Document DvY6n7qKQZ1LbNaZL9M1JMbjO

FILE NAME: ZZZ DATE:D DOC#: OCUMENT DESCRIPTION:>dZZ>Z,Z Z '."'.~'i~~WEf:?iv~;::..:;.;: .~",'" .....,i 7"'":.\t!j':'~!{"\:''';::'''{nfr':': :ii;",'':'N"j: '"';l~t;;:~~ff " j - ,. , ' ;.'. ",' OFFIciAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS' before the :/" of .the U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ,Y,.. L-;'.'. ,- ~ ." I' . '.' Docket No. ID the matter of STAND.I\RD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST #,.- Pl\OPOSED RULE MAKINGO / PUl;LIC HEA lUNG Place: Washington, D.C. Date: March 15,' 1972 Paaggeew-llCe 4 HOO. VER REPO.RT. IN. G ,COMl'ANY, . IN. C. " CJ6it;IIII:.,.,." . w........ D. cli . 646-6666 .'J,." "~. '.:. " " .. ' . ..-. ' _ __' t ___ .. .._.-.JT'_~'_' ___ ..-:...;.: '. , ' ~ ,; . ", .. '. , . . ,. . : ,',;..... <r ' ~~ ~ "  i 1 I 2 I.3 I 4 I I 5 () I! 7 11, I \ 8 I i ! I 9 , , I :Ij 1 I'~ I' " To ,I ,. : L ..~ ~ :l~' I !: l r !I ~., :' E ~: ~:, I' I ,,. : .J' :~ .'i: . ':i;. ( "I: !I Ii' ;j I I' ;9 It I, 'I :1 " : ~?- '1 I !l ;~n r ~ !i; .. :;:r Ii nH,~ ?!~ ,.;i ,I . .. " ~ !", ., ~ I:, ., .', I' " ... :~ i ~ .' /.-:5 ".; , " ?.:, OCCUP1\I]'I01\f!\,L 3j.\J.i'l'::rry P.HD H:C~,i\Vl1n 2\m,1INISTHNr'!ON HEJl.TlU1GS ON HTmmii,m) 1?OI~ EXPO!mRF. 'ri'o ASF.l'!!':Sfl'08 DeSs'!l' Co~'ference Room 13 c. D~~pal~'\:mcnt CelIf: Labc.'r W:l.shinq":ol'l., D., iJlOlv1av I i'1arec11 ~. 5 , 1972 ./ " !"!OI'f79.f--'''':_AA",,,,,,,'".."":,,,",_ _ _ _~~."......,...,....."-;>1:......................- ....... ,............., , '"" . " .~'" iC " ... _.C.. O.N .. -TE... N_-T-S.... WITNESSES: Alvv1in Gross" W. Clark Cooper Dunecan A. Holaday Stephen Holmes Clilfttford L. Sheokler J. Spenoer Royer Charles Zumwalt' Albert H. FflY , Matthew M. Swetonic Isaap H. Weaver John H Marsh, Joaseph Leonard John L. Ra1lney Albert Vv. Sch1nner Eddd1ie Story - _ NUMBERS: .E.. -X-- ..H......I...B... IT...S- 22 23 24 thru 35 25 thru 35 36-A 36.~B 37 38 and 39 40 --- IDENTIFIED 106 106 150 170-A 170 ... A 17o0-B 178 192 . PAGE 104 ' 113 128 142 172-B 170-L 170-P 171 178 193 198 202 209 212 216 RECE'IVEU 107 106 :55 " 1....5..,.,1.. 170-A 170-A 170-B 178 192 ;:,,,i .. f,' ' . ' I I. . '0 ,$. W W j aas pas" ',i' i : ; M#.W= $;: If 4 4i 51 ( $ D4 , i" .", L$illiIi ii .. " j ;; . 178 I (The doc~nt above rofe~ed. to ,t' .2 was marked.as Exhibit NO. 3a8 3 fo:t identi.fication.). 4 EXAMINER GOOLLDDBBEDRG: All right, MIl. PAY:. And tbe seco~d none 1s the Asbestos rac t .. 8 Sheet conc~mina the U$es of asbestos ~d a8~to8 pS'Oducts . ' .. 7 EXAMINER. GOLDBERG: 'Tlbhat ~.111 be Exh~b~t 39. 