Document Vj2zdM7xBkDBYv85b0D2axNYq

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Midland, Michigan ; DEPOSITION MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN UMWA-MANAGEMENT BARGAINING COMMITTEES i i EXHIBIT ]y .l'r' > 9 L&1 CONCERNING PIPE COVERERS WORKING WITH ASBESTOS' 8 l Representing: August 19, 1969 UNION COMMITTEE Schroeder (Chairman), Halcomb, Reid, Evans, Brzezinski, Prior, Keblbeck, Edgecombe COMPANY COMMITTEE Neering (Chairman), Martini, G. Warren, Todd, Plagens, Collins, Engibous, Johnson, Eastman, Reed. Supervision and Departmental Representatives Anderson, DeGesero, Dr. Kramer, Warren, Badley, Keg ley. Di scussion . ST0000366 Neering began that they were there to discuss a problem they were con cerned with. Jack, why don't you pick yp the ball and give the explanation? Maybe the best way to do it would be to run through the whole problem and then open it up for questions; or would you like questions as you go? Badley answered no. Let me just give kind of a short preamble on what we did out in the plant. We had six groups of people consisting of both Coverers and the production people and the Maintenance Section Manager in charge of the maintenance for that par ticular group. We kicked the meeting off by making the statement as such, that we do have a presentation that takes between 30 and 35 minutes to go through and we'd like the questions held until the end. Those questions that aren't answered by the presentation, then we'd give the group a chance to do this. We had two-hour meetings. As I say, the presentation took 30 to 35 minutes. And most of the time we used up between an hour and an hour and twenty-five minutes on questions. These were generally points on clarification of data and that type of thing. The Section Manager introduced me and I sort of played the role of introducing the panel. I think what I'd like to do-- and Dr. Kramer is going to play Dr. Ducommon's role, who is on the panel, and Dr. Kramer was there to help answer questions afterwards-- I think we'll go right through these and read precisely what we gave and then open it up for questions. r. I started out by saying, "Many of you gentlemen have waited some time for this get-to-gether. I'm sure the following presentations by Dr. Ducommon from our Medical Dept., Roy DeGesero from Environ mental Research, Roy Anderson from Organic Chemicals Maintenance, and Larry Warren now Supt. of Construction in CCP, will be of vital interest to you. . .. tx / Special Met Ling -2- .August 19, 1969 Dcr'C'5 There are several reasons for this interest on your part ex, mainly however, a request by the coverars .on."How Does the Handling of Asbestos Contend Insulation'Affect Me?" Other interests' certainly will be, "What are the Solutions?" and "How Should We^Implement the Solutions?" Solutions to a problem sometimes cause other problems a couple in which the production people here have a stake, such as technology and costs. This obviously is a matter of concern to them. ' These 'fellows,.that I named before, are going to present the problem to you -- the solutions, with time for questions. I'm sure you -especially the Coverers -- will be listening carefully. I'm also sure that by the end of these presentations all of your questions will "be answered.T I would now like to introduce Mr. DeGesero from Environmental Research: "Good day, gentlemen. My name is Roy DeGesero from Environmental Research. Tour supervision requested that the Environmental Research Lab survey and evaluate Pipe Coverers' exposures to dusts from the insulating materials commonly used here at the Midland location of Dow Most insulating materials found in use here contain either asbestos or fiberglasThese insulation materials provide the sources of exr'posure to asbestos'or-fiberglas. - -I would like to discuss at this time the results of a survey conducted from_January through April, 1969, ^ concerned with evaluating Pipe Coverers' current levels of exposures--i to asbestos and fiberglas from insulating materials commonly used. CD CD The health standards for exposure to asbestos or fiberglas have beei^-j formulated by a group called the American Conference of Governmenta 1^> and Industrial Hygenists. This group has accumulated and reviewed cn sound and current data pertinent to the health problems associated with the use of fiberglas and asbestos, and has defined what is though to be safe levels of exposure for the eight-hour day with asbestos or fiDcrglas. The American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygenists expresses these asbestos and fiberglas health standards in terms of eight-hour average concentration numbers. These numbers tell how much of a certain dust a man can tolerate with no adverse affect on his health, assuming he's exposed eight hours a day, day in and day out for his entire working career, to the dust. Now, the health standards are average numbers. That means that a man can be exposed for a short period of time to concentration levels above the health standards, provided he is exposed for periods of equally long duration the concentrations below the health standard so we do indeed arrive at an average nurdber. These numbers or health standards are called threshhold limit values. They are designed to protect essentially all working men who use asbestos or fiberglas. For asbestos, the present health standard is 5 million particles per cubic foot. This is the concentration number that the health standard is formulated at the eight-hour concentration number. This data was arrived at some years back and the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hvp*M srs. after reviewine research literature and field experience Special Meeting -3- August 19, 1969 of asbestos, has proposed that the standard be lowered from five to two million particles per cubic foot for'"the eight-hour "day~.~ This lower" number should pTovide~pr6tection for you fellows using asbestoscontaining ihsulbfrorrmateriaTs : By 19711~ this new standard of two million.particles per. cubic foot will be in affect, -: * *o .. _ r : : ;;. .r - c. . Now, let's look at the standard for flberglas. The threahhold limit value or, health standard for fiberglas says how much flberglas dust a.man can. tolerate_with no^dverse affect on his health for his entire working career, assuming he is exposed eight hours a day, day in and day. out to dust of fiberglas. The American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygenists, has placed this health standard number at fifteen. million particles per cubic foot in the eight hour day. Asbes tos has a much lower number, two million particles per cubic foot, than fiberglas does. That's because the two dusts have a much differen affect on health. Since the standards are drawn up for the eight-hour day, we have to know how you pipe coverers spend the eight-hour day to see if Dow compares with the standards. Pipe covering is quite complicated. Often the pipe coverers work all day .with:one material and-will not use this material for days there after.. Therefore, to estimate where the average pipe coyerer spends his day in terms of say, a year, we talked to you men, had you fill to out questionnaires and talked to your supervisors. We-then decided on this basis where to sample for the dust. We found out what is ing each material. First we have to know how long you fellows are exposed to dust-and we have to know what the dusts contain, asbestos or fibers glas. Finally, we go out into the field and measure how much dust i actually present. We determine the concentration of the dust. Now,^ the old asbestos health standard says that a man should be exposed on the average to an eight-hour concentration of five million particles per cubic foot. The proposed new standard says you should be exposed to two million particles per cubic foot: We evaluated your exposures to see how they compared with the present standard of five and how they looked according to the future standard of two. This slide shows what we found. For the eight-hour day, men working Indoors with insulation materials containing asbestos, were exposed on an average to 4.9 million particle.1 per cubic foot of asbestos-containing duit. This is just under the present standard of five. As .you can see, it's in excess of the pro posed standard of two. Men working outdoors received an eight-hour average exposure of 4.2 million particles per cubic foot'. Again, we're under or within the present standard of Jive million particles per cubic foot, but are in excess of the proposed standard of two.. : - - million particles per cubic foot. v * `" ' For fiberglas now, you'll remember that the standard if fifteen mil- '' lion particles