Document gaxgDovBmEgwXEOZpj9yOxYRN

MT-PWHD-012790 .1 MT-PWHD-012791 $9,0 J SUMMARY OF TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY SHELDON H. MANNING January 8, 1982 In Douglas C Irvine, Jr., v J-M Corp 1* II. TOPIC Direct Examination By Mr. Campillo - Personal Education and employment background p. 1500-1502 - Duties as Industrial Hygienist with the Department of Health p. 1502-1503 - TLV p. 1503-1505 - Duties as Industrial Hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard p. 1505-1507 - Dr. Jose Smith p. 1508 - Safety Department Functions in Industrial Hygiene Prior to his Arrival p. 1508-1513 - General Tasks as Industrial Hygienist at the Shipyard p. 1513-1515 - Puget Sound Naval Shipyard p. 1515-1517 - Resistance in Developing Industrial Hygiene Program p. 1517-1522 - Instructions from Supervisors RE Asbestos Dust Control p. 1522-1524 - Tasks Performed as Industrial Hygienist at the Shipyard p. 1524-1526 - Recommendations Outlined in his Memorandum dated 06-30-70 p. 1526-1529 - Bill Reitze p. 1530-1531 - Training Seminars on Asbestos Health Hazards p. 1531-1533 - Medical Screening p. 1533-1534 Cross Exam By Mr. Knotts - X-ray Program p.1535-1538 - Noise Level Problem p. 1539-1540 - ACGIH p. 1541 - 5 Million Particle TLV p. 1541-1544 - Dust Sampling p. 1544-1546 - His Observation of Workers p. 1546-1549 L H V Q '-O O LD H O LD ^00 -sf vj< i--| <N CN CN 00 HH PAGE 1 7 7 -l MT-PWHD-012792 SUMMARY OF TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY SHELDON H. MANNING January 8, 1982 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CAMPILLO Personal, Education and Employment Back Ground p. 1500-1502 Deponent is retired Industrial Hygienist. He has a BS Degree in Commercial Chemistry from Penn State. Has taken some short courses given by the USPHS in Industrial Hygiene and Radiological Health and Hearing Conserva tion. Following completion of his formal education he worked three years for Hooker Electric Chemical Company as a chemical engineer; then worked as a chemist for Bethlehem Steel Corp. for 14 years doing mostly quality control work. Next was employed by Pennsylvania Department of Health as his first employment as an Industrial Hygienist and remained there from September 1961 until February 1967. Duties as Industrial Hygienist w/the Dept, p. 1502-1503 While he was with the Department of Health he had a two week course given by the USPHS called Industrial Hygiene fundamentals and a two week course given by the USPHS in radiological health. He later had short courses in hearing conservation and in radiological health. The Department of Health routinely inspected factories to look over the environment and when they came on something they had doubts about they would routinely take measurements. If it was air contamination they took air samples in the workers breathing zone to determine level of exposure. Threshold Limit Values p. 1503-1505 TLV are set by a threshold limit committee which is part of the ACGIH and meets every year to revise, according to the information at the time. In the 1960`s there were probably about 250 materials listed with TLV. The TLV for asbestos as of 1967 was set at 5 million particles. Duties as Industrial Hygienist at Long ' Long Beach Naval Shipyard p. 1505-1507 In 1967 he went to work as the only indus trial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Ship yard. He was required to inspect the industrial environment, familarize himself with it, take measurements when necessary MT-PWHD-012793 conditions at the shipyard. He familarized himself with the Navy regulations and reviewed material he gathered from his week in indoctrination at Puget Sound Naval Ship yard. It took over a year to get the equipment he requested to take dust samples. The Navy wasn't subscribing to Industrial Hygiene Periodicals before he started. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard p. 1515-1517 He spent a week at Puget Sound to familarize himself with procedures. They had a labortory and good reference material; the staff of the industrial hygienist consisted of the head Industrial Hygienist, two other hygienists, a chemist, two secetaries, two health physicists and two Radiation Health Technicians. The department at Long Beach consisted solely of himself. Puget had an effective program. They were taking samples of the environment and writing reports and had effective control of health hazards including asbestos exposure. Resistence in develo He experienced resistance in developing the ping Industrial program from George Watkins. He didn't allow Health Program any written reports and didn't have much p. 1517-1522 faith in taking samples. He felt Watkins wasn't backing an agressive Industrial Hygiene program. He left after two years and when Dr. Smith began. Manning began writing reports because Smith never put a stipulation on him not to. The first report he wrote was an asbestos report. He was getting nowhere in a situation that required improvement fast. His job description charged him with great responsibilities without adequate means to carry them out. He had minimal equipment, an increasing amount of paper work, no secretary and ventilation problems in the shipyard that weren't being taken care of. The labeling of toxic materials was done by supply people and usually wasn't done adequately; the ventilation equipment was designed by the foreman instead of engineer. He was finally given a technician in the fall of '72 and a secretary in June '73. At the time he left in February of '74 hiring procedures to find a replacement hadn't commenced. MT-PWHD-012794 and make reports and recommendations for control of things he felt were needed. His job was within the medical department at the shipyard and he reported directly to the medical officer. When he first went aboard, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery was in an advisory capacity and he didn't report directly to anyone in medicine and surgery. In August 1972, his job administratively was moved into the Long Beach Naval Regional Medical Center and the administrative head was in the Long Beach Naval Hospital. When he started, the medical officer was Dr. George Watkins. Dr. Jose Smith p. 1508 Dr. Smith replaced Dr. Watkins as Medical Director and came aboard sometime in May 1969. Was still serving in that capacity when he left the shipyard. His office was in the dispensary at the shipyard and after Watkins left he reported directly to Smith. Safety Dept. Functions in Industrial Hygiene prior to his arrival p. 1508-1513 Between 1964, when Bill Marr left the posi tion of industrial hygiene, until the time Manning started, there was no industrial hygiene department at the shipyard. In an effort to determine files, records and equipment available when he started he determined that the industrial hygiene functions were being done by the safety department and the industrial labortary. Through looking at the available records he found that dust samples weren't being taken during that period of time and that the safety department limited themselves to putting material in the safety manual pertaining to industrial hygiene. The Industrial Lab answered questions on the toxicity of various materials. General Tasks as Industrial Hygienist at the Shipyard p. 1513-1515 His first day as Industrial Hygienist at the shipyard he found a desk with an empty filing cabinet. No references, no dust monitors and no secretary. He found some referrence books from the safety department and some materials stored in the Industrial Lab which was mostly broken equipment and and he sent most of it back. The first thing he did was request very simple dust sampling equipment and began collecting reference material. He did inspection work to familarize himsa!feswaateh the working MT-PWHD-012795 Instructions from Superiors re: Asbestos Dust Control p. 1522-1524. Some instructions regarding Asbestos dust control were authored by a Naval ship's system Command. He was instructed to take samples in the working atmosphere and determine the level of exposure and monitor results of physical and medical exams of these workers. He was responsible for making recommendations for hazard control. The instructions concerning control materials weren't being followed at the shipyard when he arrived. The instructions that came from command while he was there were not totally implemented in a consistant fashion. Tasks performed as Industrial Hygienist at the Shipyard p. 1524-1526 About 15% of his time was devoted to dealing with asbestos dust. The remaining 85% was devoted to things like monitoring breathing air in the shipyard, hearing conservation, hazard pay and mercury problems. When there were complaints brought to his attention he had to take of them. When Watkins was his superior there were tasks put on him that he felt someone with a lot less skill could be doing like fitting ear plugs, and collecting urine samples from people exposed to lead. He was responsible for the quarterly report of the whole dispensary, which was completely out of his field because he was involved in only a small portion of this report. These tasks took a substantial amount of time away from his hygienist functions. Re commendations outlined in his 6-30-70 Memorandum p. 1526-1529 He first requested a long overdue promotion that he thought he had coming. He asked for a qualified IH assistant but instead got a technician with a high school background. He requested to be relieved of the extraneous duties that had been imposed on him such as ear plug fitting. He asked that he be sent to the Industrial Hygiene Conference annually because they were very valuable in making contact with other people on a one to one basis. He prepared this memorandum in his official capacity as Industrial Hygienist. (.0 MT-PWHD-012796 William Reitze p. 1530-1531 He met Bill Reitze for the first time at an Industrial Hygiene conference and later when he visited the shipyard with the tour group associated with Dr. Selikoff in connection with an asbestos related study in '70 or '71. Training Seminars in Asbestos Health Hazards p. 1531-1533 The first indoctrination session was in February of '68 and he participated along with the entire supervision of the pipecoverers. The first session was to working men who installed pipe covering and insulation. He presented Dr. Selikoff1s initial findings and didn't hold anything back. He informed them of the increased incidence of cancer among pipe coverers exposed to asbestos and explained that non-smoking workers had less incidence of cancer. He advised they stop smoking if they worked with asbestos. He recommended the use of respirators whenever possible and good house keeping. The next meeting was held in the summer of '71 and indoctrinated the first line supervisors of all the shops as a way of getting information to workers who weren't exposed directly to asbestos. The production people created resistance because these meetings pulled the worker away from his work. Medical Screening p. 1533-1534 When he first came there, there was an ongoing program carried out at Memorial Hospital by Dr. Ellestad where workers were given an annual x-ray and extensive pulmonary function studies were done on all pipe coverers yearly. There was no communication to employees as to the findings. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KNOTT X-ray program p. 1535-1538 The X-ray program was during the entire time from 1967 to February 1974; he was interested in what was happening to these people and reviewed all reports of the x-ray reader. Dr. Lawton, head of the Occupa tional Health Branch requested that Manning review them and give him a report. The x-ray reports were delivered to the x-ray department at the shipyard. There was no official requirement that the x-ray department report to him or he to them. The MT-PWHD-012797 Noise level problem p. 1539-1540 The ACGIH p. 1541 5 million particle TLV P. 1541-1544 pulmonary function tests were addressed to the medical officer and ended up in employees medical records. It was common knowledge that results weren't given to employees. Terry Moore had called in two employees who had serious findings on their x-ray and referred them to Dr. Owenby. Manning was there and heard it; Owenby didn't want to handle it and sent them to the medical officer who examined them with his stethoscope and told them that they were alright and to go back to their jobs. This was policy and Webay, head of pipe coverers and insulators often complained that no one was notified of anything. From reading reports written by the reading radiologists, at least a third of these poeple had abnormal x-ray findings. The x-ray program was for pipe coverers and insulators and was later expanded to boiler-makers exposed to asbestos. He spent about 20% of his time on the major problem of noise control. The Department of Labor decided hearing loss due to noise was a compensible injury. In 1972 he spent months giving indoctrination to the whole shipyard establishment on hearing loss claims. They had a program of examining everyone in the shipyard to determine if they had hearing loss and he thinks people were informed if they did. The ACGIH is a professional society, it didn't have any power to make laws, only recommendations. The Pennsylvania Department of Health had adopted the TLV's in their entirety in the regulations of the Department of Health. There was no federal law in 1967. The five million theoretically would mean zero asbestos fibers or five million asbestos fibers. It was dust particles. The governmental TLV's set for asbestos happened when OSHA went into effect in 1970. It was initially set at 5 million particles and was changed in late '70 or '71 to 12 fibers per cc longer than five microns; it was later modified to five, fibers per cc longer than five microns and a two fiber per cc came into effect in about 1975. MT-PWHD-012798 Dust Sampling p. 1544-1546 His observat ion of Workers p. 1546-1549 He needed dust sampling equipment also to take samples of dust from sandblasting. He received the equipment in June '68. He did sampling on a sporadic basis whenever he found time. He took his first set of samples over a nine month period and made a report. When the 5 fiber per cc standard came into effect it required different equipment and needed a phase contrast microscope. As soon as he obtained the equipment he began sampling. Sometimes Webay requested sampling. He observed laggers installing insulation and other workers in other trades in the work space at that time; he observed macninists, pipe fitters, electricians, welders and riggers in that work space. He was aboard ship when insulators did ripout and felt it was the dustiest operation in which the asbestos workers were involved. He's seen other workers in the work space during ripout from 1967 to 1974. Initially he spent about a third of his time aboard ship, the first year or two; later it got down to maybe 20 or 15%. If he was doing sampling on asbestos he would be on board ship probably 3 hours in the morning to count the samples the afternoon. During ripout the concentrations of asbestos fibers were high and exceeded 5 million TLV. 7- - MT-PWHD-012799 MT-PWHD-012800 CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - MANVILLE LITIGATION SUPPORT SYSTEM 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000^00M^0 l^SW^t00000Wf/00900M0000SW00 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 OFFLINE PRINT REQUEST USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT /%nnl7w, -SW 01-08-8^ DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 TIME: 141925 SESSION HISTORY SET 1 - 42 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS DOCNO=JFG00001 SET 2-21 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CNQ=SHMTOOO1 CONFIDENTIAL.... CONFIDENTIAL Manville L71J MT-PWHD-012801 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG0S2 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 1 TIME: 141925 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0000 STARTING PAGE: 0000 ENDING PAGE: 0000 TOPIC: TABLE OF CONTENTS IRVINE V JM TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF SHELDON HIETT MANNING LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) JANUARY 8, 1982 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA VOLUME 1 TOPIC PARAGRAPH (EXAMINATION BY CAMPILLO FOR JMC.) - BACKGROUND INFORMATION, PP. 1500-1502 1 - DUST SAMPLES/THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES, PP. 1502-1505 2 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST, PP. 1505-1507 3 - ORGANIZATION OF MEDICAL DEPARTMENT/INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT, PP. 1507-1510 4 - THE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM AND EQUIPMENT BEFORE MANNING'S,SH ARRIVAL, PP. 1510-1513 5 - ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS FOR INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM, PP. 1513-1515 6 - PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD'S (PSNS) INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM, PP. 1515-1517 7 - INADEQUACIES/RESISTANCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM, PP. 1517-1522 8 - INSTRUCTIONS ON ASBESTOS DUSTCONTROL, PP.1522-1524 9 - RESPONSIBILITIES AS INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST, PP. 1524-1526 10 - REQUESTS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM, PP. 1526-1529 11 - REITZE.WB AND VISITS FROM MOUNT SINAI (MTS), PP. 1530-1531 12 - TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL MEETINGS ONASBESTOS HAZARDS, PP. 1531-1533 13 - MEDICAL SCREENING PROGRAM, PP. 1534-1535 14 (EXAMINATION BY NOTT FOR IRVINE,DC.) - X-RAY PROGRAM AND RESULTS FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED DISEASE, PP. 1535-1538 15 - NOISE LEVEL PROBLEMS, PP. 1538-1541 16 - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE, PP. 1541-1544 17 - DUST SAMPLING, PP. 1544-1546 18 - OBSERVATIONS AND DUST SAMPLES OF ASBESTOS INSTALLATION AND RIPOUT OPERATIONS, PP. 1546-1549 19 - EXHIBIT INDEX 9999 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0001 STARTING PAGE: 1500 ENDING PAGE: 1502 TOPIC: BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EXAMINATION BY CAMPILLO FOR JMC.) . Manning,SH is currently a retired industrial hygienist. Received a Bachelor of Science degree in commercial chemistry from Pennsylvania State University. CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZ1I MT-PWHD-012802 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 2 TIME: 141925 Took some short courses through the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) in industrial hygiene, radiological health and hearing conservation. After graduating from Pennsylvania State University, Manning,SH worked for three years as a chemical engineer in the production end of chemical manufacturing for Hooker Electric Chemical Company in Niagara Falls, New York. After working there for three years. Manning,SH went to work as a chemist in quality control for Bethlehem Steel for over 14 years. Worked as an industrial hygienist with the Pennsylvania Department of Health after leaving Bethlehem Steel; that is his first job as an industrial hygienist. Manning,SH stayed with this department from September, 1961 until February, 1967. During Manning's,SH tenure with the Pennsylvania Department of Health he received two, two-week courses given by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS): one course was on industrial hygiene fundamentals while the other concerned radiological health. Manning,SH also had a course in hearing conservation that lasted three days and possibly another week long course in radiological health. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0002 STARTING PAGE: 1502 ENDING PAGE: 1505 TOPIC: DUST SAMPLES/TH RESHOLD LIMIT Manning,SH monitored dust samples when working with the VALUES Pennsylvania Department of Health. Routine inspections at factories provided a measurement for things such as noise exposure or heat, which might adversely affect a workers health. For example, if there was concern for air contamination, samples of air would be taken in the workers breathing zone to determine the level of exposure. Manning,SH is familiar with "TLV" or threshold limit values. A threshold limit value, in the case of toxic material, is the concentration of a contaminant which a worker could breathe over his working life, without the expectation of serious disease. It was a good guideline, and later became part of the legal structure. Threshold limit values are set by a threshold limit committee which is part of the American Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and meets every year to revise, according to available information. Threshold limit values exist for a variety of substances. During the 1960's, this committee set threshold limit values for an estimated 250 materials including silica dust, asbestos, toxic materials, benzene, carbon monoxide, carbon tetrachloride and a few exotic chemicals used only in the dye industry. In 1967, the threshold limit value for asbestos was 5 million particles per cubic foot of air. If exposure was less then that value, there would be no considerable health hazard to workers around asbestos. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0003 STARTING PAGE: 1505 ENDING PAGE: 1507 TOPIC: RESPONSIBILITIE S OF THE In 1967 Manning,SH was the only industrial hygienist at Long Beach INDUSTRIAL Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Generally, an industrial hygienist is HYGIENIST responsible for recognition, evaluation and recommendation for control of industrial health hazards. Manning,SH was required to inspect the industrial environment at the shipyard, take samples and measurements where necessary and make reports on his finding. Manning's,SH reports also included recommendations for control of health hazards in order to upgrade the health situation at the shipyard. Manning,SH reported directly to the medical officer, who reported to the shipyard commander. Industrial hygiene was within the Medical Department. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0004 STARTING PAGE: 1507 ENDING PAGE: 1510 TOPIC: ORGANIZATION OF MEDICAL The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) administers all the DEPARTMENT/INDU NAVY'S medical programs. When Manning,SH first arrived at Long STRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), he did not report directly to anyone from the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED). However, i n August, 1972 Manning's,SH job administratively moved to the Long Beach Naval Regional Medical Center (NRMC). At that time, Manning,SH reported to the medical director who reported to commander of the medical center, who reported to people in Washington, Distict of Columbia. Watkins,G was the medical CONFIDENTIAL.....CONFIDENTIAL Manvilie LZ11 MT-PWHD-012803 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 3 TIME: 141925 officer when Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Smith,UC replaced Watkins,G as medical director in May, 1969. Manning,SH reported to Smith,UC in the dispensary at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). There was no Industrial Hygiene Department at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) when Manning,SH first arrived at the shipyard. That department was abolished after Marr.B, the prior industrial hygienist, left the shipyard ir October, 1964. Between the time Marr.B left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and the time that Manning,SH arrived at the shipyard, there was no Industrial Hygiene Department. Manning,SH started up the Industrial Hygiene Department. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0005 STARTING PAGE: 1510 ENDING PAGE: 1513 TOPIC: THE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE When Manning,SH started working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard PROGRAM AND (LBNS), he made an effort to determine what occurred before his EQUIPMENT arrival there, and whether there were any files, records or BEFORE MANNING' equipment available. Manning,SH determined that the functions of S,SH ARRIVAL an industrial hygienist up until the time he started were carried out by the Safety Department. Inquiries about toxic substances would be referred to the chemists in the industrial laboratory. Manning,SH needed to make a determination of what kinds of things the dispensary and Safety Department did during the time between Marr's.B departure and Manning's,SH arrival at the shipyard. Manning,SH reviewed the available records of the dispensary and Safety Department as they pertained to the industrial hygiene issues. There were not many:records to be found. No dust samples were taken during that period of time. Manning,SH believes the extent of what the Safety Department did as respects industrial hygiene, was to put materials concerning hygiene into safety manuals. The extent of the industrial labs involvement with industrial hygiene was to answer questions on the toxicity of various materials. When Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) he found a desk with an empty filing cabinet, no references, equipment or secretary. Did not have equipment to take dust samples or to monitor working spaces. The only materials available to Manning,SH were reference books from the Safety Department and unusuable equipment stored in the industrial lab. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0006 STARTING PAGE: 1513 ENDING PAGE: 1515 TOPIC: ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT AND When Manning,SH first arrived at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard MATERIALS FOR (LBNS), he following tasks with respect to his position: requested INDUSTRIAL necessary equipment to take dust and air samples: gathered books HYGIENE PROGRAM and reference materials from the library: started subscriptions to two or three professional periodicals; inspected work to become familiar with the types of hazards and working condition; became familiar with NAVY regulations; went for one week's indoctrination at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). The material that Manning,SH requested arrived in 1968: It took over a year to get equipment from which Manning*SH could take dust samples and monitor dust exposure of workers. The literature Manning,SH acquired were professional periodicals that pertained to industrial hygiene. There were no available subscriptions before Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0007 STARTING PAGE: 1515 ENDING PAGE: 1517 TOPIC: PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD' Manning's,SH training at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), in S (PSNS) Bromonton, Washington, consisted of becoming familiar with the INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PROGRAM shipyard's procedures and working with its industrial hygiene department's setup. Considered Puget Sound'Naval Shipyard (PSNS) to have one of the best Industrial Hygiene Departments at that time. That shipyard had a large staff, good reference material and a library. The staff at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) consisted of the head industrial hygienist, three other industrial hygienists, a chemist, two secretaries and two health physicists, two radiation health technicians. At that same time, the Industrial Hygiene Department at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZll MT-PWHD-012804 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 4 TIME: 141925 consisted solely of Manning,SH. The industrial hygiene program at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) effectively controlled industrial health hazards including asbestos dust exposure; it was a solid industrial hygiene program where the staff took samples of the industrial environment and wrote reports. In 1967 while Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LENS) had no ongoing industrial hygiene program, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) had a well staffed, well equipped and effective ongoing program. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0008 STARTING PAGE: 1517 ENDING PAGE: 1522 TOPIC: INADEQUACIES/RE SISTANCE TO Manning,SH wrote a report in 1970 which summarized h-i s experiences THE INDUSTRIAL at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) as respects developing an HYGIENE PROGRAM industrial hygiene program. (INTRODUCED EXHIBIT 1220: MEMO FROM MANNING,SH TO SMITH,JC, JUNE 30, 1970.) Manning,SH is author of Exhibit 1220, a memorandum to Smith,JC dated June 30, 1970. Manning,SH wrote Exhibit 1220 in order to point out the considerable resistance from Watkins,G to the development of an industrial hygiene program. Watkins,G was the medical director prior to Smith,JC. Watkins,G did not allow written reports and regarded industrial hygienists as "pack rats" who collected equipment that did not amount to anything. Watkins,G would not give Manning,SH a promotion that Manning,SH was eligible for until after he left. Watkins,G did not support any kind of aggressive industrial hygiene program. When Smith,JC replaced Watkins,G, Manning,SH immediately wrote Smith,JC an asbestos report. Smith,JC had no stipulations on written reports. Manning,SH wrote the asbestos report, which is Exhibit 1220, to point out clearly the resistance he received, the need for an adequate means to carry out his responsibilities as industrial hygienist. As of June 30, 1970, the industrial hygiene program was not as effective as Manning,SH envisioned. Manning,SH believes that as of 1970 the following conditions needed attention and exemplify the inadequacy of the means to carry out responsibilities as industrial hygienist: there was minimal equipment to monitor radiation and hearing conservation problems; no secretarial help was provided for an increasing amount of paperwork; ventilation problems were not adequately cared for; the Supply Department did an inadequate job of labelling toxic materials; Manning,SH had no input into the initial design of ventilation equipment, which was often designed by a foreman, not an engineer. Manning,SH believes that as a one-man industrial hygiene program he was unable to create necessary changes. In the fall of 1972, Manning,SH received a technician; in 1973, received a secretary. Manning,SH left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in February, 1974, at which time there were no interviews or procedures to find his replacement. There was no industrial hygienist replacement ready to take over after Manning's,SH departure. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0009 STARTING PAGE: 1522 ENDING PAGE: 1524 TOPIC: INSTRUCTIONS ON ASBESTOS As industrial hygienist. Manning,SH received instructions from DUST CONTROL superiors specifically pertaining to asbestos dust control. Some of these instructions were authored by the Naval Ships Systems Command (NVSHP). These instructions on toxic materials were to take samples in the working atmosphere to determine the level of exposure, and monitor results of physical, medical examinations of workers. The instructions also called for the industrial hygienist to make recommendations for control of hazards. The instructions concerning the control of materials were not being consistently or regularly followed when Manning,SH arrived at the shipyard. Subsequent to Manning's,SH arrival at the shipyard, these instructions were implemented in part, but not totally. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0010 STARTING PAGE: 1524 ENDING PAGE: 1526 TOPIC: RESPONSIBILITY S AS INDUSTRIAL Manning,SH spent around 15 percent of his time dealing with HYGIENIST asbestos dust as a possible health hazard while at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). During the remaining 85 percent, performed the following tasks: monitored breathing air; took care CO NFI DENT I AL........CONF I DENT IAL Manville z MT-PWHD-012805 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 5 TIME : 141925 ' ' of the hearing conversation program; took samples of contaminants in the air and responded to complaints; took care of ventilation problems, mercury, silica and solvent vapor problems. Manning,SH was also frequently consulted on hazard pay. Manning,SH believes he was also involved in tasks that were not part of the industrial hygienist's responsibility. For example. Manning,SH performed skills which less qualified people could do such as fitting ear plugs and screening people supposedly exposed to lead. Manning,SH believes the screening procedure, accomplished through urine samples, was useless since lead had been abolished at the shipyard for many years. In addition. Manning,SH was given responsibility for the quarterly report for the whole dispensary, even though it was completely out of his field. These tasks took a substantial amount of time away from Manning's,SH performance as industrial hygienist. Manning,SH spent five to seven days a quarter on the quarterly report; spent time continually fitting ear plugs; spent three to four days a month on the porphyrin or urine test. