. a MR. SCARRELL: Could you explain that a little 7 further, sir? 3 MR. LUXON: Yes. 0 The purpose of the survey is, of course, to tie 10 over the years medical findings on the progress or Instance dl with the environmental concentrations that exist in the 02 particular industry so that we are better able to relate the 93 standard to medical findings. 3 0 This is part of the responsibility we must accept 93 in setting standards 41 and any allowance at all over the 13 figure, and we have to be sure that if we make an allowance, 17 that we are not endangering the health of the people con 10 cerned. ID Of course, this would be a breach of our respon 0 sibility. 21 Whatever we do, we must provide that we do not 22 create an injury to the employed person. 23 MR. SCAHNELL: When do you think that study would 24 be completed, sir? 23 MR. LUXOR: This will be a continuing exercise, but 494 1 in view of the fact that the onset of the first symptoms may 2 be 8 or 10 years from the exposure to asbestos, or even 3 longer, and it is going to be a considerable period of time, 4 because we can only relate symptoms to environmental factors, 5 and this will be related over some period of time, but I 3 believe that in the Interim it will be argued that there is 7 not a lot of evidence -- that there is any evidence to 8 support two, but there is less evidence to support five, and c, wo have adopted two until we have more Information. ir> He may be shown that this figure is higher, and 11 tills may be so, but until we have this infoxmation, we cannot 52 adopt this figure. J3 MR. SCANNELL: Mr. Luxon, protective clothing, M rather than respiratory equipment above 12, is there a i 5 requirement on clothing? 75 MR. LUXON: Yes. i7 73 be? MR. SCANNELL: What clothing requirement would that 19 MR. LUXON: Well, in the pottery industry in this 20 work we discovered that a great deal of dust being breathed 2! was coming from clothing, and such clothing that was u*a 22 fron man-made fibers was better than cotton and wool as far as A retention of dust, and we can control better tba type of 24 clothing that is worn and prevent this rataInmant of dust. 25 This is not anything that would cause, we believe. 495 1 any difficulty to industry, and we would like to see more research into this area as to what is the best type of Si clothing to protect the person and keep the fibers from 4 entering the air as loose fibers. S UR. SCANNELL: As waste disposal materials. e Do you have plans for those? y UR. LUXON: Yes. c All loose asbestos fibers must be in enclosed 'i containers at all times in the factories. UR. SCANNELL: Thank you. SI EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Luxon, I believe you said V?. that the inspectors work like a fire brigade. S3 To continue the analogy, who gives the alarm to K bring the brigade into action? !? MR. LUXON: Well, perhaps you will bear with me .r, . V1 while I describe the system of Inspection in the United 57 Kingdom. tc It is an integrated system, where all the investi \z gations, controls, and enforcement is all within the one TO inspectorate. 21 We haw spread over the country a force of in 22 spectors on the order of 500 on a district basis, and we have 23 at tho hsedo/jarcexs of the Inspectorate an industrial hygiene 24 unit which has about 15 or 20 inspectors, and a staff of 20 25 or 30. 1 This deals with the problem that when we are 2 alerted by the general inspectorate and the general in 3 spectorate visits every factory periodically; normally, every 4 four years, but if a particular factory has a hazard which 5 in known to be serious, then they will visit more frequently. S If the hazard is in the writing and so on, which 7 determines this, and in the course of this inspection, which e includes all matters of safety, and when one is picked out t- aud deaerve8more attention, it' is sent to the inspectorate ?o and there is an inspection on the monitoring of safety, and j I so on. 12 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Well, do you have a trade union, 13 or a medical practicloner can ask the inspectorate to visit 14 the plant? 15 MR. LUXON: Yes. 16 The Inspectors have close ties with tte medical 17 units, the unions, in their areas, and anybody can complain IS to the Inspectorate, and they are Investigated. IS EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Earle. 20 MR. EARLE: Did you say how many hygienists you 21 had? 22 MR. LUXON: They don't call them hygienists, but 23 we have 20 hygienists, and these people are not specialists, ?* but they have training equally in law, In hygiene, safety, and 25 so on. i 1 HR. EARLE: All o the 500? W 2 MR. LUXOR: Yes. 3 And they have ability to assess the hazard on a 4 quantitative rather than qualitative basis. U MR. EARLE: Do you think the mounded waste. a Including such things as asbestos has -- i MR. LUXON: We have required that asbestos material! a be in bags i it includes asbestos dust, and it is liable to 9 present a risk to health, and the fibers cannot exceed 2 per SO cc, measured over the peak period of 10 minutes, then if we 31 find any material that will be used, manipulated, or handled iJS in any way, when it is over 2, we would immediately require J3 that the waste be enclosed, in bags. 1-J EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Gilbert. S3 MR. GILBERT: I believe you indicated that when 5G the level of asbestos dust achieved its peak concentration a of 5 or 12, you required the wiring of respirators. 39 You also indicated that at the level of 2 to 4 woul< 39 be up to the discretion of the inspectorate. 7.0 MR. LUXON: In the range that it would not be 21 hazardous to workers. 22 This could be tolerated lor some period while the 23 process is brought under control, yes. 24 But I oust reemphasize that this is a very limited 25 discretionary power that we use, purely to prevent cessation i of manufacCuring. 498 We have to give thought to the fact that products have uses which promote safety In other areas, such as fire, ship construction, insulation, as a fire precaution, and so we have a very difficult balance to draw in some of these areas, and it is a weighty and difficult problem. MR. GILBERT: When you have a 6 count time-weighted average, would it be more hazardous to employees -- would be more hazardous to workers at 6, would you have the employees wear respirators? MR. LUXON: We would think first in terms of control. If control was not practical, then we would have to think about those poslbilities. MR. GILBERT: But it would not bs mandatory until you went over 5 fibers? MR, LUXON: The inspectorate is not one single body, as you think of it. The inspectorate is there to enforce the law by bringing the offender before the Court. He can do nothing in the field. He has to bring it to the Court, and maybe the Court will listen to him, but he has no authority to say, "You must do this," He must get the Court to do that. MR. GILBERT;. Thank you. MR. DeGREGORIO: Sir, may I have one more question. I please, about sampling? 499 2 Hill you tell us briefly, please, the procedure 3 and instruments which you must use in sampling, and your <0 opinion of the reliability. e MR. LUXON: This, Mr. Examiner, is a difficult o question to answer in a short space of time* 7 The instruments we use are personal samplers. 0 There is the problem in using personal samplers > that you have to relate the time and volume of the sample to 10 the concentration, or you may have coincidence errors in \l che talcing of the samples, so you may not In areas of 12. relatively high concentrations be able to take one continuous 13 sample over 4 hours. 14 You may have to split these into different periods, IS and so the membrane filter is made to be excessive in 1 measurement. 17 1 referred earlier to the error that could be ia found to be variable in these techniques; it could be an ID error of 30%. 20 This is Important because we believe in considering 21 any of these figures that we have to be able to say beyond 22 doubt, and we must bo given the benefit of the doubt, that 23 this figure is over the figure that we are stating. 24 If we are saying 2 on a 30% error, it would carry 25 us quite high up. 500 I We would have to be at 7 units before we would say 2 it was 5. 3 MR. DeGREGORIO: Thank you very much. 4 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Luxon, under this Court 5 procedure, I guess there has been some experience In the 6 Inspectorate taking the matters before Court. 7 MR. LUXON: Yes, sir. e EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Do you have any knowledge of u the time lag from the time the inspectorate takes a matter 10 to Court to the time the Court issues a decision? ;} MR. LUXON; The Court issues a decision on that \z day of the hearing, at the time o the hearing, at the time 13 the Court decides whether the defendant la guilty or not 14 guilty, and the decision is given at that time. IS EXAMINER. GOLDBERG: So this is a very rapid type 16 o procedure. 