per cubic foot. Fcr a man working indoors, the Special Minutes -4- August 19, 1969 This is within the standard. Fellows,.working outdoors were exposed to an eight-hour average concentration of 0.4 million particles, per cubic foot. Again, this"is within the'standard. Generally speaking, outdoor exposures were lower'than indoor exposures because of the air movement outside generally tends to dilute dust better than air move ment indoors. The concentrations were lower outside and the exposures dropped off accordingly. In' suirutiary' then, the'current levels of .exposure to'flberglas are.withi the proposed standard. The current.levels or .exposures .to asbestos ar within the present health standards for asbestos,'but are in excess of the proposed new health standard of 2.million,particles per cubic foot according to this survey, and a potential threat to your health exists. Dow must provide a healthy work environment an,d management recognizes that it has a moral and legal commitment to you men to implement the best known health standards as soon as possible. The Environmental Research Laboratory has therefore suggested three possible ways to you management of lowering Pipe Coverers' exposure to asbestos so that these exposures would be within the proposed health, standards by 1971 when* these new standards take affect.'" The proposals are: ' The proposals are: 1) U6e local on-the-job air movers to pull dusts away from the pipe coverers. 2). Use approved respiratory'protection whenever pipe coverers perform specific operations which cause high exposures. This point will be discussed in greater detail somewhat later. 3) As much as possible, substitute for the present materials which contain asbestos and are causing this to be in excess of the proposed health standards, other materials which are safer to use than the present insulating materials. I'd like to thank you gentlemen for your attention and at this time turn the meeting over to Dr. Ducommon of the Medical Department, who will discuss some of the implications in this survey. Today Dr. Kramer will be speaking. Dr. Kramer began that the lung ^ responds differently to different kinds of dusts. What you spit out* or see on your handkerchief does no harm. What stays behind in thd^ lung may or may not cause harm, depending upon what it is. To unde^ stand the discussion regarding asbestos, we would like you to have 0 some understanding of the basic structure of the lung. co ' cn Here is a slice of actual normal lung tissue. Think of it as being similar to a sponge with many cells, except that in the lung there is an air tube going to each and every one of the cells. These cells are called alveoli and it is here where the gaseous exchange takes . place. The air tubes are known as the sir-conduction system of the lung. They branch out as they leave the nose and throat becoming smaller in size and larger in number until they finally reach the : y 6raall cells at the end. In this piece of lung tissue you can see erne** rf eKa (tav4 e eoe 4 e* f'nVsea : ST000037Q; Special Meeting -5- August 19, 1969 If you spread out all of the alveoli, which are the equivalent to the cells in the sponge, on a flat surface, they would occupy an area somewhat bigger than a badmitton court and slightly smaller than a tennis court. You can see then that the lung surface has a greater exposure to_ the outside air than does, the skin, the skin having an exposure-area of a few 'sjquare meters at the most. The amount of dust you breathe depends in part on the particle size of the -dustThe xange of size important here is one-tenth micron diameter to ten microns' in diameter. "The larger particles tend to be trapped in the upper part of the breathing system, while the smallest particles tend to move in and out of the alveoli without becoming trapped. The particles in between these "two extreme sizes may become trapped anywhere from the nose and throat to the alveoli. The rate and depth of breathing also influence dust exposure; the faster and deeper you breathe, the more dust you are likely to take into your lungs. In dealing with dusts, the lung has many protective mechanisms. The cough reflex is one of these and i6 effective in expelling inhaled dusts which irritate the tubes of the air conduction system. The nose and throat warm and clean the air of larger particles before it arrives at the first branching of the tubes of'the air conduction system. The large hairs in the nose act as a filter in stopping the" large dust particles. If you breathe through your mouth rather than through the nose, this particular protective mechanism is bypassed, and therefore mouth breathing should be avoided. The air drawn into the lungs is properly humidified in addition to being warmed to protect the tissue from injury. Another very important protective mechanism the lung has is a slimy coating called the mucous blanket which contains many hair-like pro jections called cilia. These cilia constantly sweep upward in unison carrying inhaled dust particles to the nose and throat where the parti cles are swallowed, spit out, or blown put through the nose into your handkerchief. This self cleansing system works twenty-four hours a day and is very efficient. Now some dusts are considered nuisance dusts. This means that no mat ter what the quantity of dust you breathe, the lung is capable of clearing itself of the dust. Nuisance dusts do not cause disease and they are not retained in the lung in significant quantities. Other dusts are retained in the lungs but cause no significant changes and the lungs continue to function as they normally would. For example, one of these would be iron dust. On the other hand, there are dusts which are harmful to the lung. You Have all heard of silicosis. It is interesting that we do not know why they do Injury to the lung except that they do. Different forms of silica produce different deprees of silicosis and some forms do not produce any disease at all. Special Meeting -6- ' August 19, 1969 . ST000037 I <a With that as a background, let us now talk about asbestos. Asbesto is a material which i6 found in nature and is made up of a group of fibrous minerals. Its chemical composition varies. There are many kinds of asbestos, but at.least four are useful in industry. These are Blue 'African Asbestos and Red African Asbestos mined chiefly in South Africa, and two kinds of White Asbestos, one of which is mine mainly in Europe (Anthropholite). Asbestos has been'associated with a lung disease which we call Asbestosis. Asbestosis was first recognized.as an Industrial disease at the turn of the century and is a scarfing condition of the lungs which is progressive and interferes with the effective exchange of gasses across the pulmonary membrane. The asbestos fibers are stiff and the) seem to mechanically Irritate the lungs; those that remain in the lung become coated with protein and iron salts. Our present industrial hygiene standard of five million particles per cubic foot appears to adequately protect against the development of asbestosis. There have been no cases of asbestosis in our pipe coverers. Our pipe coverers are exposed to varing amounts of asbestos during the course of their work and as you know, we have recently undertaken to measure their exposure. As Mr. DeGesero has pointed out to you, the exposure levels of 4.9 million particles per cubie foot indoors and 4.2 million particles per cubic foot outdoors are within the present standard established by the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists and up to this point would have been considered a safe standard. In fact, it is still the standard used by most of industry. However, there are many people who feel this level is too high and will have to be lowered to the proposed new standard of 2 million particles per cubic foot scheduled to take effect in about two years. There are two other lung diseases we are concerned about that appear to be associated with exposure to lower levels of asbestos than that which causes classical asbestosis. One is a very rare tumor called a mesothelioma which develops from the cells lining the chest and abdominal cavities. Some research workers feel this disease is associated only with exposure to the Blue African Asbestos, but this point la not clear; the other types may cause it also. The other disease is lung cancer which you know has been associated with heavy smoking. It has been thought that high exposure to all types of asbestos dusts over long periods of time increased the risk of lung cancer. Recently it has been reported that there is an in creased risk of this disease in workers who smoke and may be exposed to somewhat lower levels