8 (The document above refez:ed.to was markQd as ixhil)it No. 39 10 for identification.) EXAMIND GOLDBl!RG; Thank you. Exhibits 3& 'and 39 are recelv~d 13 (The documents previously identi- 14 fied as EXhibits NOs. 3& and 39 15 -v,ero rac:e:1.ved in evidence.) ..,. I 16 EXAMINER GOLDBRERG: Introduce yoursalf. t7 MR. Slm~OllIC: l.fy name is MAttbe~ U. Suetonic, and 13 I. am El:CCt.lC:LvC! SecrcC"u:y of thoe Asbestos Information Associa- tion ot North }~ar!c4 and also ~~~agQr of special projects to in tbe Publ~c Affairs Scct;.on for tile Johns-l<!anvil1e Corpora- tion. lb:. F4y i1..as already described. the asSOc.iatioDj and 23 id~ntifie.d the companies which it r~presents. We are basi~al1 an info~tion disseminating organ:~ation and tbefacts Of Opillion~J. contained 1n my preselltation 4lre supported j.n the :. J. ~ . 119 I 'medical literature oX' c6its'titute the "professional opin10n of 2 medical and techrt:t.:cs'l eliJerts availaole' to' the indus try as 3 consultants. 4 The asuestos industry has recognized for many years . !S that' thexe axe occupational health, hazards associated w'ith the excessive inhalation of as~eetos dust. Recognizing ~ts 7 o&lligation to protect its ,~or~ters, the industry has over the a years investe~ many millions of dollars 1n ~ophlsticated and 9 highly efficient equipment to reduce as&)estos dust' levels in 10 the work places generally accepted safe li~its. Some $100 million has ueen invested for this purpose in the past decade alone. ! just might point out in reference to some of the I 53 teatimony that was gi'len this morning tLlat alutost exclusively I , I , '. I this equipment wns designed to pre'Jent eXl)oElure at i:he source, . IS dust collection equip~ent of the type that was descrioed for y 18 in the inculat:i.on trade but on a nluch, much larger scale 17 again not protecting th~ t:orlter., out protecting him from the 18 dust uefore it aver gets to him. 19 1'he gener.al:, position t>:i.t~liQ the 5.nduGtry is that rA-' 20 would never like to see a man ever have to wp.ar a respirator, 21 for example. The source is the place to sto~ ex~osure. 22 Over the ye~rs, acccptllule safe liulits for aSiJCstos 23 exposure has ucen lOlIIlercd a nUlniJer of tUlles uy various lJodies, 2"' including NMeGIlH and others. The industry has ~Jorked hard to .LU 180 I is, ueing faced with the poasiu111ty of yet another decrease 2 in the af.:cept8ule li:nits for asuestos exposure . I.n .the past, 3 each oe\oJ standard was acce.pted oy the induf'try uecause the . 4 developing medical evidence indicated that ~ew lower' limits 5 might indeed be necessary~ This is certainly not the case Ci with the two..fiuG% standard proposed. uy th~ National Institute 7 of Occupational safety and Health. 'rhe medica~' urief pre-' 8 pared oy NIOSll in support of the ttoJo ...filler limit, in our 9 opinion, falls far sbort of estalllishing the necessity of such 10 n standard. 