Document dYKRVnQo4vZ3YmxOaL49k24B5

FILE NAME: Azrock-Domco (AZD) DATE: 1972 Mar 15 DOC#: AZD004 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Transcript of Dept of Labor Hearing Asbestos OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS before the of the _ _> D. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR H ' ' Docket No. In the matter of STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST,,- PROPOSED RULE MAKING / PUBLIC HEARING . __ . ; - . . ' , . ; 7'^ Wlwl. Washington, D.C. t w . March 15/1972 , gg0 HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. Official Reporter* : W adilngteii, D . CL 546-6666 ' I! 2 3 I 4 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEiVLTii ADMINISTRATION HEARINGS ON STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST Conference Room 13 Department, of Labor Washington, D , C. MonriaV/ M arch 1 5 , 1972 ,i !( i. Ths bearin':) on occupational sa fe ty tine health ire's for <M"ossre to "booster nv'.ttt reconvonatl <?t 0 .-,->.. i'-.rthr:: M. c; Uberrt, pr^aioinev. 14 .o ;s i! to I; i ! y* CONTENTS WITNESSES; Alvin Gross W. Clark Cooper Duncan A. Holaday Stephen Holmes , Clifford L, Sheo Icier j. Spencer Royer Charles Zumwalt Albert H; Fhy Matthew M. Swetonlc Isaac H. Weaver John H Marsh Joseph Leonard John L. Rainey Albert D. Schlnner Eddie Story EXHIBITS NUMBERS: 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 170-B 178 192 ' PAGE 104 113 128 142 172-B 170-L 170-P 171 178 193 198 202 209 212 216 RECEIVED 107 106 155 151. 170-A 170-A 17O-B 178 192 178 ,* , (The document above referred to > as marked as Exhibit No. 38 ' * for identifiestide.) EXAMINER* GOLDBERG: All right. MR. FAY: And the second one is the Asbestos Fact Sheet concerning the uses of asbestos and asbestos products. I i '' EXAMINER GOLDBERG: That will be Exhibit 39. (The document above referred to as marked as Exhibit No. 39 for identification.) EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. Exhibits 38 and 39 are received. (The documents previously identi fied as Exhibits Nos. 38 and 39 ere received in evidence.) ( EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Introduce yourself. MR. SWETONIC: My name is Matches it. Seetonic > and I a m Executive Secretary of the Asbestos Information Associa- t5.on of North America and also manager of special projects in the Public Affairs Section for the Johns-Manville Corpora tion. Mr. Fay has already described.the association, and identified the companies which it represents. We are basically an information disseminating organization and the facts ot opinion contained in my presentation are supported in the mm 179 medical literature or constitute the professional opinion of t medical and technical experts available to the industry as 2 3 consultants. . The asuestos industry has recognized for many years 4 that there are occupational health hazards associated with 5 the excessive inhalation of asuestos dust. Recognizing its 9 obligation to protect its workers, the industry has over the 7 years invested many millions of dollars in sophisticated and a highly efficient equipment to reduce asuestos dust levels in 9 10 the work places generally accepted safe limits. Some $100 million has ueen invested for this purpose in the past decade n alone. I just might point out in reference to some of the ?a i testimony that was given this morning that almost exclusively 53 this equipment was designed to prevent exposure at the source, 14 3S dust collection equipment of the type that was descrioed for yc in the insulation trade but on a much, much larger scale -- 19 again not protecting the worker, out protecting him from the 17 dust oefore it ever gets to him. 19 The general position within the industry is that w - 19 would never like to see a man ever have to wear a respirator, 20 for example. The source is the place to stop exposure. Over the years, acceptable safe limits for asuestos exposure has been lowered a nuinucr of times uy various oodles, including NCGIH and others. The industry has worked hard to 180 1 is using faced with the possiotUty of yet another decrease 2 in the acceptaole limits for asuestos expotsure. I*n the paet, 3 each new standard was accepted by the Industry oecause the 4 developing medical evidence indicated that new lower limits 3 might indeed be necessary, This is certainly not the case with the two-fioer standard proposed by the National Institute ti of Occupational Safety and Health. The medical orief pre 7 8 pared oy NIOSH in support of the two-fioer limit, in our 9 opinion, falls far short of estaolishing the necessity of such 10 a standard. The criteria document, in fact, states quite 11 12 clearly on page D-10 that "the numoer of studies that have 13 collected both environmental and medical data and with a 14 significant numoer of exposed workers is not sufficient to 15 establish a meaningful standard based upon firm scientific 16 data." 17 If this is true, then the question must be asked: 18 upon what data shall a standard be oased? If we are going to 13 baso our standard upon what others have done, which is the 20 basic approach that NIOSH had taken, then we are running 21 around in circles, oecause if specific data is not availaole 22 