of asbestos dust. Smoking should be par ticularly discouraged among asbestos workers. Smoking tends to J k o < *_ i Uo in the mucous blanket thus defeating one Special Minutes -7- August 19, 1969 Even though the new standard of 2 million particles per cubic foot has not.gone into effect, we feel that we should stggS^nov to.meet - this new standard before it becomes official. This will mean some inconvenience to those of you who work with asbestos end it will re-_H quire the use of proper protection at times, as well-as much more ^ careful handling of the material. It may also require the use of CD substitute materials other than asbestos. ~ o co Fiberglas which you have heard mentioned briefly by Mr. DeCesero is one possible substitute for asbestos. Some people have accused it of presenting `.a pulmonary Hazard. Fiberglas does cause itching of the sk and prickling, It can cause some nose and throat irritation, but all the literature reviewed particularly of the impartial investigators in the field,' those of Dr. George Wright and Dr. Paul Gross indicates tha there is absolutely no pulmonary hazard whatever, and Dr. Gross is presently suggesting .that fiberglas be classified as an inert dust, one of the nuisance dusts. It is our feeling that thi6 is in the best interest of the health of the pipe covering group, and that the recommendations made by Mr. DeCesero will have to be acted upon. And now back to Jack. Badley then introduced Warren. Warren began that after all of the explanation and .facts concerning th< hazards of asbestos, I can imagine a lot of you are wondering "where d< we go from here?" For years and years, asbestos and insulation value have been almost synonymous. The higher the asbestos content, the eas: it was to sell. Most of us were aware of the health problem, covering .asbestos, but it seemed rather insignificant as it didn't seem to be affecting us much. Then there were a couple articles in our local pap< concerning the affects of asbestos on the respiratory system. These were brought to my attention and I in turn brought it to the attention of the Medical Department and Environmental Research. We decided that each of the coverers should have a chest x-ray and at the same time we should have an environmental research study to find out exactly what our exposure is. We were very pleased to find that none of our coverers had asbestosis. But when the environmental research findings were told to us we recog nized that we do have the potential for lung diseases. The Doctor and Roy DeGesro have explained.the causes of the problem and the affect on the body. I'm here to tell you what we expect to do to eliminate the problem. If you will remember Roy gave us three (3) things he thought we could do that would lower the parts per million of asbestos dust to an acceptable level. 1. Local ventilation. You and I know this is not an acceptable method as it would be almost impossible to do this*. Special Minutes 8- August 19, 1969 2. Use Bureau of Mines approved respiratory protection. I have two with me today and these are both available at the_Safety Depart ment. One Is the number 66.respirator. The other oneris made by the American Optical and it also is available at the Safety Department. This.is an acceptable method, in most cases if we follow the chart I on will.now show on the screen. If you will notice, the removing of -H Aircell, Kaylo, High Temp, and Mag Oxide have all been checked. All of you men who are in the trade I'm sure have seen the reason O c cr for this. Also checked is the applying,of Kaylo.and Aircell. It o was found the applying of either of these insulations caused the CO parts per million of is above the limit. dust This in the breathing area to go was almost 351 of your work dtoay5. .7TwhehicmhixinCgO of abestos shorts or plus one is also checked for apparent reasons. You will notice that fiberglas is not checked in any category. The reason for this has been pretty well covered by Roy and Dr. Ducommon. 1 will only say that I've heard many controversial words said about fiberglas, but never had 1 heard or read anything by a reliable source that said it was detrimental to your health. In fact,.I have with roe a pamphlet put out .by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America from which 1 would like to read you a few excerpts. First of all, the 1HF is a non-profit research association for the advancement of healthful working conditions and human relations in industry and serves the unique function of a focal point for exchange of informatic on health problems allegedly arising from industries' operations, pro* ducts and wastes. One of the excerpts says this: !*Results of medical research, including examinations of hundreds of persons who have worke in fiberglas plants as long as 25 to 30 years gives evidence that fibe glas is inert and not injurious to individuals overall health." Anothe paragraph says, "Based on existing medical evidence dating back to 194 through to the present, airborne fibrous glass is not a hazard to gent health. Hundreds of fiberglas workers have been exposed to higher tha average concentrations of airborne glass particles virtually every wor ing day for as long as 25 to 30 years without exhibiting any pattern c lung disease that can be attributed to exposure to fiberglas." I would say that under some circumstances that it is somewhat uncom fortable. According to most people who have studied its use, a person using fiberglas insulation should wear loose fitting clothing, no tigh belts or cuffs and they should keep clean. .Talking about cleanliness brings up another point that bears mentioning and that is that shower time for men using fibergias is not. and I repeat, not automatic or mandatory for health reasons. A supervisor will grant shower time if he feels the conditions warrant it. . 3. Replace our present asbestos-contalnlng insulation with materials that don't cause a Health problem. We have all of our resources on the lookout for replacements now. Roy Anderson will cover this subject further, later on. Special Meeting -9- August 19, 1969 These were Roy's recommendations and starting August the: 11th here is what we intend to do: SI 0UUQ3/4. a) Substitute as much as possible with non-asbestos materials, fiberglas,foam glass , ceramic foam, polyurethane, et*c. b) When using insulation containing asbestos, use a bureau of mines approved respirator as per the chart. We wifi pass out a wallet size copy of the chart as you leave. c) Keep on the look-out for more non-asbestos type insulation. If we do these three" things there is no doubt in joy mind that we wi be below the 2M.P.P.C.F. limit that will go into affect soon. Gentlemen, we have a problem; it isn't going away by Itself. We feel we recognize the problem and we have the solution. You have heard the plans. We expect and insist that we get your full cooperation to implement these plans. I'm sure some of you men are sitting there chinking about possible additional costs, and of the possible corrosio: in some instances where a perfect weather barrier i6 not achieved. We know we have had some of these problems in the past; we recognize we v have some in the future. By working together we know Chat all the pr lems can be worked out. Our main objective today is to make the job safe for you men. The economics are important, but not of prime impor at this particular time. s 7~\S Thank you for your attention, now here is Roy Anderson to talk about p sible substitutes. Remember August 11th is the day that we must wear respiratory protection when working with asbestos type insulation. Th card is your guide. Thanks again. Here's Roy, Anderson said that he would like to use the transparency showing the "Minimal Respiratory Protection Requirements" to show what we can U6e .substitutes for some of our present insulating materials. 1 think you all know that there is a very good replacement for Aircell, and that i Fiberglas. Aircell.is 60^ asbestos, Fiberglas is 0. Fiberglas is mor than twice as effective as Aircel (k factor .29-.61) as an insulating material. Actually, Aircell should never be used on any job except fc personnel protection. It was never designed for temperatures over 20C and we all know that it is commonly used on lines traced with 150# stc (370)F) . 