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0011 STARTING PAGE: 1526 ENDING PAGE: 1529 TOPIC: REQUESTS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL (REFERS TO EXHIBIT 1220.) Manning,SH recommended in Exhibit 1220 HYGIENE PROGRAM that the long overdue promotion he had coming, be resolved. Although Manning,SH was qualified for "GS12" level soon after arriving at the shipyard, three years later he was still a "GS11." Manning's,SH concern for the promotion was for status, not money. Manning,SH also asked for a telephone and a larger staff, including a qualified industrial hygiene assistant, a secretary. In response to Manning's,SH request for a qualified industrial hygiene assistant he received a technician with a high school background. Requested to be relieved of extraneous duties described previously. Manning,SH also asked to be sent to the Industrial Hygiene Conference annually because these conferences were valuable in making contacts and discussing mutual problems. The conference was also practical in that employees and prospective employers could meet. This conference was also important to Manning,SH because at the same time it was held, there was also a meeting of the Naval Industrial Hygiene Association (NIHA) where NAVY people could discuss mutual problems. Manning,SH believes that Exhibit 1220 accurately represents the conditions and events taking place while he was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Prepared Exhibit 1220 in the official capacity as the industrial hygienist at the shipyard. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMTOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0012 STARTING PAGE 1530 ENDING PAGE 1531 TOPIC: REITZE,WB AND VISITS FROM Manning,SH met Reitze.WB for the first time at one of the MOUNT SINAI industrial hygiene conferences. Met Reitze.WB later when he (MTS) visited the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) with Selikoff.IJ and the group from Mount Sinai (MTS). Selikoff's,Id visit to the shipyard was in connection with an ongoing study of asbestos workers and asbestos-related disease. Believes that Reitze's.WB visit occurred on the second visit, in 1970 or 1971, from people at Mount Sinai (MTS). Mount Sinai (MTS) people visited the shipyard for the first time in 1969, but Reitze.WB was not part of the group. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMTOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0013 STARTING PAGE: 1531 ENDING PAGE: 1533 TOPIC: TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL MEETINGS ON Manning,SH recalls that asbestos-containing insulation products were used at the time he left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in ASBESTOS 1974. Between 1967 and 1974, Manning,SH held training seminars on HAZARDS asbestos as a health hazard. The first session was an indoctrination session held in February, 1968. The participants in this session included the entire supervision of pipe coverers and the safety officer. Meese.F, Ay,W and other supervisors were of the first session. Manning,SH held the first session for working men who installed pipe covering and insulation. Manning,SH informed these men of Selikoff's,Id findings that the incidence of cancer increases among workers who were exposed to asbestos; in addition, nonsmoking asbestos workers had considerably less CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZl 1 MT-PWHD-012806 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 6 TIME: 141925 incidence of cancer. Manning,SH also told the workers what part of their jobs were most hazardous, and that respirators should be worn. After the first session, there were four additional training meetings with the second meeting held in 1971. The second meeting lasted 4 days and consisted of Manning,SH, Ay,W and the safety director going over material and indoctrinating the first line supervisors of all shops. At the time of the second meeting it was suspected that many people were exposed to asbestos that were not directly working with it. Manning,SH hoped that meeting would result in all the workers getting that knowledge. There was initial resistance to Manning's,SH meetings because it pulled the worker away from production. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0014 STARTING PAGE: 1534 ENDING PAGE: 1535 TOPIC: MEDICAL SCREENING While Manning,SH was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) there was PROGRAM a medical screening program for asbestos workers. Workers exposed to asbestos came in annually for x-rays. In addition, pulmonary function studies on pipe coverers were done by Ellestad.M. The information from Ellestad's.M studies were placed in an employee's folder or "jacket," while x-rays were stored away. There was no communcation to employees as to the findings from these studies. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0015 STARTING PAGE: 1535 ENDING PAGE: 1538 TOPIC: X-RAY PROGRAM AND RESULTS (EXAMINATION BY NOTT FOR IRVINE,DC.) Manning,SH believes the FOR ASBESTOS-RE x-ray program, described previously, occurred annually from 1967 LATED DISEASE to 1964. Manning,SH became involved with the x-ray program out of interest and concern for workers; had a particular rapport with Moore,T, the radiologist. Later, Lawton asked Manning,SH to deliver a report based on review of that program. The x-ray reports were physically delivered from memorial hospital back to the X-Ray Department at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). There was no official connection between the X-Ray Department and Manning,SH. Although the pulmonary function tests were in the medical folders of employee's. Manning,SH does not know how they got there or if they were reviewed by the medical officer. Manning,SH knows these tests were kept in the medical folders because he pulled the employees' jackets and reviewed them. Moore,T, a radiologist, told Manning,SH the results of the pulmonary function tests were not given to the employees. Manning,SH became aware of this by an incident where Moore,T, on his own, called two employees who had serious x-ray findings, and referred them to Owenby. Owenby referred these employees to the medical officer, who after examining the men by stethoscope, sent them back to work. Whereby, the head pipe coverer and insulator, also frequently complained that no one was notified about anything. Manning,SH recalls that of these x-ray findings, some, but not all, came back positive as respects asbestos-related disease in pipe coverers. Although Manning,SH is not qualified to read x-ray results, he estimates that from reading reports written by the radiologist, at least one third of the pipe coverers and insulators had abnormal x-ray findings. The x-ray program was later expanded to include boilermakers. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0016 STARTING PAGE: 1538 ENDING PAGE: 1541 TOPIC: NOISE LEVEL PROBLEMS When Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1967, the a post, or "billet," of Industrial Hygienist had been abolished. Spent 15 percent of overall time with health hazards related to asbestos materials; the other 85 percent of Manning's,SH time was spent doing a variety of different duties. * Spent around 20 percent of his time dealing with the noise-level problem. The noise-level problem arose when the Department of Labor (DOL) decided that noise was a compensable injury. As a result, due to an increase in noise-induced hearing loss claims, ` there was a lot of time spent measuring noise levels and doing paperwork. In 1972, spent months giving indoctrination or lectures to 50 people at a time on this problem. The noise problem stems from metal to metal contact, riveting, chipping and CONFIDENT! AL........CONFIDENTIAL Manville MT-PWHD-012807 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLE GOG 2 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB , SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 7 TIME: 141925 scouring. There was no effective resolution to the noise because there were no rubber chipping hammers. There was protective device program where ear plugs were issued and were informed if they had a hearing loss. problem an ear people DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0017 STARTING PAGE: 1541 ENDING PAGE: 1544 TOPIC: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THRESHOL Manning,SH recalls previously testifying that he was a member of D LIMIT VALUE the American Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). This group is a professional society, not an official governmental group. The group did not have any power to make laws or regulations, but served to make recommendations. Recalls that during the 1960's, the threshold limit value for asbestos dust particles was five million particles per cubic foot. In 1967 there was a law that the official threshold value limit for asbestos dust particles was five million particles per cubic foot. Manning,SH believes this law was a regulation of the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Has no knowledge if there was a similar regulation or law in California in 1967. Does not believe that in 1967, there was a federal law on threshold limit values. Five million dust particles refers to dust in general, not just asbestos fibers. Manning,SH believes that in 1970's, when OSHA went into effect, a nationwide threshold limit value was set at five million particles per cubic foot. In 1970 or 1971, that value was reduced to 12 fibers longer than five microns per cubic centimeter. In 1972, the threshold value limit was reduced again down to five fibers longer than five microns per cubic centimeter. In 1975, at the time Manning,SH left the shipyard, the value officially went down to two fibers per cubic centimeter. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMTOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0018 STARTING PAGE: 1544 ENDING PAGE: 1546 TOPIC: DUST SAMPLING Manning,SH recalls prior testimony that upon arrival at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), there was little equipment, so an immediate request was made for dust sampling equipment, among other things. The dust sampling equipment was needed for dust other than from asbestos, including silica dust from sandblasting. Received this dust sampling equipment in June, 1968 at which time he commenced dust sampling. Manning,SH performed dust samples on a sporadic basis, whenever he could find the time. The first set of dust samples occurred over a nine month period, after which he made a report. It was not part of Manning's,SH function to take samples on a regular basis each month or year. Manning,SH took another set of dust samples after the regulation for five fibers per cubic centimeters came into effect. This regulation required new equipment in the form of a phase contrast microscope. After obtaining that microscope. Manning,SH proceeded with dust samples. Took samples when requested by Ay,W, the foreman. The reason Manning's,SH dust samples are taken on an irregular basis is that it coincides with the time that ships dock at the shipyard. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMTOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0019 STARTING PAGE: 1546 ENDING PAGE: 1549 TOPIC: OBSERVATIONS AND DUST Manning,SH has observed laggers install insulation and has seen SAMPLES OF that occurwhile workers from other trades were in the same work ASBESTOS space as the laggers. Observed the following trades present while INSTALLATION laggers installed insulation: machinists, pipe fitters, AND RIPOUT electricians, welders, riggers. Manning,SH has been on a ship OPERATIONS while a ripout was being performed. Understands that a ripout involves taking off old insulation. The ripout operation is the dustiest operation in which asbestos workers were involved. Manning,SH has observed workers from other trades in the space where ripout operations are performed. Manning,SH believes that during his tenure at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), initially, a third of his time was spent on board ships as opposed to other parts of the shipyard. Later, as paperwork increased, Manning,SH spent 20 to 15 percent: of his time onboard ships. It was a regular practice to go onboard several ships for three to five hours, each week. In 1969, the dust surveys of ripout procedures revealed that during ripout operations, the concentration of CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manville Lzn MT-PWHD-012808 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,2,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 03/25/86 PAGE 8 TIME: 141925 asbestos fibers was high; in excess of the threshold limit value ' which was five million particles per cubic foot in 1969. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 9999 STARTING PAGE: 0000 ENDING PAGE: 0000 TOPIC: EXHIBIT INDEX NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1220 IOM: Manning.SH to Smith.UC, June 30, pp. 1517, 1526 1970 CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manvilte1,, MT-PWHD-012809 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL.....CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZ11 MT-PWHD-012810 sftin ftuo, MR. EVANS 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT NO. 49 BON. WILLIAM DRAKE, JUDGE 4 5 DOUGLAS C. IRVINE, JR., ) ) 6 Plaintiff, ) ) 7 vs. ) 8 JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, ) ) 9 Defendant. ) ) 10 ) NO. SOC51906 11 12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 13 Friday, Qe lobes: 8, 1982 14 15 APPEARANCES: 16 17 (See Volume 1.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PRODUCED 25 JM-83 26 27 VOLUME 15 28 Pages 1500 - 1549 MARLENE D. MARSH, CSR #751 WALTER RESCHMAN, CSR # Official Court Reporters f MT-PWHD-012811 1 1 2 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 O 26 J 27 { PRODUCED Ji -83 MT-PWHD-012812 1 INDEX FOR VOLUME 15 FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1982 2 Pages 1500 - 1549 A.M. 1500; P.M. -- 3 _; * ... ',, 4 :<Jt 5 6 7 DEFENDANT'S WITNESS: 8 MANNING, Sheldon H. INDEX DIRECT 1500 CROSS 1535 9 10 11 12 EXHIBITS: 13 1220 - Memorandum dated 6/30/70 IDENTIFIED 1517 RECEIVED 1530 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PRODUCED 28 J! - S3 MT-PWHD-012813 1500 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1982, 9:40 A.M. 1 -----o---- 2 3 THE COURT: Good morning everybody. 4 THE JURY: Good morning. 5 THE COURT: All right. Let's continue, please. 6 MR. CAMPILLO: Your Honor, the defendant calls 7 Mr. Sheldon Manning to the stand. 8 THE COURT: Very well. 9 10 SHELDON H. MANNING, 11 called as a witness by and on behalf of the defendant, having 12 been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 13 THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please. 14 THE WITNESS: My name is Sheldon H. Manning. 15 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. CAMPILLO: 18 & Mr. Manning, will you spell your last name for 19 us, please. 20 K M-a-n-n-i-n-g. 21 22 & Sir, what is your occupation? R0DUCE Ji - 83 A I am a retired industrial hygienist. 23 24 ft> Sir, would you briefly tell us what your 25 educational backoround is? In other words, how far did you get '-V ~ 26 along in school? Did you get any degrees, that kind of thing? 27 A I have a B.S. degree in commercial chemistry 28 from the Penn State University. I have some background, taken MT-PWHD-012814 1501 (' ) 1 short courses in industrial hygiene and radiological health 2 and hearing conservation. Mostly given by the U.S. Public 3 Health Service. 4 Q. Following the completion of your formal f.f 5 education what did you first do professionally? What was your 6 first employment? 7 A I worked for about three years for Hooker * 8 Electric Chemical Company. I 9 Q. In what capacity? 10 A. In Niagara Falls, New York. I was a chemical / i 11 engineer, worked as a chemical engineer in the production 12 end of chemical manufacturing. 13 Q. After that job was completed, sir, what did you i < 14 do next? 15 A. I worked as a chemist for Bethlehem Steel 16 Corporation for 14 -- in excess of 14 years. > 17 0. What were your general duties as a chemist for 18 Bethlehem Steel during that period of time? 19 A It was mostly quality control work. ri 20 & Following the Bethlehem Steel employment, what 21 did you do? 22 A I was employed by the Pennsylvanian Department of r:-; > 23 Health as an industrial hygienist. 24 0 That was your first employment as an 25 industrial hygienist? (` > 26 A That is correct. PRODUC'D Ji -13 27 & How long did you remain with the Pennsylvania 28 Department? i MT-PWHD-012815 1502 1 A. Five and a half years. 2 Qt What years were those, to put it in perspective? 3 Front what to what? ' 4 A. From September 1961 until February of 1967. 5 Qt While you were with the Pennsylvania Department 6 of Health did you receive any courses in industrial hygiene 7 or related areas? 8 A. Yes. ' 9 Q. Would you tell us about those, please. 10 A. I had a two-week course given by the U.s. Public 11 Health Service, Industrial Hygiene Fundamentals I think was 12 the name of the course that was given in Pittsburgh, 13 Pennsylvania. I had a two-week course given by the U.S. 14 Public Health Service in radiological health that was given in 15 Rockwell, Maryland, their facility there. 16 I later had short courses in hearing conservation, 17 I think that lasted three days, and possibly another week course 18 in radiological health. These are all I can recall. There 19 may have been some more. 20 Q. While you were with the Department of Health did 21 you have to perform any monitoring of dust samples? 22 A. Yes. 23 Qt Would you describe how that is commonly done, 24 in general, sir? PRODUCE A. Well, as part of the job the Pennsylvania^ " ^ 25 26 Department of Health we routinely would inspect in factories, 27 look over the industrial environment visually and when we 28 came on something that we had doubts about or needed more MT-PWHD-012816 1503 1 definition, we would routinely go in and take measurements. 2 If it was a situation where it was air 3 contamination of some sort we would take samples of air in 4 the workers' breathing zone, generally, to determine the level 5 of the exposure. 6 There were other exposures like noise exposure or 7 heat, anything that would adversely affect the health of the 8 worker in the workplace. 9 Q In connection with particles, dust particles of 10 various materials, are you familiar with a concept referred to 11 as TLV or threshold limit values? 12 A. Yes. 13 ft Could you briefly describe again what that means 14 for the benefit of the jury, sir? 15 A. The threshold limit value in the case of a 16 toxic material, would be a concentration of that 17 contaminant which a worker could breatheover the lifetime of 18 his working career without the expectation of having a serious 19 health problem, with the exception of a few people that would bt 20 susceptible, especially susceptible to that particular 21 disease. 22 It is a good line to be used as a guideline. , 23 Later it became part of the legal structure. . x PRODUCED Jw - S3 24 \ .ft'-- Who determines or recommends these TLV's? 25 The TLV's are set or made up by a threshold limit i 26 committee, a special threshold limit value committee that is 27 part of the American Congress of Governmental Industrial 28 Hygienists and they meet every year and go over these things MT-PWHD-012817 1504 1 and add and revise according to what information they have 2 at the time. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PRODUCED JM - 3 28 MT-PWHD-012818 1505 q I take it, and correct me if I'm wrong, there 1 TLV'a for a variety of substances? 2 3 A Durihg the time I worked, yes. 4 Q Could you give us some examples of what substances 5 had TLV's set or recommended by the committee you have describe d 6 during the 1960s? 7 A During the 1960s there were probably a list 8 of about 250 materials listed. The common ones would be 9 silica dust, asbestos, toxic materials, benzene in more 10 toxic vapors, carbon tetrachloride. There were quite a 11 few exotic chemicals used only in the dye industry that 12 were toxic. 13 Q Carbon monoxide would be an example? 14 A It can be among the gases. 15 Q Do you recall as of 1967 when you first started 16 at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which we'll get to in 17 a minute, what TLV for asbestos particles was? 18 A Yes. The TLV was set at 5 million particles 19 per cubic foot of air. 20 Q If I understood your testimony previously, this 21 5 million particle TLV would be like a safe limit. That 22 if the exposure was less than that there would be no 23 considerable health hazard to the employees. 24 Is that true? 25 A That would be true. PRODUCED JM -8326 Q At least that's the general concept? 27 A Correct. 28 Q In 1967 you went to work at the Long Beach Naval MT-PWHD-012819 1506 1 Shipyard? 2 A Yes. 3 Q in what capacity? 4 I was the industrial hygienist. 5 Q Were you the only industrial hygienist In 1967? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Mr. Manning, would you describe for us what 8 in general an industrial hygienist does at the Long Beach 9 Naval Shipyard. 10 A Briefly the job of industrialhygiene is the 11 recognition and the evaluation andrecomendation for control 12 of industrial health hazards. I was charged with quite 13 a large list of things to do in specific detail. 14 But I was required to inspect the industrial 15 environment around there, familiarize myself with it, take 16 samples and take measurements in places where I felt it 17 was necessary. Later I made reports, made findings and 18 made recommendations for the control of things that I felt 19 were out of control. 20 Q Would it be things that posed a health hazard 21 to the workers or personnel at the shipyard? 22 A It all involved upgrading the health aspPJ|0f)UCEI 23 of the situation, yes. M - 83 24 Q The industrial hygienist at Long Beach Naval 25 Shipyard, was that part of an overall Medical Department? 26 In other words, how does the industrial hygienist's position 27 fit in with the overall management setup of the shipyard 28 and the Navy? Give us an explanation of that, sir. MT-PWHD-012820 1507 1 A Well, my job was within the Medical Department in 2 the shipyard. And I reported directly to the medical officer 3 who reported to the shipyard commander. 4 Q Does the Navy have a Medical Department in itself? 5 A I would like a little clarification. When you 6 talk about "Navy," do you mean the whole Navy? 7 Q Yes, sir. 8 A The United States Navy has a Bureau of Medicine 9 and Surgery that administers all the medical aspects that the 10 Navy is involved in. 11 To clarify that, when I first went aboard, this 12 3ureau of Medicine and Surgery was in an advisory capacity as 13 far as the shipyard commander. And my job was within the 14 shipyard structure. And I did not report directly to anybody 15 in Medicine and Surgery. That changed later. 16 Q When did that change? 17 A It changed about August 1972. My job 18 administratively was moved into what is known as the Long 19 3each Naval Regional Medical Center. 20 The administrative head was in the Long Beach 21 Naval Hospital. And that way I reported to the medical 22 director who reported to the commander of the Medical Center 23 who reported to men in Washington. 24 Q At the time you started in Long Beach, who was the 25 medical officer at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 26 A Dr. George Watkins. . 27 Q Are you familiar with a commander named Jose C. 28 Smith? J! MT-PWHD-012821 1508 1 A Yes. 2 Q Could you tell us how he fits into the structure 3 that you are describing for us? 4 A Dr. Jose Smith replaced Dr. George Watkins as 5 medical director^at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. And he came 6 aboard sometime in May of 1969 and was still serving in that 7 capacity when I left the shipyard. 8 Q So after Dr. Watkins left, you would report 9 directly to Jose Smith? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Was he stationed there at Long Beach or was he in 12 Washington or somewhere else? 13 A His office was in the dispensary and located in 14 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 15 Q Mr. Manning, when you started at the Long 3each 16 Naval Shipyard was there an Industrial Hygiene Department in 17 existance? ' 18 A No. 19 Q You were in a sense startingup thedepartment? 20 A I was starting it up after the position had be 21 abolished for a period of time. 22 Q Do you know when the position had been abolished? 23 A The position was abolished after Bill Marr, who 24 had been a prior industrial hygienist, left the shipyard to 25 take up employmen-t in Panama. And the job was then abolished. 26 Q That was approximately when? 27 A That would have been sometime after Marr left. He 28 left I think October of 1974. PRODUCED JM ~ S3 MT-PWHD-012822 1509 1 Q Do you mean '64, sir? 2 A '64. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 \ 24 25 26 27 PRODUCED 28 JM-83 MT-PWHD-012823 1510 1 Qt So to the best of your knowledbe between *64, 2 when Mr* Marr left, and up until the time you started, there 3 was no industrial hygiene department at the Long Beach Naval 4 Shipyard, is that true? 5 A. That is right. 6 Ql To your knowledge was anyone carrying out the 7 functions of an industrial hygienist from some other 8 department during that period of time? 9 MR. NOTT: Object as calling for hearsay, your Honor. 10 THE COURTi Let me have the question back, please. 11 (Record read.) 12 THE COURT: This is before he arrived? What period 13 of time? 14 MR. CAMPILLO: I will lay a foundation, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 Q BY MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, when you started at 17 Long Beach Naval Shipyard did you make an effort to 18 determine what had occurred before you started? 19 A Yes. 20 0 Did you make an effort to determine whether or 21 not there were any files, any records, any equipment available 22 for you when you started? 23 JL Yes. 24 * 0 In doing that did you determine whether or not 25 anyone had been carrying out the functions of an industrial 26 hygienist up until the time that you started? 27 X Yes. 28 Qi What did youfind out? MT-PWHD-012824 1511 A I found out that for the most part the industrial 1 hygiene functions as much as they were being carried out 2 3 were being done by the Safety Department and some of this 4 work was referred to the industrial laboratory. i found out 5 this on my own. Some of the inquiries about toxic substances would 6 7 be referred to some of the chemists in the industrial laboratory. 8 ft At the time that you first reported for work at 9 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard what did your department 10 consist of, would you tell us, in terms of staff, equipment 11 and so forth? 12 THE COURT: Pardon me. Before you embark upon your 13 answer. We will resume our regular schedule for recesses and 14 resume at 10:15. 15 (Recess.) 16 THE COURT: All right, sir. 17 MR. CAMPILLO: Thank you, your Honor. 18 0 BY MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, in order for you to 19 perform your job as an industrial hygienist at Long Beach, 20 was it necessary for you to determine what had been done by 21 the dispensary Md the safety department while there was no 22 industrial hygiene department? 23 A Oh, yes. 24 : i ft- can you tell us if you made a determination of 25 what kinds of things were done by the dispensary and the 26 safety .department during that period of time between fjmgj|jjjg[} 27 Mr. Marr left and the time you started? J^j _ gg 28 A I think probably the safety department mostly MT-PWHD-012825 1512 1 was interested in ~ 2 THE COURTi Just a moment, sir. I take it you are 3 waiting for a yes or no answer and you would interpose an 4 objection. 5 MR. NOTT: Yes, your Honor. I think the question calls 6 for a yes or no answer. 7 THE COURT: Would you read the question back, please. 8 (Record read.) 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 Q BY MR. CAMPILLO: Did you review the records of 11 the dispensary and the safety department as it pertained to 12 the industrial hygiene issues? 13 A. Yes. I would like to clarify that. There wasn't 14 much in the record really that I found. 15 Q You did look at whatever records were available? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Were dust samples being taken during that 18 period of time, Mr. Manning? 19 A. No. 20 & what kinds of things were being done by those two 21 departments? 22 A. The safety department probably limited themselves 23 to putting material in the safety manual that pertained to an 24 industrial hygiene. I think that was the length and extent 25 of what they did. 26 The industrial lab, I know, were answering 27 questions that came to them on the toxicity of various 28 materials and I think that was the extent of it. produced MT-PWHD-012826 1513 1 Q, Anything else that was being done, to your 2 knowledge, during that period of time? 3 A. Nothing. 4 Qi i think where we left off before the break there 5 was a question pending and it had to do with what you were 6 faced with as you started at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 7 That is, what equipment, what did you find when you reported 8 to work the first day? 9 A. I found a desk with an empty filing cabinet. 10 No references, no equipment. 11 Q. Did you have a secretary? 12 A. No secretary. 13 Q. Did you have any equipment to take dust samples 14 or to monitor the working spaces? 15 A. No. 16 Qi Other than the desk and the empty file cabinet 17 was there anything else available for you at that time? 18 A. Yes. 19 Qi What was that? 20 A. I found some reference books that I think the 21 safety department had custody of them and I got ahold of these 22 reference books. 23 There was some material that was stored in the 24 industrial lab that I got ahold of and it turned out to be 25 mostly junk and broken equipment and material, equipment that 26 couldn't be used. I sent most of it back. 27 Qt Is that the extent of what you found in order to 28 commence your job? PHOOHf MT-PWHD-012827 1514 1 A. Yes. 2 a Mr. Manning, would you tell us what you did ' - *> . * 3 from your first day on in general terms with regards to your 4 industrial hygienist position; in other words, what task did you 5 undertake, what did you do? 6 A. Well, the first thing that I did was I made a 7 request for early on -- the most necessary equipment among 8 others. Equipment to take dust samples. Some very simple 9 equipment to take samples of the air in the field. 10 I got quite a few books together, reference 11 material. Z had fairly good luck with the person in 12 charge of the library and I early on got some fairly good 13 reference material and we started subscriptions to the two or 14 three professional periodicals that dealt with this field. 15 I did a lot of inspection work to familiarize 16 myself with the shipyard and what they had there, what kind 17 of hazards we were Up against and what the working conditions 18 were. 19 I familiarized myself with the regulations and 20 the Navy's way of doing things. I had a week's indoctrination 21 early on at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and I had gathered 22 quite a bit of material from there. I reviewed that. That 23 about covers what I was doing. 24 25 26 27 28 PRODik-; M - & MT-PWHD-012828 151 1 Q The equipment that you requested, how long did it 2 take for you to obtain that equipment, if you got it? 3 A I was able to count dust in June of 1978. It was 4 well over a year before I was able to gather all the material. 5 Q Did you mean 1968, sir? 6 A I'm sorry. 1968. 7 Q So it took over a year to get the equipment from 8 which you could take dust samples and monitor the dust 9 exposure of the workers? 10 A Yes. 11 Q With regards to the subscription of professional 12 periodicals, are you talking about,periodicals that pertain to 13 industrial hygiene? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Were any such subscriptions available before you 16 started? In other words, was the Navy subscribing before you 17 started? 