to us today, then it could not possioily have been availade 23 to others when they developed their standards in the past. 24 The simple tru. h is that no one, NIOSH included, 2d knows for sure what a safe occupational standard should oe. l8l I There 1s general agreement among th professionals studying thi 2 problem that it should probauly oe lower.than 12 fibers per S cc, out how much lower is a question, that has not been 4 answered to everyone's satisfaction. The main reason for this 5 is that the disease we are seeing today is the result of 6 conditions that existed 20.or 30 or 40 years ago, at a time 7 when today's highly sophisticated dust collection equipment 8 waa not readily availaole and when ooth the industry and the y medical profession knew relatively little about the hazards 10 of asbestos dust. i This point has been made repeatedly oy the doctors H testifying before this hearing. j We simply do not know for sure what the dust levels were in those days, but there is every indication that they were enormously higher than they are today. For this reason, as many doctors have pointed out, we must be very careful about looking at today's conditions and today's disease and trying to draw a parallel between the two. Such a parallel does not exist, and this can lead to some very erroneous conclusions. Let me give you an example. It lias oeen reported uy some researchers studying the insulation, trades in this country that the dust con ditions that exist today on insulation joo sites and in ship- _ . _ 12 1 led to a calculation that the very high death rate found ' . * 2 among these men is directly attributable to levels of around 3 three fleers per cc. The evidence is suostantial that this 4 calculation is inaccurate. S I am submitting with my testimony a paper which 6 describes the decreasing asbestos content of insulations used 7 in the trades over the past 30 to 40 years. You will recall 8 that this basic question about the levels of exposure in the 3 past among these people was Drought up yesterday by to Dr. Nicholson and under question by Mr. Sheckler. The basic It document which substantiates the conclusion that the levels 12 are considerably different, although we don't know what they 13 were 40 years ago, but we do know they were much higher, is U contained in this paper which I have here entitled, "Changing 15 Concepts of Insulation Material." 16 I will not go into the details of what is contained 17 in this paper, except to submit it. 18 For example, I submit this paper not to discredit IS any researcher's work. Obviously, I am not in a position to sc do that, but merely to point out as others have done, the 21 enormous difficulty one encounters in trying to establish i meaningful numerical standards. 2! In addition, as Dr. Holmes pointed out in his testimony, the evidence seems to indicate that more importance should be given to peak exposures in evaluating disease m . 11111 l1"' 183 1 potential than to time weighted averages. 2 For example, in the tearout of old insulations 3 aboard ship, the British have counted levels as high as 4 3fc00 fibers per cc, with a mean ranging oetween 159 fibers 8 per cc and 353 fibers per cc. Today,.of course, men performinj 0 this work are protected by air supply respirators. Thirty I 7 years ago, when they received exposures that led to their 3 present disease, they were not so protected. 9 The doctors are generally agreed that the lung's 10 ability to cleanse itself of accumulated dust would be n seriously reduced at such high levels, yet a time-weighted 2?. average for a G-hom: week might show a relatively low level. S3 In the spraying industry, counts as high as 1500 fibers per c.: have been recorded. Yet, considering the time 3 c-peui: on preparation of the equipment and other non-spraying IS tasks, the time-weighted average for these workers might come 7 out to be reasor.ab.Iy moderate. 13 Thus, in the opinion of most experts, time-weighted 19 averages can be very misleading if the men are periodically 0 exposed to fiber levels so high that the lung's cleansing 2! mechanism fails considerably in its ability to rid the lung 22 of accumulated fiber. If, as the experts have told us, the 23 lungs can remove 99% of all inhaled particles, including 24 asbestos fiber, then a reduction in the cleansing function of 25 even a few percent will increase the amount of fiber retained \\ iB h 1 by that many magnitude 2 In addition to these reasons, there are excellent 3 technological and economic reasons for not promulgating too 4 strict a time-weighted average, and instead placing more 5 attention on eliminating the high peals exposures. The industi 6 is in the process of trying to develop accurate data with ra* 7 gard to economic impact 8 Mr. Pay referred to th5..s in his presentation, i> lie are working hard on this problem with OSHA, 10 Bureau of Standards, and with Arthur D. Little. While it 11 wi.t3. be corae weeks before final figured will be available, ?2 early estimatea indicate that the cost to the industry of 13 maoting a two-fiber standard,in those sections of the industry 14 where cuch a standard is feasible, would be in the vicinity 15 of $200 million, . i 1C Xn recommending a standard of two fibers per cc,, ?: the erroneous assumption has been made that today's tech k no logy is c ,pabic of lowering the levels in each and every is asbestos operation to two fibers. Past experience would 21 indicate that in a sizable number of operations it will oe 2 impossible to reduce the levels to two fibers, no matter how 2 much money is spent. 