4 * In the past, Fiberglas has been condemned because it was supposed to 1 caused corrosi9n. It is very true that fiberglas vill hold water thf it has been exposed to, whereas Aircell will simply fall off; however, fiberglas, kept dry, is positively not corrosive.' This is especially now that new inhibitors have been added to the resin that bonds the fj glas together. I have been told many times that because fiberglas has be wired on, it is more expensive to apply* At this point, we are not concerned with cost -- we are concerned with doing'a better Job while the same time preserving your health. It is an interesting fact that * "---------- Division is 'the only one ST0000375 U4 Special Minutes -10- ' -August 19, 1969 At the present time calcium-silicate, with an asbestos content of about is still the standard insulating material for temperatures up to 1000c Wc are evaluating a material called Careytemp 1500. It is an expandec silicone (perlite) type with about 6Z asbestos the same as calcium-sil Preliminary testshave shown that it-is.only about one-half as dusty e Krtylo. It does not absorb water and the Phillip-Carey Company is doir some work on eliminating all of the asbestos. This material has a lot of potential. Hi-Temp is a diatomaceous earth-type of insulation whi contains about 157. asbestos.. There is no non-asbestos substitute for this material on very high temperature applications; however, its use is rather limited and it should not present a real problem. Mag-Oxide is another fairly high asbestos-containing insulation which, .a present, is not being used to any great extent here in the plant. Mineral wool insulating cement conmonly known as Webber's Cement con tains about 107. asbestos and is quite dusty when being mixed with wate It has been suggested that the dry material be made up in batches larg enough to last for a week or two. This would eliminate the need for a respirator each time the material is used. The use of Armentlte is srr enough so that making up large batches would not be warranted except i special cases. Every major manufacturer of insulation has been contacted with regard new products available, etc. This practice will be continued and any time we can find a new product that will be more effective or easier t work with, it will be brought into the plant for your use. Hadley said, as you can see in the past half-hour presentation, the problems, the solutions affect all of us. I want to reiterate the ijl-i that management has a moral and legal obligation to protect the :i's health. To continue our efforts to give you a safe place to w *rk , we are obviously going to eliminate any insulating materials tha v 'U.-tin asbestos. Starting August 11, in specific areas, until adequa; Mibstitutions are acquired, approved respiratory equipment must be won I:i .. very brief summary, I would like to reiterate these facts: We ha' i: known health problem. The solutions may not be popular. We have a choice between protecting employee health or occasional discomfort. I will go on record that it's no choice for me to make. I make the one in protecting the employees' health. We are going to protect the em ployees ' health and I would like to have any of your questions, and fed free if you would like to ask any one of the panel. Edgecombe said he guessed he had one right off the bat. I'd like to have you show --(machine malfunction--), DeGesero explained that he had brought the sampling equipment or device with him today. We didn't have this with the coverers and I regret it. What we have essentially is abubbler which is designed to pick up primarily particles in the range of .1 to 10 microns. In this portion you might be able to see some fluid. This is very clean distilled water. We place this on the Special Meeting ST0000376 -11- August 19, 1969 pump, pass a known volume of air through it and the effect is the same as the household vacuum sweeper. We trap dust which is in the roan's breathing zone. We located this pump near the area around his nose and mouth that he breathes air from. Then we take this dust and put i: under a microscope and count the number of particles, the number of particles of dust in the sample.' This is. a magnification 138 times just about what we.sec in the microscope (referring to a transparency) of the fluid in the scrubber. I'd like to call your attention to sever, highlights on this magnification. It's pretty well in focus. You see a number of these black lines. They could be fibers. You see some cl\ here which are dirt,'possible. There`is a white area up here which is thought to be of a different nature which gives the appearance of havii an overexposed area of the film. I'd like you fellows to reference th< rest of the slides to this general area. This is Che area that we'd like to -show you in enlargements. The next shot again of this area th< 1 was referring to is a 400 magnification. Now suddenly we see many me fibers and particles visable here than we saw on the last or 100 magni fication slide. This is that white area that we were referring to. St of these particles could indeed be asbestos fibers^ If you'll remember this is a sample of Kaylo. In blowing this up 1,000 times, again refer ring to that same white area, you see these clumps of dirt-- these are very small now-- and what appears here in my mind to be a classical picture of an asbestos fiber. Again you can see these other strands which are visable on the last series of slides. So this is basically the nature of the beast 1 guess. Warren asked DeGesero what they had counted there. OeGesero explained that what they do, we count up all the particles we can see here visit Warren interjected that they didn't know whether they were asbestos or not. DeGesero explained that the standard had been specifically formu lated in such a manner that you count the total dust in the sample. It is true that sometimes you'll be counting particles which are these particles appear to be-- are not fibrous or rather perhaps nuisance dir And this has been done to provide a margin of safety in the standard. Because a lot of these fibers there may or may not be visable under a microscope. When the original standards were formulated, the people wh went out and did this work, using the same techniques that we have copi from them, counted total dust in the sample and then reviewed the healt records and the health performance of people exposed to these types of dusts at various levels of exposure. From this they then judged that five million particles per xubic foot of total dust count in an atmosph that contains asbestos at that time was believed to be a 6afe level for eight-hour exposure. Today it is commonly thought that this five numbe is too high. So now we refer to two million particles per cubic foot. Engibous reasoned that the test would tend to give you a conservative answer. On the other hand, I can't believe you draw up all the dust particles in that one bubbler. DeGesero explained that what it does is give a statistical cross section or a statistical sample. Engibous ask ST0000377 Special Meeting -12- August 19, 1969 if the five million particles per cubic foot va6 obtained with the same kind of bubbler. DeGesero said that when he was talking-about the five and two, he was talking about health standards. What we do with this gadget is to take it out in the field and sample the dusts. We countec the dusts here---- Engibous interjected that he knew what they did. DeGesero continued that they then compare. It's all the same, the same procedure.- Whenever we sample any kind of dust, asbestos or fiber glas,- regardless of the..concentration in the scrubber, it's all the san equipment, all analyzed the same way. And analyzed I might mention in the standard technique' for analyzing dusts. Engibous said he didn't think he was making himself clear. When the people sent five million particles per cubic foot, they got that particle count with the same kind of bubbler? DeGesero replied, precisely. Engibous reasoned that if they only caught half the particles, DeGesero only caught half the particles. DeGesero explained that the point was that it*6 a reference point to go from. So we have to be careful to follow and duplicate their techniques as much as possible. Brzezinski asked how many cubic feet of air we normally breathe, say per hour per day. Does anyone happen to know? Dr. Kramer answered that he thought it was something like 500cc, depending on how deep you' breathing. If you're running or something, it'll be much deeper. If you're resting, it'll be much more shallow. Brzezinski asked how they arrived at the fact that there's a health problem with asbestos if the history of the x-rays of all the pipe coverers at Dow show there is no problem. Dr. Kramer said, let's go back to the beginning of this. I became concerned with this first when Bob r----.