11 The criteria document, in fact, states quite clearly on page D-10 that "the llUlllller of studies that have 13 collected both environmental and medical data and with a 14 si.gnif:lcant ntlmoer of exposed t'lorkers is not Gufficient.' to 15 establish a meaningful standard based upon firm scientific 16 data. I11I 17 If this i3 true, then the question must be aflked: 18 upon t.,hat data shall a standard be nosed? If we are going tCJ 1~ basoe our standard upon ,,,hat others have done, which is the 20 basic app:;:oach that NIOSH had taken, then tovlee are running 2Z1I a):ound in circles, 0C?cause if specific data is not availaole 22 to us today" then it could not possiuily have ueen availaole 25 to others when .they developed their Gf;andards in the ~ast. 24 The s5JUple tru:h is that no one, NIOSH included, ~ knO\'ls for sure t~hat: a safe occupational standard sbould &le. ',flt.', .;'j.3A ' ((Piikk ,S 24 ',-"" .' :,' ' 14 '" 2 2 . ' a ass 4P2AUt45 :scytliUiI, ".!:.s, Ji,i . R i,' ..liAt' Ii; ~-. A.I..,':- " ,!UiJ )2(, ',',", '9t: ", I . " 1 181 " There is g~neral agr~~m.;~,~ among the' ,'pr~~ess~c;1nals studying th .-2 problem that it sho'uld p~obalilly oe' lowel;, than 12 flibers per' " I " 3 cc, out how Dlucb io,,~e'r, is'" a question, 'that' has not been answered to evexyone t S sat1sfaction,',The main reason for this 5 is that the disease we 41:,e, eeeing tod!1Y is t~he result of 6 conditions that existed lO,or 30 or 40 years ago, at a time', 7 when,todayl's highly sophisticated dust collection equipment 8 "0389 not readily ,availaole and toJhen ooth the industry and the' if medical profeSSion knew ,relatively little about the hazards 1,. of asbestos dust. 11 This point has been made repeatedly oy the doctors t2 testifying before, this hearing. 13 We s~ply do not know for sure what the dust levels 14 were in those days, out there is every indication that they IS t'lcre enol."mousl.y higher than they are today. For this reason, 16 as tn0l.1Y doec to:;:s have pointed out, taU! must be very careful 17 aiJout 'looLc.ing at today's condit1,ons and today's disease and " trying to drat] a parallel boett'Jeen the two. Such a parallel 1~ does not exist, and this can lead to some very erroneous 2.0 conclusions. 21 -, Le t me give you an example. ' 22 It l~s DGen reported uy some researchers studying 23 tlbl.a ineula~i:0t:l", trades in this country that the dust con- ~ ditions that exist today on insulation jou sites and in ship. JW"li ; .~. ~~, . .. u 4= '4 aUt eomass s sa all 1: 4Q$ it!;;1: $ :a Jjj :: (4 i I ( ;,: ".2 ; $ ; , ',- 182 . 1 led to a calculation that the very high death rate found 2 among these men is . ~. directly atJ;ributaole to l~'vels of .arou~d : 3 three fil)e~s per cc. The evidence is suostantial that this 4 calculation is inaccurate. S I ~ sub~itting with my test~o~y a paper ,~hich & ,describes the decreasing. asbestos content 0' insulations used 7 in the trades over the pas t 30 to 40 years. You 1:~ill recall 6 that this basic question about the levels of 'exposure in the 9 past amons these people,was orought up yesterday by 10 Dr. Nicholson and under question by t.tr. Shecltler .. The ilasic 11 document ',(vhlch substantiates the conclusion that the levels 12 are considerably different, although t4e don't lcnow tiha t they 13 ~i(~re 1.0 years ago, out toie do ltno't-J I':hey t'>ere muc h higher, i s U containcd in this paper t~hich ! have here entitled, "Changin~ 15 COllcepts of Insulation ~latariai." 