2 Xn these cases, the operations obviously would have 2 to bo shut down and the men thrown out of work. Wc have only 1 a very rough idea at this time how large a segment of the 185 I manufacturing industry would be affected in this manner* fcut , i 2 an estimate of perhaps 15' to 20% seems reasonable., ' 3 Applied to the sales of a billion dollars, this 4 would obviously work out in the range of $150 to $200 million. S In addition* there will no doubt be cases where the 6 technology is available to reduce levels to two fibers, but 7 where the cost involved would make a particular product line c either no longer profitable or no longer competitive on the 9 open market against non-asbestos containing products of the 10 same type. 11 . in these cases, the plant or manufacturing operation 12 would also be shut down. This particular type of situation 13 would also exist at a five-fiber level hopefully in not as U many cases. 13 Trying to put a handle on the potential number of 1G lost jobs is extremely difficult. Many small manufacturing 17 operations will undoubtedly go under, but it is nearly 16 impossible to determine the total number of met? we are 12i talking about. Perhaps 15 to 30 thousand is about as close 20 no we can come at this time* Thrs would not bo just in Z\ manufacturing but would be a consideration of the insulation trades and other groupa a3 well. The figures 7. have just mentioned may not seem large when compared to what the steel or automobile industries would have to pay in similar circumstances, but the asbestos industry 7 t 186 t in this country is much smaller, and $200 million in equip- t i * 2 raent, another $200 million or more in eliminating product .line; 3 due to an inability to meet the two-fiber standard, and 20 4 or 25 thousand lost jobs is an enormous chunh1^. of this industr i S For this reason, it is vital that OSIIA give considerable 6 thought before promulgating a standard that: even the experts 7 agree is not based on-solid scientific evidence. 3 Of additional enormous potential financial impact on M the industry is the labeling requirement as contained in the 10 final recommendations of the OSHA Advisory Committee. It 1{ would require the placing of a warning label on each and ever.y Vi product containing more than 5% asbestos by weight. This 13 label which contains the words: ,sDo not breath dust -- may 14 cause asLestoois and cancer. 15 1 Such a label would surely spell the demise of a 10* nu-ifccr of major: -roduct lines of the industry, including viy n l 17 asbestos floor tile, asbostos-pipc, and any other product 13 that is sold dircftly to the consumer mnrlcct. In addition, 1'J there is no doubt that our competitors will attempt to take ZQ advantage of the situation by encouraging the public to avoid Z\ asbestos-containing products because of the potential health ZZ hazards implied in Che warning label, eve n though to the 23 customer no such hazard exists. ?4 . I would question whether such a label is, in fact, 25 necessary or called for in the majority of asbestos-containing 187 1 products. Everyone in th'c industry and in the medical and z scientific profession who has dealt with the asbestos health 3 problem over the years is familiar with the concept of locked- 4 in and xion-lockcd-in products. A lockod-in product is one in 3 which the asbestos is bound into the product' with cement,. t <J asphalt, plastic or some other binder which prevents the 7 escape of free fiber in use* ' 3 Samples of locked in products would be asbestos 9 cement products and floor tile. Non-locked-in products would to be those in which the fiber is loosely bound and which release 11 fiber during handling or application. Most asbestos-containing 13 insulations would fall into this category.,, as would fire 13 proofing sprays and insulating cements. U t should mention that while Chora is no labeling requirement undo:-: any Federal statute for insulation products 1$ at the present time, X believe the majority of the companies 37 in the industry voluntarily have a warning label on most 18 insulations which they consider potentially hazardous in use. 19 The came applies to a lot of bag asbestos cement products and 2C fiber shipments*. This was a voluntary action on the part of 21 many of the companies in the industry. 22 The fact of the matter is that the.percent* of 22 content of fiber in a product has absolutely nothing to do i its ability to create a health problem. An insulation con taining 7% asbestos fiber requires very careful handling, 188 I while an asbestos cement sheet with 15% asbestos requires , . . . . .t * . 2 essentially none. * *' '** 3 For this reason, it i s only logical that the *' , t . *. t 4 Advisory Committee recommended labeling system be discarded * , 5 in favor of a system whi:;h only requires labeling, on those r, products which readily release asbestos fiber in a hazardous 7 quantity during handling or application. 