- became a patient of mine. He was a pipe coverer. It was suspected that he might have asbestosis. At that time I looked for data to indicate how much asbes tos he had been exposed to and found that we did not have sufficient data available.and had to base our data on some studies done at Dow Corning to estimate what he had been exposed to. At this time 1 asked Mr. Hoyle to see if he would get into the business of checking on what the exposure of our people was. About this same time, I started gettir Lhings from Larry Warren and other people regarding the hazards of asbestos. These appeared in the newspapers and I got into the whole topic of just how hazardous is asbestos. I have used many sources in concluding that it is hazardous at these levels. Now our group repre sents a fairly small group and as such we cannot work with them statis tically. Remembei., we're not here producing a classical disease, asbestosis. We talked about that as one of the diseases that is produc Another disease, very rare, Amesothelioma, which might never occur in our people. It's very rare even in asbestos workers. The third disease is cancer of the lung. Now cancer of the lung is caused by many different things. It hasbeer associated with smoking. Nobody really knows all of the causes of cancer of the lung. But there is data in larger groups than ours where they have enough people which indicates that when you study a large grc ,ST0000378 Special Minutes -13- August 19, 1969 of these people, that you do find a much higher incidence df^cancerof the lung than the people'that1 have been exposed Co asbestos at these le 1 calked to Dr. Silikoff on the phone and Ralph Sherwood has a letter fi him regarding fiberglas. But I discussed asbestos which him also and asked him what he felt the safe level for asbestos exposure was. He lakes -the "extreme view' tha't the level should be some twenty-five times lower than :it' presently Is.Irf other'words, he would lower it much : lower tharfrit has been lowered.' I have a statement made before the Congress of-the United States by Dr. Silikoff in which he presented to i lu.r Congress1 fill the statistics on vhich "be makes his conclusions that asbestos is a hazalrd* I iiave data that indicates the levels that have been considered to be safe are actually not safe. ! Now, another thing is,-how about our group. I have reviewed the health of our group.- - I cannot prove that their health is worse insofar as the: lungs are concerned, but there is sufficient evidence there that suggest to me that' they do look worse than the regular .plant population. We're not a statistically big enough group that I can prove my point. The Bot ------ case, Bob-- 1 have his permission to talk about this. I asked for it before :1 even mentioned his name In any of 'these meetings. He developed some thickening of the covering of the lung^ This is seen in people who work with asbestos. And as a result he was studied in Ann Arbor. They came up with some conclusions that were rather indefinite. And I personally have recommended that we should accept this case as being an occupational disease to the insurance carrier. They however claim that because of the nature of the report from Ann Arbor, that they cannot voluntarily accept the case. Schroeder remarked that that case wasn't conclusive as of right now. It's still in progress. Dr. Kramer agreed. I have personally asked them not to put me on the stand Lo testify against Bob ---------- because I feel in my own mind that the Bob ---------- case does have some relationship to his exposures. Schroeder said, if you found out that five million parts is detrimental to health, why do you wait to put these into effect? I mean, it seems sort of silly that if I know this is true, that the five is detrimental. why should 1 wait until 1971 if we're so worried about people's health? Dr. Kramer replied that there were two answers to this. One is that thf Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists sets the standard. Whenever they change a standard they give a period of time during which people who have data available which might contradict the standard may present evidence to the contrary. In other words, this gives people whe may think that fivfe is a good figure or^tbat ten is a good ..figureor it should be one or it should be less, time to get?in their data^and do^what ever studies are necessary so that when*you .fihailyi.finaliselon^itWchar ^proposed r 1-tunity given as possiblej for^this: to beTdone?^%Schroederlreasoned>that itwouldn't necessarily'.take *ffect ih;l^l"^There couldT6ie^nough]K!ia' oppositionDr / Kramer^stated tha t|thisjwaslpot'tibianei data that Dr'.51 Silikoff has is sostronEpthat^thilTwlllTturnoutftpat.wa ;ST 0000379 Special Meeting -14- August 19, 1969 -r. . - - if. An interesting thing happened in the meantime. We ware talking about a proposed standard here of the American Conference of^Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, which has been a voluntary standard, which industries have voluntarily used to protect the health o the worker has not been a legal requirement that they be protected. _Now big .. industries do follow these standards, but niahy industries (Jo not fol low these _standards v They don't pay any! attention necessarily to. these figures. Since this all began, the Walsh-Healey regulations have come into affect and this .is a part of the Walsh-Healey Act. There are some regulations .issued, under that act which in effect state these things apply in every.-plant-* .factory, /building, or surroundings, or working conditions which ere unsanitary or .hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of employees engaged in the performance of said contracts. It applies to people involved in contracts entered into by any plant with the United States Government. It's unclear just how wide the application is. Schroeder asked if this was in effect how. Dr. Kramer agreed. DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer continued that the legal people did not know whether-- Well we asked them specifically whether our pipe coverers would be under the Walsh-Healey Act. And they tell us that they think they would be but that this would not be known until a few cases have come up in court to try the regulation, to see if they stick. Schroeder asked when this took effect. What's the date on this? DeGesero replied, January 1, 1969, I believe. Schroeder asked if (his had been proposed or if it had actually been put into effect. Has it been passed? DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer explained that it had been passed as far as he knew. Now the Walsh-Healey Act will make it a requirement in other words under circumstances to follow these standards. And they have in here not to set the standard of five, but they have set the standard of two as the legal standard. Zn other words, they're not waiting until 1971. They've got it into the law now. Schroeder asked Dr. Kramer by what reason he would say that Dow people wouldn't come under the Walsh-Healey Act as pipe coverers. What stretch of the imagination-- Neering explained that they meant are they all working on jobs with Government contracts involved. That's the question. We have a Government contract for certain products maybe, certain items. But not all of the fellows work in that area. Schroeder added that they were all subject to that area. Neering reiterated that what he^ had explained was the question. Sure, they're all subject to assign ment to working in that area. Z guess I'd agree to that. But whether or not that means we're under the Walsh-Healey Act or not, our LegalJ;* Department told you that they thought they vere`. - But that some cases: might have to be tried in court. Dr. Kramer explained thatJDeGesero^ had the opinion from the Legal Department, r.? Neering thought* maybe^t|y /had better read the opinion. `That Question^hasn't come up bcfore^lrofo pother areas r- V***> iST0000380 Special Minutes 15- August 19, 1969 ( Dr. Kramer explained that^i'f-they couldn't fihd.it he cou^remember that the essenbe'of it~was~that they teat cases to detenaingtwho was going lo be covered-where. This is true of all'of Industry ..``a 11 across the country right now.-Everybody is trying to figure out whether it applies or not: -Schroeder reasoned that if Dow people were under a contract j-aU the-peopie^werirSubject to most. any and evpry^place in.the plant- -1 guess^if:we dohave'some^governinent contracts,. X..doh't~seei how iherc'd be doubt in-anybody's mind as'towhether we cone under the Walsh Healey Act.-- I guess -this sort of ^surprises me. Warren pointed out that the Legal -Department1was agreeing with Schroeder. Nearing notied that theyrdidn't give fch~borff6rm of being able~to say, "fesi you are." Halcomb asked if-they'were'saying*then that It just covered part of them Net-ring answered-that he wasn't saying that. I'm only quoting what the Legal Department-has-to sayr* Engibous reasoned that until there are some test cases, they won't take a black and white position on anything. 