16 I \o)i.ll noi: go into the details of what is contained 17 in this paper, except to submit it. 15 Vor. e:::ample, I suumit this paper r..ot to discredit: 19 any researcher t G \o,orl.:. Obviously', I am not in a pOSition 1:0 21) do that, but merely to point out as others have done, the 21 enormous d,ifficulty one encounters in trying to establish ~2 meaningful numerical standards. 23 In addi.t:i.on, as Dr. Holmes pointed out fn his ~4 testimony, the evidence seems to indicate that more importance' 25 I1I1 should be given to peak exposures in evaluating disease. .~'~t;,,, i '" , ,"\J.'.'~ vue 4 ""C"CCCpPCe J$a;,J" 5 lJJ! 11. ,J! ii ij ii Jt i . I!Ij. 3.83 1 potential than to time ~'~eighted aver.ages. a For e!tt.tnlple, in the tearout of old il'lGulat5.ons 3 aboard ship) tho British have counted levels as high as 4 3bOO fibers per cc:, ~.,j.th a mean ranging t)et~'Jeen 3.59 fibers . . . S per cc and 353 f1.ber.s per cc. Today, . of course, men perfoxminl G th1$ work ore p~otecte~ by air supply respirators. Thirty 1 years ago, when t.hey r.eceived exposures that led to tl~ir a present disease) Chey ~,e%e not GO protected. 9 The doctors are generally agreed that the lung's i() eb:i.J.:tcy t;o clcanGc, itseJ. of accumulated dUGt \muld be, 'Il1 .n\~ ~~ I III fl3 !I l4 II1. :lcz , I I !~ I,! ij1 sel~iol1sJ.y i:educcd ~t ~;uC!h h:i.gh levels, yet a i:irae ...weighted :::~J7: i:1 !.:O-b)m: 't;:edk rni.ght ShO'Il1 aCl relat:i..vely low level. out /:0 be i:caaon.eb?y lnOcie::':lte. 18 Thus, :;i.n tha opinion of most experts, Cime-t~eighted il9 a'tlJJeerages can be ver:y m:j.slead~.ng 1. the meD are periodically :0 exposed to fiber. levels so high t~~t the lung's cleansing 21 machanicm, fail::; consido3:.'lbly in its ability to rid the lung 22 of occUl'.lulai:ad fiiJcer.. If, as the experts have told us, the ~3 lungs can l~emO\1e 99% of: .~ll inhaled particles, including 24 asbestos f:t;:cr, thp.n a reduction in the clean~:i.ng function of 25 ovoen a' fcet' percent tiill inc:r:eese the am01.ln'&: of :fEibiDeerr reta:f.ned ";-" ,'" VI' +: a:; " F" , . " - - - __ I - - - - - , . - - - - ."-.--.--~-. - ' - - - ' - " - ' - - " ' " ----...-..-~~..........- .. ---~.-;. If F . .. ... '-, 1,1 1 by that many mRgnitudea'I' ., ... 2 !n addition to these ~easons, there are excellent 8 technological snd economi.c reasons f'or not p,:om111gating too 4 st:1:ict a e'.me-tJeigbted average, a~'\d instead placing more, 6 attention on el~inating the high peak'exposu~es. The industr If.i .is in the . pxocess of . txying to develop accurate data with re- 7 gard to eco~omic impac t.' 8 M~. Fay ~ef,e'1:red to th;.,s :Ji.n his prese1.1tation. 