18 A No. 19 Q With regards to your training at Puget Sound, what 20 is Puget Sound, first of all? , 21 A It's a Naval Shipyard. 22 Q Where is it located? . 23 . A In Bremerton, Washington. PRODUCED nil a* J Stf - @3 24 Q What did the indoctrination that you went through 25 consist of? What did you learn? 26 A I spent a week in the shipyard there and 27 familiarized myself with their procedures, their working 28 setup, which was probably one of the best in the Navy at the MT-PWHD-012829 1516 1 time. 2 They had a fairly large staff. They had a 3 laboratory, good reference material. I got to know what a ' 4 good effective industrial hygiene program was like there. 5 Q Can you describe for us the size of the Industrial 6 Hygiene Department at Puget Sound at the time you went there. 7 A Yes. The staff consisted of the head industrial 8 hygienist. He also had two industrial hygienists, other 9 industrial hygienists and a chemist, two secretaries, two 10 health physicists and two radiation health technicians. I 11 think that was the size of it. 12 Q At Long 3each Naval Shipyard the department the 13 Industrial Hygiene Department consisted solely of you? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you describe what the working conditions were 16 like at Puget Sound when you observed them? 17 A In the Industrial Hygiene field they had a good, 18 solid program that was effective. They were taking samples of 19 the industrial environment, they were writing reports and they 20 were getting, I think, probably effective control of the 21 industrial health hazards. 22 Q Did that includeasbestos dustexposure? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Sir, can youcontrast orcompare what was 25 happening at Puget Sound with what you observed at the Long 26 Beach Naval Shipyard when you started in 1967? 27 A When I started in 1967 there was just no ongoing 28 industrial health program that amounted to anything in Long MT-PWHD-012830 1517 1 Beach. 2 Whereas in Puget Sound they had a well staffed, 3 well equipped ongoing program that was effective as any such 4 program can be. 5 Q Sir, did you at a subsequent time, I believe in 6 1970, write a report summarizing what your experience had been 7 at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard in that context? 8 A Yes. 9 MR. CAMPILLO: Your Honor, at this time I would like to 10 have marked for identification a memorandum which will be 11 identified further after I give a copy to the witness. It 12 will be exhibit No. 1220. I have already given a copy to 13 counsel. 14 Q 3Y MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, do you see the 15 exhibit in front of you? 16 A Yes. 17 Q It's a memorandum dated June 30, 1970 to Commander 18 Jose C. Smith from Sheldon H. Manning, is that correct? 19 A Yes. 2Q Q And you are the Sheldon H. Manning that it is 21 from? 22 A Yes. 23 Q If you take a minute to look through the various 24 pages, I believe it's 11 pages, is that your creation? 25 A Yes. 26 Q What was the purpose behind your preparation of 27 this memorandum? 28 A Well, when this was written I had been industrial PRODUCED _ . - -jir^ss---^ MT-PWHD-012831 1518 1 hygienist in the shipyard for in excess of three years. 2 During the tour of duty of the prior medical director I had 3 considerable resistance, I thought, in developing an 4 industrial hygiene program. 5 Q Let me stop you for just a minute. 6 You said you experienced resistance in developing 7 the program? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Who would this resistance come from? 10 A George Watkins, the doctor. 11 Q What type of resistance did youexperience? 12 A He didn't allow any written reports. He told me 13 one time that he regarded industrial hygienists as pack rats 14 who tried to gather a bunch of equipment together that didn't 15 amount to anything. Apparently he didn't have much faith in 16 taking samples. 17 Although I was eligible for promotion, his 18 attitude was that that promotion should wait until after he 19 left. I felt that he was not backing any kind of aggressive 20 industrial hygiene program. And I think his actions will bear 21 that out. 22 He left after two years. At the time that I first 23 came there he was scheduled to retire after one year. But 24 they held him over for an extra year. 25 When Dr. Jose Smith came aboard, why, I 26 immediately started writing reports without permission or 27 anything else. He never put a stipulation on me to not do it. 28 So the first report that I wrote was an asbestos PRODUCED . -- ' 31"-S3'....... MT-PWHD-012832 1519 1 report. What was happening was that the same administrative 2 officer who served under Captain Watkins, who had derived his 3 attitude toward industrial hygiene from that prior regime sort 4 of carried on the same kind of tactics. No budget, no money. 5 And I was having difficulty getting Dr. Smith's attention. 6 Q This letter was a way to get that attention? 7 A That's right. I would go into his office and 8 bring some of these things to his attention. His attention 9 span seemed to be about three minutes and he started shuffling 10 papers. 11 So I felt I was getting nowhere in a situation 12 that required some kind of improvement fairly fast because I 13 was aware that there were a lot of things in that shipyard 14 that weren't right that needed a lot of attention. And I had 15 a job description that went on and on and charged me with 16 great responsibilities without the adequate means to carry 17 them out. 18 This resistance, and it was a situation where I 19 felt that I was going to put this thing in writing and spell 20 it out by chapter and verse and either something was going to 21 be done or I probably would have been gone because I was at 22 the time having interviews. 23 Q Mr. Manning, is it correct that as of June 30, 24 1970 when you prepared this memorandum that your program as 25 industrial hygienist had really not had much success because 26 of the reasons you articulated? 27 A The program had not had the kind of success that 28 PRODUCED ' JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012833 1520 1 X -- it was not as effective as I would have wanted it to be, 2 to answer your question. 3 4 5\ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-012834 1521 Ci You indicated that there were certain conditions tha[t 1 needed attention that were not being attended to. Could you 2 give us some examples of what you are referring to? 3 A ; Well# at this time X had the minimal equipment. 4 There were many things that were not being touched. There were 5 radiation problems in the shipyard. There were hearing 6 conservation problems and X had just very minimal equipment 7 to monitor this. 8 There was an increasing amount of paperwork to 9 be done and X had no secretarial help so that meant that X had 10 to hunt and peck and answer the correspondence and type the 11 reports 12 There were ventilation problems in the shipyard 13 that were not being adequately taken care of. 14 The program of labeling toxic materials was in the 15 hands of the supply people and a lot of times they weren't 16 doing an adequate job here. 17 X had no input in the initial design of 18 ventilation equipment. Often this kind of thing didn't even 19 get into the hands of an engineer. Xt would be some 20 foreman who would design his own ventilation equipment and 21 generally it turned out to be something that Rube Goldberg 22 probably would design. 23 ' .\ 24 These are just some of the problems that came up. The problem generally was lack of manpower to cover what had 25 to be done really. 26 27 0 As a one-man office you were unable to create the changes you felt were necessary; is that true? 28 PRODUCED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MSB-- MT-PWHD-012835 1522 1 ft. Yes. 2 ft Did you at any time after *67 have an increase 3 in staff? 4 ft. Yes. 5 ft When did that take place? 6 ft. I was given a technician. To the best of 7 my memory I think he came to me in the fall of 1972 or '62. 8 ft No, '72. 9 A. '72, right. 10 ft Was that the extent of the additional staff that C 11 you received while you were at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 12 A. No. 13 ft What else did you receive? ( 14 A. In June of '73 I was given a secretary, 15 ft You left Long Beach NavalShipyard when? 16 ft. In February of '74. 17 ft At the time that you left,Mr. Manning, had hiring 18 interviews and procedures commenced to find a replacement for 19 you? 20 A. No. 21 ft As of the moment that you left the Long Beach 22 Naval Shipyard in '74, was there a replacement ready to take o 9 23 over? 24 ft. No. 25 ft Mr.Manning, while you were carrying out the 26 functions of the industrial hygienist did you have any 27 instructions from your supervisor or superiors specifically 28 MT-PWHD-012836 1523 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What kinds of things were you asked to do or 3 not do? 4 A. From time to time there were instructions. 5 I think they were authored, some of them, by a naval ships 6 system command which put out an instruction on the control of 7 asbestos. 8 When Z first came aboard the shipyard there 9 were some simpler instructions on toxic materials. I was 10 instructed to take samples in the working atmosphere and 11 determine the level of exposure of the workers and I was instru^** 12 ted to help, I think, or at least monitor the results of 13 physical and medical examinations of these people. 14 Z was responsible for making recommendations for 15 control of the hazard. 16 Ql These instructions that you referred to, sir, 17 concerning the control of materials, were they being followed 18 consistently and regularly at the shipyard when you arrived? 19 A. No. 20 ft When, if at all, did they -- 21 MR. NOTT: Excuse me. Has the witness completed his 22 answer, your Honor? 23 THE COURT: Z am assuming so without hearing more. 24 THE WZTNESS: Z said no. 25 Q BY MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, at any subsequent 26 time did the various instructions that came from command about 27 how to deal with these products get implemented in a regular 28 and consistent fashion while you were still there? MT-PWHD-012837 1524 A. My answer to that would be they were implemented 1 in part, not in totality, I would say. 2 3 Ql How much of your time, Mr. Manning, was devoted 4 to dealing with asbestos dust as a possible health hazard 5 while you were at the shipyard? A. The answer is about 15 percent. 6 7 Q. The remaining 85 percent or so, what kinds of 8 things did you do? 9 A. Things like monitoring the breathing air in the 10 shipyard, taking care of the hearing conservation program 11 which at one period of time meant indoctrination sessions twice 12 a day for months and months. 13 I took samples in the air of many contaminants. 14 I would get complaints periodically and I had to check these 15 things out no matter what they were. 16 I was heavily involved in -- there was a thing 17 called hazard pay. I forget the exact name of it but this 18 thing came into effect and I was consulted frequently on this 19 and constantly there were people who thought they should be 20 getting this kind of pay and they would make complaints and 21 I would have to go check it out. 22 There were mercury problems, silica problems. 23 Solvent vapor problems from painting and there were ventilation 24 problems. These things go on and on. I felt when there 25 were complaints or things were brought to my attention Z had to 26 take care of them. 27 Qi Sir, were you involved in any tasks that you 28 felt were really not tasks for the industrial hygieg^t _tJ 29 be doing?__________________________________________________________ 1 MT-PWHD-012838 1525 1 A Yes. 2 Q. Would you tell us what those wereand howmuch 3 time they consumed? 4 A. Well, initially during the period that 5 Dr. George Watkins was my superior there were tasksput on 6 me that I felt were not, were just make work sort of 7 things that somebody with a lot less skill could be doing, 8 like fitting ear plugs,and there was a screening procedure 9 called, screening procedure to screen out people who had been 10 supposedly exposed to lead called urine porphyrin tests 11 which required collecting urine samples. 12 A quite large population in the shipyard and 13 running these tests and these would run periodically and 14 almost completely useless because actually there was -- lead 15 had been abolished in the shipyard for years and years and 16 except in specific cases where we knew people were exposed 17 to lead, these things were useless. 18 I was made responsible for the quarterly report 19 for the whole dispensary. I was only involved in a small 5 20 portion of this report and they put this job on me. It was 21 completely out of my field. 22 23 24 25 26 27 PRODUCED 28 Ji -83 MT-PWHD-012839 152.6. 1 Q Now, these tasks that you are describing, sir, the 2 fitting of ear plugs, the urine screening tests and working on 3 this quarterly report, did that take a substantial amount of 4 time away from your hygienist's functions? 5 A Yes. \ 6 Q How touch time did it take away from it? 7 A The quarterly report I'd spend about five, six, 8 seven days a quarter on that. The fitting of ear plugs was a 9 thing that was distracting because people would just walk in 10 and out of the office continually in order to have these 11 things fitted. The porphyrin would take three or four days 12 out of a month. Something like that. 13 Q Mr. Manning, you made certain recommendations in 14 your June 30, 1970 memorandum or requested certain things to 15 be implemented. Could you tell us what those things were that 16 you wanted to have accomplished as of June 30, 1970? 17 A Yes. First of all I requested that a long overdue 18 promotion that I thought I had coming be resolved. The job 19 really called for -- was known as Government Service 12. At 20 the time I took the job I was listed as a GS 11 in the Federal 21 Registry. 22 During that period I had been made eligible for 23 GS 12. 3ut the papers were processed in the 11 category. I 24 brought that to the people in Personnel's attention. They 25 said, well, come aboard as an 11 and soon after you will get 26 your 12. This was three years after and I was still waiting 27 or my 12 PRODUCED JM - 28 It wasn't so much a matter of money but it was MT-PWHD-012840 1527 1 just a matter of status. The answer I got why I wasn't 2 getting the promotion was that, you don't have enough staff to 3 rate this. To get enough staff, you know, it was impossible. 4 It was a Catch 69 situation. Status is an important thing. 5 And it was felt that I would have a little more clout. 6 Strangely enough I was sharing a telephone with 7 the X-ray Department. In fact he had the telephone and would 8 call me to the phone. I didn't have a phone in my own office. 9 I asked for permission to allow people past the 10 gate. I wanted to have a budget and I asked for more staff. 11 Q What type of staff,specifically? 12 A I would have liked to have a qualified industrial 13 hygiene assistant. 14 Q A secretary? 15 A And a secretary. 16 Q Any additional staff that you requested? A 17 pharmacist or anything else? . 18 A First things first. First an assistant before you 19 ask for a second one. I never did get a qualified industrial 20 hygiene assistant. I got a technician with a high school 21 background. j 22 Q What other things did you request in your report? 23 A Well, I requested to be relieved of these \ 24 extraneous duties that I had imposed on me. 25 Q The ones you described earlier, the ear plug 26 fitting and so forth? 27 A That's correct. 28 Q Any other t i >i-;, nic? PRODUCE! JM-E3 i MT-PWHD-012841 1528 1 A I see here I asked to be sent to the Industrial 2 Hygiene Conference annually. 3 Q What is the importance of that as a hygienist? 4 A Number one, at the same time that conference was 5 held there was a.meeting of the Navy Industrial Hygiene 6 Association where all the industrial hygienists in the Navy 7 got together for something like a day. They put on a little 8 program. We were able to discuss our mutual problems, make 9 contact. 10 The conferences are very valuable in making 11 contact with other people. They may have the same problems. 12 And you could get down to a one-to-one basis and get 13 information very fast. 14 They were also practical. The only place in this 15 field where employees and prospective employers can get 16 together. It is sort of a place where you can promote another 17 job. 18 Q Mr. Manning, this letter or memorandum of June 30, 19 1970, does it accurately represent the conditions and events 20 that were taking place at the time you were at the Long Beach 21 Naval Shipyard? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did you prepare that yourself? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Did you prepare that in your official capacity as 26 the industrial hygienist at the Long 3each Naval Shipyard? 27 A Yes. P 28 MR. CAMPILLO: May we approach the bench. MT-PWHD-012842 1529 1 THE COURT: We'll take a recess at this time and 2 reconvene at 11:15. We'll take up the matter before we 3 resume. ' 4 5 (Recess.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM-83 MT-PWHD-012843 1530 1 THE COURTS All right, sir. 2 MR. CAMPILLO: Your Honor, at this time the defendant 3 wishes to introduce into evidence exhibit 1220 with the 4 understanding that the first paragraph may not be pertinent 5 and will be deleted from the exhibit. 6 THE COURT: Any objection? 7 MR. NOTT: No objection, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: All right. 1220 then will be received. 9 Q BY MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, do you know or have 10 you met a person named Bill or William Reitze? 11 A Yes. 12 Ql Where did you meet Mr. Reitze? 13 A I met Bill Reitze, I think, for thefirst time at 14 one of the industrial hygiene conferences. 15 Q. Did you meet him at any other time? 16 A I met him later when he visited the shipyard with 17 a tour group that was associated with Dr. Selikoff and 18 Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York. 19 Ql was that in connection with an asbestos-related 20 study? 21 A Yes. Dr. Selikoff had an ongoingstudy of 22 asbestos workers and what happened to them. It became quite 23 extensive. 24 0 When you met Mr. Reitze at this shipyard can you 25 tell us approximately when that occurred? 26 A Yes, I will try. 27 & It was while you were an industrial hygienist 28 there, right? PRODUCED --------------------------------------------:------------------------------------------------------m - -u-------------------- MT-PWHD-012844 1531 1 A. Oh, yes. I think it was sometime, to the best 2 of my knowledge, in the fall of *71, I believe. It could 3 have been '70. Somewhere in that period. Representatives 4 from Selikoff's group came through twice and Reitze was 4 ' 5 a part of the second group which was either *70 or '71. 6 Ci Do you know if he was part of the first group? 7 A. He wasn't with the first group. They came through 8 in the spring of '69 and I only met them briefly in that 9 period. 10 On the second time I went along with the tour, 11 was part of the tour group. 12 Ci Mr. Manning, at the time that you left the ship 13 yard in 1974 were asbestos-containing insulation products 14 still being used? 15 JL Yes. 16 & While you were the hygienist there between '67 and 17 *74 did you hold any type of training seminars or sessions 18 on asbestos as a health hazard? 19 A. Yes. , 20 ft Could you tell us briefly what types of 21 sessions you held and who participated? 22 JL Well, we had the first indoctrination session, 23 X think, in February of *68 and I participated along with, 24 X think, the entire supervision of the pipe coverers. ... . ./ 25 The safety officer was there. Frank Meese was there. J 26 Web Ay was there. Several other supervisors. I can't 27 remember. And they all talked, at least in the first 28 session. PRODUCED Ji - 83 MT-PWHD-012845 1532 1 It kind of dwindled down where maybe there would 2 be myself and somebody else at the end. They would bring 3 them in in groups and I think the first time we had maybe 4 four sessions. 5 Ql If I may, Mr. Manning, you were addressing the 6 foremen for these various groups of workers? \ r' 7 A. The first session was to the working men who 8 installed pipe covering and insulation and at that time 9 Dr. Selikoff's initial findings were available and I 10 presented what he found and I didn't hold anything back. 11 I informed them of the cancer, increased incidence 12 of cancer that was being found among pipe coverers that 13 were exposed to asbestos and I explained to them that non 14 smoking asbestos workers had a considerably less incidence of 15 cancer. It would be very wise to stop smoking if you worked 16 with asbestos. 17 I told them about what parts of their work were 18 the most hazardous as far as I knew. I recommended, of course, 19 to wear their respirators whenever they could and as long as 20 they could. Good housekeeping, et cetera. 21 Qi Did you have other meetings along the same 22 lines, Mr. Manning? 23 A. Yes. . 24 Qi . Will you tell us how many of those meetings 25 did you have? 26 K. There were four more meetings. 27 & What years? JSI - S3 28 A. The next one was held in '71, summer of 1971. MT-PWHD-012846 1533 1 & Who did you address at that meeting? 2 A. We had a series of meetings, morning and afternoon, 3 and we went for a period, I think about four days and Z, 4 along with the safety director and I think Web Ay, went over - V '"'I ' 5 the material and we indoctrinated the first line supervisors 6 of all the shops. 7 At that time we felt or suspected that there were a 8 lot of people being exposed to this material that were not 9 working directly with it and this way we hoped to get the 10 information down to the worker. 11 ft Mr. Manning, did you have any resistance from 12 management in terms of holding education meetings like 13 these? 14 A. Yes. 15 Cl Would you describe what resistance you faced? 16 A. There was difficulty at times getting these kinds 17 of things organized, especially initially because this kind of 18 thing pulled the worker away from his work and the production 19 people took a dim view of that and consequently initially, 20 why, there was resistance. 21 As I say, there was a long gap between 1968 and 22 the next time we addressed the workers was in '72. 23 ft Mr. Manning, you also mentioned briefly before \. 24 that there was some type of medical screening going on while 25 you were there; is that correct? 26 , 27 A . Yes. ft Could you tell us what was being done? ,: Ak 28 K For the asbestos workers? PRODUCED JM S3 MT-PWHD-012847 1534 1 Q. Yes, sir. 2 h The people that were directly exposed to 3 asbestos were brought in once a year and given a 14 x 17 X-ray 4 and when I first came there there was an ongoing program . ' ' V*,' . 5 that was carried out at the Memorial Hospital by ; >' ' 6 Dr. Ellestad where there were extensive pulmonary function 7 studies done on all the pipe coverers yearly. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 produce 28 JM-83 MT-PWHD-012848 1535 1 Q What was done with these studies? 2 A The information was put in the employees' jacket 3 and the X-ray films were stored away. 4 Q Any communications to the employees as to the 5 findings? 6 A NO. 7 MR. CAMPILLO: I have no further questions, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Cross-examine. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. NOTT: 12 Q Good morning, Mr. Manning. . 13 A Good morning. 14 Q This X-ray program thatMr. Campillo just 15 mentioned, when was that, sir? 16 A The employees were given an X-ray yearly, once a 17 year, while I was there. 18 Q During 1957 to 1974? 19 A Yes. I was the industrial hygienist from 1967 to 20 February of 1974. 21 Q The X-ray program wasduring thatentire time? 22 A Yes. 23 Q How were you involved in that program? What was 24 your function relative to it? 25 A I became interested in what was happening to these 26 people. Initially on my own I had a rapport with the X-ray 27 technician and I reviewed all the reports of the X-ray reader 28 involving these people. PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012849 1536 1 Later I was requested by a Dr. Lawton who is head 2 of the Occupational Health Branch to review these things and 3 give him a report. He wanted that report to deliver a paper I 4 think in Spain or somewhere where he was going. 5 So for several years while Terry Moore, that 6 particular radiologist, was there, I reviewed the findings of 7 these X-rays to keep tabs on what was happening to these 8 people. 9 Q Were the X-ray reports delivered back physically 10 to the Long 3each Naval Shipyard? 11 A They were delivered physically to the X-ray 12 Department. 13 Q At the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Did you have any connection with that X-ray 16 Department at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? In other words, 17 from a reporting standpoint did they report to you, did you 18 report to them? 19 A There was no official requirement one way of the 20 other. 21 Q Did the pulmonary function test come back? If 22 they were delivered physically to whom did they come back? 23 A They would have been addressed to the medical 24 officer. I don't know whether he reviewed them or not. They 25 ended up in the medical jackets, medical records of the 26 specific employee. 27 Q How do you know that, sir? 28 A Because I pulled the jackets of these people and produced _________________________________________________________JM - X3 MT-PWHD-012850 1537 1 examined the jackets and reviewed the findings also of the 2 pulmonary function tests. 3 Q How is it that you are aware of that if the 4 results weren't given to the employees? 5 A Number one, it was common knowledge. Terry Moore 6 told me that. 7 Number two, I was made well aware of it in one 8 incident where Terry Moore, on his own without official notice 9 or permission, he called two employees who had serious 10 findings on their X-ray, according to the reader, and these ' 11 two people were referred to a Dr. Owenby. I was there and 12 heard this. 13 He said, who brought these people in. He didn't 14 want to handle it and he sent them up to see the medical 15 officer. 16 The medical officer came out of his office and 17 examined both men with his stethoscope and told them they were 18 all right to go back to their jobs. 19 Later he came back down the hall and wanted to 20 know who called these people in. Probably if you found Terry 21 Moore you can find out. 22 That was policy and I knew it was happening 23 because Wereby, who is the head of the pipe coverers and 24 insulators complained frequently that nobody was notified 25 about anything. 26 Q Did the X-ray results that you read come back 27 positive for findings for asbestos-related disease in the pipe 28 coverers? 'PRODUCED Ji - 83 MT-PWHD-012851 A 1538 1 Yes, there were some findings. 2 Were all of them? 3 No. 4 Do you have any idea on percentage how many were 5 Q 6A 7Q 8 positive? x 9 A Wellv I'm not a doctor. But despite that I did 10 some reading in medical journals. As a quasi-layman I would 11 say that from reading these reports -- I'm not qualified to 12 read an X-ray film, but from reading the reports written by 13 the reading radiologist, I would say that at least a third of 14 these people had findings of a nature that wouldn't be there 15 in a normal X-ray. 16 Q And this X-ray program, Mr. Manning, that you 17 talked about, was just for the pipe coverers? 18 A Yes. The pipe coverers and insulators. I think 19 later there were some boilermakers brought in who were at 20 times exposed to asbestos. It Was expanded to them. 21 Q We have heard that another slang term for pipe 22 coverer and insulator is a lagger. Does that square with your 23 understanding? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Mr. Manning, you stated when you arrived in 1967 26 as the post of, I believe it's called a billet, is that 27 correct? 28 A Yes. Q Billet of industrial hygienist had bp ^ A Yes- JM-S3 MT-PWHD-012852 1539 1 hadn't been filled or was the billet actually totally 2 abolished? 3 A I think it's accurate to say it was abolished. 4 Q I believe you stated that you spent about 15 years 5 of your time overall with health hazards related to asbestos 6 materials, is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And the other 85percent youdescribed a variety 9 of different duties that you had during that time? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Was the noise-level problem at theLong Beach 12 Naval Shipyard a major problem in your estimation during that 13 time period? 14 A Yes. 15 Q How much time did you spend on that? 16 A 20 percent. 17 Q What was the nature of that problem? 18 A Well, the overhaul of Naval ships encompasses 19 quite a bit of contact of metal against metal, riveting, 20 chipping, pounding scouring, et cetera. And aboard ship 21 during overhaul is an extremely noisy place. 22 This has been going on for a number of years. The 23 Department of Labor who handles compensation decided that this \' 24 was a compensable injury, hearing loss due to noise. 25 What happened when this became known -- there were 26 a lot of noise-induced hearing loss claims. And there was a 27 lot of time spent taking noise measurements principally to 28 develop these hearing loss claims. A lot of ___ _____________________ JM-83 MT-PWHD-012853 1540 1 connected with hearing loss claims. 2 At one time, I think in the year 1972, I spent 3 months and months giving indoctrination or lectures to people, 4 the whole shipyard establishment, 50 at a time, morning and 5 afternoon. This went on for months. So it was time 6 consuming. 7 Q Was there some resolution of the problem for the 8 worker to eliminate the hearing loss problems that were going 9 on? 10 A Under the conditions that prevailed in the 11 shipyard, and given the fact that there was no effective 12 rubber chipping hammer or anything like that, the noise went 13 on. 14 We had a program whereby we examined everybody in 15 the shipyard to determine whether they had hearing loss. We 16 had an ear protective device program whereby we issued 17 ear plugs of various descriptions. In some instances ear18 muffs. And of course the indoctrination program to wear your 19 ear plugs. I think people were informed if they had hearing 20 loss. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PRODUCED 28 JM-83 MT-PWHD-012854 ISA1 Q. Mr. Manning, you mentioned, sir, that I believe 1 2 you are a member of the American Congress of Governmental 3 Industrial Hygienists, sir, during the time? '. ''v 4 Kj Yes. 1 5 Q Is that an official government group, sir? - 6 A. No. That is a professional society. 7 Q During the time that you were a member, sir, 8 did that group have any power to make any laws or regulations? 9 JL NO. 10 Qi It made recommendations only; is that correct, 11 sir? 12 JL 13 & Yes. Did it make any laws as such relative to lowering 14 the TLV for asbefetos? 15 JL You mean recommendations? 16 & Did it make any laws? 17 JL I am confused. We discussed that they had no 18 power to make laws. 19 Q. All right. Let me go at it another way, sir. 20 We have already discussed that the TLV at one time in the 1960 21 at least was five million particles per cubic foot; is that 22 correct, sir? 23 JL Yes. v; 24 ft There was no law in effect that that was a TLV? 25 is that correct, sir? No government body had ever said that 26 this is the law, five million particles TLV, in the 1960's? '- i 27 MR. CAMPILLO; I am going to object as to the time 28 frame. I think it is a confusing question. PRODUCED JM 83 MT-PWHD-012855 1542 1 THE COURT* All right. Put a time frame on it. 2 Q BY MR. NOTTS In 1967, sir. 3 A Had it become law in '67? 4 Q Correct. 5 A Yes. 6 Q. Who made the law, sir? 7 A Well, I had knowledge that the Pennsylvania 8 Department of Health had adopted the TLV's in their entirety 9 in their regulations, which is part of the law, the regulations 10 of the Department of Health. 11 Qt To your knowledge, sir, was there such a similar 12 law in California in 1967? 13 A I have no knowledge of that. 14 Q Was there a federal law, to your knowledge, at 15 that time in 1967? 16 A No. 17 Qt Mr. Manning, does the TLV of five million particles , 18 to your knowledge, sir, was that five million asbestos 19 fibers or was the TLV just five million dust particles? 20 A It was five million dust particles. 