1 think the answer that probably all of our workers are covered is as good as you could get. Neering added that there was no solution, only their opinion. Badley pointed out that it didn't mean or imply that the Company wasn't concerned whether they fell under the Walsh-Healey Act or not; but 1 think we're concerned with the fact that we have some fairly supportive evidence. We should be getting our asbestos exposure down to the rcconsncnded exposure. Schroeder interjected that this one doctor thinks iL should be lower than that. So you get it down to two. If we have a guy with asbestosis, 1 want to know whether that guy comes under that Walsh-Healey Act_or not. So you can get some guy in here that does accidently get silicosis. I guess we should know whether we're going to be under the Act or not. I mean that's part of it too. Dr. Kramer com mented that he would, regardless of the level of exposure. If the Compensation Commissioner decided that as a result of the exposure they would be protected by the compensation law, regardless of what level of exposure it was. Reid stated that they could talk about what the moral and legal obligatic was under the Walsh-Healey Act. Of course you've got your State Comp. Laws. For years they've been dramatically wishy-washy on airborne diseas Because a guy could work down here and go home and work on his farm and breath dust and wind up with silicosis. But who is to say whether it's , Dow Chemical's air or air outside the plant. They never took much of., a stand on it. Of course the Comp laws are getting stiffer now. But what's their interpretation of something like this now? Are they finally starting to firm up a stand on whether they'll pay compensation'for .a ^ man? Schroeder answered no.f They won't ,pay anything. Neering'remarked .ST000038I Special Mec-ting -16- August 19,. 1969 ri-ioiiBiieiuk'd it and they wouldn't pay It. Dr. Kramer reminded that .-it was because of Ann Arbor. .1 was very dissatlsfiedLI/ith Ann Arbor's I didn't like-the way they: wrote their letter. I talked to one of the. doctors.down there and he feels the same way I do. But the letter they wrote to us. which is .being used as the basis for this thing, ju6t . doesn't jgive. the. insurance company enough support. I have gotten them to. agree, at. least nojt to priake_a big issue over the thing, but merely present the data- to the Commissioner and let him make up his mind. ' -. > t* :r:: scr: z~ .rur _ jSch.roe.der added that, this-was a >ig thing and there was no doubt about . it.;1 They're afraid-.toe be- put oo the ;line, - Remember, people could be exposed nation-wide and not Just-Dow Chemical. It could snow-ball Loo. 1 imagine they-Ml :play it cool. Edgecombe stated that he had _ another.-question.;. On this parts permillion, would you put that chart up Lhere like you did over there for showing? The difference of the asbestos and fiberglas, the percentage like you did over there? DeGescro explained that this was a summary table that was in the orlgi report. On this table, what we've done was the essential portion of our function as Industrial Hygienists is to find out as to what a man .does.with-his. day, what materials he works with. We go through and r find, out which ofthese materials contain asbestos or some other cherni* agent or minerals in this case which could cause a stress on the worke In other words, a potential threat to his health. We_find out how muc time on the average he spends working with these materials and then take this little scrubber chat I showed you gentlemen out in Che field and ascertain what the actual concentrations by operation here are. We also like to express a range of concentration. What we do is the following: In order to estimate a man's eight-hour average exposure, we have to look at the contribution contributed to this exposure by each of the materials in each of the operations which contains asbesto: (See page 16A for chart) In this case, Air Cell, Kaylo, and Mag Oxide, are all asbestos contain We Lake the amount of time that a man spends working with the material and multiply it by the amount of material there to get the fractional or partial contribution to the total exposure. You'll notice we've done this for all of the materials which contain (and I might mention Lhat these are the most coninonly used materials in the Midland locatioi asbestos. We wind up with a series of columns of fractions which are then totaled. It is then this number that we compare with the health standard. Here is the exposure for the fellows working indoors with asbestos. It's 4.9 million particles^per .'cubic foot. This number,. then as I say is compared with the health standard to see how the.^^,^ health of the roan" compares*:with what :we'"know l8 `the best - information^^ available on t he".e f fec t i%o 'eight-hour lexposurelto*the se_ par t ic le sl*^ Jltfi Special Meeting .ST0000382. -16A- __August 19, 1969 Table 1. TIME-WEIGHTED EXPOSURES OF-.PIPE /CCVERERS TO* DySTS- FROM A$BESTOSwCONTAINING MATERIALS . .\ '. _Concentration* Time-weight r ............. i (mppcf) ' Operations Materials Day Mean - Ranee Factor: Asbestos Remove Air cell 1.2 11.4 . ^Kayio . 1*6 11.2 Z.1"Mag'ojcidp? .0.2. * r. 2.8- Fiberglas_.2.6 13.7 0.3-24.9 3.7-20.5 . l,,8-4,6. 1.2-33.7~ ' 0.137 0.179 0.006 ------ Mix .^^. No, l'glus, : -1.6 _ " Armentite. O.i Superpower 0.8 13.4 2.2r3Q.5 9.6 2.7-13.5 . 34.9 19.6-6.14 0.219 0.010 Cut . , Air cell Kaylo Fiberglas ............... Others^. 5.9 8.8 2.2 .. 0.6 3.0 11.7 1.7 m m% 0.6-6.2 4.9-23.1 0.8-2.6 0.177 1.030 Apply"" "'Air cell 15.8 ' Kaylo . 19.9 Fiberglas ,4.5 Others - 2.6 No. 1 Plus 4.8 Armentite/ Superpower 2.4 5:7 0.2-16.4 5.7 0.4-22.3 2.4 1.2-3.8 9.6 1.1-39.5 * d.9-3.9 0.901 1; 123 0.461 0.050 Clean up removed covers 3.0 8.5 2.4-24.6 0.255 Stocking; get hew covers 2.0 1.0 0.1-2.3 0.020 Move to job, set up 5.0 2.0 1.4-2.9 0.100 Breaks, lavatory 15.0 1.4 0.1-3.9 0.200 Time-weighted exposure to Special Meeting .ST0000383 17- August 19, 1969 of dust. There are quite a bit of numbers on It but to us it's quite meaningful and I*-11 be-gladto answer any questions. 0 Edgecombe asked DeGesero If-he.could put.on the blackboard on the charts applying to each operation of the cutting and so forth. Schroeder remarked that it was quite high then in certain parts. DeGesero agreed. If we were t..o...compare it .on a .typical operation which could cause a_high degree of exposure, we could look at removing, cutting and applying. Now the health standard, as I told you on the threshhold, the present is five for the eight-hour day. New these numbers are not representative of an eight-hour day, but when totaled up, as Z explained on the viewgraph, they do: -(At this-point, the reporter's pachine malfunction* and conversation by DeGesero.was lost. Coming back in on Degesero--) -- this is the present and I'd like to put in the proposed standard of two. And this is-asbestos. Let's look at Air Cell and Kaylo. Removing Air Cell indoors is 11.4. Removing Kaylo indoors is 11.2. Cutting Air Cell indoors is 3.0. Cutting Kaylo indoors is 11.7. Applying Air Cell indoors is 3.7 and applying Kaylo indoors is 5.7. So you see that we have high levels of dust during operations here such as removing and applying. If you'll notice here in the cutting, during the cutting operation, Kaylo is about four times dustier. There's four times a greater concentration during the cutting of Kaylo on the average than there is for Air Cell. If you'll notice on these cards on the respirator chart that ve were looking at before, in attempting to track down11 the areas where a man does receive the major exposure, we've gone through and considered these different facts from the survey. There's no X there for cutting Air Cell because on cutting Air Cell, when it's cut, it does not produce the amount of dust that the Kaylo does. On other operations, they're very comparable. So ve applied this protection. 1 might mention that this chart and the card have been labeled appropriately, "Minimum Respiratory Protection Requirement." And it's done on this basis. We search through this table and find the areas where the biggest contribution to the exposure comes and it's at these points that ve selectively apply thir respiratory protection, so that ve don't drive a tack vith a sledge hammer so to say, but try to put the protection where it's going to do the most good for the least amount of time. Plagens said that he had a questions on that. One of your reconmendati is to use respirators where you have an X under those conditions, or . use fiberglas. " i. -v 1 ? \ DeGesero explained that these findings were fo* the average pipe covere The average pipe coverer very seldom uses Thermpbestos and very seldom uses High Temp or Mag Oxide. Now when a fellow on the other hand is using these materialsthese so-called, exotic materials rather excluslv Ac k{no nnnncH t n 1 At * b mv in fn Isk*-' ttmn'a m i1v `tfou''eould thfinV- ; ST0000384 Special Meeting .. -18- August 19, 1969 ~~ - - * - -- - - - e* -- . ' - * - .. Lw ; c' if they-would be over-the-proposed.or present health standards. 