17 MR. LUXON: Yes. It decides at that time. 18 MR, GRILL: Dr. Luzon, I assume that in the 19 construction industry that when they place the waste into the 20 containers, and this is probably xom the insulation con 21 tractors more than anyone else, that it is then disposed. o 22 by, oh, let us say, a general contractor who is responsible 23 for trash pickup from the construction site. ?4 Am I right? 25 MR. LUXON: What we recommend in terms of insulatioc > 501 I we recommend that this insulation is wetted before removal 2 by wet steam. 3 This isn't always possible, but it is the desirable 4 method to use, and by wetting, I mean steam lntez&ingling 5 into the matter, and not just the surface< 3 In some cases it may not be able to wet it this 7 way, and some times you wet the surface and sometimes not 3 that. f> If this ia not done, you will have a concentration W of quite a number of fibers. 3! You will need your respiratory protection there. S3 If the substance is wetted and not dusty, this 13 would be the more preferred method. M MR. GRILL: Is this done in the destruction as 33 well as construction of a building? 13 MR, LUXON: Are you asking me about Bpraying 17 insulation? 30 MR. GRILL: No. No srapying. This is preformed 13 application. Application which entails the generation of 20 waste in many different forms, either powder or dust or 21 fibrous matter, but it is there. 22 MR. LUXON: And you dispose of the waste material 23 with this? 24 MR. GRILL: Yes, sir. 2'i MR. LUXON: Well, if this Includes asbestos, it 1 should be pub in an enclosed container. 2 MR. GRILL: Is that a bag, or something 3 MR. LUXON: It could be. 4 It doesn't allow the dust to escape. 5 MR. GRILL: And does the responsibility of the 6 contractor end at that point or after it is in the land fill? 7 MR. LUXON: When it leaveB the contractor it becomes 3 a different matter altogether, and it becomes a matter of F< pollution of the environment, and 1 don't wish to enter at 10 this time the question of the environment. It That is a different subject altogether, subject to 12 any definition you see fit to make on it. | 13 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: No. 54 Thanlc you very much, Mr. Luxon. Mr Earle. MR. EARLE: Mr. Luxon indicated he wished to submit two documents for the record. 18 MR. LUXON: Mr. Examiner, they are the two technical 18 data notes, one on the standards, Technical Data Note No. 13, 20 and 24, and a document concerning health and safety at work, 21 which we published. Booklet No. 44, which gives the regulations 22 and general inioxmation on regulations. 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: He will mark the booklet No. 24 44, Asbestos Health Precautions in Industry as Exhibit 47. 75 503 1 (The document referred Co above was 2 marked Exhibit No. 47 for identi 3 fication.) 4 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Ve will mark Technical Data 3 Note No. 13 as Exhibit No. 4b. 3 (The document referred to above was 1 marked Exhibit No. 4b for identi 0 fication.) 9 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: And we will mark Technical Data 10 Note No. 24 as Exhibit No. 49. 91 (the document referred to above was 32 marked Exhibit No. 49 for identi 53 fication.) n EXAMINER GOLDBERG: And as so marked the exhibits 93 are received in evidence. SvS (Exhibits Nos, 47, 4b and 49 were 97 received in evidence.) 33 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Off the record. 33 (Discussion off the record.) to EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. 21 Mr. Parke1. 22 MR. PERKEL: Are you offering this abatement as 23 an exhibit or are you going to read it? 24 MR. PERKEL: As an exhibit. 23 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right. 504 ! We will mack Mr. Perkel'a statement as Exhibit 50. 2 (The document referred to a above was marked Exhibit 50 A for identification.) 5 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: And as marked. Exhibit 50 is S' received. 7 (Exhibit No. 50 was received a in evidence.) C, STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE PERKEL, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, 30 TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA HI Mr. Perkel; My name is George Perkel. 15 I am Research Director of the Textile Workers 13 Union of America, which represents certain of the employees in J4 the asbestos textile and related asbestos industries. 13 1 have submitted as an exhibit a statement that our 13 union submitted on February 11, 1972, of our views on the IV proposed standard that the Department of Labor issued in 10 January. 19 I will not review in any detail the position we 20 took at that time. 21 1 would like to take this opportunity to express our 22 view8 on the criteria document submitted by N10SH, and the 23 recommendations of the Asbestos Advisory Committee in 24 February. 25 We note that the recommendations of the Advisory 505 Committee were submitted with a forward, and we were most anxious to have the portion as recommended of the working manual to be included in the same regulation, and it would have the same force as the similar standards. We believe that the most effective way of safe guarding the health of people exposed to asbestos dust is to develop the kind of practices that will mlnimlee exposure and in that regard, I am glad to see that our views are shared by the industry people who spoke today. I would like particularly to be associated with the views expressed by Mr. Duncan Holliday, who is a consultant to NIOSH, and has many years of experience in evaluating dust problems, and in dealing with the controls for them, who testified earlier this week concerning the particular experi ence he has had in developing work practices in the trade and minimizing the harmful effects of asbestos dust. We think the work practices that have been developed and recommended for the insulation trade and other trades should be developed for all operations Involving exposure to asbestos dust, and we have submitted, in the exhibit 1 have earlier referred to, an extract from a study or compendium that was made in 1965, called "The Biological Effects of Asbestos" from the New York Academy of Sciences. 1 would like to amplify that by submitting as an exhibit an article entitled "The Controls as Daveloped in a 506 British Textile Plant." EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The article entitled "Economics of Dust Control" by D. W. Hills, from the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume I, December 31, 1965, is marked as Exhibit 51. (The document referred to above was marked Exhibit No. 51 for identifiestion.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: And as marked, it is received in evidence. (Exhibit No. 51 was received in evidence.) MR, PERKEL: You will note in Exhibit 50 that we enumerated nine specific operations which were covered in this article that I have just referred to which are descrip tions of the processes used at the Turner Brothers Company, Limited, in Rhodesdale, England, to achieve a minimum exposure to asbestos dust in their plants, and these are enumerated on page 4, which include protection for workers required if their health and safety is to be preserved. The article, submitted in toto, shows what must be done in order to make the working areas safe, in spite of the fact that this asbestos dust is being generated at various points. Also, as I understand, the facts presented by 507 Industry people this week, about the cost o dust control, there Is some valuable evidence In this article about the experience of this particular plant which shows that the coat of controlling dust In their experience Is nowhere near the cost Involved an described this week. For example, for this highly mechanized bill, which has developed what Is considered to be highly developed dust control methods, they have reported that their cost of dust extraction Is equal to 2.7% as the total cost of converting asbestos fiber Into asbestos dust yarn and cloth, and we are not talking about 100% and more, and very large numbers In terms of cost. Now, when we get into the body of the recommendstionlB of the Advisory Committee, we note that the standard of 2 fibers per cc is proposed. 