21 & Which would mean zero asbestos fibers or five 22 million asbestos fibers; is that correct, sir? 23 A Theoretically so,' yes. \ 24 & At some point in time there was a governmental - %. i -* i 25 TLV set for asbestos, was there not, sir? Nationwide? ' 26 A Yes. 27 & Do you recall when thathappened, sir? 28 A It happened when OSHA went into effect, which I . . PRODUCED --- --- -------------------- ---------------- :------ ------ JM-"-83-- MT-PWHD-012856 1543 1 think was some time, I believe, in 1970, thereabouts, 2 ft What is OSHA, to your understanding? 3 A It stands for Occupational Safety And Health 4 Administration, I believe, or Authority. I forget which. 5 0 In approximately 1970 what was the TLV set 6 for regarding asbestos fibers, sir? 7 A Initially it was the five million particles per 8 cubic foot. 9 ft Then it was reduced? 10 A The next change I believe occurred when they 11 changed the standard or the limit to TLV from five million 12 particles per cubic foot to 12 fibers per CC of air longer 13 than five-- fibers longer than five microns. 14 ft Do you recall the approximate date of that, sir? 15 A That probably went in late '70 or '71. 16 & To your knowledge was that standard further 17 modified after that point in time? 18 A Yes. 19 ft To what, sir? 20 A Initially it went down to five fibers per cubic 21 centimeter longer than five microns. 22 0- Do you know when that took place? 23 A I think the next year. 24 ft Approximately 1972? 25 A I believe it was in by '71. / SA 2 ' ' v >: \:1 26 ft Was the standard further reduced after that? 27 A Yes. 28 ft Down to what, sir? MT-PWHD-012857 1544 1 JL Officially it went down to two fibers per cubic 2 centimeter. 3 . Ql Do you recall when that happened? 4 JL'" I believe that officially became the standard aftex 5 I left the shipyard actually. That was probably in *75. V ' \ .' 6 Qt Mr. Manning, you stated that when you arrived at the \ 7 shipyard you had very little in the way of equipment; is that 8 correct, sir? 9 A. Yes. 10 Qi One of the things that you put in immediate 11 and evidently repeated requests for wasdust sampling equipment; 12 is that true, sir? 13 JL Yes. 14 Qi Did you need the dust samplingequipment to 15 take samples of dust other than for asbestos? 16 JL Yes. 17 Qi Whatother types ofmaterialswere youlooking to 18 count besides just asbestos? 19 JL There was a large amount of sand blasting that 20 went on in the shipyard and it created quite a bit of dust 21 and it needed to be monitored. 22 Just off the top of my head, t don't believe -- 23 I think asbestos and silica dust which occurred in sand^- , ^ 24 blasting, were the only two dusts that 1 can recall. , ` '' ? 25 -ft-v- You did eventually receive the equipment in ' 26 approximately 1968 sometime, sir? 27 JL It was June of '68, yes. PRODUCED JM - 83 28 ft After that did you take dust samples around the MT-PWHD-012858 1545 1 shipyard? 2 K Yes. 3 & Did you do that on a fairly regular basis, sir? 4 K I would describe it as sporadic basis. Whenever 5 I could find time. Iinitially, as soon as I got the ', 6 equipment X spent more time to get to define the problem and 7 I think by the time that nine months rolled around I had done 8 sufficient sampling to write a report,which I did. 9 Q Was it part of your function, sir, to take 10 these samples on any sort of a regular basis? Xn other words, 11 once a month, one every six months, once a year? 12 K NO. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RODUCED j lift MT-PWHD-012859 1546 1 Q I believe you stated that you did take your first 2 set of samples over about a nine-month period and make a 3 report on that. ' 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you ever do any sampling subsequent to that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q When was that? 8 A Whenever the five-fiber per ccstandard came into 9 effect. It required differentequipment and needed a phase 10 contrast microscope. As soon as I obtained that equipment 11 I -- about the same routine that I did before. I took quite a 12 fev; samples as time permitted to fill out the knowledge or the 13 exposures that were occurring in the various kinds of work. 14 Frequently I was -- Web Ay, who was the foreman, 15 would request some sampling. And I would respond to those 16 requests. When information came to me that a particularly bad 17 situation existed I tried to get out and monitor that. It was 18 never done -- you know -- every month. Things couldn't be 19 planned that way. 20 The way the work schedule is the ships come in. 21 Initially they take off all the insulation which occurs over a 22 day or two. Then there is quite a bit of repair work and the 23 work situation appears where they start putting it back on. 24 It's an irregular sort of thing. 25 Q Were you ever on board ship watching the laggers 26 install insulation? ' PRODUCED 27 A Yes. . Ji - 83 28 Q Did you observe other workers in other trades to MT-PWHD-012860 1547 1 be in the work space at the time that the laggers were 2 installing insulation? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What other types of trades did you observe to be 5 in the work space? 6 A Machinists would be there, pipe fitters, 7 electricians, welders, riggers.Any workman that had work in 8 these spaces would come and go. 9 In the case of machinists, I observed them sitting 10 nearby while the lagging work was going on. They were pulling 11 something off so they could get in there and do the work. 12 This is something that later on we tried to restrict. 13 Q Were you ever onboard ship when the insulators did 14 rip-out? 15 A Yes. 16 Q You are familiar with that term, "rip-out"? 17 A Yes. 18 Q It's your understanding that that means taking off 19 the old insulation? 20 A Yes. 21 Q In your opinion, was that a dusty operation? 22 A That operation was the dustiest operation involved 23 in which the asbestos workers were involved. 24 Q Have you ever seen any other workers in the work 25 space during rip-out from 1967 to 1974? PRODUCED 26 A Yes. Ji - 83 27 Q Approximately how much of your time -- I know this 28 may be difficult -- approximately how much of your time was MT-PWHD-012861 1548 1 spent onboard ship during that period as opposed to other 2 parts of the shipyard? 3 A Initially I spent more time in the field because I 4 didn't have much else to do. As things progressed the paper 5 load became heavier. 6 I would say initially I might have spent a third 7 of my time aboard ship in the first year or two. Later on it 8 got down to maybe 20 percent or 15 percent. Something like 9 that. 10 Q You would make it a practice during a normal work 11 week to go on several ships during the day or for some periods 12 of time? 13 A Yes. 14 Q That period of time might range from what to what? 15 How long might you be on a ship? 16 A If I was doing sampling on the asbestos I'd be on 17 there probably three hours in the morning figureing on 18 counting the samples in the afternoon. Something of that 19 sort. There were times that maybe I'd spend five hours aboard 20 various ships. Not always the same one. 21 Q During the time you took your dust surveys in 1969 22 did you ever take any rip-out procedures? 23 A Yes. \ 24 Q Do you recall what the results of those tests 25 were? 26 A Invariably during rip-out the concentrations of 27 asbestos fibers were high. JI-83 28 Q Did they exceed the 5 million TLV at that time? MT-PWHD-012862 1549 1 A Yes. 2 THE COURT: We'll recess at this time and reconvene 3 Monday morning at 9:00 a.m., please. 4 5 (At 12:00 noon an adjournment was taken, 6 to be resumed Monday, January 11, 1982 7 at 9:00 a.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PRODUCED 28 JM -83 MT-PWHD-012863 CONFIDENTIAL BIII1IBBBBBI1B CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manvilie lzii MT-PWHD-012864 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL ,LP05R052 - MANVILLE LITIGATION SUPPORT SYSTEM # tt tttt tttt tt tttt tt tttt tt tt tt tt tt tt tttt tttt tttt tt tttt tttt tttttt tt it tttt tttttttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt it tttt tttt tttt tttt tt tttttt tt tttttt tt tt tt tt tt tt tttt tt tt it tt tt tt it tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tttt it tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt tttt it tttt tttt tttt tttttt# Hit tttt tttt tttt it tttt it tttt tttt tttt it it tttt tttt it tttt tttt tttt it tttt it tttt tttt tttttt OFFLINE PRINT REQUEST USERID: RLEG061 COMMAND: P,3,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 02/27/86 TIME: 163431 SESSION HISTORY . SET 1 - 44 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS DOCNO=LJC00004 SET 2-24 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CN0=ESLOO3O1 SET 3-12 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CNQ=SHMT0002 ' f CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL mTM"* MT-PWHD-012865 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG061 COMMAND: P,3,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 02/27/86 PAGE 1 TIME: 163431 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0000 STARTING PAGE: 0000 ENDING PAGE: 0000 TOPIC: TABLE OF CONTENTS IRVINE V JMC TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF SHELDON H. MANNING LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) . JANUARY 11, 1982 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA VOLUME 2 TOPIC PARAGRAPH (EXAMINATION BY NOTT.MG FOR IRVINE,DC.) - DUST SURVEYS, PP. 1550-1552 1 - SAFETY MEETINGS, PP. 1552-1554 2 - RESPIRATORS, PP. 1554-1556 3 - SAFETY MEETINGS, PP. 1556-1558 4 - VISIT TO PUGET SOUND (PSNS), PP. 1558-1559 5 - JMC PRODUCTS/WARNING LABELS, PP. 1559-1560 6 - VISIT BY MOUNT SINAI (MTS) GROUP, PP. 1560-1562 7 - LAWSUIT FILED BY MANNING,SH, PP. 1562-1564 8 (EXAMINATION BY CAMPILLO,RA FOR JMC.) - 1964 MEETING ON ASBESTOS HAZARDS, PP. 1564-1566 9 - MOUNT SINAI (MTS) GROUP VISITS, PP. 1566-1568 10 (EXAMINATION BY NOTT.MG FOR IRVINE,DC.) - TESTING OF DUST FLOW RESPIRATORS, PP. 1568-1570 11 . DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: OOOI STARTING PAGE: 1550 ENDING PAGE: 1552 TOPIC: DUST SURVEYS (EXAMINATION BY NOTT.MG FOR IRVINE,DC.) Manning,SH previously testified that on the dust sample measurements he took in 1968 and 1969 on rip-out procedures, there were instances where results exceeded five million threshold limit value. Does not recall specifically how high the samples got, but it would not have been uncommon to be ten times the threshold limit value of 1968, up to 50 million particles. Manning,SH has taken dust samples out of the space after the rip-out was completed and found dust still in the air. Manning,SH did the same type of dust count survey regarding the installation of insulation materials. During installation the levels generally were in the order of the threshold limit value up to two or three times that. After May of 1971, Manning,SH has taken dust surveys where the standard on the threshold limit value had been changed from particles to asbestos fibers. Has taken surveys on both ripout and installation of insulation. His findings were that during rip-out dust could be as high as ten times the threshold limit value which was five fibers per "cc." It wasn't always that high, but it wasn't uncommon. During installation the counts ranged from about threshold limit value to three times that much. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS ' PARA NUMBER: 0002 STARTING PAGE: 1552 ENDING PAGE: 1554 TOPIC: SAFETY MEETINGS Manning.SH previously testified that he had a safety meeting with the laggers, the pipe coverers, and insulator workers in 1969 regarding asbestos health hazards. People at the meeting included the foreman of the laggers and the supervising hierarchy. The trades other than laggers were not represented at this first meeting. The presentations at this meeting were all oral but there were some visual aids used also. The meeting was strictly on asbestos health hazards. One of the things discussed was that CONFIDENTIAI___ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZI1 MT-PWHD-012866 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG061 COMMAND: P,3,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 02/27/86 PAGE 2 TIME: 163431 1 aggers should wear respirators. Manning,SH was also involved in eight or ten day-long meetings in June of 1971 where they indoctrinated all the fire line foreman in the shipyard in regard to the asbestos hazard. At the first meeting in 1971, just pipe coverers were involved; the second meeting involved all the first line supervisors in the shops. In the three meetings during 1972 and 1973 some workers who were boilermakers who were exposed to asbestos attended. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0O02 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0003 STARTING PAGE: 1554 ENDING PAGE: 1556 TOPIC: RESPIRATORS At the safety meetings, as well as at other times, Manning.SH got information that there was resistance among workers to wearing respirators all the time. Manning.SH heard complaints that "the respirator gags me," which he interprets to meant that workers couldn't breath freely through the respirators. The respirators caused irritation around the face, or fogged up spectacles. The main complaint was that the respirators caused resistance to breathing; older workers would get fatiqued and take their respirators off. Another drawback of a respirator is that one cannot talk or communicate through them. Respirators are hot and cause sweating. Manning.SH wore a respirator when he.was taking dust surveys with one exception. The respirator used became a disposable one in 1971 or 1972. In 1967 the respirator that was used was a mine safety appliance called a dust flow. In improving this model, in 1967 or 1968, the filter holder and filter were enlarged to make breathing a little easier. The disposable respirator, obtained in 1972 was made by "3-M." These had just come on the market and been approved by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM). Workers were issued a fresh disposable respirator every morning; normally respirators were issued to pipe coverers and insulators only, but were available to anyone else that wanted one. The disposable respirator had better acceptance among workers. They were lighter, caused less breathing resistance, and didn't fog up glasses. There were still problems with communication. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0004 STARTING PAGE: 1556 ENDING PAGE: 1558 TOPIC: SAFETY MEETINGS A foreman is the immediate supervisor of the workers. He assigns work, sees that the job is done and takes care of time. Inspectors are not foremen. In the safety meeting for foremen, the presentations were also oral. Manning.SH does not know if there was an attendance or sign up sheet at these meetings. If there was a sign up sheet it may have been kept by the shop supervisor. The supervisor/foreman was supposed to pass on the knowledge from the safety meetings to the workers directly under them. (PAGE 1557, LINES 23 THROUGH 28 MISSING FROM TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.) DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0005 STARTING PAGE: 1558 ENDING PAGE: 1559 TOPIC: VISIT TO PUGET SOUND (PSNS) After Manning.SH came to Long Beach (LBNS), he visited Puget Sound (PSNS) in Bremerton, Washington. Puget Sound (PSNS) conducted the same type of work as Long Beach (LBNS), but also constructed naval ships which was not done at Long Beach (LBNS). Manning.SH does not know if Puget Sound (PSNS) also was involved in developing nuclear warships. Manning.SH made the trip to Puget Sound (PSNS) in May of 1967. The work force there varied between 8,000 and 12,000 compared to Long Beach's (LBNS) 6,000 to 9,000. (OBJECTION (OBJ): - NO FOUNDATION RE: RATIO OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS BETWEEN PUGET SOUND (PSNS) AND LONG BEACH (LBNS). P. 1558.) Manning.SH does not know how the numbers of Workers' Compensation claims compared between the two shipyards. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0006 STARTING PAGE: 1559 ENDING PAGE: 1560 TOPIC: JMC PRODUCTS/WA RNING LABELS When Manning.SH was at Long Beach (LBNS) he saw JMC insulation products being used including some with the brand name Thermobestos. Also recalls seeing the JMC product, 85 Percent j CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL MaTM,te MT-PWHD-012867 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG061 COMMAND: P,3,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 02/27/86 PAGE 3 TIME: 163431 Magnesia. Does not recall if any JMC asbestos cements were used at Long Beach (LBNS). (OBJECTION (OBJ): OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION RE: WARNING LABELS ON JMC PRODUCTS. P. 1559.) Manning,SH believes that later in his tenure there was some kind of warning put on containers of Thermobestos and 85 Percent Magnesia. The NAVY also had its own warning labels which would sometimes be on these containers which said "toxic." (OBJECTION (OBJ): IMPROPER FORM OF IMPEACHMENT RE: DOES MANNING,SH RECALL TESTIFYING THAT THE FIRST TIME HE SAW ANY WARNING ON A JMC PRODUCT WAS IN 1971 OR 1972? P. 1560.) 1971 or 1972 was the first time Manning,SH saw warning labels on JMC products; that was after the OSHA Act came into effect. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0007 STARTING PAGE: 1560 ENDING PAGE: 1562 TOPIC: VISIT BY MOUNT SINAI (MTS) Manning,SH met with a group of people from the Mount Sinai (MTS) GROUP group in the spring of 1969. Nickerson and Holiday.D were in the group along with someone else whose name Manning,SH can't remember. Manning,SH met with this group, after they had toured the shipyard, in the Safety Director's office. Manning,SH had very little to do with the actual tour. Does not recall if the group made any recommendations regarding the use of asbestos type products. There was a second group from Mount Sinai (MTS) which toured Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in the fall of 1971. Reitze.W was in this group. Manning,SH went on the tour with this group. The group observed some rip-out aboard one of the ships and some installation of asbestos. Manning,SH does not think anyone in the group made any recommendations regarding the use of asbestos products; they were basically at the shipyard to observe and learn. Manning.SH does not think he mentioned to the group the problem of workers not liking the respirators. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0008 STARTING PAGE; 1562 ENDING PAGE: 1564 TOPIC: LAWSUIT FILED BY MANNING.SH The rip-out procedure was by far the heaviest dust producer. Manning.SH took dust counts after 1972 occasionally upon request. Ay,W the general foreman was very knowledgeable and very active in trying to control the asbestos hazards and he frequently requested sampling. Manning.SH himself has a little chronic lung disease. (OBJECTION (OBJ): REQUEST TO APPROACH THE BENCH RE: HAS MANNING.SH FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST MANUFACTURERS? P. 1563.) (THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY WAS HELD AT THE BENCH OUTSIDE THE HEARING OF THE JURY: THE PENDING QUESTION IS WHETHER MANNING.SH HAS FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST MANUFACTURERS OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS INCLUDING JMC. THE RELEVANCE OF THE QUESTION IS THAT THE TENOR OF MANNING'S,SH TESTIMONY HAS SO FAR BEEN THAT IT IS THE NAVY'S FAULT AND NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE DUST CONTROL PROBLEM AND NOTT.MG WISHES TO DEVELOP THE FACT THAT MANNING.SH HAS BROUGHT A STRICT LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST JMC. P. 1563.) (OBJECTION (OBJ): QUESTION IS PREJUDICIAL AND IRRELEVANT. P. 1563.) (OBJECTION (OBJ): SUSTAINED.) DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0009 STARTING PAGE: 1564 ENDING PAGE: 1566 TOPIC: 1964 MEETING ON ASBESTOS (EXAMINATION BY CAMPILLO,RA FOR JMC.) The only time Manning.SH HAZARDS did not wear a respirator when taking dust samples was a time he went back to the shipyard at night and forgot his respirator at home. Manning.SH did not get any resistance from management about his wearing respirators when doing dust sampling. Recalls a _ meeting in 1964 about asbestos as a possible hazard. Manning.SH is not sure that the meeting was held by Selikoff,IJ; it may have been. A representative from the NAVY was present at this meeting by the name of Kreiger.C. Kreiger.C was safety superintendent at Long Beach (LBNS). There were respirators available to any worker at Long Beach (LBNS), but they were mandatory only for insulators. Workers in other trades wore respirators infrequently. When Manning.SH took dust samples, the concentration of particles 10 or 15 feet away from the site of installation or rip-out would be about one-third. At the safety meetings previously mentioned, marine machinists' supervisors were in attendence. CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL MT-PWHD-012868 CONFIDENTIAL.............CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG061 COMMAND: P,3,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 02/27/86 PAGE 4 TIME: 163431 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0010 STARTING PAGE: 1566 ENDING PAGE: 1568 TOPIC: MOUNT SINAI (MTS) GROUP Neither of the visiting groups from Mount Sinai (MTS) made dust VISITS readings; the scope of their visit did not include taking samples. Manning,SH assumes the NAVY would have objected to the groups making dust readings. At least these groups would have needed the NAVY'S permission. The groups from Mount Sinai (MTS) visited Long Beach (LBNS) mainly because of the influence of Ay,W who was general foreman and union president at one time. The union was the Metal Trades Council. Ay,W was the tour guide for the groups from Mount Sinai (MTS). The Mount Sinai (MTS) group relied heavily on union cooperation to get dust samplings. (OBJECTION (OBJ): CALLING FOR HEARSAY RE: DID THE MOUNT SINAI (MTS) GROUP REQUEST PERMISSION TO TAKE DUST SAMPLES OR TO ADDRESS EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY? P. 1567.) Manning,SH does not know if these groups requested permission to take dust samples or address employees . directly. It is true that when Manning,SH was at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) between 1967 and 1974, it was recognized by Manning,SH and by the NAVY that asbestos could be a health hazard. Manning,SH believes the NAVY did not do everything in its power to assist him in doing his job as an industrial hygienist. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMT0002 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0011 STARTING PAGE: 1568 ENDING PAGE: 1570 TOPIC: TESTING OF DUST FLOW (EXAMINATION BY NOTT,MG FOR IRVINE,DC.) When Manning,SH began RESPIRATORS working at Long Beach (LBNS), in February of 1967, the Vietnam War was going on. Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was a repair yard for Naval warships, some of which were on duty for the Vietnam war. Prior to the use of disposable respirators, the dust flow respirators were also available to workers other than insulators and pipe coverers. The procedure for obtaining a respirator was to get a voucher from the foreman and take the voucher to the safety issue store where they would issue a respirator. The dust flow respirators used prior to 1972 were approved by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM). When the Bureau of Mines (USBM) tested dust flow respirators, the dust used was silica dust. Asbestos dust was never used to test the respirators. CONFIDENTIAL..... CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZll MT-PWHD-012869 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT NO. 49 HON. WILLIAM DRAKE, JUDGE 4 5 DOUGLAS C. IRVINE, JR., 6 7 VS. 8 JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, 9 Defendant. No. SOC 51906 10 11 12 REPORTER1S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 13 Monday, January 11, 1982 14 VOLUME 16 15 16 APPEARANCES: 17 For the Plaintiff: 18 19 20 GRISHAM, VANDENBERG, NOTT, CONWAY & CANNON BY: MICHAEL G. NOTT -and- ERIC N. SCHOLNICK 120 East Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, California 90802 21 22 For the Defendant 23 24 25 Pages 1550 - 1675 26 27 28 HAIGHT, DICKSON, BROWN & BONESTEEL BY: RALPH A. CAMPILLO -andGEORGE F. EVANS 2800 28th Street Santa Monica, California 90405 PRODUCED JM -83 MARLENE D. MARSH, CSR 753 WALTER RESCHMAN, CSR 1053 Official Reporters MT-PWHD-012870 1 INDEX FOR VOLUME 15 2 3 Friday, January 8, 1982 4 PAGES 1550 - 1675 A.M. 1550: P.M. 1618 5 6 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 7 MANNING, Sheldon H. (res.) 1550 1564 1568 8 HINSHAW, H. Corwin 1571 9 (res.) 1618 1657 10 11 12 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED 13 1071 -Article by Dreesen, "Asbestosis in.the American Textile Industry" 14 1090 - Article by Merewether, "The 15 Occurrence of Pulmonary Fibrosis and Other Pulmonary Afflictions" 16 May 1930 17 RECEIVED 1631 1621 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 i - fed 28 MT-PWHD-012871 _______________________ _______ 1550 __________ ________ _ 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1982, 9:10 A.M. 2 O-- 3 4 THE COURT: Good morning everybody. 5 THE JURY: Good morning. 6 THE COURT: All right. Are we ready to continue? 7 MR. NOTT: Yes, your Honor. 8 9 SHELDON H. MANNING, 10 the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, 11 resumed the stand and testified further as follows: 12 THE COURT: All right, sir. 13 MR. NOTT: Thank you, your Honor. 14 15 16 BY MR. NOTT: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 17 & Good morning, Mr.Manning. 18 A. Good morning. 19 Ci When we broke last time,Mr. Manning, we were 20 talking about rip-out and dust counts. I believe the last 21 question I asked you was whether or not on your dust sample 22 measurements that you took in 1968-1969 if the dust surveys tha: 23 you took on the rip-out procedures ever exceeded the 24 five million TLV. Do you recall that, sir? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. I believe your answer was in the affirmative, thati 27 they did? 28 A Yes. PRODUCED JUI " 13 MT-PWHD-012872 1551 / 1 Ql Do you recall how high those samples got, sir, on 2 rip-out? 3 A. No, not specifically. They may have, some of them, 4 gotten as high as ten times the then threshold limit value. 5 It would not have been uncommon. 6 Ql Up to around 50 million particles, sir? 7 A. Yes. 8 Ql Did you ever take any dust samples, 9 Mr. Manning, after the workers were out of the space after 10 the rip-out was done, for example? 11 A. Yes. l Qt Did you ever find any dust still in the air after 12 13 the rip-out workhad beendone? 14 A. Yes. 15 ft Did you do the same type of survey, sir, as to the 16 insulation work, the installation of insulation materials? 17 A. Yes. 18 Ql Do yourecall what your findings were in that 19 regard? 20 A. During installation the levels generally were in 21 the order of about the TLV up to maybe two and three times 22 the TLV during the installation. The one that was working in 23 installing, in his breathing zone. 24 Ql Did you ever take dust surveys after the standard 25 on the TLV had been changed from particles to fibers, to 26 asbestos fibers? 27 A. Yes. 28 ft When did you do that, sir? 'RODUCED Ji -83 MT-PWHD-012873 1552 1 A After May in 1971, I believe. 2 ft Did you take the same sort of surveys on ripout 3 and on installation of insulation materials? 4 A Yes. 5 ft Generally, sir, what were your findings at 6 that time? 7 A My findings were when rip-out occurred it was the 8 same order of magnitude. 9 At that time I think the original standard was 10 12 fibers and went down to five fibers per CC, and during rip 11 out it would be as high as 10 times the then existing TLV. 12 Not always that, but it went that high, and during installation 13 I found the same situation. Your concentrations were 14 about TLV up to maybe three times. 15 ft On the installation it would be anywhere from the 16 TLV itself up to three times what the TLV was? 17 A Yes. 18 ft Mr. Manning, you testified, I believe,that you 19 had an indoctrination or a meeting of some sort; a safety 20 meeting with the pipe coverers and laggers some time in 1969 21 regarding asbestos health hazards; is that correct? 22 A Yes. 23 ft Was that with the foremen orsupervisors of the 24 laggers at that time? 25 A That was with the laggers, the pipe coverers and 26 insulator workers. I would believe that the foremen of the 27 laggers would be included in that group and at least for 28 the first one or two sessions the supervising hierarchy was PRODUCED Ji - 83 MT-PWHD-012874 1553 1 there also and participated. 2 (Jl Any other trades at that first meeting, sir, or 3 just the laggers? 4 A. Initially it was just the laggers. 5 Q. Was the presentation at that meeting regarding the 6 asbestos health hazards oral, sir, or were there written 7 materials passed out or what? 8 A. The presentations were all oral. There was some 9 visual aids used. 10 Q. Were there any other subjects discussed at that meeting that you recall, sir, any other types of health 11 hazards or safety hazards at that meeting besides asbestos? 12 13 A. No. 14 Q. That was just strictly on asbestos? 15 A. Yes. 16 ft Was one of the things discussed at that meeting 17 that the laggers should wear respirators? 18 A. Yes, that was included. 19 Qt I believe you testified therewere some other 20 meetings with the pipe coverers some time in 1970 to 1974, 21 in that range? Approximately four other meetings? 22 A. We had meetings in the summer of *71, I think 23 around June. Maybe it was about somewhere on the order of 24 eight or ten meetings, morning and afternoon, where we 25 indoctrinated all the fire line foremen in the shipyard in 26 regard to the asbestos hazard. 2 27 28 PRODUCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-012875 1554 1 Q What I'm getting at, sir, is, do you recall 2 how many meetings you had with just the pipe coverers? 3 A Well, in the first one we just talked to the 4 pipe coverers. The second one in 1971 we talked to all 5 the first-line supervisors in all the shops. There was 6 two meetings in 1972 and one in the fall of 1973. 7 In those last three meetings we did cover or 8 talk to and include some workers that were boilermakers 9 who we found were exposed to asbestos and we had previously 10 overlooked them. 11 Q During any of those meetings, Mr. Manning, did 12 you encounter any complaints from either the foremen or 13 the workers with respect to the use of respirators? 14 A Yes. I would answer this by saying these kinds 15 of complaints were not restricted to those meetings. From 16 time to time I would get information that there was resistance 17 among the workers to wearing these all the time. Yes. 18 Q What sort of complaints did they have in that 19 regard, Mr. Manning? 20 A Well, they would make such complaints as the 21 respirator gags me, which made me interpret that that they 22 couldn't freely breathe through them. They caused irritation 23 around the face. Sometimes they would cause fogging-up 24 of spectacles if they wore these things. Very hard to keep 25 these things sanitary. 26 I think the main complaint with the respirator 27 was that there was resistance to breathing, and you had 28 workmen that had some age, maybe their MT-PWHD-012876 1555 1 system had declined somewhat, and after a short period of 2 time respiratory fatigue would occur and they simply would 3 take them off. When you interfere with a person's breathing 4 you interfere with his lifeline. The choice if obvious. 5 Q Were there complaints that they couldn't talk 6 and communicate while they were wearing these respirators? 7 A That's one of the drawbacks to wearing a respirator, 8 Q Also they complained they were hot, they got 9 very hot inside when they wore the respirators? 10 A In warm weather they were uncomfortable. As 11 I say, it caused sweating arW so forth. 12 Q Did you wear a respiratory yourself when you 13 were taking the dust durveys? 14 A With one exception I did, yes. 15 Q Did you wear respirators every time you went 16 down to the fire room or engine room of a ship? 17 A No. 18 Q Did the type of respiratory change at some point 19 in time? 20 A Yes, they did. 21 Q They went to some sort of athrow-away or disposable 22 respirator sometime in 1971 or 1972? 23 A The first changewasprobably, maybe1967. 24 It might have been *68. I think it was probably *67. The 25 respirator being issued was a mine safety appliance dust 26 respirator. I think they call it the dust flow. 27 And the means of improving this . Jifi - 13. 28 they enlarged the filter holder and the filter to give the MT-PWHD-012877 1556 1 respiratory larger capacity, maybe a little bit easier breathing. 