9 'He :u:(~ ~]o:r:l<:ing hard on tb:ts problem vlith OSHA, 10 Eu'!:cau of: Si;andm:c1~, and t-1ith '~I'l:hLtr D. Little. \oJh:i.le it 11 'o:t:l.J. l~a ~orl!e ~:ecks oafo~~c , final ' :r:5.gu'):eo ";;iill1l be a'ln:tlable, 'i2 car.J.y co{;:i.maton :i.ndicnCe that: the cost to tile' :i.l1dustry, of 1t\ [j~!lot5.ng a i:,-:c .. f:i.bel~ :)t&ndarcl ,1.n thoae s.actions of the industr.y 14 r,:ber.c cl~ch a stcncial:d :i.Bs Zcasiblc J t'lould be in the vici:lit.y 'J5 of $200 million. 16 In recommending a standard of ~)O I fibers per CC~ 17 the ettonC01..10 ~IH;\.unpr.;ion haas been made i:hat Ct.:oday 1 s tech- 1'l8 noloGY ::.s C .~'ablc of lo~mr.ing the l.c'iels in each and every 18 asbestos operation Co i:t-:o :i:ibcr.s. Past eJtperience tqould 20 ~.ndj.cat;c that in a si:~oblc number. of oper.ations it to)il1 ue ~1 :i.r~1pon~:lblc to ,.:cdur.e tbe levels to ttoJO filblers, no matter how ?.2 mucb mroDonnney is Gpaeut. 23 'i"~~. t'h''c "i:)0 1... .~...~..":"es , the operations obviousl.y \'lould have 24 to 1Imm Zlhi.lllll: d!)'(.;n ~:'l.'\d the meIll throt}}O out: of '\>:0,:1(.. Wo' have only . . 26 a ve~y rough iC:crt at t:his time hot) large n segment: of the ,?\f" \ .... Itji I i AA ""\\ ;;:: ""II "")).",,", 'iU.'!'!""JP,. "J.!i"ll';' }f4I'U I 2 3 4 5 6 "I G 9 I , 10 I 11 12 13 14 ,manufac:t'uring lndu.s'~ry w,o~ld be affected in t~:Ls I&lnner, put an Gatimetta of perhaps ,is' to 20% GSeDl::a ,1;'~asonijb\e.,. , ,J . Applied to th~" sales of a b~~lion' dotl:ars, this would o'bviously ,,",ork out in thoe rang~ of $150 ::'to $'200 million. Il1 addition~ there ~Ji~l no drlo'uhbt bec' cases where the technology is ~'w~:tl~ble' t~ reduce le~el~ I:C? tv)O fibers, but t~he,:e the cost involved ~lQuld mmoaLtte a paxt:i.cular product line eitber no longe~ profitable or no longo~ competitive on the open Ina~t:.ei: agai)''lst non-asbast:os conta:tni.ng products of the sarr~c type. I~l lt:bh..ecta ca:,;eo, the plant, or manufacturing operation t'iould alceo be shut: dO~Jn. This particular type of situation ,<~ould also exist :alt a f:i.ve ..f:J.ber lovel hopefully in not as many cases . 1IQ0 T~ying to put a handle on the ,potential number of, 1G lost job[j ~.s (!:l-~tremaly difficult. ~fany small manufacturing 17 ope:cntionCi ~'ill. undoubtedly go under., but it is nearly im!los:ll.bla t;O clcte~:cdr.e i:hn t:otal nl.unbe~ of mer! we ara 1~ ;?c:d~'lps 15 to 30 thousand is about as close 21) I, 21 .~n t;';a ctin co~a aoi: this i::f.i"..;c. Th5.s t'lould not be just 3.n m.am.l~ac(;L1::;b,i3 but tmu1.:1 be n cOllGidar.at:i.on of, the insulation C1:ados ~nd Qti1cr. gr.oupo as tJel1. 28 The figur.es L have just mentioned may not seem large ?lA4 ~ojhcn compared to '\'lhat cthe steel or. automob;.le industries tiould 26' have to pay in similar circumstances, but the asbestos industry lb '.' 186 1 in, this country 1lss much P3maller, and $200 millio.n in equip. :2 ment" another $200 m111ion' or, more in el~lnating product..~1ne 3 due to an inabi'3..t:y to inoot the two-f:f.ber sta~cla:t'd, 4nd 20 . ~ 4 or' 2S thouoan~ lost jobs ~.s .on onot'mous chunlc~.