1 certainly agree with the last witness, that there is considerable evidence, while not sufficient for a purist to establish without question, but certainly considerable evidence that 2 fibers is the appropriate level to safeguard workers' health. As he said, there Is less evidence to support the count of 5 fibers. We believe that the goal should be zero exposure because we are not satisfied with the evidence that 2 fibers will protect peoples' lives, and here too, 1 think we are in 508 1 good company, since industry people have expressed their 2 views -- similar views, not only here, but in the discussion 3 o the biological aspects of asbestos at the New York 4 Academy of Sciences. 5 I refer to a discussion of this question at that 6 conference by two industrialists, on page 335, Hr. C. G. 7 Attlngly, of British Smelting and Asbestos, Limited, stated, 0 and 1 quote: "He do not believe that there is any safe limit. Vi We have our ideas as to how low we can get, and we are always striving to get right down to zero." r-2 And we found that his American counterpart in S3 industry. Hr. George Wells, of what is now the Uniroyal Company, gave as his conclusion, and 1 quote from page 336: t J "Our own conclusion as we began to see what was 15 happening in our own process, was that the only safe amount of asbestos dust exposure was zero, and that the efforts in 13 terms of achieving that lay basically in engineering and, 13 secondly, in education, but as far as a safe level of asbestos 20 dust is concerned, our own conclusion in Hogansville, Georgia, 21 is that there is no safe level. 22 "The safe level is nil, and anything above the safe 23 level represents certain risk." 24 And therefore ve support the proposals that have 23 been made, such as by the Oil Chemical Workers and others, and [ 24 509 1 that thla should be the goal to be achieved gradually over a 2 three-year period, o zero exposure to aebestos dust. S Mow, the NXOSH document does provide, as 1 said, 4! and as our friends from Great Britain have said, ample evidence to support the two-fiber as an immediate goal of a the epidemiological studies, cited in the criteria document, 7 have clearly established a connection between asbestos 0 exposure and asbestosis and cancer. 9 In the discussion of the coronation of exposure to and effect, the document says, and I quote: 11 "Evidence is somewhat extensive, indicating a strong association between the diseases and exposure under a V3 variety of conditions, and evidence is a dose-reaponaa t*3 relationship." 15 For those who are proposing controls, we should wail 1C until we have move data, and we really do a big job and 17 discuss everything before we take any action, and I would 10 remind the Government that the Department of Public Health 19 Service and HEW concluded its 3tudies about the data on 20 asbestos in 1967. 21 They have accumulated a great deal of data, and if 22 they work for years, they can accumulate a great deal more 23 data, but as the document points out, science has recognized 24 that where there is a clear and evident danger to workers, 29 there is a need to perform some tasks before achieving all tlu ,. 510 answers. This is an article in the document which is of interest to us because of our own contact with it, and that is the unpublished study by Williams, Bear and Thomas, which is on 321 in which it states that they compiled data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health files on exposure levels at various textile operations from two plants. The data included asbestos dust accumulation from 1940 through 1948, and here is the Important point: "Even though the exposures were below the 30,000 part per foot -- " this was the TLV originally and adopted by several States -- "and the changes of 2 million parts per foot, 60 cases of asbestosis were reported from these two textile plants." And we have had dealings with asbestos plants in Pennsylvania during this period and the plant is now out of existence, and it was our harrowing experience to see, when we talked to management about the necessity for dust controls for protection of the workers and they would say 'Ve have dust controls, and the Government comes in here and samples our air and makes their tests." And they gave us copies of these reports, and I have tabulated them and I was reading them over in preparation for this hearing. In tbs period for 1963 through 1967, there were four 511 ! separate air samples in this particular plant, the plant 2 employing about 64 people, as of January 1969. 3 Every time the air sample showed that -- with very 4 few exceptions -- one exception. in most cases -- the con 5 centration figure was well below the TLV standard. C In 1963, all but one sample were less than 4 million *4 particles and at that time the standard was 7 million. a In 1965, the Public Health Service came in and 3 took 65 samples and all but one were lesa than the 5 million, 10 less than the TLV. 1! In the following year, the Pennsylvania Department 12 of Health found that all of the samples were less than 1 13 million parts per cubic foot, and in 1967, again, ail but one U of the 32 samples uere less than 32 million parts per cubic 13 foot, but the remarkable thing about this was that people IS kept on dying and getting disabled because of asbestosis and 17 cancer of the lungs who worked in that plant, and in this 10 same period, when all of these samples were taken, 21 people 19 were terminated with a confirmed diagnosis by the company's 20 physician, as well as the union's physician, that they bed 21 asbestosis. And there was a death rate of 12% In that six22 year period from that plant. So it is all very well to have 23 a standard, but if it isn't sufficiently stringent, and if it 21 isn't accompanied by the direction of specific control measures 25 people are going to get sick and die. 512 It is not going to accomplish its stated purpose. Non, the environmental data that the Public Health Service and NIOSH have published in this document, it in 4 dicates to us the technical feasibility of the figure 2 5 level. G Even in the textile plants which were the worst 7 ones, as far as environmental solutions were concerned, the 0 lowest and the second lowest samples were under one fiber r. per cc, except one, and that was 1.4, and the judgment is k> rendered in this document that these mills probably could meet n the standard if given time to clean up the plant operations, and if we look at the secular trend data that is contained in 13 this book, thdre are two interesting points raised. M There are two textile mills that are shown in `.5 Tables 20 and 21. 16 One is Plant A, which the mean contamination rates <7 generally ran anywhere from less than one fiber per cc to 18 14 and 14* by operation, and in the major operations, there 19 were over 10 fibers per cc. In 1964, when the first study is 20 reported here, they show that between 1964 and 1970 in most of the operations / the concentration increased, and whereas most of them were over 10, now most of them in 1970 are over 15 fibers. 24 So things haven't been getting better at that 25 particular plant under our old State's regulation of 513 I occupational safety and health. However, on Table 21, which 2 provides information about another textile plant, a plant that S had a much better situation In 1965, the mean contamination < levels were between 5 and 7, or b fibers per cc; and in all 5 of those operations with the exception of one, the levels wen e reduced in the six years from 1965 to 1971. f So this, to us. Indicates that the technology is c there. ?/hat is needed is the will. The dust counts can be c reduced, but management needs the pressure of an effective sc. standard and enforcement program to compel it to meet the Si requirements. 52 One other point about the environmental data, and S3 that is the extreme variance shown among the textile mills 14 that axe Included in this survey. S5 Table 12 provides information on eight plants. SC The disparity between the lowest and the highest is 17 very severe. ID In most of the lowest plants, two fibers or less is 1S> the mean, and some are higher, but in the highest, they 20 generally run from 10 to 20.9 fibers, another indication of 21 the fact that the technological basis for a clean plant in 22 testiles is available. It needs to be used. 23 He object to the long postponement proposed by the 24 HIOSH document, and I believe the Advisory Committee in the 25 effective data of the 2-fiber standard, in view of the feet 1 Chat Chey shooed that a number of plants have improved their 2 contamination ratio, wo don't see why more than six months 2 should be required to bring the others up into line. * Much has been made in many of the industrialists' 5 statements in this bearing about the economic considerations. 3 Now, of course, we, as a union, are accustomed to 7 dealing with the companies in negotiations, and perhaps we t have developed a little more cynicism than most people, and <. any motion we make for economic improvement, we axe told that to the costs are prohibitive, and the only natural consequence : 1 is either curtailment or liquidation, and the imports will .2 come in and take over, and our balance of payments that you 13 have heard about would engulf us. K We urge you to apply an appropriate amount of 15 sodium chloride or salt to these kinds of predictions. 