1 didn't do.this with High Temp or Mag Oxide because these .materials are .very difficult to-find In common use out in the field. And let's just assume that a man worked .his entire day with Kaylo and had no exposure uto Air Cell.or ^anytof,these bother materials listed here, including even-the cements-;Now-this is ah eight-hour exposure. He'd be exposed to about 5.1 million particles per cubic foot. Rememberrthe standard is five and the proposed is two. Okay , he's in trouble here.-__If . he was using.nothing ibut .Air Cell all day long, - around 3.5. He's^withincthe present standard but in excess of the proposed standard....And this experimental material we're talking about, Careytemp, this does.at the present contain about 6% asbestos. In other, words it has about the same asbestos content as Kaylo, but because of the peculiar properties to it, it's not quite as dusty as the Kaylo, in an eight-hour day that exposure would be 3.2. Now, let's take a look at all this data and then go back and put in fibergL Plagens asked, how about Thermobestos, Put it on your list now. DeGcsero explained t^at as he had said, he hadn't done that. But I can possibly;obtain some sort of an eyeball estimate for it. (At this point, due to a further malfunction of the reporter's equipment, some conversation was lost) Let me explain It this way. When we drew up these cards,we realized that we were Crying to reach~the greatest number of men possible. At meetings where the issue was brought up, we said that for instance if the man is using High Temp all day long or if a man is using Mag Oxide all day long, which is improbable, or Thermobestos, that he should consider (in light of such findings as these) wearing that respirator all the time. Or else if he's working all day long in and day out with the material as is the case with some of these materials here, that for us to go through and put an X down.every time a man encounters the material, we could potentially be putting a man in a respirator for three-quarters of the day. This is a good solution to the problem that we now face. I think management has a better solution and that is to replace the source of the trouble. Plagens noted that the chart said that if you're removing Kaylo you should wear a respirator 1002 of the time. Suppose he was removing Kaylo for four hours. Then, for the last five minutes he removed A' Thermobestos. Are you saying it's all right to take off the respirator to remove the Thermobestos for the five minutes? (Due to malfunction^ of equipment-, conyersation was lost at this point) --in terms of^ minimum respiratory protection. Minimum now. If it's dusty"to them?! ' . they put the respirators on. ,. Thermosbestos does contain asbestos^ r '"/And as I mentioned before, for .the . sake^.ofj providing as Abroad.a^icope? |$$;as possible on these"cardst-';we did notg go",'through*and X *t hesejcardsj because it would have no* meaning toa'jnan ' Special Meeting . ST0000385 19- August 19, 1969 Now it's interesting to note that a pipe coverer workingout in the field, and pipe coverezs whohave used asbestos, have come to me and said that they could'tell me just"; by looking at the stuff that this is much dustier than either the Kaylo or Air Cell. What they are seeing is dusts which afe visableto the eye. Fiberglas is so constructed by the "nature of the material;that it does not fracture easily. It corWs"ffff rather ih~lafgefcchunks::;"This*is' what a man complains about when he'gets some ofctfiisLon him: rThere are these large chunks that are beyond or greater than'the particle sise which a man can normally respire into the`'lungs. ~ That-particle size is 0.1 to 10 microns. This"is"essentially what thisuScrubber or-this little vacuum sweeper that we have traps. 'Stuff bigger'than this will be stopped according to the doctors'in the nose and in the throat to be spit out, etc. This suggests that fiberglas in this particular application is pretty dusty. Tn cutting and applying though, it fairs much better than the asbestos containing"materials. Now if we were to go over to this same eight hours of exposure' given the levels that we found during this report, an eight hour exposure to fiberglas, a man would be exposed to 2.0 million particles per cubic foot. Even given the fact chat during one specific operation he's exposed to relatively dusty concen trations. I might remindyou that if a man did nothing but remove fiberglas'all dayclongV according to the numbers that we found in the survey, cm the average^ he would still be within the acceptable standards for fiberglas. Wow, as Dr. Kramer mentioned, there has been considerable'work"done on fiberglas and the affecte of exposure tofiberglas. Right now the grape vine has it that this TLV of fifteen is going to be dropped and raised to fifty million particles per cubic fcot. In this room it looks pretty clean right now. You'd probably have something like 0.5 million particles per cubic foot. So if you can imagine a dust situation 100 times dustier than this room, it's a real dust storm. But even at these concentration levels, there is still no hazard to health according to the recent research done by such people as Dr. Paul Close. He did one very interesting experiment in which he took some rats and put them into concentrations of 100,000 and they survived with no effects of health. Engibous asked, 100,00 what? DeGesero replied, no chronic affects. It's just about like dropping them into a bucket of the stuff. Engibous reiterated, 100,000 what? DeGesero replied, million particles per ~ cubic foot. The s*me units. What they're essentially saying is that" this stuff is iner{;. So if this new number, this fifty, becomes the ^ new TLV and by the same process this five is going down to two, then^v that thirteen becomes insignificant as far as the hazard or that would., cause chronic lung problems.The other numbers assume a much'greater^ significance because they are numbers of materials which contain asbestc This again reflects this value,of the American Congress of Governmental -. ; ST00003-86 Special Meeting -20- ' .August 19, 1969 and Industrial Hygienists?~'LThey're continually reviewincand revising iheir standards -like'this;7 And every year^they put out a'booklet with these changes in them and we expect momentarily a ahlpment^of booklets Nobody is going to be particularly 'surprised to see thls'flfty number in there for fiberglas.: (At this point Che .equipment malfunctioned again"ahd~c6hversatidh`was"Tost)' Dr.'framer advised that^since templet their final presentation to the pipe cdverers, they had reconsidered their position on the wearing of the Tesplrator when removing fibergla: as follows: It is recommended that when removing fiberglas insulation that may be ebrttaroiristeduvichcboxic chemicals, that the pipe'coverers are to wear respirators incadditlon Co any other.protective devices' that may be deemed necessary.' It's not because of any pulmonary hazar< from exposure'to fiberglas but because of possible injury due to'the contaminating chemical that may be present. It occurred to us that some of that-fiberglas might become contaminated With materials themseJ far more toxic than fiberglas.