2 Then later, I believe it was probably early 3 72, we were able to get ahold of a throw-away type respirator 4 that was made by the 3-M people. And these respirators 5 just came on the market and were approved by the U, S. Bureau 6 of Mines, which was a necessary approval for years. 7 After they became available the workers were 8 issued every morning a fresh respirator, throw-away type, 9 and they were given along with their coveralls. 10 Q Which group of workers are you referring to? 11 A These were the pipe coverers and insulators. 12 I believe they were also available to anybody else that 13 wanted them. 14 Q Would you say overall that the 3-M disposable 15 had better worker acceptance than the prior respirators? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Were they lighter? 18 A They were lighter. They were easier to --less 19 breathing resistance. No problems with fogging up glasses. 20 Just all around better acceptance. Of course, communication 21 problems were still there, 22 Q Mr. Manning, talking about the indoctrination 23 meetings that you had with the other first-line supervisor24 foremen. First of all, could you tell us what you 25 by a first-line supervisor or foreman. 26 A The foreman is theimmediatesupervisor of the 27 workers. He goes around, assigns work, sees that the job 28 is done, takes care of the time, these sorts of things. MT-PWHD-012878 1557 1 The supervisor that's directly above the workmen. 2 Q Would that include inspectors? 3 A would not include inspectors or say that 4 they are first-line foremen, no. 5 Q In those meetings were the supervising foremen 6 of the other trades, was the presentation again oral to 7 those people about asbestos hazards? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Was there any sort of a sign-up sheet so that 10 you knew you had all the supervisors at the meetings and 11 they were all informed? 12 A I wouldn't know about this. If there was a 13 sign-up sheet it was the shop supervisor or people that 14 signed them up. I wouldn't know about that. 15 Q I take it from what you have testified to before, 16 the supervisor-foreman was supposed to pass on the knowledge 17 to the workers themselves? 18 A Yes. 19 Q The workers who wereworking directly for them? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Was there any sort of afollow-upprogram that 22 you were involved in to make sure that that happened? 23 24 25 26 m 27 28 MT-PWHD-012879 1558 Q. Mr. Manning, i believe you testified that after 1 you came to Long Beach that one of the things that happened 2 3 was you went to Puget Sound, the base up at Bremerton, 4 Washington; is that correct, sir? 5 A. Yes. 6 Qi Did that naval shipyard do the same type of work 7 as Long Beach, to your knowledge, sir? A. In part. 8 9 Puget Sound also constructed naval ships. This kind of thing was not done in Long Beach. 10 Q. Were they also involved in developing nuclear 11 warships; do you recall, sir? 12 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q When was the trip you made to Puget Sound? 15 A. It was in May of 1967. 16 Qt Do you recall how many employees there were at 17 the Bremerton shipyard as compared to Long Beach? 18 A. There was a slightly larger population in 19 Puget Sound. I think Puget Sound, the work force probably 20 varied between maybe 8,000 and 12,000 and Long Beach would vary from somewhere between 6 and 9,000, depending on the 21 work load. 22 23 Q. Do you know what the ratio was for workers' 24 corap claims at Bremerton for asbestos-related disease as com 25 pared to Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 26 MR. CAMPILLO: I am going to object, your Honor. No 27 foundation. I pf^rri. Cl r4# IL, 28 THE COURT; The objection will be overruled. MT-PWHD-012880 1559 1 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge. 2 Q BY MR. NOTT: Mr. Manning, during the time that 3 you were at Long Beach did you ever see any Johns-Manville 4 insulation products being used? 5 .A Yes. 6 Q. Are you familiar with the brand name Thermobestos, 7 sir? 8 A Yes. 9 Q. Did you ever see that being used in Long Beach 10 Naval Shipyard? 11 A Yes. 12 Ql Did you ever see a productcalled 85percent 13 magnesia by Johns-Manville being used at Long Beach? 14 A Yes. 15 Qi Do you recall observing as to whether or not any 16 Johns-Manville cements, asbestos type cements, were used at 17 Long Beach? 18 A My recollection is veryvague onthat. I don't 19 recall that. 20 Qi Did you ever see any warning label on any of those 21 Johns-Manville products that I just mentioned, the Thermobestos 22 or the 85 percent magnesia as to any health hazards that 23 might be associated with the use of those products? 24 MR. CAMPILLO: I am going to object as being outside the 25 scope of direct examination. 26 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 27 THE WITNESS: I believe that later in my tenure there PRODUCE28 was some kind of warning put on these contains s. MT-PWHD-012881 1560 The Navy also had their own warning labels that 1 they stuck on containers and sometimes these labels would be on 2 3 the containers, sometimes not. 4 I think the label that I once in a while saw on 5 these were they labeled the containers "toxic." 0 Do you recall testifying before, sir, that the 6 7 first time you saw any warning on a Johns-Manville product was in 1971 or 1972, in that area? 8 MR. CAMPILLO: Your Honor, I am going to object. That is 9 10 an improper form of impeachment. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 11 THE WITNESS: That would be correct, I think, as far as 12 my memory serves me. That along in that period these labels 13 14 -- it was after the OSHA Act came into effect and as a 15 consequence these containers, along with anything else, was 16 labeled. 17 Q BY MR. NOTT: Mr. Manning, I believe also you told 18 us that you met with a group of people from the Mt. Sinai grouj 19 in the late. 1960's; is that correct, sir, that came to the 20 shipyard to visit? A. There was one group that came in the spring of '69 21 and another group came through in the fall of '71, I think. 22 Qi Talking about that first group, Mr. Manning, do yoi 23 . ^ ' 24 recall who was present in that group? 25 A There was a Dr. Nickerson and a Duncan Holiday. 26 There, I think there was somebody else. I can't remember who 27 it was. 28 Q- Do you recall what the group did? Did they meet wi ;n PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012882 1561 1 you at the office, did they meet with you on ship board? Where 2 did you see them? 3 A I met them in, I believe it was, the Safety 4 Director's office was the length and extent of my -- I was 5 called in to meet them late in the afternoon and I had very 6 little to do with that particular tour. 7 Q. Did you meet with them before they took their tour 8 or afterwards? 9 A It was after, late in the aftemocn. 10 & Did they make.any recommendations to you at that 11 time regarding the use of asbestos-type products? 12 A I don't recall that they made any recommendations. 13 Ql In the second meeting in the fall of 1971, I 14 believe that you stated that there was also another group from 15 the Mt. Sinai organization that came to see you. 16 A Yes. 17 & Mr. Bill Reitze was in that group? 18 A. Yes , he was. 19 Q. Did you go on the tour with that group the second 20 time, sir? 21 A Yes, I was with them. 22 Cl Do you recallexactly what the group observed 23 during that time? 24 A I believe they observed -- they may have observed 25 some rip-out and also some installation of asbestos, some 26 mild rip-out aboard one of the ships. 27 0 Did anyone in that group make any recommendations 28 to you, sir, regarding the use of asbestos products? PR000SED ---- -------------- --------- :-------------------- JM-83--------- 1 MT-PWHD-012883 1562 1 A. X don't think we got into recommendations. They 2 were there more or less to observe and learn. 3 Qt You have no direct knowledge that they made any 4 recommendations; is that correct, sir? 5 A. That is correct. 6 Q Did you advise anyone inthatgroup of the problems 7 of workers wearing respirators that you had encountered? 8 A. I don't believe that I brought the subject up. 9 Qt Would it be a fair statement that the rip-out 10 procedure was by far and away the heaviest dust producer, 11 Mr. Vanning? 12 A. Yes. 13 0 Did you ever take any other dust counts after the 14 one you mentioned in 1971, '72? 15 A. Yes. I took samples from time totime as 16 situations came up. 17 Webster Ay, the general foremem, was very 18 knowledgeable and very active in trying to control the 19 asbestos hazards and he frequently requested sampling and I 20 would respond. 21 It was an ongoing thing as time permitted. There 22 was sampling there and again. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ji -13 MT-PWHD-012884 1563 1 Q Do you have some problems with your breathing, 2 Mr. Manning? 3 A I have a little chronic lung disease. 4 Q In fact, Mr. Manning, have you filed a lawsuit 5 against manufacturers of -- 6 MR. CAMPILLQ: I object, Your Honor. May we approach 7 the bench 8 9 (The following proceedings were held 10 at the bench, outside the hearing of 11 the jury:) t 12 13 THE COURT: Do you want to start the question again? 14 MR. NOTT: The question is whether or not he filed 15 a lawsuit against manufacturers of asbestos products including 16 Johns-Manville. 17 THE COURT: What is the relevance of that? 18 MR. NOTT: The relevance, Your Honor -- the tenor 19 of his testimony to this point in time has been that it's 20 been the Navy's fault, the Navy's negligence in handling 21 the dust-control problem. 22 I think I'm entitled to develop the fact that 23 he's not only filed a workmen's compensation claim against 24 the Navy but he's brought his own negligence, strict liability 25 action against Johns-Manville. 26 THE COURT: I take it there is an objection. 27 MR. CAMPILLO: Yes. It's prejudicial and irrelevant. 28 THE COURT: Objection sustained. ' MT-PWHD-012885 1564 1 (The following proceedings were held 2 in open court, in the presence and 3 hearing of the jury:) 4 5 MR. NOTT: I have no further questions. 6 7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. CAMPILLO: 9 Q Mr. Manning, you mentioned that you did not 10 always wear a respirator when you did the sampling of the 11 dust in the air. What were the exceptions? 12 A The one exception was -- it was a sampling that 13 I did at night. I had to come back to the shipyard and 14 I took the equipment that I needed home and then came back 15 and I forgot to include.my respirator and I had no key to 16 get it so I went about my business without a respirator. 17 Q Did you have any resistance from the management 18 of the shipyard to wearing respirators while you were doing 19 the dust sampling? 20 A No. 21 Q Mr. Manning, do you know that a meeting was 22 held in 1964 concerning asbestos as a possible hazard by 23 Dr. Selikoff? 24 A I know there was a meeting held. I'm not sure 25 whether Dr. Selikoff convened it or not. It was held under 26 the auspices of the New York Academy of Science. Dr. Selioff 27 may have had a good hand in it. 28 Q Are you aware as to whether or not any representativ e PSCJD'iCED JIT- 83 MT-PWHD-012886 1565 1 of the Navy was present at that meeting? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Somebody was? 4 A Yes. Clif Kreiger, the safety superintendent 5 of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard attended. 6 Q You mentioned thatthere were respirators available 7 to the insulators and other trades while you were at Long 8 Beach Naval Shipyard, is that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Was there any rule making it mandatory for other 11 trades other than insulators to wear those respirators? 12 A To my knowledge there was never a rule, a regulation 13 making respirators mandatory for other trades. 14 Q As a general proposition, did other trades wear 15 respirators while you were at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 16 and by "other trades," I mean other than insulators? 17 A On occasion, yes. 18 Q Frequently would you say orinfrequently or 19 how would you quantify the use? . 20 A Infrequently. 21 Q Mr. Manning, you did somedust sampling, and 22 you indicated on occasion the readings were above TLV, is 23 that correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Did you at any timecomparethe exposure or 26 the particles in the air at the site of the installation 27 or removal and compare that to 10 or 15 feet away? 28 A Yes. MT-PWHD-012887 1566 1 Q Generally what did you find when you made that 2 comparison? 3 A The concentration was less. Possibly one-third 4 the concentration. 10 or 15 feet away the levels would 5 be less. 6 Q When you mentioned the educational meetings 7 or the sessions that were held, and you indicated that some 8 included the first-line supervisors of the various trades, 9 were marine machinists one of those trades? 10 A Yes. 11 Q So their first-line supervisors would have been l 12 involved in thismeeting, to yourknowledge? 13 A Yes. 14 Q When this group from Mount Sinai came to the 15 shipyard on two separate occasions, did they make any dust 16 readings? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether they 19 did not? 20 A The scopeof the visit didn't include taking 21 samples. That was my job. 22 I would assume that the Navy would have objected 23 or at least they would have had to have the permission of 24 the Navy. 25 These people I think came into the shipyard 26 primarily because -- Webster Ay, who was a foreman and 27 then a general foreman and also held the office of metal 28 trades council president at one time, that's the union president, MT-PWHD-012888 1567 1 at one time, that's the union president, he had funds available, 2 and I think he generally sponsored -- 3 MR. NOTT: Excuse me. May I interrupt. 4 I object to the answer at this point as being 5 a hearsay answer. 6 THE COURT: Objection overruled. 7 Continue with the answer, please. 8 THE WITNESS: Webster Ay was the tour guide and he 9 generally was the guiding and motivating person there. 10 It's my knowledge that the Mount Sinai people 11 relied heavily on union cooperation to get their sampling. 12 Their visits were visits to gain knowledge about the exposure 13 of shipyard workers to asbestos. They just wanted to familiar 14 ize themselves with this process. 15 Q BY MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, were you through? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know whether or not the Mount Sinai group 18 requested permission to take dust samples or to address 19 the employees directly before they came on the shipyard? 20 MR. NOTT: Objection. Calling for hearsay. Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Objection overruled. 22 THE WITNESS: No. 23 THE COURT: "No," you don't know? 24 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know. 25 Q BY MR. CAMPILLO: Mr. Manning, is it true that 26 while you were at the Naval Shipyard between 1967 and 1974 27 it was recognized by you and the Navy that asbestos could 28 be a health hazard? MT-PWHD-012889 1568 1 A Yes. 2 Q Would you say the Navy did everything in their 3 power to assist you in doing your job as an industrial hygienist 4 to control that possible health hazard? 5 A The answer is no. 6 MR. CAMPILLO: I have no further questions. Thank 7 you. 8 9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. NOTT: 11 Q Mr. Manning, were we at war in 1967 when you 12 came to work at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 13 A ; February of 1967. 14 Q The Vietnam war was going on at that time? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Was the Long Beach Naval Shipyard a repair yard 17 for Naval warships, is that correct? 18 'A Yes. 19 Q Some of those ships were on duty for the Vietnam 20 war? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Mr. Manning, in response to Mr. Campillo's 23 questioning on whether or not respirators were available 24 to all other trades, prior to the throw-away respirators, 25 the dust flow that you mentioned, were those available to 26 workers other than respirators (sic)? 27 A Other than pipe coverers and insulators? 28 Q Yes. JILi. MT-PWHD-012890 1569 1 A Yes, they were available on request. The procedure 2 was that the worker requested a voucher from his foreman 3 if he wanted a respirator and he took the voucher to the 4 safety issue store where he would be issued a respirator. 5 Q Prior to 1972, Mr. Manning, when the throw-aways 6 became available, I believe you stated that the dust flows 7 were of a type that were approved by the U. S. Bureau of 8 Mines, is that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you know whether or not there had been any 11 testing to show whether or not those respirators were affective 12 in screening out asbestos fibers? 13 A ; I have knowledge in that area, yes. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED MT-PWHD-012891 1570 Cl What Is your knowledge, sir? A. During that time the U.S. Bureau of Mines used silica dust as the dust to test dust respirators. They did not use, test them against asbestos. Cl They did not test them against asbestos; is that correct, sir? A. No, not specifically MR. NOTT: I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Manning. MR. CAMPILLO: No further questions. THE COURT: Very well. Is this witness excused? MR. CAMPILLO: Yes, sir. MR. NOTT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You may step down, sir. MR. EVANS: 'Your Honor, at this time Johns-Manville would like to call Dr. Hinshaw to the stand, please. THE CLERK: Would you step to the witness stand and be sworn as a witness. H. CORWIN HINSHAW, called as a witness by and on behalf of the defendant, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE CLERK: Be seated and will you state your name. THE WITNESS: I am H. Corwin Hinshaw. MT-PWHD-012892 MT-PWHD-012893 stJm &io t SUMMARY OF TRIAL TESTIMONY OF SHELDON H. MANNING IN JACK LOFSTROM VS. FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, ETC, > ,J3JT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 1Vi * VOLUME IX riy III f I TOPIC DIRECT EXAM BY MY. BAUMGAERTNER - Employment and Educational Backgro pp. 1639-1640 - Chain of Command at the Shipyard pp. 1640-1642 - Industrial Hygiene Program at the Time He Arrived at the Shipyard pp. 1642-1645 - His Responsibilities as Industrial Hygienist in 1967 pp. 1645-1648 - ACGIH Recommended Threshhold Limit Values pp. 1648-1649 - Request for Dust Collection Equipment pp. 1649-1653 - Classes to Educate Workers as to Hazards pp. 1653-1659 - Differential Pay forAsbestos Work pp. 1659-1662 - Memo to Jose Smith Dated June 30, 1970 pp. 1663--1678 - Navy Recommendations Re: Handling of Asbestos Products pp. 1682-1688 - Use of Respirators, Vacuums and Wet Method pp. 1688-1690 - Recommendations By the Navy Re: Coveralls pp. 1690-1692 - Safe Practice Recommendations To Workers pp. 1693-1696 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CANTRELL - Economic Considerations and Implementation of Industrial Hygiene Program p. 1696 - Navy Recommendations Re: Safety Procedure When Using Asbestos pp. 1696-1697 - Participation in Indoctrination of Foremen Re: Safety Procedures pp. 1698-1699 - Threshhold Limit Values pp. 1699-1700 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER - Organizations That Suggested TLVs pp. 1701-1702 - NAVSHIPS Instruction 5100.26 pp. 1703-1706 -l- 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2,3 3,4 4 4 4 4 4 4,5 5 5 5 MT-PWHD-012894 Employment and Edu cational Background pp. 1639-1640 Chain of Command at the Shipyard pp. 1640-1642 Industrial Hygiene Program at the Time He Arrived at the Shipyard pp. 1642-1645 His Responsibili ties as Industrial Hygienist in 1967 pp. 1645-1648 ACGIH Recommended Threshhold Limit Values pp. 1648-1649 Deponent is not currently employed. Was employed from March 7, 1967 to February 25, 1974 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Prior to that was employed by PA Department of Health as Industrial Hyginenist. Prior to that 14 years as Chemist for Bethlehem Steel and prior to that employed by Hooker Electric Chemical Company as Chief Operator and Manufacturer of chemicals. Has a BS degree in commercial chemistry from Pennsylvania State University. When he arrived at the shipyard, his job title was Industrial Hygienist and his immediate supervisor was Captain George Watkins, Senior Medical Officer. The Medical Department was a department of the shipyard. Watkins reported directly to the shipyard commander. Admiral Dolan. Admiral Hart succeeded Admiral Dolan and Captain Fey succeeded Hart. Captain Watkins was succeeded by Jose Smith in May of '69 and was still in that position when Manning left. Bill Marr was the Industrial Hygienist that preceeded him. When he arrived in 1967 he had an office and a desk but no equipment in which to perform his job, or files which per tained to the industrial hygiene program. He looked for industrial hygiene records but didn't find any. The Industrial Hygienist job was to recognize and evaluate and make recommendations for control of industrial health hazards. One area he was concerned with was insulation materials affect on workers. He was a member since 1961 of the ACGIH and was also a member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The ACGIH recommended TLV's for approximately 250 substances. It was his responsibility to evaluate the environment and determine if the TLV's exceeded. Enforcement wasn't his job. In 1967 the ACGIH h 5 million particles. MT-PWHD-012895 Request for Dust Collection Equipment pp. 1969-1653 His job description contained requirements that he evaluate the environment. When he arrived at the shipyard he had no equipment to make dust counts. He requested collect ing and counting equipment around April of 1967 and had dust counting capability about June of 1968. He received a microscope mid get impingers, an air pump, certain glass equipment, Whipple desk and volumetric flask. He never got an answer from the Navy as to why he hadn't received the equipment which he requested of the administrative officer monthly. When he began doing dust samples in '68 he was aware from reference works of the hazards connected with inhala tion of asbestos. Classes to Educate Workers as to Hazards pp. 1653-1659 In February of '68 he held an indoctrination session for all pipe coverers and insulators to educate them about hazards related to as bestos. From 1970 to 1974 he held 3 other such classes. As part of the indoctrination he advised that the present method of asbes tos control would protect them and recom mended the use of respirators. There were respirators in the shipyards from 1967 to 1974. From 1967 to 1970 he did not conduct a session to inform people other than pipe coverers and insulators of asbestos dan gers. In June of `71 the first line super visors foremen were brought into the safety department and given indoctrination about asbestos hazards. They were told to pass this information on to other workers during stand up safety meetings. He didn't follow up to see if they did this. Differential Pay for Asbestos Work pp. 1659-1662 The differential pay for working with asbes tos products went into effect in mid-1970 and was still in effect when he left the ship yard. The people responsible for developing it were civilian employees employed by the Navy within the personnel department. He understood that differential pay was promul gated by civil service commission to compen sate workers in situations where the federal employer couldn't guarantee his safety. Dif ferential pay was 4 to 8% increase over regular pay. Memo to Jose Smith Dated June 30, 1970 pp. 1663-1678 MT-PWHD-012896 Navy Recommenda tions Re: Handling of Asbestos Products pp. 1682-1688 In his memo he told Jose Smith what the con dition of the Industrial Hygiene office was at the time he came to the shipyard. He told him that Bill Marr had done work in evaluat ing asbestos hazard and had been a pioneer in alerting the Navy as to asbestos dangers and that he had conducted a survey and pub lished the results. He also told him that Marr had indoctrinated the workers. He ad vised Smith that after Marr's report was published, he transferred to another job in the Fall of '64. He told him there was no Industrial Hygienist from Late '64 until 1967. He told him that when he arrived in '67 there was not equipment, literature or files. He said there was some equipment in storage that was so old it was of no use. He told Smith that when he began his posi tion, Watkins had put a restriction on him that he produce no written reports and he thought it was an important part of his position. He was asking Smith for support necessary to carry out his Industrial Hygiene Program. The reason he wrote this memo was because he had been trying for 3 years to upgrade the program and he didn't feel that verbal communication was getting him anywhere. There was a Navy regulation requiring an Industrial Hygienist be present in the shipyard and he felt that because he wasn't allowed to develop a confident pro gram, his job was in part a window dressing. He said the program was under staffed com pared to other Naval Shipyards. He asked that he be promoted from GS11 to GS12 and to be given a budget. He asked for a secretary and an IH Assistant and to be allowed to go to the ACGIH conference every year. He requested additional equipment. He asked for these things verbally more than once. He received a written response from Smith about a month later. When he arrived there were Navy instructions in place in the shipyard safety manual. There were also instructions that originated from the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in Washington that were in effect at that time. BUMEDS is responsible for delivery of medical service to the Navy. BUMEDS set MT-PWHD-012897 when working with i exhaust ventilation method. Use of Respirators, Vacuums and Wet Method pp. 1688-1690 Between 1967 and 1970 he was on board ship about 3 times a week. He observed insulators installing in the engine and fire rooms and machinists working in the engine and fire rooms while the insulators were working. Based on observation, he would say insula tors wore respirators about 25% of the time. He saw them utilizing vacuum cleaners about 25% of the time but did not observe them using the wet methods. He's seen air hoses used to blow down engine rooms which wasn't a recommended practice. Recommendations the Navy Re: Coveralls pp. 1690-1692 By There was instruction by NAVAC in Summer of '69 that recommended shipyard asbestos work ers be provided with fresh coveralls daily. Shipyard command specifically, Frank Nease felt it was too expensive and not essential. The recommendation was finally implemented in 1971. Safe Practice Recommendations To Workers pp. 1693-1696 He made recommendations concerning safe procedures that asbestos workers should utilize. The workers foreman or first line supervisor has the responsibility to enforce safe prac tices. It was not Manning's responsibility to follow up enforcement in terms of disci pline if an unsafe practice was encountered. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CANTRELL Economic Considerations and Implementation of Industrial Hygiene Program p. 1696 There is an economic problem as to procedures they have to go through to get equipment or coveralls around the shipyard, Navy Recommenda tions Re: Safety Procedure When Using Asbestos pp. 1696-1697 The safety procedures to be used when using asbestos were recommendations, not directives from the Navy. Participation in Indoctrination of Foremen Re: Safety Procedures pp. 1698-1699 His part in these meetings was to point out health aspects of exposure to asbestos. He went over the work Selikoff had published and pointed out the relationship of smoking with asbestos disease and informed them of the increased incident of cancer among asbestos -4- MT-PWHD-012898 workers. He attended about 10 meetings in the Summer of '71. There were no handouts given. Threshhold Limit Values pp. 1699-1700 The ACGIH has no official government sanction nor do the TLV's they recommend. The philo sophy behind the TLV was that if a worker worked in an environment consistently below these levels he wasn't likely to experience occupational disease in a working lifetime. The 5 million particle TLV was based on the Fleischer-Drinker report. It has since been reduced to an OSHA standard of 1 fiber per cc. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER Organizations That Suggested TLVs pp. 1701-1702 Prior to 1972 when OSHA came into effect the Pennsylvania Department of Health which didn't have jurisdiction over the shipyard recommended a TLV for asbestos. Prior to 1972 BUMEDS recommended a 5 million particle TLV. NAVSHIPS Instruc tion 5100.26 pp. 1703-1706 Instruction 5100.26 relates to control of asbestos hazards at the shipyard and it came to him on February 9, 1971. He was part of the process of implementing recommendations carried out in that document. These instructions are recommendations to the shipyard commander. After some deliberation among shipyard personnel the procedure was to write up shipyard instruction that either accepted or rejected some of these propo sals. They incorporated those in a shipyard safety manual. This was done by February of '72. The foremen had responsibility for enforcing these instructions. Manning did some work in approving disposable respira tors and made an effort to see they were tested and had a good deal of input as to which one was accepted. Disposable respir ators became available around '71 or '72. 09-16-82 5- - MT-PWHD-012899 MT-PWHD-012900 37/ MR. BAUMGAERTNER 1 SUPERlOR"COUkT'T)F tSff MS OFCALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT NO. 19 HON. JOHN A. LOOMIS, JUDGE 4 --oOo-- ,5 6 JACK LOFSTROM, ) 7 Plaintiff, ) 8 v.. ) ) > 9 FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, etc., et al., ) ) 10 Defendants. ) ) 11 COPY No. SOC 51864 12 13 REPORTERS* DAILY TRANSCRIPT 14 Tuesday, November 17, 1981 15 Volume 9 16 Pages 1526 to 1725 17 18 19 20 APPEARANCES: 21 (See Volume 2) 22 23 24 25 26 DENNIS J. RIGBY, CSR No. 1166 - and - 27 VERNON W. KISSEE, CSR No. 1774 Official Reporters 28 PRODUCED -------- T JUT- 83--------- MT-PWHD-012901 1 INDEX POR VOLUME 9 Pages 1526 to 1725, Incl. 2 3 DAY_______________ 4 Tuesday 5 DATEPAGE November 17# 1981 A*M. P.M. 1526 1639 6 7 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NONSUIT and DIRECTED VERDICT 1526 8 9 10 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES* DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 11 MARR# William T. 12 (Portions of Deposition of 2-5-80 Read into the Record Commencing at Page 1571) 13 MANNING# Sheldon B. 1639 1696 1701 14 UNMACK# James L. 15 1712 16 - 17 TRIAL EXHIBITS* 18 35 - Exhibit C to Deposition of William T. Karr 19 36 - Publication by Mr. Marr in 20 Industrial Hygiene Journal 21 37 - Memo Dated 6-30-70 22 38 - Department of Navy Instruction Memo 23 FOR IDENTIFICATION IN EVIDENCE 1586 1591 1597 1597 1663 1709 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM-83 MT-PWHD-012902 1639 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1981; 1:33 P.M. 2. 3 --oOo-- 4 THE COURT: Would you like Co proceed, Mr. Baumgaertner. 5 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Yes, I would, Your Honor. 6 7 stand. At this time we would call Sheldon Manning Co Che 8 THE CLERK:' Would you raise your right hand, please. 9 10 SHELDON H. MANNING, 11 called as a witness by the defendant, was sworn and testified 12 as follows: 13 THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please. 14 THE WITNESS: My name Is Sheldon H. Manning. 15 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION - 17 BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: 18 Q Mr. Manning, are you currently employed? 19 A No. 20 Q During the late sixties and early seventies, were 21 you employed by the United States Navy? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Wherewere you employed, sir? 24 A The LongBeach NavalShipyard. 25 Q During what years were you employed at the Long 26 Beach Naval Shipyard? 27 A I was employed from March 7th, 1967, to February 28 25ch, 1974. PRODUCED ------------- .------------- ---------------- JM--83-------------- MT-PWHD-012903 1640 1 Q Almost seven years, correct? 2 A Yes. ' 3 Q Prior to that time. Hr. Hanning, did you have any 4 training or experience in any field of professional endeavor? 5 A Yes. 6 Q What training and experience did you have? 7 A Prior to my employment in the shipyard, I was 8 employed by Pennsylvania Department of Health in the capacity 9 of industrial hygienist. Prior to that I worked for 14 years 10 as a chemist for the Bethlehem Steel Corporation; steel. 