16 1 note that the law provides for variances, where 17 for whatever reason the company cannot meet the requirements IS immediately, the Department has the means for postponing this It effect, and we think these axe adequate fox reaching the 20 appropriate standards. 21 With respect to the use of respirators, we note that 22 the Advisory Committee recommended that, and I quote: 23 "Except for emergencies, respirators shall be used 24 only when a variance is acquired, and pending or granted." 25 Now, we want to support that as strongly as we can. I 30 | W 515 i because from our experience with workers, and anybody's experience with workers who are ordered to wear these 3 cumbersome-.aild difficult things, like respirators, they are not an appropriate control measure and should not be relied 5 upon for that purpose. 5 They should be relied upon only for emergencies 7 and periods where action is taken upon an engineering basis. 3 j With respect to the question of warnings, I can 3 certainly appreciate why industry would want to avoid danger w !1 signals on their plants and on their products, and yet this 33 ' was the most poignant thing in my experience that I have 12 come in contact with workers who are engaged in working with asbestos. S3 .Wherever X go, one of the things always said: SS "If I had only known when I came to work here that I was '.8 being exposed, I would have known, and would have been able 37 to make a decision as to whether 1 wanted to earn my living 35 this way or not, and here 1 work here for 10, 15 years, and 19 I see people getting asbestosie and cancer, and I am subject 20 to the 3amo thing, and it is unfair." 1 And 1 think it is unfair, that the people who work 22 in the factories should know whether there is a danger or not, so that they can make their choice. 24 One final word. With respect to the medical examinations, I am sure that I will not be able to add anythir S 516 fresh to this subject, because I think it has been a subject that has been discussed many times this week. I just want to say that it does seem to me, as a union representative, that information about the workers' health that may be used against him by the employer is not something that the Government should make the employer do or make available to the employer. If an employee takes a physical examination, the worker should determine what will happen to him. He should have the choice of doctors. Of course, the HEN and Department of Labor should have access to it for control purposes, but we are opposed to making these records available to the employers, who can, for their own interests, use them adversely as related to the workers. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Pexkel. Mfrn Earle. MR. EARLE: One question on this particular area. | The phnt in England that you referred to earlier, and gave the cost figures, do you mean when those plans were Implemented, what year? MR. PERKEL: Z believe it was during the 1960's. MR. EARLE: During the 1960's? > MR. PERKEL: Yes. HR. EARLE: Is that plant operating at a sero exposure level due to these controls? Do you know? 517 MR. PERKEL: I do not know. MR. EARLE: The question concerning the use of respirators; let's assume a situation where there are no engineering controls to reduce the dust levels with respect to the particular operations at this time. Let's assume that this is a situation* and would you then, rather than have the workers be required to wear respirators pending discovery o a method of engineering controls, cessation of that particular operation, which (night, because of its nature, require cessation of the use of the plan? MR. PERKEL: Well, the law specifies that each employer is obligated to provide a safe place of employment. Whatever the condition, the safe condition, or whatever, where workers are exposed to disease and injury* that should not be permitted. MR. EARLE: MO. If the respirators will lower the exposure to dust in that operation, am I understanding that you would oppose the use of respirators in that situation? MR. PERKEL: Well, it is not my opposition to it, it is that people will not wear respirators on a continuing basis for that length of time, and therefore it is bound to result in their not wearing them all the time, and their being effected by the contaminant adversely. 1 2 3 4 6 7 6 10 '< 1 \7. 13 U 15 1C end tape 17 13 16 16 20 21 22 23 7A 25 518 MR. EARLE: Do you represent any workers who deal with the final work with the textiles? MR. PERKEL: He have some plants that manufacture garments, not dealing with asbestos, but we Include knit goods, hosiery, underwear, knitted outerwear and so forth, MR. EARLE: With asbestos fibers? MR. PERKEL: Bo. As far as I know, except for special purposes, such as fire-prevention, asbestos cloth -- asbestos is not used for cloths. We don't have any plants using asbestos in clothes. MR. EARLE: Thank you. EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Pezkel. He will stand in recess until 1:30. (Whereupon, the hearing was recessed a<: 12:45 p.m., to reconvene at 1:30 o'clock, p.m., the semi day.) 519 1 AFTERNOON SESSION z 1:40 p.m. 3 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. 4 Our next witness is Mr. Taylor. S3 Would you identify yourself and give your testimony. 0 sir? *A0 0 STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. R. TAYLOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AFL-CIO STANDING 3 COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL 10 HEALTH an MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Examiner, for the record, ray name 12 is George H. R, Taylor. S3 I am a research economist in the Research Department 3.*3 of the AFL-CIO. I am Executive Secretary of the AFL-CIO ? on the Standing Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. o'-j If it please the Examiner, I would like to have ray 37 statement included in the record, and, in the interest of time IB I would like to summarize our findings and conclusions, if 13 this is agreeable to you. 20 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: If you will hand me two copies, 21 we will mark them. 22 The doauiuent entitled "Comments by the American 23 Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations 2<5 on Proposals for Standard to Protect Workers from Asbestos," 25 George H. R. Taylor, will be marked Exhibit S2. 520 (Th document referred to was marked as Exhibit No. 52 fox' identification.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: And as so marked, will be received in evidence. (The document referred to, here tofore marked for identification as Exhibit 52 received in evidence.) MR. TAYLOR: My name is George H. R. Taylor. I am Executive Secretary of the AFL-CIO Standing Committee on Safety and Occupational Health. On behalf of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, I appreciate this oppor tunity to present the views of organized labor on the criteria and recommended asbestos standards prepared by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the recommendec asbestos standard of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust appointed by the Secretary under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act. The chain of events which has led to this hearing began with a letter dated November ), 1971 to Secretary Hodgsor requesting, on behalf of the AFL-CIO and the Industrial Union Department (AFL-CIO), that he promulgate an emergency standard for asbestos under Section 6(c)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Aot of 1970. The letter included a number of n 521 8 recommendations concerning the content of such a proposed J <&n emergency standard, and an attachment containing background S information to justify our request. The Secretary, on December 7, 1971, published in 5 the Federal Register (F.R. 23207) an emergency standard on S exposure to asbestos. 7 This was followed on January 12, 1972, with a notice e of proposed rule making by the Secretary CF.R. 466 FF), which & under the Act provides that the emergency standard as publishec 10 shall serve as a rule for these proceedings. 1! In the narrowest sense this hearing is a means by 1 which interested parties are given the opportunity to comment 15 on the Secretary's proposed rule, on the criteria and recom W mended standards developed by the National Institute of 15 Occupational Safety and Health, and the recommendations of 1C the Secretary*8 Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust. 17 But wh-t is really before us is the spectre of dead 1C and dying workers, of workers permanently incapacitated, of IS unwitting victims of this deadly material exposed to it out 20 side the plant environment. 