~ If this is suspected, they should prote themselves. ' Edgecombe said that he had 'another question. It's going to be a repeat but I've heard it about the percentage of people that'll lose a classii cation on account of the product that they're using, fiberglas. Dr. Kr pointed out that these were estimates. _ I haven't been able to get real good figures that I can use. They vary between five and ten percent of the'people who will'not adapt to fiberglas. At firat when they worV with fiberglas they itch. After a while it's very much like the sun. When you first_go out you burn. The skin thickens up enough so that the fiberglas becomes less irritating and there are people who adapt to it and have no trouble getting into fiberglas after that. The quest is, how many people do not adapt to fiberglas. I've found estimates of five percent and I've found estimates of ten percent. I don't know if we'll have one man, ten men or twenty men that'll be unable to adapt to the fiberglas as far as skin irritation goes. We did have a fair question relative to that. That is that the Medical Department's attitude would be that we would not ordinarily take a man off his job unless he complained of the itching and wanted to be off the job becaus of it, or if unless we first convinced him that it was to his benefit to be taken off the job. But there is a possibility that some men-- we may have to recommend that they do not work with fiberglas. Halcomb asked Dr. Kramer if he was saying five or ten percent of.the crew can't work with fiberglas. Dr. Kramer explained that this was:> a figure. We don't have exactly.'';.I've never been able to pick up a?;, real good figure from anybody on how many people do and don't. A-I'ye^r had estimates eiven to me by people working with fiberslas materialsT^ ST0000387 Special Meeting -21- August 19, 1969 Halcomb, said thathe..thought chat was what. Edgecombe's question was to the doctor,, that'ten percent lose their job. Warren explained that he had been talking to a Mr. Grahap> who has an insulating company over in'Bay City. He has..twenty-three guys over there'." "They use fi berg las full time." 7 They"'have no trouble at all. Needing asked how many' Dow jad.7. Warren replled that"-they had eighty-on'e and maybe a'Tew niore one, wayj pr 'the other. Edgecombe coninented that he had ' heard ninety.' Warren explained, that they, had had 41 for a long time. We almost doubled it/7.If.jflberglas completely took the place of Air Cel 1,' jabout 407/ or_ 4j$%"of the total would .be of this nature. It'll 7 only go up to740QV7. jt'can'.t be. used on-.-let's say it isn't being used on 150 pound steam as such,/on the line itself. It is put over tracing As far as putting it. on. a two..inchij_ 150 pound steam line, you'd use Kaylo 7or-Careytemp.-'We're not* in'the business of trying to put Air Cell'out of stock.J"-We're in the business of trying to put asbestos containing material out of our stock. It seems like What is happening all the time is the guys are saying you're trying to get rid of Air Cell. This isn't the case. We're trying to get rid of asbestos contai insulation material. Plagens asked Warren if he was saying that he was expecting perhaps 507. of the Insulation would be fiberglas. Warren agreed. .Plagens added that the rest would still be Careytemp-- Warren explained that it would be Kaylo, Careytemp-- I'm sure that in the pas we've always been able to work things out. I'm sure in thi6 particular case it can be worked out, assuming that 99% of them or^ 50% don't come along and say that they can't work with it. 5Z is limited. Schroeder reasoned that there really wasn't any fear of anybody losing their job if they switch to fiberglas. Warren replied, if this 5% figure is true, no. If it comes out that way. Brzezinski said that he guessed that he had been hearing that fiberglas was nothing but a discomfort problem. Supposing some guy in Lhe middle of the afternoon is all sweated up and he talked to his supervisor and says he itches and wants to go and take a shower. What would the response be in a case like this? Warren answered that he kne if he saw a guy that was removing covering (and I've seen this happen before), removing covering that's up over a guy's head and he's in this for two or three hours, he deserves a shower. I'm sure that most forem that are aware of this are going to give it to him. Todd questiones whether over a period of time a man would build up a resistance to . asbestos so that he could take more than if he had no resistance. r V Dr. Kramer answered no. Schroeder reasoned that it was the other way, around. The longer he works with it, the^better chance he'd have of 7/" developing a disease. Martini asked what/industry in general wasfdoing about this problem.^. Are we ;leading ' the -'pack or are, we fa 1 ling _behind^ the rest of industry Dr,. Kramer' answered /that he cbuldnit|givejth'em^a real hard fee ling forfit right now^.l/dd^knowlfromwhat' "\veijhearBj -/'-Vi. . ST0000388 Special Meeting -22- . August 19, 1969 from, these fellows that we're the only one in Michigan using-Air Cell. Warren agreed. Edgecombe added, and three iq the United States. Warren explained that there were, only three companies in-the-United States that even make Air Cell. And we're the Only Industrial plant in the State of Michigan that use it. sr.r t~>o ` jcr* '.c. nerrer. ~ r: i. c. - z r.* v. t. - -- - -- <=. - Neering- related that'her had-been atameeting with about'twenty chemical companies.. This subject came.up and they're all struggling with the problem as wo.are. .So we.may be.somewhat of a leader now* I believe. This.was. my impression. {machine-malfunction and some conversation was.lost).. Prior! questioned whether there was any problem with the --- clothing you wear working with fiberglas..-Will the fibers become- embedded in.your. clothing.and will you not.be able to get them out? . Warren replied that supervision recognised this problem.' It's a problem we've had for many years.; What we will be doing,. undoubtedly, each field service unit will have to have a supply of coveralls. They wear light-loose coveralls. .We'll have them available. If a pipe coverer needs a replacement, we'll have them available. That's about the way it'll happen. Edgecombe cooxnented that he hoped that it worked better than it had in.the past.r(machine malfunction and some conversation was lost) Warren remarked that it was surprising bow many coverers are already wearing their masks. This is quite gratifying-really. And most of them do.have the masks around their.necks right now. ~As of the secom we'd like to follow through on this whole program. Martini added that this was the date that Wittbrodt had asked for. He asked for this meeting and that we hold up until the first of September. Halcomb asked if he had heard someone say that they bad .started the research on this as of the first of this year. Was it January 1 chat you had these fellows start getting this together? Neering questioned whether they had first become aware of the problem January 1st. Dr. Kramer answered that he would say it was about then. 1 can't remember .the date. I'd have to look back in my records. It was about the time that I first started with Bob ------ Schroeder remarked that that was good year ago. Halcomb asked if they had workec with Dow coverers and if they had gone into their area. DeCesero replied, absolutely. Halcomb asked DeGesero if the men knew what they were doing at that time. DeGesero agreed. Warren added, all the way through. In fact, we had questionaires sent out to the coverers. We talked to the steward and everybody. Neering added that in fact^ theJ. men had done some research of their own during that time. - Edgecombe & said that he would like to say for the record that there had been a^~ broad discussion on the way that the operation was performed out the way the samples were taken.HThere were several^discussionsfonTthls^ that I heard. -> They weren't ^satisfied with9, the^way ^you'took^them^Mjftnt 4- . *' V ' r- Special Meeting .ST0000389 -23- August 19, 1969 Schroeder stated that they had had discussions with Dr. Kramer. This has been at least a couple of.years ago at least. And>jQrcourse there' Bob------------ case where Dr. Kramer got involved. i: UN JON RECESSED. `r / Nit-ring asked if the Union had any more questions. Schroeder answered no, .Neering .explained that ,,t he Company-was going to put the program into effect as of September 2nd as agreed to. It's for the employees' betterment for their health. .That's, two weeks from today. If there are any problems^that arise,_we'lljusthayeto handle them as they come up. That's going to be it. DeGesero.asked if Edgecombe had been at the meeting where the fact was brought up that some guy6 had called up and somebody had refused to do the sampling or something like that. Edgecombe answered yes. DeGesero continued that he had started thinking about tha't. I think there was a call from the fellows over in the Power Department to.come out and survey while they were ripping off the botton of a boiler or something like that. And as I recall the entire incident ^ at this time, what it amounted to was that they wanted me to come out " .and 1 had already made a previous conmitment and could not make it. So I said I'd come out at another time and I did come out and measure while they-rl think it was-- j^igecombe stated that it hadn't been DeGesero. This happened at 77 Building.- The guy came while they were culling this. He said it was too dirty and he wouldn't take it. Do you remember this? .Jim Martin was the fellow that brought this up. Net-ring slated that if they had a problem they could work it out.