11 Prior to that 1 had worked for Hooker Electric 12 Chemical Company in the capacity of chief operator and manu 13 facturer of chemicals. . 14 Q Sir, tell the jury briefly what your educational 15 background is. 16 A I have a B.S. Degree in commercial chemistry from 17 Pennsylvania State University. 18 Q When you arrived at the Long Beach Haval Shipyard, 19 what was your job title? 20 A Job title was industrial hygienist. 21 Q Who was your immediate supervisor? 22 A Was Captain George Watkins, senior medical officer 23 of the shipyard. 24 Q Were you assigned to a department within the organi 25 zational structure of the shipyard? 26 A The medical department was a department of the 4^ 27 shipyard, and I was part of the medical department. ry 28 Q Did you report to somebody in the medlcaj^.^ MT-PWHD-012904 1641 1 department? 2 A 1 reported to Captain Watkins. 3 Q Was Captain Watkins the head of the medical 4 department? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Was he a doctor? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did Captain Watkins report to anyone directly in 9 the shipyard? 10 A He reported directly to the shipyard commander. 11 Q Mr. Manning, who was the Individual ultimately 12 responsible for what went on inside the Long Beach Naval 13 Shipyard? . 14 A The shipyard commander. 15 Q At the time you arrived in 1967, who was the 16 shipyard commander? 17 A The shipyard commander at that time was Admiral 18 Dolan. 19 Q Did commanders change during your tenure at the 20 shipyard? 21 A Yes. 22 Q What other commanders were present at the shipyard 23 during the period of time you were there? 24 A There was an Admiral Hart ~ succeeded Admiral 25 Dolan; and a Captain Fey succeeded Admiral Hart; and I think 26 there was a Captain --- 1 believe his name was Dabrowsky. He 27 was a short time before 1 left. PRODUCED IM " 83 u28 Q During the period of time thixryou were there, MT-PWHD-012905 1642 1 sir, did the medical officer change from Captain Watkins? 2 A Yes. CaptainWatkins was succeeded by then 3 Commander Josd Smith, who came aboard in May of 1969; and he 4 remained as the medical officer at the time 1 left. 5 Q You Indicated you came to the shipyard in 1967. 6 Do you know if there was an Industrial hygienist at the shipyard 7 that preceded you? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you know who it was, sir? 10 A Bill Marr. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012906 1643 1 Q Do you know when Bill Marr left the shipyard as 2 an industrial hygienist? ' 3 A Sometime, I believe -- 4 MR, CANTRELL* Objection. Lack of foundation as to 5 this witness. . B THE COURT* The objection is sustained. 7 MR. BAUMGAERTNERs X am sorry. Your Honor? sustained? 8 THE COURT* Yes. 9 MR. BAUMGAERTNERs The question is did he know when 10 Bill Karr left the shipyard. 11 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. Lack of foundation. 12 THE COURT* He can say yes or no. It sounds like it 13 would be based upon hearsay. 14 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERs You can answer thequestion. 15 A The answer is yes. 16 Q When did Bill Marr leave the shipyard to your 17 knowledge? 18 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. Lack of foundation. 19 THE COURT* Sustained. 20 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERs Did you have personal 21 knowledge when Bill Marr left the shipyard? 22 A Yes. 23 Q When did he leave the shipyard? 24 MR. CANTRELL* Still lack of foundation. Your Honor. 25 THE COURT* Xt is sustained for lack of foundation. ^ 26 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERS Mr. Manning, at the time 27 you took over your duties in 1967, was there any 28 industrial hygienist stationed at the Long Beach Naval __ _________________ _ ________ PRODUCED IH 83 MT-PWHD-012907 -1544- 1 Shipyard? . 2 A . Ho. . 3 Q Do you know, sir, when the last tine an 4 industrial hygienist was stationed at the Long Beach Naval 5 Shipyard? - 6 A Yes. 7 Q When was that? 8 MR* CANTRELLi Sane objection* No foundation* 9 THE COURTt Objection sustained* 10 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERs When you arrived at the 11 shipyard in 1967, did you have an office? 12 A Yes* 13 Q Did you have a desk? 14 A Yes* 15 Q Did you have any equipment in which to perform 16 your job as an industrial hygienist? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you have any files or papers pertaining to 19 the industrial hygiene program? 20 A No. 21 Q Did you have any medical journals or books 22 pertaining to industrial hygiene? 23 A No. 24 Q Did you have a secretary? 25 A NO. 26 Q Did you learn, sir, that prior to the time that 27 you had arrived at the shipyard, industrial hygiene records 28 PRODUCEDhad been maintained by your predecessors? -------- ;-------------------------------- :--------- JH - 83 -- MT-PWHD-012908 164S i NR* CANTRELL* Objection. Calls for hearsay. 2 THE COURT* Sustained. ' 3 Q BY HR. BAUMGAERTNER* Are you generally familiar 4 with the procedure for maintaining industrial hygiene records 5 that was in effect at the time you came to the shipyard? 6 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. The question is vague and 7 ambiguous as to what was there when he got there. If it is 8 what he implemented, I have no objection. 9 THE COURT* The objection is overruled. 10 Do you remember the question? 11 THE WITNESS* No, Your Honor. . 12 Would you repeat the question? 13 Q BY HR. BAUMGAERTNER* Certainly. 14 At the time you got to the shipyard, sir, were 15 you aware that industrial hygiene records were maintained? 16 A Z was not aware that there were records main 17 tained, no. 18 Q At the time you got to the shipyard, sir, did 19 you search for records pertaining to industrial hygiene? 20 A Yes. Zlooked for records. 21 Q Did you find any industrial hygiene records 22 when you got to the shipyard in 1967? 23 A No. 24 Q What were your responsibilities as the 25 industrial hygienist for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard when 26 you arrived there in 1967? 27 - A Briefly, the industrial hygienist*s job is to 28 recognize and evaluate and make recommendations for control -------------------- --------------- '____ raamicED_____ ___ JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012909 1646 1 of Industrial health hazards. There was a Ion? job das- 2 cription spelled out a lot of these duties which X can't 3 remember at this time. 4 Essentially, the capsule definition of S industrial hygienist is what X said. 6 Q Was it your job to promote safety at the shipyard? 7 A It was my job to make recommendations where 8 necessary to promote the health -- maintain the health of 9 the worker and defend the worker against the hazards -- the 10 health hazards of the industrial environment. 11 Q Was one of the areas you were concerned with in 12 March of 1967 the area of insulation materials as it would 13 affect workers? 14 A Yes. 15 Q At the time you arrived at the shipyard in 1967, 16 were you a member of any organizations pertaining to 17 industrial health? 18 A Yes. . 19 Q What organizations did you belong to, sir? 20 A The American Conference of Governmental 21 Industrial Hygienists, the American Industrial Hygiene 22 Association. 23 Q How long had you been a member of the American 24 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists? 25 A I joined that organization in 1961, I believe. _ Q Are you aware, sir, that among the duties of the 27 ACGIH is the recommendation of certain special limit values? 28 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. PS8DUCED % _______________ MT-PWHD-012910 _ _______________________1647__________________________________________ A . ' 1 Nay we approach the bench. Your Honor? 2 THE COURTS Yes. 3 (The following proceedings were held 4 at the benchs) 5 MR. CANTRELL: Counsel is having difficulty shifting 6 gears into direct examination. 7 This is the second leading question, and it is 8 assuming a fact not in evidence. Z thought we just best slow 9 down. I will object to the question as leading and also , 10 assuming a fact not in evidence. 11 THE COURT! You can make those objections from counsel 12 table as long as you don't argue them. 13 MR. CANTRELL! Fine. 14 THE COURT! It will save you the trip. 15 The objection is sustained. 16 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: As long as we are here, let's use 17 the time expeditiously. 18 Z am informed by Mr. Manning that he has sub 19 mitted a claim for an asbestosis related disability which 20 claim is currently pending and which Mr. Cantrell advises 21 ms he intends to inquire about during cross-examination. 22 THE COURT: Z indicated yesterday it shouldn't be 23 done without first approaching the bench. That is still the ruling. 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED ~JW~-~83 MT-PWHD-012911 1648 1 (The following proceedings were held in 2 . open courc in the presence of the jury:) 3 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, are you familiar 4 with the term threshold limit value? 5 A Yes. - 6 Q Would you please give the jury your understanding 7 of that term. 8 A Threshold limit value is generally a concentration 9 or a limit below which a workman can be exposed for an eight- 10 hour day without risk of contracting occupational disease. 11 Q Did the ACGIH recommend TLVs for various substances 12 in 1967? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Approximately how many substances did the ACGIH 15 recommend TLVs? 16 A Approximation would be about 250. 17 Q Was it part of your responsibility as an Industrial 18 hygienist to see if the recommended TLVs were being enforced 19 in the shipyard? 20 A It was my responsibility to evaluate the Industrial 21 environment and determine whether the TLVs were exceeded or 22 not exceeded. Enforcement wasnft part of my duties. 23 Q At the time that you arrived at the shipyard in 24 1967, was there a TLV for asbestos particles? 25 MR. CANTRELL: Excuse me. The question is vague and 26 ambiguous. If it is one of the recommendations from ACGIH, 27 there is no objection. But the implication is there is some 28 other TLV. PRODUCED JM 83 MT-PWHD-012912 1649 1 THE COURT: It nay be clarified. 2 i. ' MR. BAUKGAERTNER: Certainly. 3 Q In 1967, did the ACGIH have a recommended TLV for 4 asbestos particles? 5 A Yes. 6 Q When you arrived at the shipyard, did you know 7 what this recommendation was? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What was it? 10 A It was the threshold limitvalue established by 11 the Threshold Value Committee of the American Conference of 12 Governmental Industrial Hygienists -- was five million particle: > 13 per cubic foot of air. 14 Q At the time that you arrived at the shipyard in 15 1967, was it within your job description to measure asbestos 16 dust particles in the air? 17 A My job descriptioncontainedrequirements that 18 I evaluate the environment. I can't say right now whether 19 asbestos was named specifically, but that would include it. 20 Q Is it your understanding that certain type of equip 21 ment is utilized to make dust counts? 22 A Yes. 23 Q When you arrived at the shipyard in March of '67, 24 did you have any equipment that would enable you to make 25 asbestos dust counts around the shipyard? 26 A No. 27 Q Did you request from someone at the shipyard that 28 you be given that type of equipment? ----------------------- :----------- !-------- JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012913 1650 1 A Yes. 2 Q When did you request this? 3 A Z requested certain equipment, including dust 4 counting equipment, soon after 1 arrived; within a month. 5 Q So by April of 1967 you had made a request for 6 this equipment? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did you ever get the equipment? 9 A Yes. 10 Q When did you get the equipment? 11 A I had dust counting capability about June of 1978. 12 Q Over a year later? 13 A Over a year later. 14 THE COURT: '78 or *68? 15 THE WITNESS: '68, beg your pardon. 16 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: What type of equipment did 17 you finally receive that enabled you to make asbestos dust 18 particle counts? 19 A Well, I received a microscope that was capable 20 of magnification of 100 tiroes and 950 times. I received midget 21 impingers for collection of dust; an air pump; certain other 22 glass equipment; slides; whlpple desk and volumetric flask. 23 That was about it. 24 Q Had you ever utilized this equipment before you 25 had come to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 26 A Yes. 27 Q To your knowledge, Mr. Manning, was this equipment 28 so sophisticated that it had to be specially constructed? PRODUCED . iftrm : MT-PWHD-012914 1651 1 A No. . 2 Q To your knowledge, Mr. Manning, was Chis equipment 3 readily available through suppliers? 4 MR. CANTRELL: Objection as Irrelevant. 5 THE COURT:\ Objection is sustained. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012915 :---------------------------------------;-----------------------1652_________________________________________ *\ 1 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Mr. Manning# do you know 2 why it took so long for you to get this equipment? 3 MR. CANTRELL* Same objection. 4 THE COURT* Overruled. 5 You may answer. 6 THE WITNESS! There was -- 7 MR. CANTRELLS The question really calls for a yes or S no answer. There may be further objection after that answer 9 come7in. 10 THE COURT* It may be answered yes or no. 11 THE WITNESS: I would answer it no. 12 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERs Did you request from the 13 Navy on more than one occasion you be provided with this 14 equipment? . 15 A Yes. 16 Q Did you everget ananswer from the Navy as to 17 why you were not being afforded this equipment? 18 A MO# I didn't get an answer. 19 Q Approximately how many times did you request 20 this equipment from the Navy before you finally received it 21 in July of -- in June of 1968? 22 A I would go up to theadministrative officer 23 about once a month and request equipment. 24 Q When you finally got the equipment in 1968# did 25 you start doing dust samples around the shipyard? 26 A Yes. 27 Q At that time# sir# were you aware that asbestos 28 insulation products presented a health hazard to shipyard PRODUCED JM-83 MT-PWHD-012916 1 workers? * 2 A , Yes. . ' , 3 Q Bow did you become aware of this information? 4 A Well# this information came to me through 5 reading available reference works, this knowledge was 6 available when Z first became an industrial hygienist, 7 there were hazards connected with inhalation of asbestos 8 dust. 9 Q Did you attempt to fulfill your job as an 10 industrial hygienist by conducting classes to educate ship* 11 yard workers about the hazards that you knew of? 12 A Yes. 13 Q What did you do in that respect? 14 A There was indoctrination sessions held in, I 15 think, February of 1968 where all of the pipe coverers and 16 insulators were brought in, and X think three or four, and 17 they were indoctrinated by myself as well as several other 18 people who participated in this indoctrination. 19 MR. CANTRELLi Can we approach the bench. Your Honor? 20 THE COURTI Yes. 21 (The following proceedings were held 22 at the bench:) 23 MR. CANTRELL: We are now on the same problem we had 24 encountered as to the deposition of Mr. Marr, and Z am going 25 to move to strike the last answer as not relevant to this 26 case and not responsive to the question. 27 Also, Z request as to what the purpose of 28 offering this witness is. Zf it is the same line as the ----------'-------- :----------- '------------ -PRODUCED___ :__ !U . ft3 MT-PWHD-012917 1654 :.Vv., .z. . 1 deposition of Nr. Harr was being offered, then the same 2 evidence or the same admonition to the jury should be given. 3 Zf not, then he is being offered in some other capacity, and 4 X am not familiar with that. 5 THE COURTS Overrule the objection. 6 Z will give the jury a limiting instruction. 7 MR. CANTRELL: Pardon me? 8 THE COURTS Z said X will overrule the objection and Z 9 will give the jury a limiting instruction. 10 MR. CANTRELL: Can we also inquire is this witness 11 being offered in any way as an expert? 12 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: NO, he is not. 13 (The following proceedings were held 14 in open court in the presence of the 15 jury:) 16 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to these 17 questions that are now being asked, the evidence is received 18 only as evidence of what information or knowledge the Navy 19 or its employees or personnel had, not as evidence that 20 relates to knowledge of the plaintiff. 21 MR. CANTRELLS Thank you. Your Honor. 22 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, you were 23 telling us about an indoctrination session you had with the 24 pipe coverers and insulators in 1968 where you were 25 explaining asbestos hazards. 26 Here there any other occasions you got the pipe 27 coverers and insulators together to explain to them about 28 the dangers of asbestos insulation products? PRODUCED :--------- -:------------------------------- m - 83------- MT-PWHD-012918 1655 1 A Yes. 2 Q . Bov many other times before 1970 did you do that. 3 sir? 4 A Before 1970? 5 Q Yes# sir. . 6 A It was just that one occasion. 7 Q One time from '67 to 1970? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q And after 1970 up until the time you left the to shipyard, from 1970 to 1974, how many times did you get the 11 insulators together to inform them of the hasards of 12 asbestos products? 13 A Three other occasions. 14 Q At the first meeting, sir, did you request the 15 insulators wear respirators when working around insulation ~ 16 MR. CANTRELL: Objection. Counsel is again leading 17 the witness. Your Bonor. 18 THE COURT: It is overruled as to this question. 19 It may be answered yes or no. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 Q BY HR. BAUMGAERTNER: What did you tell them in 22 that regard? 23 A Well, as part of the indoctrination, I advised 24 them that the present method of control of asbestos would 25 protect them and that it would be very wise to wear their 26 respirators as much as they possibly could. 27 MR. CANTRELL: Move to strike the first portion as to 28 the present method would protect them. The question only _____________ ;_______________________ produced ........................... JR-83' MT-PWHD-012919 1656 1 related as to what he told them about respirators. Your 2 Honor. 3 THE COURTS The motion is denied. 4 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER t Were there respirators 5 available in the shipyard from 1967 on for use by 6 insulators? * 7 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. No foundation as to 8 knowledge on the part of this witness. 9 THE COURTS Sustained on that ground. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RODUCED JM-83 MT-PWHD-012920 1657 1 .Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, do you know 2 if there were respirators in the shipyard from 1967 to 1970? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Werethere? 5 A Yes. 6 Q From 1970 up until the time you left in 1974, were 7 respirators available for pipe coverers and insulators to 8 utilize? ' 9 A Yes. 10 Q From 1967 up until 1970, did you have an indoc 11 trination session to inform other people at the shipyard con 12 cerning the dangers of working around asbestos-containing 13 insulation products? 14 And by others, 1 mean other than pipe coverers i 15 and insulators. 16 A No. 17 Q From 1970 up until 1974, did you ever have such 18 a meeting? 19 A Yes. 20 Q How many times? 21 A One series of talks, yes.. 22 Q When you say a series, were that more than one 23 meeting? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Were these series held at the shipyard? 26 A Yes. 27 Q Did you conduct them? 28 A I participated. PRODUCED --JM-" 83-- MT-PWHD-012921 1658 1 Q Were these shop meetingst sir? 2 A ' No. 3 Q Would you explain what the meetings were? 4 A In I think June of 1971, the first line supervisors- 5 foremen were brought into the safety department and given 6 indoctrination about the hazards of being exposed to asbestos. 7 Q Were they told that they should impart this infor 8 mation to the rest of the people? 9 HR. CANTRELL: Objection, Your Honor, counsel is leading 10 the witness again. 11 THE COURT: Sustained. 12 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I am sorry. 13 Q Mr. Manning, what was told to these first line 14 supervisors in June of 1971? 15 MR. CANTRELL: That's just been asked and answered. 16 Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Is sustained. You may ask if anything else 18 was told. 19 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Yes. 20 Q Was there anything else told? 21 A They were requested to carry this information that 22 we imparted to them to their-- the people under them in the 23 standup safety meetings that were held periodically in the 24 shipyard. 25 Q Who were the first line supervisors? 26 A They were the foremen. 27 . Q Did each shop have a first line supervisor? ' 28 A *" produced --------------------------- ----------- :------------ nri3----------- ' MT-PWHD-012922 1659 1 -- Q Did you follow up to see that the foremen passed 2 on the Information? 3 A No. * Q During the period of time that you were in the 5 shipyard, Mr. Manning, was there in effect a program that /. 6 provided differential pay for different types of work? 7 ... A Yes. B Q . Was differential pay everprovided for asbestos 9 work? 16 A Yes. ... VI MR. CANTRELL: Objection as irrelevant. Your Honor. '12 THE COURT: It's overruled. 13 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: To your knowledge, Mr. Manning, 14 when was differential pay offered for working with asbestos 15 products? 16 A Well, best of my knowledge, our differential pay 17 went into effect sometime around the middle of 1970, I believe. 18 Q How long did itstay ineffect? 19 A It was in effect when I left the shipyard. 20 Q Were you instrumental in developing differential 21 pay for asbestos work? 22 A I would answer that, that my advice was sought 23 by the people who were responsible for developing differencial 24 pay. 25 Q Who were the people responsible for developing 26 differential pay? 27 A That responsibility was given to -- it's a group 26 that doesn't immediately come to mind. The^weg^jig charge _ --.. .......... ......... JM - 83............ ' MT-PWHD-012923 1660 1 of -- it was a group inside the personnel department. 2 Q Were these naval employees? 3 A They were civilian employees, yes. 4 Q Employed by the navy? 5 A Yes. ` 6 Q Do you understand why differential pay was 7 Instituted? 8 MR. CANTRELL: Objection, calls for an opinion of the 9 witness. 10 THE COURT: He may answer it yes or no as to whether 11 he understands it or not. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Did you understand why they 14 wanted your input as to whether or not differential pay could 15 be provided for asbestos work? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What was your understanding? 18 MR. CANTRELL: Objection, calls for conclusion of the 19 witness. No foundation. Vague and ambiguous. Irrelevant. 20 THE COURT: Sustained for lack of foundation as to how 21 he obtained the understanding. 22 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, did you have 23 a discussion with these civilian employees before the decision 24 was made to institute differential pay for asbestos work? 25 A Yes. . 26 Q As a resultof that discussion and as a result 27 of your training and experience around the shipyard, did you 28 reach an understanding as to why differential pay was being ------------------------------------------------ produced------- --- lit- 83 MT-PWHD-012924 1661 1 sought for asbestos work? 2 MR. CANTRELL: May we approach the bench, Your Honor? 3 THE COURT: Well, if you have an objection you can state 4 the ground, not the argument. 5 MR. CANTRELL: Yes. I will object that it calls for 6 a conclusion of the witness and is vague and ambiguous, and 7 there is no foundation, still. 8 THE COURT: Well, the objection is overruled, but the 9 evidence is received only as evidence of this witness's 10 knowledge and state of mind, not as evidence to the truth of 11 any statement that may be made. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-012925 1662 1 Q BY HR* BAUMGAERTNER: You may answer* 2 A Hill you restate the question* ~ 3 Q Yes. 4 Based upon your training and experience and the 5 information that you learned from the people in the personnel 6 department, what was your understanding as to why differential 7 pay was implemented for asbestos work? 8 A It was my understanding that the differential pay 9 plan was promulgated by the Civil Service Commission to 10 compensate workers who were put in situations where the federal 11 employer could not completely guarantee the safety of the 12 worker. 13 Q What was thesignificance of differential pay? 14 MR. CANTRELL: Object to that question as vague and 15 ambiguous. 16 THE COURT: It is sustained. _ 17 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: What is the difference 18 between differential pay and regular pay? 19 A 4 percent and 8 percent, depending on the level 20 of the differential pay. 21 Q Was that a 4 percent or 8 percent increase? 22 A Increase. . 23 Q So thegovernment paidmoremoney? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And they paid more money to people working with 26 asbestos? 27 A . Yes. ' 28 Q Now, during the period of time that you were the __ ___________________________ PRODUCES_____ __ III - 83 MT-PWHD-012926 1663 1 Industrial hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you mentionec 2 that a Captain Jos Smith was the medical officer. Did you 3 ever write Josd Smith a memo on June 30th, 1970, speaking about 4 the Industrial hygiene program at the Long Beach Naval Ship 5 yard? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Have you reviewed that memo before your testimony 8 today? 9 A Yes. 10 Q When did youlastreview that memo? 11 A I looked at it last night. 12 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I would request, Your Honor, that 13 we mark a memo dated June 30th, 1970, from Sheldon H. Manning 14 to Commander Josd C. Smith as defendant's next. 15 THE COURT: May be marked as exhibit 37 for identifi 16 cation. 17 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Did you submit that memo 18 to Commander Jos4 Smith? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What was the purpose, sir, in submitting that memo 21 to Commander Smith? 22 MR. CANTRELL: May we approach the bench. Your Honor? 23 THE COURT: Yes. ' 24 (The following proceedings were held 25 at the bench:) 26 MR. CANTRELL: I have an objection to the relevancy of 27 the memo, and 1 have an objection to the relevancy of this 28 question as to what the purpose of the memo was. The memo ___________________ __ _________ PRQIMICED___ ;_____ Jll - 83 MT-PWHD-012927 1664 1 itself is not yet in evidence, and it can be narked. 2 But as I understand the testimony of this witness, 3 it is being offered as to the knowledge that he had, and as . 4 such the state of his mind. This is the same matter we got 5 into on Mr. Marr this morning In discussing what the purpose 6 of his writing articles were. It is Immaterial what the purpose 7 was. 8 THE COURT: 1 think it is. I think it's relevant. 1 9 don't know what it says, but -- . 10 MR. CANTRELL: I haven't read it, myself, yet. 11 THE COURT: It would be relevant on what Information 12 was available. 13 MR. CANTRELL: It is mostly hearsay. 14 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Your Honor, this goes to the state 15 of knowledge that the navy had at the time this was written 16 as to the conditions of the industrial hygiene department. 17 MR. CANTRELL: This man can testify to that. He was 18 there. He has been testifying to it. 19 It asked for a raise and asks for a secretary and 20 asked for additional staff. He wants an additional staff in 21 case he should die or be moved away; and he asked to be relieved 22 of some duties which he found onerous to him. Wants a telephone, 23 and he wants to be able to get outsiders to pass through the 24 gate and wants a telephone listing with his title. 25 THE COURT: Doesn't look like too much of it relates 26 to asbestos. 27 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: That Is exactly the point I think 28 everybody seems to be missing here. This document Indicates ________________________ '_____produced JM-83 '____ MT-PWHD-012928 1665 1 exactly what the navy thought of Industrial hygiene* 1 think 2 it is most probative of the fact that the individual who would 3 be most capable of implementing programs of protecting the 4 health and safety of the workers is given absolutely no 5 assistance, no equipment and no opportunity to fulfill his 6 Job* They don*t give him a secretary, they don't give him 7 a telephone, he can't publish directives* 8 This is very relevant to the claim of Johns-Manvill<! 9 that insofar as control of the work place, the navy was only 10 Interested in production and not the safety of the workers. 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED "JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012929 1666 1 -r __ MR. CANTRELL: That doesn't say that in this nemo. This 2 is the pique of a civil servant or as to anybody in a large 3 organization who is not getting the credit he thinks is 4 dignified or he is entitled to according to his office and 6 flatus. There is nothing about asbestos in here. 3 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Your Honor, there is quite a bit about 7 asbestos. But I think the asbestos aspect is certainly 0 relevant, and what is even more relevant is the utter disregard 9 the navy gives to Mr. Manning, who they hire as the industrial hygienist but don't allow him to fulfill his function. 11 THE COURT: I think he can testify to that, if that's 12 what this is offered for. 13 MR. CANTRELL: If you want to have him testify about 14 fulfilling his function as to asbestos, otherwise I am going 15 to be up here all afternoon on relevancy of this material. 16 Obviously this whole document has nothing to do with asbestos. 17 THE COURT: You made your objection. He is trying to 18 say something. 19 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: The record will Indicate we have alreac 20 been up here all afternoon. What I am trying to find out -- 21 ail right, assuming this is hearsay, first of all 1 can lay 22 a foundation this is a business record of the United States 23 Navy and that this Individual authored; and this goes to the 24 knowledge of the navy at the time that it was written, which 25 knowledge is probative on a defense of ours in this case, namely 28 that the navy's conduct was a superseding intervening cause. 27 THE COURT: Well, he can testify to that. As far as 28 being a business record, it has to be a record of an act, __________ produced___________ m - 83 MT-PWHD-012930 1667 1 condition or event made at or about the time. 2 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: He will testify he made this on June 3 30th, 1970. 4 THE COURT: It is more a matter of an opinion or request 5 for something than a record of an act, condition or event. 6 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: It is a record of what he perceived 7 to be the situation at the shipyard at the time. 8 THE COURT: That is a matter of opinion from which he 9 has to testify. A business record exception doesn't include 10 opinions. 11 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: All right. In hopes to move this 12 thing along, what I would like to do is read various excerpts 13 from this. I won't read this business about what went on 14 before. 15 I would like to read what he found when he came, 16 on this second paragraph on this second page. 17 MR. CANTRELL: He has already testified to that. That 18 is nothing but cumulative. He said he had nothing. 19 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Dick, I can get a shoehorn next time 20 so we can get a word in edgewise. 21 THE COURT: Well, I think it is really admissible. You 22 can ask him what he told him, but it's a history of what this 23 situation was before this memo was written. 24 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: That is what I am trying to get in, 25 Judge. At least we agree on what the issue is. 26 THE COURT: But it is hearsay. He is here. You can 27 ask him about it. . 