21 Far better than empty words of sympathy and indig 22 nation, would be the hammering out of a standard, strictly 23 onforces, that will reduce and bring to a stop, these dis 24 abling illnesses and these needless deaths. This is the only 25 monument that has meaning. hws-4 A 1 522 The decision making that will come from these pro2 ceedingo will give the labor movement and the public, a clear 3 conception of whether workers are as important as the machine, and whether dollar values weigh more heavily in decision 5 making than the worth and dignity of a human life. 5 Asbestos exposure is national in scope and in 7 seriousness. There may be as many as five million workers 3 actually or potentially exposed to this toxic substance as r> both the amount and variety of use of asbestos increases. Ambient asbestos particles are being breathed into the lungs 11 of unknown thousands of individuals in the general environS2 ment, adding to both the extent and complexity of the problem. As the AFL-CXO wrote to the Secretary on November 4, !4 1971 in urging an emergency asbestos standard: "The first -.5 incipient stages of asbestos diseases already exist. Only i 0 drastic and immediate action will contain and slow the develop17 ins incidence and prevalence of death and disabling disease." '3 Section 6(b)(5) of the Occupational Safety and 13 Health Act of 1970 provides that: "The Secretary in promul20 gating standards dealing with toxic materials shall set the 21 standard which roost adequately assures the extent feasible, on the basis of best available evidence, that no employee will 23 suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity, 2* even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by ouch standard for the period of his working life..." hwa-5 523 ! This subsection of the Act requires the Secretary to 2 promulgate a health standard which, "In addition to the attain 3 ment of the highest degrees of health and safety protection 3 for the employee, other considerations shall be the latest fS available scientific data in the field, the feasibility of 6 the standards, and experience gained under this and other 7 health and safety laws." 0 Asbestos is a product of many essential valuable 0 uses to industry and the home. In setting forth the position :o i of organized labor on an adequate standard, we are not pro 33 ; posing that it be outlawed, only that it be used safely and s.2 ! under approved controls and methods. We are convinced that 3j iI although it will increase the costs of doing business of I affected industries, that this can and must be done. As the Act provides, the health and safety of the worker is of the 'Cy first priority. 17 Experience with ionizing radiation, plutonium, 13 perhaps the deadliest substance in existence, radon daughters 19 gas have shown that workers earn and are being adequately 20 protected by standards governing the use of these substances. 21 But if the strongest standard is not coupled with a 22 strict and well-manned enforcement program, nothing will be 23 gained. Establishments complying of their own volition, will :iA be at a competitive disadvantage with those who do not and 25 get away with it. The health and the lives of workers and hws-6 1 the general public will to the extent of unenforced situations 2 continue to be threatened by this dangerous hazard. Without 3 adequate enforcement, the strongest standard becomes a paper 4 tiger. 5 The considerations guiding our npecific proposals 6 for an asbestos standard which follows these generalized com 7 ments are: e 1. Past standards, and even one presently used by c> the British, have been developed for control of asbestosis, 10 not cancer induced by exposure to asbestos. I 2. But mounting scientific evidence shows that V2 cancer -- lung, gastrointenstinal or mesothelioma -- is by * 13 far the more serious threat than asbestosis. W 3. The present proposals evaluated by this proceed IS ing are also designed primarily to prevent asbestosis, with to a safety factor to develop a concentration level which will 17 reduce the body burden of asbestos and more adequately guard 16 against neoplasms. 19 4. The concentration level of five fibers longer 20 than five microns per milliliter, as expressed in the Secre 21 tary's proposed temporary emergency standard, would be inade 22 quate to provide full protection against even asbestosis. 23 5. Some types of workers in asbestos, in particular 24 those in the insulation field, have a long-term average 25 exposure that does not exceed three fibers per milliliter and 525 have been shown by the work of Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, as in curring high rates of asbestosis, as well as cancers, including mesothelioma. In addition, persons living near asbestos plants, whejre environmental exposures are less than two fibers per milliliter, have become victims of cancer caused by asbestos. 6. It appears that there has been no real program, either by management or State or Federal governments, to pro vide for statistically valid sampling of concentration of asbestos dust in workplaces where it is produced. 7. The most effective means of successfully attackiijg the problem of both asbestosis and asbestos-induced cancers, is a strong exposure standard, combined with effective work practices and performance standards. Proposals for an effective asbestos standard: 1. Concentration: We endorse the recommendations of the NIOSH Criteria and the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust, calling for 2.0 fibers per cubic centimeter of air based on a count of five fibers greater than fi-e micrometers in length. However, we propose the following changes -- first that this standard become effective within six months, with no allowable concentration greater than five fibers per co., up to IS minutes per hour, but no more than five hours in any workday; second, that within one year thereafter, it be I reduoed to one fiber per cc of air. 2 2. Performance standards of compliance: Adminis 3 trative controls and work practices must be required in order 4 to achieve 2ero concentrations of asbestos dust, regardless 0 of whether the limits in Cl) above are met. 6 3. Use of respiratory equipment: We endorse the 7 recommendations contained in the NIOSH recommended standard, 8 with the plain provision that respiratory equipment be used 5) only after application for temporary variance of the standard 2ft be approved by the Secretary, and during the variance period 11 employees wearing approved respirators be given a 15 minute *2 rest period each hour of wearing. A standby respirator pro 13 gram should be ready for use for restricted periods in the 1-9 event of control equipment failure. S3 Provision should be made for dust free areas for To clothing change, cleansing, recreation or rest and food or 17 r*efreshment. 10 4. Enclosure and ventilation: Areas where asbestos 19 is used or processed, should be enclosed and well ventilated 20 to prevent other employees and persons outside from being 21 exposed. 22 5. Monitoring: We endorse the NIOSH Criteria 23 provisions for monitoring, but recommend the additional allow 24 ances for employees to wear personal monitoring equipment when 25 he desires during the shift, to operate such equipment; to 527 I monitor concentrations of asbestos; to allow employee repre2 santatives access to the monitoring process and records done 3 and kept by management and check the management data. 4 6. Records: We support the NIOSH criteria document S and recommendations of the Advisory Committee with these 8 further proposals: Records of monitoring, including personnel 7 monitoring, sampling and maintenance of control equipment, a shall be kept in. duplicate by the National Institute for 3 Occupational Safety and Health. They should be entered on a 53 log provided for this purpose, maintained currently and kept S3 for at least 20 years. Personal exposure records shall be S2 made available to workers at request, at least annually, and S3 on separation from employment, a cumulative record shall be 14 furnished the worker. S3 7. Medical examinations: We propose that in addiS3 tion to the criteria documents provisions on medical examin 17 ations, there be included the strongest protections over 13 confidentiality of records. The worker should be allowed to 13 be examined by a physician of his choice at the expense of 50 his management. Results and records of such examinations 21 should be considred as the property of the worker, not to be 22 released to anyone without his permission except the Depart 23 ment of Health, Education and Welfare. 