~ of this industr !J ~or thin reason, it is vital that OSI~ give cQnsidezable 6 thought, before p~or.o.'11.i3ati)lg a stanchlr.d tbat: even the eXPG:l:tG ., agi.ao is not ba.t::(Hl 0\'\' sol.id scientific Gvidence :1 Of ~ddit:i.onnl anormOltS pot.ential financial. impact 'on, ".~ ,I the industry :1.1'3 the l'lb~ling ;:equir'eecnt ..((l\a0 contained in the \1 ~ . 10 I1I1 f,innl. rGco:mnandntions of ethhoa OS}1A Advisory Co~ittee. It I1 r woul.rl Toqui.re tha !;llacing of n warning labal o~ each and every I 1'! p1:odu-ct co~tain:l.ng moi:C than S% asbestos by t,zsigbt. This I1a I labol which conttlJ.ns i;he ,\iords: ':Do not br.eath dust - .. may M 1~ '(~ I,jiIi 17 11 II .;) I I 1!} !I 2Q I21 Such n label \'lol1J.d sUi:aly aJ~ell the demise of a f ~ In addition, ad"II"anr;a~c of the ait:unt:ton by encom:ag5.ns the public to avoid ::2 hQza~ds implied 1j.n the ~1a:rnine, label, even cllougb to the 23 customer QP such haza~d ~xistG. ?4 ,I ~ul(l q,uQot!on tihet-her such a ,],abel. is, in fact, 25 necessary 0% called foX' in the majority of as~esto8-c~ntainin~, iy(1 ~;' ~~:,'" -'r."-'.'-~ .~. -, '" ..-\. "1' " ,-', 17 ____ - '.. , - __ "-'~'" " - .... , , "1 187 ., 1 products. Everyone :bi th'o industr.y and in the., medical and , 2 scient:tf:lc pj!ofl1Gsion "31'10 has dea.lt ~'ii:h the ashes,tos health 3 probJ.~m over. tho yeo.xG is f.amil:tar ~)itb thoa concopt of ,locked,,' " '.n al1d non-locked-in j,ll'oaucts. A loc.l~d"in 'product io ono in 5 wbich tho 3sbostos is bound, inb6,thG ptcduc~'with c~ent) ,I ' G asphalt, plastic 'or sGoommO other binder wh1ch prevents the 1 escape of frGtl :tbo% :1.0 use. S Eltt=lmples of locked in products ~-2ould be asbestos 9 cement products and floor t:J.le. Non-locl<ed-in p~oducts would to be thosQ in ah1ch tt1C.fibar is loosely bound and which xelease 11 fibar during boodling O:!: l1.ppJ.~tca't;3.0\1. Most asbestos-contnini 1 12 I, :tnoLllntions '\;on:.d fnll ~.7.1to thin category., as \:ould fire... I 13 i,I I M I 1 st:on~.d mc..\t~.Oll thai: ~~hilc: thci:a is, no labaling ~'5 11 I \ i j ~=,:i I 'Ik 11 t 18 I 19 :toGulation,o tihl.ch cthhoey cO~lo:tdel! potcultial1l' hLlZa~dous in use. '.ate!' oamQ tlppl:;.cn to a. 10 of bag a&bOS&:03 cement products and ~O fiDel: shipmelli:S., Th:ts t';LlS a VOltilltlll!Y action on the pa1:t of 21 many of the companiees, :Jf.n the industry. 22 T.he fact of the matter is that -t~:.pe:t:cenbof ,23 content of 5.1:a): in a p:t!'oduct has abao,lutely nothing to do t~it~ 24 its ability to Cl!ctlte a health problem. An insulation con- 2.& tc:tnj.ns 7~ tlslicoi:OS f:tber T.oqu:i.r.es vor.y ~a7:,efl't1. handling,  18 188 . I while an aabostos cement sheet with L5% aabestos raquirea . . I 2 ' essentially nOUQ. . . " .1. ~ For this lr:eCntlotonn, it is only lOBi.eal (;114t tha . 4 Advisory Committee .xec~Gndad labeling system be disca~ded '. 