Document N2vywRxXa1Vpj1rJ77ow3nDGD

WRG OOl48,7 ~ DEPOSITION I EXHIBIT GENTLEMEN: My name is Pickthall. I am District Manager, Zonolite Construction Products Division, W. R. Grace & Company. Our interest in this matter, for the benefit of those people in the room who don't know us, is occasioned by the fact that we are the manufacturers of a cementitious fire proofing material sold under the trade name Mono-Kote. It contains some asbestos and like other responsible people we have been concerned. Concerned for our in plant people, for the workmen who apply our materials and for the general environment of the communities in which our materials are used. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it would be something short of intelligent for anyone to discount the possible health hazard related to uncontrolled and indiscriminate exposure to asbestos dust and fiber. Before we go any further with this discussion I want to make it exceedingly clear that the Zonolite Construction Products Division is totally committed to the complete elimination of asbestos from the product line. Unfortunatel y, no one knows with absolute certainty just where the danger point is, in the level of exposure. Lacking this knowledge we think the sourd approach is complete elimination of asbestos, and this is what we are going to do. We have made considerable progress in this direct ion in the last 18 months but there are 15 years of development, testing, field experience and cede approval work involved in the present product. We fee- that the responsibility for providing equivalency in fire protection is just as great, if not greater, than the possible hazard of asbestos exposure. It would be nice if we could sweep all this under the rug and announce to you that we now have the panacea for the di 1 emma. We s imply took out the asbestos and there is nothing to worry about. Sorry, but as you all know it's not that simp1e. We are not alone in this approach to the problem. All the major factors in the industry are working in this direction and the good old American competitive system will make it certain that no one goes to sleep. So in truth, the matter under consideration here tonight is an interim thing. What should be done to control this possible hazard until Industry can remove the offending ingredient. In late 1968 when the New Yorker Article was published, few of us were aware of the hazards of asbestos. It came as quite a shock. Asbestos had been considered a very useful and important ingredient in many building material products. Floor tile, ceiling tile, water pipe, wall panels, all contained asbestos. It is contained in sprayed fireproofing, simply because it is economically sound and performs well under fire expos u re. Following the New Yorker article, in rapid succession came a rash of magazine articles on the same subject. Most, if not all of them, pointing the finger at the sprayed fire protection industry as being bad guys. All of these articles, some of which bordered on being irresponsible, had one thing in common. Complete absence of factual data on sprayed fire proofing. They related in unpleasant detail the high mortality rate among asbestos workers and then by inference claimed the same fate for the sprayed fireproofing workmen and even worse for the public in general. All of this without one published iota of test data relating to sprayed fireproofing. The indictment was based solely on association. You use asbestos! Asbestos Workers have a high mortality rate. So, "74-i -L You too are going to die. Not roly you but everyone around you. Complete disregard of the amount of asbestos involved, the tools being used or the conditions of application. All of which has considerable beari'g on the hazard level. The other thing which all ; f these articles had in common with the New Yorker Orignal was that they all referred to the intolerable conditions created by spraying operations in New York City. I think it's only f a.i r to point out that New York is not San Francisco and neither ae the conditions created by fireproofing operations. Some of you on this Board -ell remember the long tedious hours in the early 1960's spent in thrashing out density and damageabi1ity requirements `or directly applied fireproo> ing. Those of us in Industry still have scars on our psyches to attest to our bouts with Mr. Goldberg's scratch test. Some of us had a name for that infernal contraption which can't be repeated in public. I'll tell you in private if you haven't heard it. Seriously, San Francisco has not had the problems referred to in these magazine articles simply because of the damageabi1ity requirements which this Board passed in 1961. 7 -5- It's as simple as this. Any material which passed that damageabi1ity criteria had to have a minimum in place density of 18 to 20 pounds per cubic foot. You can't put fluff on a spandrel on the 50th floor of the Bank of America Building in a 30 knot wind. That material has got to have some substance or it won't pass the density tests which are taken on every floor. We have been using drapes in San Francisco on building perimeters since the Wells Fargo job. They became mandatory then and we've been using them ever since. So what I'm saying is this: First we have been 10 years ahead of New York in our regulations, and secondly, we have had better inspection. These two things alone have spared us ankle deep fire proofing materials in our streets. We don't have New York's problem. If we've got a problem, it's a San Francisco one and I'm sure we can take care of it. We alwavs have. We are not objecting to the New Yorker article or Dr. Selikoff's warnings. As a matter of fact they were things that should have been said. We heard and we are doing something about it. But we certainly don't want to be convicted of what has been going on in New York or be convicted on evidence that was gained from an unrelated Industry. 7 -6- In all the thousands of words that have been written on this subject by the journalistic fraternity I have yet to find a single reference to an asbestos exposure count on either the journeymen doing fireproofing, other tradesmen on the job, or the general public. One would think that at least one of these enterprising individuals would have taken the trouble to get the facts. To the best of my knowledge up to this moment no one has completed such a study. When | appeared before this Board in May I told you that we we re going to get the truth and that win, lose or draw, this Board would get the results. We have done so and we have the report available for you tonight. I'm certain you realize that a study of this kind requires a high degree of technical skill to gather the data and long years of scientific training and experience to interpret it. We were most fortunate in being able to secure the consultant services of two outstanding authorities on the subject. Drs. Tabershaw and Cooper. Both medical men with long and significant contributions to Public Health. Our only conditions were that they get the truth and present it in a manner which would be meaningful to non-medical people. We think they did the ;ob well and we appreciate it. -7- We believe that this report clearly indicates that we are not creating the health hazards to either workmen or the public with which we have been charged. The actual sampling and microscopic work was done by Mr. LeRoy Balzer and Mr. Doug Fowler. Both of these men are highly qualified and soon to be Doctors in their own right. Since this report is of medical significance I certainly do not feel qualified to present it. Mr. Fowler He will go over the report with you and answer any questions you care to ask. When you are through with him I would appreciate a few more moments to conclude our presentation. t -6 GENTLEMEN - we realize that this report deals with only one product of the several which are available. We can say only that we have reviewed it with Dr*. Tabershaw and Cooper and we do not feel that we are contr:buting significant amounts of asbestos to the San Francisco environment. We intend to reduce the already low hazard of the directly involved workmen by using Bureau of Mines Approved Respirators and reducing nozzle velocities. We are certa nly going to be more diligent in clean up and disposal procedures. Beyond that we do not hones 1y see that anything can be done to materially improve the situation short of asbestos elimination. We are working on this and will accomp1ish it. We have tried to the best of our ability to give you truth and not fiction, facts and not supposition. If your deliberations indicate to you that this product needs further regulation during the interim period, we will cooperate in any way we can to assist in arriving at practical solutions. Thank you sincerely for hearing our story. We appreciate your time and patience.