28 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: This memo is not hearsay of the fact produced --" 111 . R3 MT-PWHD-012931 1 that he cold Che navy abouC 1C. 2 MR. CANTRELL: What difference does 1C make what he cold 3 Che navy about it? That has nochlng to do with Che navy's 4 knowledge of asbestos. That is what this witness was offered 5 for. - 6 What you are Crying to do now is set up a straw 7 man here and Chen impeach Che navy with it. That is not what 8 he was offered for. 9 THE COURT: It is not a straw man or anything, it is 10 just not admissible. I think you can ask him what he told 11 and what their response was. What he says here is not hearsay. 12 MR. CANTRELL: Correct. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED ~^r-83 MT-PWHD-012932 1669 i (The following proceedings were held 2 in open court in the presence of the 3 jucyt) 4 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Hr. Manning, at the end 5 of June, 1970, did you attempt to tell medical officer 6 Jose Smith what your feelings were about the industrial 7 hygiene office at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And did you relate to Mr. Jose Smith at that 10 time what the condition of the industrial hygiene office was 11 at the time you came to the shipyard? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is there a term that the Navy uses for an office, 14 they call billet? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Did youcomment to Mr. Smith concerning your 17 predecessors who had served as industrial hygienists? 18 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. It is irrelevant as to his 19 comments as to his predecessors. 20 THE COURTS Overruled. 21 THE WITNESS I Yes. 22 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERs Did you try to explain to 23 Officer Smith what activities your predecessors had engaged 24 in before you came aboard? 25 MR. CANTRELL* That would be irrelevant anyway. Your 26 Honor, because it would call for another hearsay as to this 27 witness. We have covered that earlier today. ' 28 THE COURT* It is overruled. MT-PWHD-012933 tw 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Did you explain about what 3 Mr. Marr had encountered when he preceded you as an 4 industrial hygienist? * 5 A Yes. 6 Q What did you tell him about what Mr. Marr had 7 found when he was the industrial hygienist? 8 MR. CANTRELLx Objection. No foundation. 9 THE COURTi Overruled. 10 Zt is received only as evidence of what 11 information was given to Smith# not as evidence of the truth. 12 MR. CANTRELL: Z would object# then# as to the rele 13 vancy as to what Mr. Manning told Commander Smith about 14 Mr. Marr. 15 THE COURT: Zt is overruled. . 16 THE WITNESS: The answer is yes. 17 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: What did you tell him 18 about Bill Marr? 19 A Z told him that Bill Marr had done some work in 20 evaluating the asbestos hazard and had been one of the 21 pioneers in alerting the Navy as to the dangers of asbestos 22 and that he had conducted a survey and published the results 23 there of. 24 Z believe 1 said that he had indoctrinated the 25 workers. 26 Q Did you make any comment to Jose Smith as to 27 what the Navy did to Mr. Marr after this information was 28 made available? PRODUCED ! :----------- Jia - 83--:----------- MT-PWHD-012934 1671 1 MR* CANTRELLt Z object to that question as vague and 2 ambiguous. Your Honor* ' 3 THE COURT* Do you understand the question? 4 THE WITNESS* No, Z don't quite understand the question. 5 THE COURT* You may reframe it. 6 MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Certainly. 7 Q After Mr. Marr completed his investigation of 8 asbestos workers, did you tell Jose Smith the type of reward 9 Mr. Marr was given for this work? 10 MR. CANTRELL* That is assuming a fact not in evidence. 11 Your Honor. 12 THE COURT* Sustained. 13 MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Withdraw that -- well, Z can't. 14 MR. CANTRELL* No need. 15 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER* After Mr. Marr's report 16 was published, did you advise Jose Smith what became of 17 Mr. Marr? _ 18 A Yes. 19 Q What did you tell Jose Smith? 20 A Z told him that Bill Marr transferred to a job 21 in the Panama Canal Zone. 22 Q Do you know when Mr. Marr transferred? 23 A Yes. 24 Q When was it? 25 A Zn the fall of *64. 26 MR. CANTRELL* Excuse me. 27 Z will object to this question and move to 28 strike the answer. The question now is as to this witness's --;---------------------------------- :---------- :----------------------------------- -PRODUCE--------------------- 111 - 83 MT-PWHD-012935 --------- :---------------------------------- ;------tm----;--------=---------------;----------- 1 knowledge. There is no foundation. Zt ia no, whether this 2 witness told Commander Smith. 3 MR. BAUMGAERTNERj I was just going to ask that 4 question. 5 THE COURTS Zt is sustained. The answer is ordered 6 stricken. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED Jll - 83 MT-PWHD-012936 --------------------1------------'------------------------~i673--------;----------;-------------------------------- 1 Q B7 MR. BAUMGAERTNERS Did you tell JOBS Smith 2 when Bill Marr left to 90 to Panama? 3 A Yea. 4 Q When was that# air? . 5 A As I recall in the report# Z may have aaid late 6 in *64. . 7 Q Did you tell Jose Smith whether or not there B was an induatrial hygienist from late in *64 up until the 9 time you came aboard in 1967? 10 A Yea. 11 Q Whatdid you tell him in thatregard? 12 A There was no induatrial hygieniat. 13 Q And that la at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 14 A Yea. 15 Q Did you tell Jose Smithanything about the 16 dispensary at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard at the time you 17 arrived there? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Whatdid you tell him? 20 A Z told him that when Z arrived there was no 21 equipment# no literature# no files. 22 Q Did youmentionanything to Jose Smith about 23 equipment you did find# when you arrived at the Long Beach 24 Naval Shipyard in March of * 67? 25 A Yea. 26 MR. CANTRELLt Objection. The question is assuming a 27 fact not in evidence. 28 The witness had just testified there was no ---- ---------------------------------------- PRODUCED--;--:-- JM-83 MT-PWHD-012937 1674 1 equipment and he eo advised Cosonander Smith* 2 THE COURTS Overruled. :- 3 THE WITNESSs Yes. , 4 Q BY HR. BAUMGAERTNER: What did you tell him 5 about that? 6 A Z said that there was some equipment that was 7 in storage that was antequated and of no use to me. Z 8 think that is in essence what Z said. 9 Q Did you tell Mr. Smith about a policy of 10 requiring oral reports to him relative to the industrial 11 hygiene program? 12 MR. CANTRELLs Counsel is leading the witness again# 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURTS Z think it is only to identify the general 15 subject matter. With that restriction# it is overruled. . 16 THE WITNESSl Yes. 17 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERl What did you tell 18 Dr. Smith about that policy? 19 A Z said in that report that when Z first came 20 aboard that Captain Watkins had put a restriction on ste 21 that Z write no ~ Z produce no written reports. 22 Q I am sorry, Mr. Manning. 23 During the period of time you were at the ship 24 yard# did you think it was important as an industrial 25 hygienist that you be able to prepare written reports of 26 your findings? 27 A Yes. " 28 Q And did you complain to Jose Smith in 1970 that ---:--;---_________________________ eagpucEP___________________ ill-83 MT-PWHD-012938 1675 1 you couldn't do this? . 2 A HO. , * 3 Q What was your purpose in advising Jose Smith in 4 1970 about the problem with the oral reports? 5 MR. CANTRELL* Objection as assuming a fact not in 6 evidence. 7 THE COURT* Sustained. 8 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, X am going 9 to read directly from your report and ask you what you meant 10 when you said this -- 11 MR. CANTRELLS Objection. May we approach the bench. 12 Your Honor? 13 THE COURT* The objection is sustained. 14 MR. CANTRELL* Thank you. 15 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Did you tell Captain Smith 16 that all actions that were required of you as an industrial 17 hygienist had to be cleared through the medical officer? 18 MR. CANTRELL* Objection. Counsel is again leading 19 the witness. 20 THE COURT* True. Sustained. 21 Q by MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Did Captain Watkins allow 22 you to make reportswithout hisapproval? 23 A NO. 24 Q Did you tell Mr . Smith about this? 25 A Yes. 26 Q What was yourpurpose in bringing that to . 27 Mr. Smith's attention? 28 . MR. CANTRELL*. Objection. Xt is irrelevant as to _ _________ :__________ ;________ PRODUCED________ ~` JM 83 MT-PWHD-012939 im 1 the purpose, Your Honor. . ; tt: ? * r.}. i TOESi C. OURT: Overruled. 3 You say answer. r-; ; i .' THE WITNESSi The purpose was, I think, when X wrote thVaj t'**!**w- aVs outlinin g the history of . the ind' ustrial hygie'ne f program, and X threw In this to let Or. Smith know under 7 what conditions X worked prior to his arrival. These were 8 not, X might add -- Dr. Smith did not put that kind of t a stipulation on me. , . ... ip , MR. CANTRELL: Move to strike this answer as not ii responsive to the question. . 1< 2t. , THE COURT: The portion, "X might add" is ordered 13 stricken. 14 Q BY MR.-BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, did you tell 15 Jose Smith that you felt the industrial hygiene program at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was being suppressed? 17 MR. CANTRELL: Objection. Xt is leading and suggestive. 18 Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Sustained. 20 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Did you complain to 21 Captain Smith about the inability of the industrial 22 hygienist to do his job in June of 1970? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you tell him why you felt you were being 2? prevented from doing your job in 1970? - 22 A Xn essence, X wasn't getting the support that 27 was necessary to carry out a comprehensive industrial 2? hygiene program. X was asking for that kind of support. flCtBUCED 1H: - 83 MT-PWHD-012940 1677 1 Q Why did you write to Jose Smith setting forth 2 this problem? 3 A The reason Z wrote it was Z had been trying to 4 upgrade the industrial hygiene program for three years. Z 5 did not feel that Z was accomplishing that and Z had done a 6 lot of talking and there was a lot of verbal things went 7 back and forth and the results were, in my mind, frustrated 8 me, and z decided that the best thing to do was to get this 9 stuff down in writing and get some kind of response. That 10 was the reason Z wrote it. 11 Q Did you get a response from Jose Smith after 12 you submitted the memo of 30 June, 1970? 13 A Yes. There was a written response. 14 Q When did you get that response? 15 A Approximately a month later, Z believe. 16 Q Did. the memo of 30 June, 1970 accurately reflect 17 your feelings concerning your status as the industrial 18 hygienist at the time you wrote it? 19 MR. CANTRELL: Objection. That calls for a conclusion 20 of the witness, Your Honor, and it asks him to conclude on 21 an item that is not admissible in evidence. 22 TOE COURTa It is overruled. 23 You may answer it yes or no. 24 TOE WZTNESSs Yes. 25 . Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNERs Did you make any comment 26 to Jose Smith as to what you felt the function of an 27 industrial hygienist to be in the three years prior to 1970 28 at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? m 83 MT-PWHD-012941 1678 1 a ri, 2 Q What did you tell him you felt the function of 3 the industrial hygienist was at the Long Beach Naval 4 Shipyard? 5 A Z used the term "window dressing." 6 Q What did you mean by that? 7 A My feeling was that the industrial hygienist 8 billet wasn't supported in a fashion that would promote an 9 effective Industrial hygiene program. There was a require 10 ment X think in the regulations in the Navy that there be 11 an industrial hygienist present in the shipyard, and it was 12 By experience from the beginning of what happened that -- 13 Z was suppressed somewhat. Z wasn't allowed to develop a 14 competent industrial hygiene program and therefore ray con 15 clusion was my job was in part window dressing. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RODUCED jh - 83 MT-PWHD-012942 1679 i Q . In June of 1970, how many people worked in the 2 Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 3 A Oh, it was about 7,500. 4 Q How many Industrial hygienists were there? 5 A What was the date? 6 Q June of 1970. 7 A One 8 Q Did you complain to Jos4 Smith about the dispro 9 portion between the number of workers and the number of 10 industrial hygienists? 11 A Yes. . 12 Q Did you complain about the fact that the industrial 13 hygiene program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard was understaffed? 14 MR. CANTRELL: Counsel is leading the witness again, 15 Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: It's sustained. ~ 17 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: What did you say about the 18 staffing of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard industrial hygiene 19 office? 20 A I said it was understaffed compared to the other 21 shipyards in the navy. 22 Q Did you cite examples fromthe other shipyards? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And you told Jos4 Smithabout that? 25 A Yes. 26 Q What other shipyards did you refer to when you 27 told Jos4 Smith about the understaffing? 28 MR. CANTRELL: Objection, it's immaterial. Your Honor. ___:_________________________ ._________ PB0MICEB__________ ill - 83 MT-PWHD-012943 1680 1 THE COURT: It's overruled. 2 THE WITNESS: I tabulated a list of the number of 3 Industrial hygienists that exist -- that were on the payrolls 4 at that time in all the other shipyards. 5 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Did you tell him how many 6 were at Pearl Harbor? 7 MR. CANTRELL: Your Honor, counsel is continuing to lead 8 the witness. 9 THE COURT: It's sustained. 10 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: That's a leading question? 11 I am sorry. Not arguing with the court. I am 12 just at my wit's end, I guess, with some of these objections. 13 MR. CANTRELL: Your Honor, I really don't think that 14 remark is called for. 15 THE COURT: The jury is instructed to disregard the 16 comments of both counsel. 17 MR. CANTRELL: Thank you. 18 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, did you recount 19 other naval shipyards and the number of hygienists that were 20 assigned to the other shipyards? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Can you think of any other shipyards besides Long 23 Beach that had less than two industrial hygienists? 24 A Yes. 25 Q How many, sir? 26 A One. 27 Q Where was that? 28 A Philadelphia. PRODUCED :-------------------------------------- JM - 83------------ MT-PWHD-012944 1681 1 Q Other chan Philadelphia, sir,.can you think of 2 any other shipyard in the system that you told Jos Smith 3 about that had less than two industrial hygienists? 4 A No. 5 Q Did you ask Jos6 Smith at that time for a raise? 6 A recommendation that you be promoted to the next pay level? 7 HR. CANTRELL: Your Honor, we are still leading the 8 witness as to what he asked, what he recounted to Commander 9 Smith. 10 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 11 Q BY MR.BAUMGAERTNER: Besides advising Jos Smith 12 about the status of the industrial hygiene program, did you 13 ask him for anything else? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Please tell the jury everything else that you asked 16 him for. 17 A Veil, my memory serves me right, I didn't have 18 a telephone ~ exclusive use of a telephone in my office. 19 I asked for that. 20 1 did ask that I be promoted from GS-11 to GS-12. 21 I asked I be given a budget. 1 asked for secretarial help. 22 1 asked for an additional industrial hygienist. 23 1 think 1 asked to be allowed to go to the American Conference 24 of Governmental Industrial Hygienists every year. 25 I believe I put in a request for additional equip 26 ment, and I think I asked that I be properly identified in 27 the telephone book. I asked for permission to grant people 28 privileges to enter the shipyard. JM -83 MT-PWHD-012945 1682 1 That's essentially* 1 think, about what I asked 2 for* 3 Q Did you have any of those things that you were 4 asking for at the tine you asked for them? 5 A Yes, 1 had some equipment. 6 Q How about a secretary? 7 A Ho secretary. 8 Q Did you have your own telephone? 9 A Ho. I shared -- no, I didn't have my own tele 10 phone. Ho. 11 Q Did you ask for those things on more than one 12 occasion? ' 13 A Yes, verbally. 14 Q During the period of time that you were the 15 industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did 16 you receive some recommendations from the navy concerning how 17 asbestos Insulation products were to be handled by shipyard 18 workers? 19 A Yes. 20 Q When was the first time you recall such a directive 21 from the mavy? 22 MR. CANTRELL: Is "recommendation" and "directive" used 23 in the same connotation, Your Honor? Otherwise, the question 24 is assuming a fact not in evidence. I attach different conno 25 tations to the words. 26 THE COURT: Would you like to clarify It. 27 MR. BAUMGAERTHER: Yes. 28 Q When you got your recommendation from the navy, ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PRODUCED________ JM-83 MT-PWHD-012946 1683 did you consider it to be a directive? MR* CANTRELL: Well, this again calls for a' conclusion of the witness. Your Honor* THE COURT: It's overruled. THE WITNESS: No, it wasn't a directive* DsnniinFO JM MT-PWHD-012947 1684 1 Q BY HR. BAUMGAERTNER: When did the recommendation 2 reach you at Long Beach? 3 A When I arrived at the shipyard there were Instruc 4 tions In place In the shipyard safety manual. There were also 5 some Instructions that originated with the Bureau of Medicine 6 and Surgery in Washington, and these were in effect at the 7 time I came aboard the shipyard. 8 Q Did you note during the first three years that 9 you were at the shipyard whether or not these recommendations 10 contained in the shipyard safety manual were being followed 11 by the workers? 12 A Some were not. 13 Q Which ones weren't? 14 A It was my observationthat theshipyard workers 15 were not wearing their respirators at all times. 16 Q Anything else that you can think of? 17 MR. CANTRELL: Your Honor, I am going to move to strike 18 this answer as assuming a fact not in evidence, and to object 19 to the previous question. The witness is being asked to 20 describe which recommendations were not being followed, and 21 there is no evidence as yet as to what the recommendations 22 were. . 23 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Your Honor, the testimony is that 24 there were recommendations about handling asbestos. 25 MR. CANTRELL: Well, what the recommendations may have 26 been, though, is what concerns me. 27 THE COURT: Well, the last answer assumes that there 28 is a rule about respirators, which isn't in evidence. - -----:----- >----- ----------------- ------------- PRODUCE!------ - ....... IM -83 MT-PWHD-012948 1685 1 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: All right. 2 MR. CANTRELL: Thank you. 3 THE COURT: So the last answer Is ordered stricken. 4 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Was there a rule from BuMeds 5 about wearing respirators in working around asbestos? 6 MR. CANTRELL: Your Honor, if there are some rules, now, 7 this is a question as to a rule. 8 Well, the way the question is phrased, I will defer 9 until there is an answer to it. 10 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I will be happy to clean up the 11 question, Counsel. Let me withdraw it and ask a better one. 12 Q Is there a bureau of the navy that's responsible 13 for medical aspects? 14 A There is a Bureau of Medicine and Surgery that's 15 responsible for the delivery of medical service to the navy. 16 Yes. 17 Q Is that abbreviated BuMeds? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Did BuMeds suggest some guidelines orrules or 20 regulations or safety orders pertaining toworking with 21 asbestos, that were in effect at the time you came to the 22 shipyard in 1967? 23 MR. CANTRELL: Objection. The question is compound and 24 vague in that regard. It asks if there were some recommen 25 dations and if they were by BuMed, and if they were in effect 26 at the time he got there. 27 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. ' 28 - If the answer is yes, it can be clarified. .__________ PRODUCED________ JM-83 MT-PWHD-012949 1686 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. ?^ 2 q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNEK: What were they? 3 MR. CANTRELL: Hot the best evidence, Your Honor. The 4 Vest evidence would be the regs themselves. 5 THE COURT: It's sustained if they are available. 6 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: 1 don't have them. 7 THE COURT: You may ask the witness. 8 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Do you have them? 9 MR. CANTRELL: I have never seen them. If you have a 10 set, I have no objection to your presenting to him and iden 11 tifying them. 12 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I don't have a set. 13 THE COURT: You can ask the witness. If it can't be 14 located, perhaps he can testify. 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 -jr- 83 MT-PWHD-012950 617 1 Q BY MR* BAUMGAERTNERi Do you have a copy of those, 2 Mr* Manning? ' 3 A z can't say for certain if Z have a copy* There 4 is a good possibility Z do* 5 Q Where would they be located? . 6 A Zn my home* 7 Q Do you recall the substance of them at this time? B A Z say yes in part* 9 Q Was there a requirement that respirators be worn 10 when working with insulation? 11 MR* CANTRELL: Objection* Counsel is leading the 12 witness now. 13 THE COURT: It may be yes or no as to whether it was or 14 wasn't, so it is overruled. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 Q BY MR* BAUMGAERTNER: Were there any other 17 policies --- I am sorry -- any other regulations that you 18 recall besides wearing respirators? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What other ones can you recall, Mr* Manning? 21 A There was a recommendation that exhaust 22 ventilation be used to try to control the dust hazard. 23 There was some recommendation that vacuum 24 method be used to clean up the material* 25 There was recommendations that wet method be 26 used to control -- ' 27 Q Let me stop you right there* What do you mean 28 when you say "wet methods"? PRODUCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-012951 1684 1 A Well, in some instances dusty materials can be 2 vetted down and soaked before they are removed or whatever. 3 That is to be done, and this reduces the dustiness of the 4 operation. ' 5 Q Anythin? else that you can think of besides 6 respirators, exhaust systems, vacuums and wet methods? 7 A My memory is, you know, a little faulty, and 8 that was one of the first pieces of material Z saw, and Z 9 am very vague about when things come in here, but Z would 10 say that covered it when Z first -- those first regulations 11 Z saw. 12 Q Mow, from 1967 up until 1970 as a time reference, 13 did you observe that respirators were being worn by the 14 insulators while they were working inside ship fire rooms 15 and engine rooms? 16 MR. CANTRELL: Perhaps we should have some foundation 17 as to whether he was there to observe them. 18 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Withdraw the question. 19 Q Did you ever go aboard ship during the years '67 20 and '70 to observe the work practices being conducted in the 21 engine room and fire room? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did you ever seeinsulators installing insulation 24 in engine rooms and fire rooms during that period of time? 25 A Yes. 26 Q At the time youwatched the insulators working 27 applying or removing insulation, did you also see other 28 trades working in the engine room? ---------------------------------------------- PRODUCED -------JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012952 1689 1 A Yea* 2 Q Did you ever see machinists working in the engine 3 rooms and fire rooms during that period of tine? 4 A Yes* 5 Q When the insulators were also working? 6 A Yes; 7 Q Directing yourattention to that period of time, 8 did you see the insulators wearing respirators? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And did you see the insulators not wearing 11 respirators during that period of time? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Approximatelyhow oftenwere you aboard ship 14 observing these practices? 15 A Oh, an average during the period I worked there, 16 I would be aboard ship and this is an approximation, at least 17 three times a week or more. 18 Q During the periods you were aboard ship and 19 observed insulators, what percentage of the time would the 20 insulators be wearing respirators as opposed to not wearing 21 respirators? 22 A Z couldn't make an accurate guesson that. 23 Q Do you have an estimate, sir? 24 A Purely as a guess. Based upon observation, I 25 would say that they possibly wore them 25 percent of the 26 time. 27 Q With respect to vacuum cleaners, did you see 28 the insulators regularly utilizing vacuum cleaners to clean - _________ ;________________ PRODUCED_________ JM-83 MT-PWHD-012953 ____________________________ Jg9Q__________________________________ 1 up the asbestos from inside the engine end fire roans? 2 A, Yes. 3 Q With respect to wet method, did you see the 4 insulators using wetmethods aboardship? 5 A MO. 6 Q With respect toutilizing the vacuum cleaners 7 you mentioned earlier, approximately what percentage of the 8 time would you say you would see insulators utilizing 9 vacuum cleaners from *67 to *70? 10 A I would say again maybe 25 percent of the time. 11 Q Did you ever see insulators using an air hose 12 to sweep out an engine room, instead of sucking they were 13 blowing? 14 A Z have seen air hoses used to blow down engine 15 rooms. I can't verify they were pipe coverers doing it. 16 Q Was this a recommended practice? 17 A No. 18 0 Mr. Manning,after 1970, was there a recom 19 mendation by the Navy by utilizing coveralls in connection 20 with asbestos insulation work? 21 A Yes. 22 Q When did thatrecommendation comeout? 23 A There was an instruction that came out, Z believe 24 it was what we called NAVAC, Naval Facilities Command, that 25 recommended that shipyard workers exposed to asbestos be 26 provided with coveralls -- fresh coveralls daily. Z believe 27 the recommendation included that they be given separate .28 lockers and that these coveralls be laundered daily. Z hi 09 MT-PWHD-012954 ------------------ -------------------- -------------- 3tMr-------- ------------- :-------------- ------------- 1 think that cane down in the summer of 1969. 2 `Q To your knowledge, based upon your experience 3 at the shipyard, was there any difficulty in implementing 4 that order? 5 A Yes. . 6 Q What was the reason for it? 7 A Shipyard command felt that was too expensive. 8 Q Who were the people when you say "shipyard 9 command," who were the people who doubted or were questioning 10 the expense? 11 A Z had knowledge that the production officer. 12 Captain Chapman, and the group superintendent, Frank Nease, 13 opposed it on the ground it was not essential and was 14 expensive, 15 Q Who is Frank Nease? 16 A Frank Nease was the group superintendent of 17 930 Shop. '. 18 Q What is the 930 Shop? 19 A Well, that shop included machinists, both marine 20 and the other type, it included pipe fitters and on down the 21 line, the pipe coverers and insulators. 22 Q Was this recommendation that coveralls be 23 utilized finally implemented? 24 A Yes. 25 Q When was it implemented? 26 A I think that came about in1971. 27 Q Roughly, how long between the time it came down 28 and the time it was implemented elapsed to your knowledge? -----=----------- -------- --...... ... PRODUCED -- !1I_ ftl MT-PWHD-012955 1692 i A At least two years* 2 THE COURT: We'll stop now for the afternoon recess 3 of 15 minutes. 4 Remember the admonition. 5 (Recess.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 / 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012956 1693 1 THE COURT: Mr. Baurngaertner, you may continue. 2 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, during your 3 tenure at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you make recoin- 4 mendations concerning safe practices to the workers? 5 MR. CANTRELL: I am going to object to the question as 6 being overly broad and vague and ambiguous, both as to safe 7 practices and to what is encompassed in the word "workers." 8 THE COURT: Well, it's overruled. If the answer is yes, 9 it can be clarified as to whom and what. 10 MR. CANTRELL: Thank you. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. . 12 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Was that a job function of 13 the industrial hygienist as you understood it? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Did you make recommendations concerning safe 16 practices to shipyard workers working in the vicinity of 17 asbestos insulation products? 18 1 can tell from the look, I'd better refrarae the 19 question. 20 MR. CANTRELL: He just took his glasses off. You want 21 to look again? 22 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: All right. . 23 Q Did you make recommendations concerning safe 24 procedures thatasbestos workers should utilize at the shipyard' 25 A Yes. 26 Q Did you have the authority to enforce the safe 27 practice recommendations you made? 28 A "` PRODUCED -- ------------- :---------------------- ;------- :--------JM - 83 --;--1 MT-PWHD-012957 169A 1 Q Concerning safe practices with respect to asbestos 2 products, who in the shipyard had the authority to enforce 3 the safe practices? 4 A Workers' foreman was responsible for seeing that 5 the workers performed their work in a safe manner. 6 Q Was there a procedure in effect at the shipyard 7 whereby somebody could be disciplined if they failed to utilize 8 safe practices? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did you have the authority to discipline anybody 11 who did notutilize safe practices? 12 A No. 13 Q Who had that authority? 14 A The foreman. 15 Q When you say the foreman, are you referring to 16 the headof the shop? 17 A No. 18 Q Who is the foreman? 19 A The foreman is a man directly above the workmen. 20 The man who assigns the work, signs the timecards, sees that 21 the work is performed and the man -- the supervisor directly 22 over the workmen. That's the first line supervisor. They 23 are the foremen. 24 Q During the period of time that you were at the 25 shipyard, did you ever learn of an instance where a first line 26 supervisor disciplined a worker for failing to wear a respirator 27 while working with asbestos? 28 MR. CANTRELL: Objection. May we approach the bench -------------- - ---------- ------------ ------- PRODUCED------------- IM - S3 MT-PWHD-012958 1422. 1 on this. Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 (The following proceedings were held 4 at the bench:) 5 MR. CANTRELL: Whether he learned of it or not would 6 be Irrelevant. If he did learn of it, it is hearsay; and if 7 he answers he did not learn of it, then counsel will argue 8 the negative inference that they were lax in their enforce 9 ment procedures. So that's the time an answer should not be 10 permitted. 11 THE COURT: I think you would have to prove somebody 12 had the duty to report to him. 13 MR. CANTRELL: That's correct. 14 THE COURT: Otherwise I don't think it is admissible. 15 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: All right. 16 MR. MCCARTHY: Your Honor, can you give us an estimate 17 as to cross-examination? 18 MR. CANTRELL: It.is not long yet. 1 hope we can get 19 him in. 20 MR. MCCARTHY: We would have to go past 4 o'clock. 21 MR* CANTRELL: How long is your direct? 22 MR. MCCARTHY: Fifteen or twenty minutes. 23 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I will finish up with this witness. 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 (The following proceedings were held in 26 open court in the presence of the jury:) 27 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Were you as the industrial 28 hygienist to be notified in the event of any disciplinary ___ __________________________ PRODUCED_______ _ JM-83 MT-PWHD-012959 1696 1 procedure pertaining Co unsafe practices? 