5 in favor of a svst..em whi,7;~1 only requires labealings. on those (i products which readily relense asbestos fiber in a bazQrdous I " ' , '.' 7 quantity dur:lng hand11.ng or 4pplic:a.t:ton. e With ~ega~d to the monitoring requirements of the . 9 .propo!tQd regulai~ions, I 'fiould only likB to point out that . . . JO there are prob~bly no more t.han three dozen tr~ined 1ndusL~ial. ~ J hys:ten.:t.sts 1j.n t;~1.0 ent:tr~ COl~L1.tl.y avnilQbl~ to industry to t.2 sample and ana1..::i:~~a ns~aGtoo duat conconf;rationB. OS1!{\ should 13 (:b.:!.!:'l .n:::obl"rn . bGCalt~e of 1.1:0 . Ot'7n d:tff:tcultias in .r!.."~..l~",;.,1l'J~.t'.-'.:r:-... ~.-;t"',,,11_~.r-..1.j.(.~..'"1-t f_ .. ~:.'..1..'1""'j't,;:."...i\",.'.t1,,~ .t:J. tL'.lr\,-:.O,',J.eJ.~~..:.sle. "ltO'OO '. ..~o "ft ",:.,.;,.. .#1........ J' ot, .: ,1,.,L~..~..~..~;,.,~., .".!.~~ bo O.=;4.'.'.'.&(Y0 l..O . "I..".,t,",c' """"..H,~~. h t.::...,t...".'..A... 17 ): m:tght: also point out tt'lat Cho dast monito;:iag 18 system as rcqt1:b:cd in i:l!e regulati.ons t,ill cost the manu- 20 not an exborbitl1nt Sl,Uunll t'ihen viewed by itself, but oOnnGa that 21 adds to an slxeady hcn~y f.inancial bu%den on the industry. 22 As my f1nnl point, I would lika to discuss for a rniottte ~;hc medical ~a,cci;s of ti:.e Advisory Committee recomt ~anclationn. Th~ T.eeo~endations~tate ~~nt tho ~~dical I ~:i Gvzvc:tllal!CC pi:og~tliU nha1.1 bG caann:iieed out by physic:i.3ns ,'fEW ; , ., ,l~9 " , , ,, 1 Be~tad by the emj?l~yeej,'";'." and that t~ medical r.oco1'ds will 2 be aV4:tlable only to HEW: and DOL pbysi~ian~' and ''medical S consultants and physicians designated and autbo~1zed by the 4 employee." 5 You w!ll note this employer is by omission pro- , ' an' a hiblted from seaeing emplo*ee's medical record, even though , , . . . " " , , I I " 0. ' ... 7 tba emplQy$~ is T.esponsible under the law for the medical S condition of hin el11p].oyees. S Under Gcac tiOil (c:) (7) of the Advisory Comm:l.tf:ee ~;, II1I I n I '1i:. I 1II1 JS ,I!' ]I!. II 15 11 ! 10 i 17 I 18 I lS 2.0 I21 I I 22 I , II1I I23 ~4 ...'.. WW...o OC&.". l"l.J...t.;...\~...oJ..n..' i::: ll:tn moat l~accnt medical c~amil.la.t.ion indicates" aud then the nQction goes on to tbe cG%'ta;ln medical criteria. H~w call an eritployc:-: obey the se.Ct.i.Oi.l of the r.egula.tions :1.:= hae ia proh:.1.b:tted f;:om seoing an employee's medical . z(!corda by ~Dother section of tbG :!:cgulation? This is completely illozic:al and' is obviously reflcc~ive of the has tc ~l:U:b t-Jhich the edvisoiy committee \.,as required to perform its du~y. In addition, how could an employe~ conduct a pre- e:~aminat:to:ts, note chnogcs in med;",cal cOi'1d:U:ions, and counsel cmpJ.oyecs7 Thc::;c pi:ogri:tms !aIT-a in existence in esz:;entially all ma1.lufactu:::i..:lg companies :tn the asbestos induGtry.' .?nc1! 25 might point out thnt 001: only axe employees cOl.1nccled Oll 190", I possible occupational health p2!'oblems', but on the' genet'sl ' . '!:., , 2 overall health condition as a.il. . ." 