24 8. Employee warnings and labeling: We endorse the 25 provisions of the criteria document in this area, with the 528 additional requirement that the employer notify workers of their overexposure to concentrations of asbestos, and inform them of the steps taken to correot the situation. 9. New workplaces, or processes using asbestos or products containing asbestos: Any new plant using suoh pro ducts, or any existing plant inaugurating of a process involving the use of asbestos shall be required to notify the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary shall with the cooperation of the Institute, immediately undertake a special inspection of the plant or process so involved. 10. Work practices manual on asbestos: We endorse the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dusts that such a manual be prepared and given the widest dissem inations among management and employees and their unions, and the various States. 11. Federal employees: Agencies of the Federal Government must be required, by Executive Order, if neoassary, to impose this standard and enforce on all Federal workplaces where the hazard exists. 12. Coordination with other Federal agencies: The closest coordination should be maintained with the Atomio Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Administration, the Department of Defense, Food and Drug Administration, and other Federal agencies to carry out the intent of this standard. 529 I 13, The Secretaries of Labor and HEW should, within 2 30 days after this standard becomes effective), call meetings S of labor and management groups to discus3 the means of mutual 4 achievement of the goals of this standard. G Thank you. 6 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. 1 You are excused. 0 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. 0 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Mr. Samuels. SO STATEMENT OF SHELDON W. SAMUELS, TS DIRECTOR OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, 12 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, S3 INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO 14 MR. SAMUELS: Mr. Goldberg, may I introduce our >D research assistant, who, in the last part of this presentation 16 operate our audio visual equipment, Miss Sherry Sullivan. 17 Let me say, to begin my statement, that it should 10 be obvious that there are great advantages to being nearly 19 last in this prolonged hearing. 20 As you know, Mr. Goldberg, I did not plan it that 21 way. But it has provided me with an important overview whioh 22 I intend to exploit. 23 Most other witnesses provided you with a pedigree. 24 I, too, have one. Suffice it to say that I, too, went to a 25 famous university -/here I earned a degree and went on to do 530 hws-12 1 multidisciplinary graduate research and university teaching, 2 among other and more important things, none of which prepared 3 me to really solve the basic issue before us. 4 The issue was made crystal clear at your pre-hearing 5 conference when the Asbestos Information Service attempted to 6 prevent Danny Maciborski from being heard, referring to him 7 in a disgustingly unmentionable manner. I did hot reply be e cause I knew that Colin Neal of the Papermakers would do so more diplomatically. I knew that Danny's quiet bravery would ! ic- make a liar of Mr. Walsh. si Danny asked me to give you a copy of this broadside :2 distributed to every Johns-Manville employee by the so-called 13 "information service." Its title belies the nightmare America] 14 workers face: Asbestos and health. Its omissions and decep 15 tions make a farce of life itself. 13 Danny didn't ask to be heard for dramatic effect. 17 He was trying to tell you that more than the company's ad IS mittedly advanced environmental control and medioal surveil 19 lance program was needed to reduce the risk to other workers. 2C The issue is whether human life can be traded off 21 in the marketplace, whether workers must really face death 22 on the job. The law, an expression to the negative, has no 23 meaning to the corporate giants you have heard from. The law & makes irrelevant international competition and Bimiliar 25 economic considerations. There are other forums and other n 531 t devices to deal with these important but ill-placed problems. 2 But we should place into the record a letter from S Dr. Borov; which may be useful on another occasion to demon 4 strate that the industry claim to great concern and investment 5 did not extend to providing $3,000 to help the medioal pro 3 fession prepare themselves in that area for the impending 7 epidemic of mesothelioma Dr. Borow identified in 1967. 0 As a footnote, you should know that the $3,000 was 9 gathered gladly from the pockets of the several unions that to represent the workers in the Johns-Kanville Corporation. I 19 would like to place in the record another letter, from the 92 Department of Health, Education and Welfare, that indicates 13 that far from joining in an open and scientific inquiry, the ?5 industry forced from the Government a vow of secrecy as a SO condition of their pre-1971 investigations. SS The consequence of their action is that the full 17 evaluation of their claims about the technical feasibility 13 of any environmental standard in the 37 plants investigated 13 by the Public Health Service may never be possible. It is 20 difficult to develop pangs of sympathy for the companies 21 involved. 22 We are .fortunate, however., to have an evaluation of 23 this secret information by nn agency that 'mehow has managed 24 to maintain its integrity despite the conditions under wnich 3 it muyt work. An analysis of that evaluation is an important 532 part of our presentation this afternoon* It will be the last part of my presentation. Before doing this, however, I want to quickly sum marize our views of the proposed standard taken as a whole. Dr. Wright yesterday referred to a "personal com munication" from Dr. Stockinger of NIOSH, in which he was quoted as saying that the ACGIH tlv Committee "found no evidence to indicate that it should be changed I called Dr. Stockinger yesterday afternoon for clarification. He told me that no evidence related to the is sue of cancer was discussed. The five fiber standard, he said, was based on evidence from asbestosis studies. While the incidence of asbestosis nay be reduced by this standard, he said, the Committee merely assumed that this would mean a likely reduction in cancer. There is no evidence that this would be the case. He was apparently unaware of the existence of two key tendrils of evidence: Dr. Selikoff's letter of October 18, 1371 to Dr. Marcus Key, which I submit, questioning the ability of British standards to prevent mesothelioma, based on a raport of the Medical Director of Turner, Hawaii; Murphy's report that month in ARRD cf two cases of mesothelioma in which the workers may have been exposed to 1.2 and 1.3 fibers. Prankly, if we had been aware of- this evidence when to we requested an emergency standard* we would have demanded a one fiber limit instead of two. It is the basis for asking for such a standard at this time. Further* we are prepared to support its feasibility. In view of the lack of data (admitted by the indus try) clearly supporting any safe exposure which would not result in cancer among workers* in view of the recent FDA report noting that permissible levels of carcinogens as a practical matter will usually result in zero* in view of the fact that this hearing has heard even the industrial witnesses question the validity of current sampling methods, and in view of the unavailability cf .rained technicians in industry and government to sample and count* a second and independent stand* rd it must also exist. !7 Here we are referring to what Dr. Nicholson refers J to as a performance standard. Here we are guided by a comment 17 of Jack Baliff. a New York State hygienist and a member of 13 the Secretary's Asbestos Advisory Committee* that equipment 15 and work practices should be designed for zero emissions. For ZQ many applications this is now possible. Z\ When the equipment fails or is not immediately 22. available, then it is oi contention that an expected or 23 measured level of one fiber should trigger a temporary vari 24 ance procedure during which respirators may be used during 25 the period of variance. 1 The employer should provide and require a respira 2 tory protective device at his cost to exposed workers. Employees 3 required to wear respirators must be provided with rest periods 4 of at least 15 minutes for each hour during which the devices 5 are worn. A respirator program needs to be maintained on a 6 standby status for use not to exceed 72 hours per worker and 7 not to exceed two weeks from the time of Initiation. 