8 With regard to the monitoring requirements of the 9 proposed regulations, I would only like to point out that JO there are probably no more than three dozen trained industrial 5! hygienists in the entire country available to industry to S2 sample and analyse asbestos dust concentrations. QSKtV should 13 appreciate this problem because of ita own difficulties in 14 finding qualified industrial hygienists. Men can be trained iC to da this job, but it is going to take much more tit* than i6 is permitted under the law. 17 X might also point out that tho dust monitoring 18 system as required in the regulations will cost the manu 19 facturing industry alone between $3 and $5 million per year, 20 not an ezhorbifcant sum when viewed by itself, but one that 21 adds to an already heavy financial burden on the industry. 22 As my final point, I would like to discuss for a 4* . K 23 minute the medical aspects of the Advisory Committee recoin- I . . . - itendationn. She recommendations state that the medical 2 surveillance program shall be carried out by physicians 189 1 selected by the e m p l o y e e a n d that the medical records will 2 be available only to HE# and DOL physicians and 'hiedical 3 consultants and physicians designated and authorised by the 4 employee" S Vou will note this employer is by omission pro 6 hibited from seeing an employee's medical record, even though 7 the employer is responsible under the law for the medical 8 condition of his employees. S Under Section (c)(7) of the Advisory Committee 3* recommendations, an employer is required to make sure that li no employee "should bo assigned to tasks requiring use of 12 respiratori his most recent medical examination indicates" 13 and then the section goes on to the certain medical criteria. U How can an employer obey the section of the 13 regulations if ho is prohibited from seeing an employee's IS medical records by another section of the regulation? This 17 is completely illogical and is obviously reflective of the IS haste with which the advisory committee was required to 1S perform its duty. 20 In addition, how could an employer conduct a pre 21 ventive medicine program in his plant if he cannot perform 22 examinations, note changes in medical conditions, and counsel 23 employees? These programs are in existence in essentially ?4 all manufacturing companies in the asbestos industry. And 1 25 might point out that not only ar employees counseled on 190 I possible occupational health problems, but on the general ! !! , ! ' 2 overall health condition as ell. 3 We have heard the arguments from certain unions, 4 not necessarily here, but from others, that it should be solely 3 up to the employee to decide whether or not he is willing to 6 work under the existing conditions, whatever they may be. 7 This simply does not make good sense, because it is still the 3 responsibility cf the employer to safeguard the health of i) his employees. Where the responsibility lies is where the 10 implementation of the medical surveillance program should be 11 centered, and no place else. 12 It should also be pointed out that a system of the 13 type proposed in the recommendations would effectively present 14 future ctidemiological studies of the asbestos industry, 13 except on a very limited or local scale. The medical records HI vital to such studies would be distributed among thousands of 17 doctors all across Che country, and retrieval would be virtu 3 ally impossible. 13 In conclusion, 1 would like to summarize very brieflj 20 the various points X have attempted to bring out in my pre 21 sentation. 22 One. The medical evidence for establishing a 23 meaningful time-weighted average is unavailable at this time. ?4 Two. Most experts agree that the brief, massive 29 doses of asbestos fiber are probably more important in the 191 1 causation of the disease .than continuing, long-term, low or 2 moderate exposure This is not to preclude that low exposure a over an enormous period, of time are not to be considered at 4 all, but that the one is more important than the other. S Three. If OSHA promulgates a time-freighted average 6 lower than five, the economic impact ph the industry will be 7 enoraous. In addition, many asbestos-containing products will 8 probably disappear from the marketplace and thousands of jobs s will be eliminated. Four. A labeling requirement of the type recomraendec n by the OSHA Advisory Committee will result in the unnecessary 32 loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in sales each year. 13 Entire segments of the industry will be destroyed, with 34 resultant large-scale unemployment. IS Five. The dust monitoring program recommended by ?3 OSBu is-impractical at this time because of the lack of trained personnel. 13 iiir. The medical surveillance recommendation-of ia tae Advisory Cor.mttee is illogical and unworkable. 20 There are, of course, other sections of the proposed 21 regulations that will create difficulties in addition to those 22 that I have discussed and these will be mentioned by separate 2S testifiers. However, I believe that the points that I have 24 covered are the most important, at least to the manufacturing 25 side of the industry.