3 We have hear.d the arguments fr~,certain unions, 4 not necessarily here., but from othei:s'~ that i,t should 'be solel 5 up to tbe employeo to decide whether or not he is willing to 6 t'1et'lt l.ndct the ex1.Gt1ng c'ondit:iQDS, whatever they may be. 7 ,,r,:ts'simply doeo' not:' mnka good senooe, becst.tsa. $.~ is st~ll the :-cesponsi.bil:tty cer: tha employer to safeguar.d thheo! health of u his ~mpJ.oyeeG. Hl'.orc tha rcopotls5.bility lies is where the 1tl imp!cmeni.:Cltion of tho i~ledical slli:ve:tllance pr.ogram should "be 11 centered, and no place elGoa. it.: should also be pointed ou.t tilc.1t a system of thG , ' type proposod i.n the 1:ecommenaations ~'lDuld c"ffectively present 14 future Gf:idem:tological. studies of the asbestos industry:. '5 ~xcept on Q very l~.m.i:cd or local scale. 7he' medical xoecords 111 vi~Ll to such Si:udie:l t-;ould be distributed amot'lg thousands of 17 docto::s t1lJJ.1. ~cr053 the country, and recriaval t;ould be virtu- is ally impoGsiblc. 1!} LtLLl cm1f::ll.ls:.i.on, :t \olould likCl to Gt.unilla~:i.ze ver.y b'riel ~1 :Jentat:ion. .:...,?- Once. 'Ehe l'J.cd;.c~l ev:i.dence for. os tablishing a i!3 nac.n:i::.lgfl.tl l::i..mc"'(;eighi:ed ave~aga :ts" unavailable at this time. '.r~40. ~iost expe:s:ts agree thaft: the bzoie ~ massive ~8 doses of asbas[:oo fiber. are pr.obably more important in the 21 .. .' e' - ---------~--------------------- 191 I, causation of th~ disease .~han contin~~ng, long"tG~, low or .2 ,moderate exposur.e. Thi'~ 'fa not to preclude t~at low exposure 3 over an eno~ous perio~,o~ time are not 'to b~ considered at 4 all, but that the one' is more important than .the otl1e:r:. a 8' Three. If QS,.HA .promulgates 't:iJno"(~'eighted avarage i S5 iower than five ~ 'i:he economic imptlc t ,~n, t~e iilduGt'!:y toJill be I 4ddition~ aSbestos-~catai~ing 1 anOllnOUS. In many , products williI I ,8 probably disappear from the mark~tplace and thousands of jobs I ~ill"be eliminated. 10 Pour.. A loabeling requixement of -the type recommendec 11 by the OSl~ Advisory Committee will r.esult in the unnecessary al loss of hund):edG of millions of dollars in sales each year. '3 El1tirc segments of tl':.e industry t>JilJ. be destroyed, toJith H 'i:csult:ani: large-scale unemplo~ent. 'IS Five. 'LC'ho cillllOot monitoring pro~ram recommende~ by III~ ~~ .I ~17 11 II is OSHH :i.f:l' i'.':1pl:'act:r.cnl 'It th:to t:imo becaltse of the lack of 1I,,J1....c":'i~.....,"..d I":'' C~J". <"l'OL'~"Cl B:tx. '.I.'he medical ~tlrveil1D.nce recommendation of ~a 20 Ther.e tH:e, of cOLtrse, other. sections of ,the p-roposed 21 re~ulltions that t,ill create difficltlt:Les in addition to those, 22 that I have discussed and thQ,~e tiill be monti,one~ by separ.ate 23 teotifier.s. Ho~ever, I believe that the points that I have 24 covered are the most ~portant, at least to the manufacturing 2S side of the industry.