8 In other words, we should aim at zero emissions and c< initiate emergency procedures at one fiber. Within a six 10 month transition period, we would recommend a two fiber limit, n within two years one fiber, and ultimately naught. The time 12 table is generous in view of the implied advice to drop their i:i levels at least to two fibers in a letter from the Public w Health Service, submitted here for the record, dated more than is three years ago. 1(5 If further research indicates that this is unneces*: 17 aarily stringent, any industry or person may request a new 18 standard of the Secretary. Industry already has had more than 19 the 30 years necessary to explore the possibility of a less 20 stringent standard. 21 I can assure you that we will not stand idly by for 22 another 30 years while they make guinea pigs of our people, 23 as they suggest. ?<1 But other measures are also warranted. 25 Each employer must be required to provide dust-free 535 areas for personal cleansing, rest and food or refreshment intake. Dr. Borow reports a case of a former stock boy who, after 18 months exposure, developed mesothelioma 24 years after exposure. All employees must be protected. Cases of relatives of workers contacting mesothelioma have become almos' common. The policy of the Labor Department on this point is aallously irresponsible. We have asked formally and in formally for action. None ha6 even been suggested, either as an action of the Department or of the Environmental Pro tection Administration. Areas of asbestos processing or application should be enclosed and ventilated to prevent asbestos dust exposure ! of other employees. Control equipment should be regularly ]l inspected and maintained each week with a log kept of such I j services. This data will be more important than sampling j j data for day-to-day enforcement. I The criteria document recommendations for labeling should be followed for each container of asbestos from the mine to the consumer. The label should include in the lower quadrant a skull and crossbones. Enlarged labels Cno less that 20" by 20") of identical color should serve as warning signeo and posted every SO feet in every plant where asbestos is used. The recommendations on monitoring of the criteria hws-18 536 document should be followed with the additional provision that each employee exposed to any amount of asbestos must be per 3 mitted to wear his own personal monitoring equipment at suoh 4 times as he wishes. B Similarly * an employee representative must be per- 6 t mitted to operate such equipment as will monitor ambient con 7 centrations. In any plant where asbestos dust concentrations 3 can be expected to exceed the one fiber limit without engineer P ing control methods, such plant should have a continuous IP statistically valid random sampling to monitor the efficiency of the controls, and to provide a flow of information on the 112 basis of which emergency action may be taken. 33 Employees or their representative should be enabled 2-1 to observe each step of the monitoring process, to note any '.15 result of measurement, and to corroborate these with his own *3 measurements and instrumentation. 'i(7 In other words, some of our unions are offering to sa supplement the measures of industry and government with tech 19 nicians we will train and equip at our own co9t. Some unions 20 already have hygienists and engineers able to do this work. 21 The medical examination recommendations of the 22 criteria document are satisfactory with the following quali 23 fications: The employer shall provide the cost of suoh exam 2* inations to be conducted by a physician ahosen by the employee. 25 All records and results of such examinations should be the property of the employee and released only to such persons as he chooses and to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (who may not release them to the employer), who shall hold them inder conditions of strict confidentiality. We are opposed to medical records being kept by the employers. We have no faith in the ability of company doc tors to fulfill an unbiased patient-physician relationship. Ho employer can guarantee that his records will be confidential or even that there will be a company in existence to keep them. Some companies, especially joint ventures, are specifically created as temporary corporate structures for ad hoc purposes. Lives which depend upon good records must not be involved in this kind of vagary. Most important, even though we recognize that many company doctors provide acceptable and often excellent ser vices, any employee who lacks confidence in the judgment of physician directly responsible to his employer should have the right to choose another source of medical service. Danny Maciborski passed a medical examination pro vided by a Johns-Manville employed physician only a few weeks before his own physician diagnoced mesothelioma. The only records to be kept by the employer should pertain to inspection of control equipment and personal environmental sampling, copies of which should be maintained 530 I in duplicate by the Department of Health, Education and Welfar<. 2 All such records should be kept current, entered in a pre 3 scribed log on the day of measurement, and available to 4 employees for at least 20 years. a No new or substantially modified workplaces using . 6 asbestos or asbestos-containing products should be permitted 7 to begin operation without notification to the Secretary of 6 Labor. Given the time lag of source identification and avail C' ability of inspectors, years may go by without any preliminary 70 determination of compliance. 11 At this point, sir, I would like to conalude our 7 > presentation by graphically illus trating the following 73 points. 7 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Now, before you do, we have a 15 problem of getting this into the record. 13 MR. SAMUELS: I have one Xerox of these charts, and 17 "X will be happy to supply a second. IS (Slide.) * IS MR. SAMUELS: Many operations and some"plants are 20 already below a one fiber limit. 21 With good housekeeping they would approach zero. 22 Less than this standard would, in effect, become a 23 license to unnecessarily expose workers to a carcinogenic . "' ZA standard for whioh no safe level has been established. ' 25 (Slide.) 1 MR. SAMUELS: Many operations in some plants are 2 already below two fibers, but above one. 3 Fof control equipment i9 not now commercially avail 4 able , a stringent standard will create a market for its 5 design and production. 13 No such market currently exists. It would be fool 7 ish for control equipment manufacturers to venture capital in 3 the design of controls for which there is no demand. 0 In A, the data shown here, and in subsequent charts 10 are based 15 minutes to one hour samples taken in large number 11 They are considered doss to time weighted average 12 exposures. 13 All of this data, I might add, comes from the u criteria documents. u It should be noted that when consideration is given 13 to feasibility of engineering control in coupling and finish 17 ing, the individual high sample was 13.4, and the lowest and S3 seoond lowest samples were zeroes. 13 Warehousing and mixing, 3.1 fibers were the highest 20 means by operation, and the lowest were .4 and .5, to below 21 the two fiber standard. 22 About 75 percent of the mean measurements were 23 below two fibers. 24 This chart shows the average for an entire operation 23 in different friction plants. Over 50 percent were below 540 1 two fibers. 2 The dates in the data would indicate that these 3 were 1966 and 1969 samplings. 4 This is one plant over time, 1966 to 1969, and 1971. 5 It demonstrates the great variability of the same operation C in the same plant, inferring, perhaps, the possibility that 7 with more attention paid to maintenance, a good portion of 8 the problem can be alleviated. In textile operations, D, data from eight plants if. show the individual low of .4 concentrations shown here, >1 where, in all cases, which were in all cases below one fiber P2 per cc, except fiber preparation, which was 1.4 fibers. S3 Next, asbestos insulation plants are supposed to be *4 one of the worst kinds of plants to control, but all the loss 15 values are under the two fibers that NIOSH recommends, and 13 also, the second lowest are also under it. Values on this M graph are the total operations of the plant. Over 40 percent 18 of the values are under the two fibers per cc. 19 Next, here we have a rare bit of data. 20 This comes from the Johns-Manville plant, and it 21 was given us by the local union who received it in a report 22 from NIOSH. 23 The large samples show some secular transits which 24 are very, very interesting. 25 1967 is the worst year with most, the largest I percentage being above 12 fibers per cc 5**1 ?. In 1965 to 1971, the majority of measures were above 3 the Walsh/Healey standard by 5.1 percent. <3 Note that that is a Walsh/Healy plant, and let the 5 record show that the Department of Labor was informed of this Cl fact. 7 The fact is that if you look at the bottom line, C the blue line, you will see that without any great change in g process the company was able to achieve a standard that at 10 least approached two percent. it I admit that these numbers are not time weighted 12 averages, although we have been assured by the Public Health n Service that they are close to these averages. K These long term secular trends, I think, indicate to the case for maintenance and controls that we have Been thus ts far. 17 Thank you, sir. '> That ends the presentation. IS EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Before we get to discussion, 20 let's straighten out this exhibit problem. 21 You have a certain amount of letters and documents 22 that you referred to in your your testimony. 23 MR. SAMUELS: Yes, sir. I do. 24 I wonder, before I offend ray brothers in two other 25 unions, if I may also introduce into the record, Mr. Goldberg, 1 Eiome comments of the United Lime and Gypsum Workers) and com 2 ments by the International Printing Pressmen Union which sup 3 port our position. 4 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: I believe 1 am taking these in 5 the record as they appeared in your testimony. 6 MR. SAMUELS: Yes. 7 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit 53, a Xerox of a documen-: e entitled "Asbestos and Health, Questions and Answers," and c would you prepare, as I go along, a duplicate of each of 10 these and hand them to Mr. Blair? . 1 MR. SAMUELS: Yes. -.2 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: That document is Exhibit No. 53. 13 (The document referred to was U marked for identification as '15 Exhibit No. S3.) 13 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit Number 54 is a letter 17 from Dr. Maxwell Borow, to which is attached a reprint of 10 an article, is that correct? 1& MR. SAMUELS: That is correct. 20 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: All right. 21 That is Exhibit Number 54. 22 (The dooument referred to was 23 marked for identification as f* Exhibit No. 54.) 25 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit 55, a letter to Mr. 543 Sheldon W. Samuels, on the letterhead of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, dated March 3, 1972. That is Exhibit No. 55. (The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 55.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 56, a letter addressed to Dr. Marcus M. Key, MD., dated October 18, 1971, from Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, with an attached table. That is marked for identification a8 Exhibit No. 56. (The document referred to waB marked for identification aa Exhibit No. 56.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 57, a letter, dated November 24, 1971, to Mr. Sheldon W. Samuels, on the letter head of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to which are attached a number of other documents. That will be marked as Exhibit No. 57. (The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 57.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 58, comments of the United Lime and Gypsum Workers, International Union, proposed standards on asbestos dust. That is Exhibit No. 58 J (The document; referred to was 2 marked for Identification as 3 Exhibit No. 58.) 4 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 59, a letter, dated 5 February 25, 1972, on the letterhead of the IPP and AU, 5 Special Project, Respiratory Diseases, addressed to the 7 Office of Safety and Health Standards. 3 That is Exhibit No. 59. o, (The document referred to was V> marked for identification as 1) Exhibit No. 59.) 12 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Now, the graphs. 13 MR. SAMUELS: May we, sir, if the record is going a to be open, attach additional narratives which I have skipped is over for the sake of time for the record at a later date for 2 V* the graphs? 17 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The reoord will be kept open ia for ten days for additional comments. 19 Exhibit No. 60 is a graph, entitled "Asbestos Cement, 20 Pipe, Plants," carrying the capital letter A thereon. 21 That will be Exhibit No. 60. 22 (The document referred to was 23 marked for identification as 24 Exhibit No. 60.) 26 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 61, a graph. 5^5 entitled `'Asbestos Friction Plants ," carrying the capital letter B. That will be Exhibit No. 61. (The document referred to was marked for identifioation as Exhibit No. 61.) oEXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 62, a graph entitled "Asbestos Friction Plants,n with the capital letter C. That will be Exhibit No. 62. (The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 62.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 63, a graph, entitle! "Asbestos Textile Plants," capital letter D. That will be Exhibit No. 63. (The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 63.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 64, a graph entitled "Asbestos Insulation Plants," capital letter E. That will be Exhibit No. 64. The document referred to was marked for identifioation as Exhibit No. 64.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Exhibit No. 65, a graph entitled 546 "Johns-Manville Plant, Secular Trends," capital letter F. That will be Exhibit No. 65. (The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit No. 65.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: On the record. Will there be examination of Mr. Samuels? Mr. Savbrouin. MR. SAVBROUIN: As you know} I represent Johns- Manville in Canada, and we are quite interested and involved in building products, and 1 did note that Mr. Samuels, with the last presentation of the last day of this week's confer ence, is directly impugning the figures that might have been presented or spoken about, commented on by the Johns-Manville spokesman we heard two days ago. I would ask, very respectfully, and in all fairness and in the proper procedure, we should be given communication of the exhibits just filed, as well as the presentation of Mr, Samuels, with the permission of the Chairman, so that within the week after the receipt of these exhibits and this presentation we w >uld be in a position to comment upon the same. This is the last presentation -- the exhibits, and 547 1 I asked Mr* Samuels If he had copies of same for ub, and he 2 aoesn't have them, and as they have, it seems, have some 3 quite important features of them, and I do not consider myself ; qualified to analyze them, I would respectfully ask that the 5 presentation of Mr. Samuels and his exhibits, if not given 5 us immediately, within as short a delay as possible, and we 7 be given a week thereafter to let you have, please; Mr. 3 Chaix-'inan, our comments. 3 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: I will consider your application . MR. SAVBROUIN: That is very kind of you, sir. 511 MR. SAMUELS: May I volunteer? U Our exhibits and presentation are available to you, S3 and I will make them available to you. j EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Anything further of Mr. Samuels? :3 (No response.) j j MR. SAMUELS: I see, sir, there are some advantages iy to being last* ;3 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Quite obviously, the last shall S3 not be the least. 20 Mr. Savbrouin, the record is still open, you still 21 have an opportunity to testify, sir. 22 You are excused, Mr. Samuels. d We have now exhausted our list of witnesses, if fii nothing else. 25 MR. DeGREGORIO: Mr. Examiner, just a question of -- 1 hws-30 1*A* 5^.8 | clarification, please. 2 V.hat do you mean by a ten day period of post3 hearing comments and documents, I assume, and do you mean ten working days or calendar days, and when will the period start s running, please? a EXAMINER GOLDBERG: The record will be kept open 7 for tan days for the receipt of comments and duplicate ex0 hibits. n In other words, all comments, documents, exhibits 10 must be received by the close of business March 27. 1! If there is nothing further, I want to thank every one for their courtesy, their decorum, their patience in the i 3-1 33 13 17 18 13 20 21 conduct of this hearing. I especially want to express my appreciation to the supporting staff of OSHA, who assisted in the technical arrangements. I know Mr. Blair, but not others, although I have seen the faces from time to time. I now declare the hearing closed. (V/hereupon, at 2:30 o'clock, p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.) 22 23 24 25