2 A No. ' 3 Q So it was not your responsibility to follow up 4 to determine if there was any enforcement in terms of disci 5 pline if an unsafe practice was encountered? 6 A No. 7 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I have no further questions. 8 THE COURT: Mr. Cantrell, you may examine. 9 MR. CANTRELL: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 11 v CROSS-EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. CANTRELL: 13 Q I gather from your complaint to Commander Smith 14 and from facts of a delay in getting the coveralls, there were 15 economic considerations in the implementation of the Industrial to hygiene program at the shipyards; is that a fair statement? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is that any different, or is there aneconomic 19 problem in obtaining equipment or telephones or coveralls 20 around the shipyards in general? 21 Is there an economic problem as to the procedures 22 they have to go through to get it and determine whether it 23 is economically practical or not? 24 A Yes. Economics enters in it. 25 Q You mentioned some recommendations from the navy, 26 and then you talked about some requirements or some directives. 27 Is it correct that what you have spoken about Insofar as equip 28 ment were recommendations, there were no directives that certaii ---------------------------------- i------- PRODUCED----------------JM-83 MT-PWHD-012960 1697 1 things must be done insofar as the safety around asbestos is 2 concerned? 3 A I don't quite understand the question. 4 Q Well, the question is, you have talked about some 5 safety procedures to be used around, or when using asbestos. 6 Were those recommendations, not directives? 7 A Recommendations, is accurate. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED-------------------- 1 JM-83 MT-PWHD-012961 -------------------------------------------------------lfiStfl__________________________________ 1 Q Your complaint to Commander Smith in Jane of 1970, 2 there were no direct complaints or references to asbestos or 3 its use or its problem in that complaint, were there? 4 A MO. 5 Q You indicated you participated in some meetings 6 after 1970 or around June of 1971 with some first line 7 supervisors or foremen where they were given indoctrination 8 about safety procedures with asbestos. Do you recall that 9 testimony? 10 A Yes. 11 Q By "participate, can you tell us what you did? 12 A My part in it was generally to point out the 13 health aspects of exposure to asbestos. Z went over the 14 work that Dr. Selikoff had published. I pointed out the 15 relationship of smoking with asbestos disease. I informed 16 them about the occurrence of cancer and the increased 17 incidence of cancer among asbestos-exposed workers. 18 Q How many meetings did you personally attend 19 with the supervisors, the foremen? 20 A My estimate would be about ten. 21 Q And those were all conducted in the summer of 22 1971? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Here there ever any follow-ups on those? 25 A Those were the only sessions we had with the 26 foremen. 27 Q Has there an oral presentation? 28 A Yes. PRODUCED -- ------------------- :-----1--------JRP'83-------- MT-PWHD-012962 1 Q Were there any written materials as far as you 2 can recall or were all of the meetings oral? 3 A These meetings were in most part oral. Z on 4 occasion used flip sheets. Z think on one occasion Z had 5 some slides to present. 6 Q But there was no hand outs given to the super 7 visors? 8 A No. 9 Q You said you were a member -- is it ACGZH? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Was this a voluntaryorganisation? 12 A Zn a sense it was voluntary to join it. 13 Q Zt has no official government sanction, then, 14 does it? 15 A No official government sanction, no. 16 Q Zn the recommendations they make as to 17 threshold limit values are recommendations that have no 18 official government authority either, do they? 19 A That is correct. Zt is a professional society. 20 Q Now, you indicated that a threshold limit value 21 was recommended on the various substances by the 22 association; is that correct? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q Did the association then represent that that was 25 below that exposure level, it was safe or below that 26 exposure level, it was permitted? 27 . A The philosophy behind the threshold limit value 28 is if a workman worked in an environment that was consistently __ _________ _________________ PRODUCED____________ . m. MT-PWHD-012963 1700 1 below these levels# he was not likely to experience 2 occupational disease in a working lifetime* 3 Q Was the threshold limit value recommended at 4 that time of 5#000,000 particles based upon the Fleischer- 5 Drinker report# or do you know? . 6 A Yes* 7 Q Was it? 8 A Yes. 9 Q That is no longer the threshold limit value for 10 asbestos# is it? 11 A No. 12 Q Has that been reduced or increased? 13 A It has been reduced. 14 Q What was it reduced to? 15 A | I am no longer employed as an industrial 16 hygienist# but the last Z heard it was reduced to one fiber 17 per cc. 18 Q Was this a governmental control or was this a 19 recommendation of an informal organization? 20 A Z think that is an OSHA standard. 21 Q What is OSHA? 22 A Occupational Safety and Health Authority# Z 23 believe. 24 Q That is a governmental agency? 25 A Yes. 26 HR. CANTRELLt Z have no other questions# Your Honor. 27 HR. BAUMGAERTNERt Just a few# Your Honor. 28 PRODUCED m - 83 MT-PWHD-012964 -------------------------------,------------------------- mi--------------- -------------------------------------- 1 1 RBDIRECT-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BADMGAERTNER: - 3 Q Mr. Manning# do you know when OSHA came into 4 effect? 5 THE COURT* You mean the organization or this par 6 ticular -- v 7 MR. BAUMGAERTNERi The organization. 8 MR. CANTRELL* If you wish, counsel# I will stipulate 9 it was 1972. 10 MR. BAUMGAERTNER* Z will accept the stipulation. 11 Q Prior to 1972# when OSHA came into effect# do 12 you know of any governmental organization that suggested 13 acceptable threshold limit values for asbestos fiber? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What was that# sir? 16 A Pennsylvania Department of Health# Bureau of 17 Medicine/and Surgery# among others. / 18 Qv Did the Pennsylvania Department of Medicine and 19 Health have jurisdiction overtheLong Beach Naval Shipyard? 20 A NO. 21 Q Do you know any othergovernmental organization 22 that had authority over the Long Beach Naval Shipyard with 23 respect to asbestos fiber# TLV's# prior to 1972? 24 A Bureau of Medicine andSurgery had the 25 responsibility to make recommendations to the shipyard on 26 all health matters. 27 Q Well# with respect to asbestos particles -- -28 A TM* PRODUCE# --------------- !---------------------- :--------JM-83--------- ------- 1 MT-PWHD-012965 1702 1 Q But did Bu. Meds. recommend a TLV with respect 2 to asbestos fibers? . 3 A Yes. 4 Q And prior to 1972, do you know what it was? 5 A It was 5,000,000 particles per cubic foot of air. 6 Q When OSHA came into effect in 1972, do you know 7 what the first threshold limit value for asbestos fibers was? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What was it? 10 A Zt was 12 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. 11 Q The old one was 5,000,000 particles per cubic 12 foot? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And thenew one is 12,000,000 -- 15 A 12 greater than 5 microns in length per cc of air. 16 Q Zs there a way that anyone can really correlate 17 particles to fibers? 18 A Not really. 19 Q So it is a different standard? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Did you know of a J. C. Dolan, J r.,- Deputy 22 Command, Program Director of the shipyard monitoring and 23 management? 24 A Z believe that was Admiral Dolan who was a former 25 shipyard commander and moved to that post. 26 Q Did you ever receive from Admiral Dolan any 27 instructions pertaining to asbestos exposure hazard? 28 , MR. CANTRELL: Is counsel reopening direct? PRODUCED MT-PWHD-012966 1703 1 MR. BAUMGAERTNERt Z aa asking a question. I am sorry, 2 no, Z am not. _. * 3 MR. CAMTRELLs If you are not reopening direct, I don't 4 believe this was covered in cross-examination. 5 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Without belaboring the point, it 6 goes to a question counsel asked about certain recommendations. 7 THE COURTS Zt is overruled. 8 Q BY MRv - BAUMGAERTNER s Did you receive from 9 Admiral Dolan instructions relating to asbestos exposure 10 hazards? 11 A I don't recall Admiral Dolan as being the author 12 of the instructions, specifically. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PBQDimFn_________I JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012967 1704 1 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: May I show this document to counsel 2 and the witness and ask if It refreshes his recollection. 3 (Mr. Baumgaertner handed to . 4 Mr. Cantrell.) 5 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: While counsel is looking at that, 6 1 have a couple of other questions. 7 MR. CANTRELL: Well, excuse me. Your Honor. I would 8 prefer -- 1 have been handed a single-spaced, seven-page 9 document; and I'd really rather listen to the questions than 10 have to review that. So I can't do both. 11 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: May I approach the witness. Your Honor' 12 THE COURT: Yes. 13 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, I am showing 14 you a document which purports to be from NAVSHIPS, Instruction 15 5100.26. Do you recognize that document? 16 A Yes, I have seen this document. 17 Q Does that document relate to control of asbestos 16 hazards at the shipyard? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did that document come to you on or about 21 9 February 1971? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did youattempt toimplementrecommendations carried 24 out in that document at the Long BeachNaval Shipyard? 25 A . I was part of that process. 26 Q In this document were you aware that there were ' . .. 1 27 certain requirements for the industrial hygienist to perform? 28 MR. CANTRELL: I am going to object to that. Your Honor. ------------------------------------------- PRODUCES --------JM-83 MT-PWHD-012968 1705 1 The document: speaks for Itself, and whether this witness Is 2 aware of it, I don't see -- 1 haven't had the opportunity to 3 examine all seven pages. 4 THE COURT: The objection Is sustained. 5 Q BY MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Mr. Manning, do you have 6 a recollection of suggesting to the shipyard workers at Long 7 Beach Naval Shipyard after February of 1971 that the recommenda- 8 tions called for in NAVSHIPS Instruction 5100.26 be implemented 1 9 A Yes. 10 Q To your knowledge were the instructions called 11 for implemented? 12 A In part. ' 13 Q When were they implemented, in part? 14 A These instructions are in effect, recommendations 15 to the shipyard commander who has the same authority as a 16 captain aboard a ship; and after some deliberation, why, these <|~ 17 in the shipyard among shipyard personnel, the procedure was 18 to write up shipyard instructions that either accepted or 19 rejected some of these proposals, and incorporate those 20 instructions in the shipyard safety manual. 21 Q When was that done, sir, if at all? 22 A I believe that it was done soon after this, incor 23 porated in the shipyard manual within a year after this was 24 written. 25 Q So by February 1972? 26 A Yes. 27 Q Do you know who had the responsibility for enforcing 28 the instructions? Jit * is MT-PWHD-012969 1706 1 A Again, it would be the first line supervisor, the 2 foreman. 3 Q Did you, yourself -- 4 A There were certain parts, as you say, that I see 5 that the respirator is supposed to be approved by the medical 6 department. I did do some work in approving disposable 7 respirators which I pushed, and made some effort to see that 8 respirators were tested when they became available and had 9 a good deal of input as to which one was accepted. 10 Q When did you do that, Mr. Manning? 11 A It was early, I would say along around 1971-'72 12 when disposable respirators became available. 13 Q Do you recall, Mr. Manning, that at the time these 14 Instructions came out from NAVSHIPS, that meetings were held 15 with all the shops to explain the instructions pertaining to 16 asbestos control work? 17 MR. CANTRELL: Objection. May we approach the bench, 18 Your Honor? 19 THE COURT: It's sustained. It assumes a fact not in 20 evidence. 21 MR. CANTRELL: Well, I'd like to discuss another topic 22 if I may, as well, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 (The following proceedings were held 25 at the bench:) 26 MR. CANTRELL: This is the second lengthy document that 27 has been produced today for the first time, and I received 28 not even 24 hours' notice about it. The court rule has been --------------------------------- -------------- PRODUCED-----------1 ....... JM-83 MT-PWHD-012970 1707 1 violated again, and I am going to object to any further 2 questioning on this document. I can't even have time to see 3 if this is on the list of exhibits the defendant submitted. 4 1 have had no notice that this document was going 5 to be produced today. Further, this is obviously reopening 6 direct, and I inquired earlier about that. 7 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: Counsel inquired into what instructions 8 were given, what recommendations were given to this witness; 9 and he also objected when I attempted to ask this witness about 10 this very thing regarding asbestos. I am just laying a 11 foundation that these instructions were available in February 12 of 1971. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED --------------1 JM-83 MT-PWHD-012971 1708 1 . It set out all sorts of safe practices which the 2 navy said should have been carried out and in which Mr. Lofstron 3 and Mr. Knight and Pavelec and all those other fellow who 4 testified so far said they never heard of, never saw 5 implemented. That's all I want to do. ` 6 I will be happy to have the document marked and 7 offered into evidence at the appropriate time. I don't want 8 to go into it in any great detail at this point. 9 MR. CANTRELL: Well, the problem is that I asked if 10 direct was being reopened, and you said no. The only question 11 I asked at all was whether those were recommendations rather 12 than directives, and that is all. 13 THE COURT: It goes beyond the cross-examination. 14 MR. CANTRELL: Plus this again, I have not been advised 15 of this document. I have not read it. I can't make an 16 intelligent objection, and I didn't -- you are supposed to 17 notify me so I can prepare my case, 48 hours ahead. Two court 18 days on the rule asked by defense. 19 THE COURT: You mean exhibits are supposed to be? 20 MR. CANTRELL: Yes, sir. 21 THE COURT: It certainly hasn't been followed in this 22 case. 23 MR. CANTRELL: We have been advising them in advance 24 what exhibits. 25 THE COURT: Some pictures in this case, so far as I can 26 tell, were never seen. 27 MR. CANTRELL: They were specifically advised they would 28 be used and which witness would use them 43 hours ahead, and -------------- :----------------- -----------TOODBCtB----------- 1 JM - 83 MT-PWHD-012972 1709 1 they are in our list. '* 2 ' I haven't had time to look at the exhibit list . 3 to see if It is there, and there was no word at all we would 4 receive any document in evidence as far as Mr. Marr's testimony. 5 MR. MCCARTHY: In open court you said the best evidence 6 rule -- you said, "If the document is here, I have no objection 7 to putting the document in evidence," in open court. 6 We went through our notes to see if it was avail 9 able. You made reference in open court if there was a document, 10 "I have no objection to it." That is when we found this. 11 You made that comment in front of the jury. 12 MR. CANTRELL: Mr. McCarthy, 1 am asking you to abide 13 by the rules you have been enforcing on me for three weeks. 14 THE COURT: That may be marked for identification. I !5 will consider whether it is admissible after you have had a 16 chance to review it. It may be marked as exhibit 38 for iden 17 tification. 18 MR. CANTRELL: Thank you. Your Honor. 19 MR. BAUMGAERTNER: I have a lot of questions, but I will 20 settle if I can just get the thing into evidence. 21 MR. CANTRELL: Are we going to talk about that later? 22 THE COURT: I think the foundation is sufficient if it's 23 otherwise admissible. 24 MR. CANTRELL: That's correct. 25 MR. MCCARTHY: May we have a time estimate? 26 MR. CANTRELL: I adhered to my time estimate. You have 27 blown it. I don't have a time estimate until you get through 28 the redirect. PRODUCE ______________ ;__________JM-&3 * MT-PWHD-012973 1710 t MR. MCCARTHY: My only concern is Che witness oucside 2 cannot cone back tomorrow and cannot come back Thursday. 3 MR. CANTRELL: Counsel, all you have to do is get your 4 nan to stop asking questions o this witness and get your other 5 one on the stand. 6 MR. MCCARTHY: Can the jury stay till 4:15 or 4:30? 7 THE COURT: I don't know about 4:30. You know, it is 8 pretty hard on the reporters. . 9 MR. MCCARTHY: Can I be excused for just a minute? 10 THE COURT: You can start with him if you are through 11 with this witness. 12 MR. MCCARTHY: Well, 1 would like to start it and complete 13 it in one day. Your Honor. It is just a short witness. 14 THE COURT: Well, we ought to use the time. 15 MR. McCarthy: Okay. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED ~~JM -~83 ~ MT-PWHD-012974 1711 i . (The following proceedings were held 2 in open court in the presence of the 3 jury*) 4 MR* BAUMGAERTNERt Your Honor, Z request that the clerk 5 stark as defendant's next exhibit# No. 38, the NAVSHXPS 6 document* 7 THE COURTS It may be so marked for identification* 8 MR* BAUMGAERTNER! I provide it to counsel to review at 9 this point. '' , 10 Z have no further questions of Mr* Manning* 11 THE COURTS Any further questions* Mr. Cantrell? 12 MR* CANTRELLS No# Your Honor* 13 THE COURTS May the witness be excused? 14 MR* BAUMGAERTNERs Yes* Your Honor. 15 THE COURTS Thank you* Mr* Manning* You are excused 16 from further attendance at this trial* - 17 MR* BAUMGAERTNERt Your Honor* as a matter of house 18 keeping* could X have the Jose Smith memo of 6-30-1970 marked 19 as No. 37? 20 THE COURTS Z think it was ordered marked as Exhibit 37 21 for identification* 22 MR. BAUMGAERTNER! Thank you. 23 At this time Z offer it into evidence. 24 MR* CANTRELL! Well* we have previously objected to 25 that# Your Honor* 26 Zt has been considered* 27 THE COURTS Z think the objection was sustained. Zf 28 you wish to argue it further* X will hear further argument. iH - ftt MT-PWHD-012975 <>o MT-PWHD-012976 HAIGHT, DICKSON, BROWN 8 BONESTEEL LAWYERS FULTON HAIGHT ROBERT L, DICKSON HAROLD HANSEN BROWN MICHAEL J. BONESTEEL GEORGE C. MCCARTHY GARY C. OTTOSON ELLIOTT D. OLSON KIM H. COLLINS RONALD C. KLINE CHRISTOPHER ROLIN ROY G. WEATHERUP WILLIAM K. KOSKA PETER O. EZZELL DENNIS K. WHEELER STEVEN L. HOCH JOHN W. SHELLER WILLIAM G. BAUMGAERTNER STEPHEN D. FLAHERTY JEFFERY J. CARLSON FORD R. SMITH RALPH A. CAMPILLO BRUCE A. ARMSTRONG HALL R. MARSTON PETER A. DUBRAWSKI DELOS E. BROWN DAVID F. PETERSON JOHN E. CLOUGH EDWARD L. COMPTON, JR. MICHAEL J. LEAHY RONALD G. FUNG LORI R. BEHAR ROBERT L. KAUFMAN MICHAEL MCCARTHY MARK S. GERAGHTY DEBRA E. POLE WILLIAM J. SAYERS EDWARD M. COFFMAN ROXANNE M. WILSON BARRY Z. BRODSKY LINDA J. L. HUNTER GARY M. AARDEMA GARY A. BAGUE LINDA J. BRACKEN ROSANNE M. NOLAN JOSEPH R. ZAMORA J. R. SEASHORE KEVIN R- CRISP DAVID J. FLEMING MARIA ELIZABETH TICSE BRUCE L. CLEELAND SIDNEY A. MOSS a professional corporation (1893-1963) C. DUFFY BUCHANAN DONALD S. RALPHS GARY W. VERBOON ROBERT L. WASHBURN HAROLD K. PICKERING DENIS J. MORIARTY DESMOND J. HINDS FREDERICK J. UFKES KELLY C. MCSPADDEN RAYMOND A. BRANKER JOSEPH L. GATTUSO MARYANN R. MARZANO GERALD A. KLEIN SUZANNE E. KEATING DAVID L. JONES MARTIN C. BOBAK DAVID REESE JENNINGS THOMAS N. CHARCHUT JULES S. ZEMAN KATHRYN M. FORGIE SCOTT T. TROPIO MARY J. UEKI WILLIAM A. HANSSEN ROBERT M. DATO VICTOR ANDERSON M GEROLD C. DUNN (1911-1980) 4 201 SANTA iMON ICA-B^U LEVARD R O. BOX 680 SANTA MONICA,VM 90406 (213) ~458 - O 600 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 953-9345 TELECOPIER (213) 393-1581 TELEX 705837 FEDERAL EXPRESS OF COUNSEL GEORGE CLARK LYON CHARLES B. SMITH WILLIAM M. FtTZHUGH in reply refer to: Ms. Jenkins Santa Monica July 18, 1984 Ms. Nita Palochko Manville Corporation Ken-Caryl Ranch Post Office Box 5723 Denver, Colorado 80217 Re: Government Litigation Dear Nita: Pursuant to your request, I am enclosing a Sheldon Manning's deposition of August 3, 1981. be of further assistance, please do not hesitate me. copy of If I can to contact Very truly yours. b>4L^__ * Dee-Ann Jenkins Legal Assistant HAIGHT, DICKSON, BONESTEEL BROWN & DAJ:slw Enclosure MT-PWHD-012977 227 Manville LZU MT-PWHD-012978 LP05R052 - MANVILLE LITIGATION SUPPORT SYSTEM ####################################HIHitHttt ################# ff### it it t* tt it ti tt # # ##!>############ ####### ########' #################### a HU if tHWtilftitiiltHHtlttititUititttt # OFFLINE PRINT REQUEST USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 t TIME: 140814 SESSION HISTORY SET 1 - 33 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS DOCNQ=SHM00001 228 Manville Lzn MT-PWHD-012979 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 1 TIME: 140814 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0000 STARTING PAGE: 0000 ENDING PAGE: 0000 TOPIC: TABLE OF CONTENTS ROBINSON V JMC DEPOSITION SUMMARY OF SHELDON H. MANNING LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) AUGUST 3, 1981 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA VOLUME 1 TOPIC PARAGRAPH (EXAMINATION BY MARDEN,SM FOR JMC.) - MANNING,SH/PERSONAL HISTORY/PRIOR DEPOSITIONS, PP. 4-7 1 - EMPLOYMENT HISTORY, PP. 7-9 2 - EMPLOYMENT/LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), PP. 9-13 3 - DUST SAMPLING EQUIPMENT, PP. 13-16 4 - WRITTEN REPORTS, P. 16 5 - WET DOWN PROCEDURES, PP. 16-18 6 - REPORT TO SMITH,J, PP. 18-20 7 - HYGIENE DEPARTMENT, PP. 20-22 8 - NAVY ORDER 5100.26, PP. 22-25 9 - SUBSTANCE OF MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY 1968 AND MEETINGS IN 1971 AND 1972, PP. 25-27 10 - SPECIAL CLOTHING FOR ASBESTOS WORKERS, PP. 27-29 11 - DIFFERENTIAL PAY FOR ASBESTOS WORKERS, PP. 29-30 12 - GROUP FROM INSULATION INDUSTRIAL HEALTH RESEARCH PROGRAM, PP. 30-31 13 - RESIGNATION FROM LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), PP. 31-32 14 (EXAMINATION BY NELSON,DL FOR RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN (RAY).) - LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) MEETINGS HELD IN 1972 AND 1973 FOR ASBESTOS WORKERS, PP. 32-33 15 - SAFETY PRACTICES FOLLOWED AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), PP. 33-35 16 - LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) COMMANDERS, PP. 35-36 17 - PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS WHO KNEW ABOUT ASBESTOS DANGERS, PP. 36-37 18 - AY,C/EMPLOYMENT, PP. 37-39 19 (EXAMINATION BY DICKERSON,JH FOR CELOTEX (CEL).) - DUST CONTROL BETWEEN 1964 AND 1967 AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), PP. 39-41 20 - ELIMINATION OF ASBESTOS AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), PP. 42-45 21 (EXAMINATION BY SHEPHERD,JM FOR GAF.) - WRITTEN REPLY RECEIVED FROM SMITH,J,PP. 45-46 22 - VENTILATION CONTROL MEASURES, PP. 46-48 23 229 Manville LZ11 MT-PWHD-012980 LP05R052 USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 2 TIME: 140814 (EXAMINATION BY NELSON, DL FOR RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN (RAY).) SMITH,U/EMPLOYMENT, PP. 48-49 24 (EXAMINATION BY DICKERSON,UH FOR CELOTEX (CEL).) - NAVAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (NRMC), P. 49 25 (EXAMINATION BY CARLSON,KW FOR ROBINSON,JC) - EMPLOYMENT, PP. 49-50 26 - ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, PP. 51-53 27 - "FLEISCHER-DRINKER REPORT" AND ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, PP. 53-55 28 (EXAMINATION BY NELSON,DL FOR RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN (RAY).) - ASBESTOS LAWSUIT, P. 56 29 (EXAMINATION BY MARDEN.SM FOR JMC.) - RESPIRATOR USE, PP. 57-58 30 (EXAMINATION BY DICKERSON,UH FOR CELOTEX (CEL).) - 1972 AND 1973 MEETINGS ABOUT ASBESTOS AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), P. 58 31 (EXAMINATION BY MARDEN.SM FOR JMC.) - RECOLLECTION OF ROBINSON,J, PP. 59-60 32 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0001 STARTING PAGE: 0004 ENDING PAGE: 0007 TOPIC: MANNING,SH/PERS ONAL HISTORY/PR (EXAMINATION BY MARDEN.SM FOR JMC.) Manning,SH has gone through I OR DEPOSITIONS several depositions and is aware of ground rules. Was born July 28, 1919. Has a Bachelor of Science in Commercial Chemistry from Penn State University; received in 1943. Presently resides at 15403 Piuma, Norwalk, California. The last Sunday in July 1981 went over some "things", his log, to refresh his memory. Yesterday for 30 minutes, discussed with Rosenberg,G points from previous testimony, such as what Manning's,SH duties were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), what other things Manning,SH did besides current things of interest, basically just a general discussion. Rosenberg,G was not attempting to change Manning's,SH testimony. Manning,SH had not spoken with anyone, other than Rosenberg,G and Steinberg,R over the past three months about his testimony. Other than meeting with Rosenberg,G for thirty minutes. Manning,SH briefly spoke with Rosenberg,G when Manning,SH ran into him at Steinberg's,R office, but only discussed that Manning,SH was going to testify. Neither of these conversations caused Manning,SH to change his testimony. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0002 STARTING PAGE: 0007 ENDING PAGE; 0009 TOPIC: EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Manning,SH worked as an industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) from March 7, 1967 to February 25, 1974. In October 1973, Manning,R was hired as the head of the industrial hygiene branch called the Naval Occupational Health Center. Prior to that, the Long Beach Medical Health Department was transferred administratively into the Naval Regional Medical Center (NRMC), which is located at the Navy Hospital in "Carson". Manning,SH had the same duties, just the administration end was transferred to the other entity. Prior to working for Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), Manning,SH worked as an industrial hygienist for the Pennsylvania Department of Health of the Williamsport, Pennsylvania office from September 1961 to February 1967. Received special training in the form of a series of courses sponsored by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS). The courses were held in Pittsburgh and also in Harrisburg. Prior to working for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Manning,SH had never been employed as an industrial hygienist or had any special training in that field. 230 Manville 1 7\ 1 MT-PWHD-012981 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 3 TIME: 140814 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0003 STARTING PAGE: 0009 ENDING PAGE: 0013 TOPIC: EMPLOYMENT/LONG BEACH NAVAL Manning,SH was interviewed for the industrial hygienist position SHIPYARD (LBNS) in Philadelphia. Does not recall any conversations about what staff or equipment he would get. Manning's,SH duties involved recognition and evaluation of, and recommendations for, control of industrial health hazards, radiation control and "any other duties as may be assigned". When Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1967 there were no other industrial hygienists present. Marr.W who was the last industrial hygienist there, left in the fall of 1963. No one was in the position of industrial hygienist between 1963 and 1967. Manning,SH had an office when he arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), but no files or back issues of technical journals were there. Was able to use books of a technical nature from the shipyard library, a few being: Petty's volume of Industrial Hygiene Practice, Industrial Environmental Evaluation and Control published by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Sax volume on Industrial Toxicology. The shipyard library had no back issues of industrial hygiene technical journals, although those journals were important to the performance of the job. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0004 STARTING PAGE: 0013 ENDING PAGE: 001G TOPIC: DUST SAMPLING EQUIPMENT When Manning,SH arrived for employment at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in March 1967 he had no equipment with which to take dust samples. Finally he received all equipment needed in June 1968 which consisted of a microscope capable of 100 power and 950 power; air pumps; midget, small impinger, midget impinger; dust counting slides and covers, a whipple disc, a stage micrometer, various flasks, a gas burner, membrane filters, and distilled water. Manning,SH performed dust studies over a period of time as frequently as he found time. Performed enough dust studies in a nine-month period to write a report which fulfilled his duty with respect to evaluation of the hazard. Marr.W had written a report also and Manning,SH found things parallel to what Marr.W found. Marr's.W report was published in the Industrial Hygiene Journal in 1964. Manning,SH acquired a copy of Marr's.W report from the California Department of Health soon after arriving at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Kreiger.C, who was safety superintendent, brought up the subject of the report, informing Manning,SH that Marr.W had published the report without permission from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) command, as required by NAVY regulations. Manning,SH took dust studies of two types of dust: dust that contained asbestos fibers, and dust from sandblasting. Eight-five percent of Manning's,SH dust studies were concerned with asbestos dust, while fifteen percent was involved with other dusts. When Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1967 he was the only member of the Industrial Hygiene Department. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMOOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0005 STARTING PAGE: 0016 ENDING PAGE: 0016 TOPIC: WRITTEN REPORTS Manning,SH reported to a medical officer, initially Watkins,G. Watkins,G said there would be no written reports, and Manning,SH thought this was because Watkins,G was nervous about written material getting outside the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and embarrassing Watkins,G. Watkins,G made Manning,SH read the regulation, that required prior approval for any speeches or written reports made outside the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), in front of Watkins,G and the administrative officer. Manning,SH never published anything. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMOOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0006 STARTING PAGE: 0016 ENDING PAGE: 0018 TOPIC: WET DOWN PROCEDURES When Manning,SH arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) there were no wet down procedures being used when employees were working with asbestos products. The pad shop, where insulation pads were fabricated, had wet down equipment; but Manning,SH noticed it was 231 Manville Lzn MT-PWHD-012982 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 4 TIME: 140814 not being used and immediately straightened the situation out. The equipment available for wet down procedures was a hose connected to a water pipe and valve, and a device made out of pipe about 3 feet long with a series of holes in it, which sent out 15 to 20 sprays' of water, which wet down the 4 foot wide cloth. There were no changes to the wet down equipment in the pad shop before workers began using it. There was modification to a circular saw, used to cut preformed insulation, that Manning,SH saw on his arrival; and some ventilation that did not work well. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0007 STARTING PAGE: 0018 ENDING PAGE: 0020 TOPIC: .'REPORT TO SMITH,J Manning,SH drafted a report to Smith,U in the late summer of 1970. Manning,SH felt the Industrial Hygiene Office was not receiving enough support to fulfill the job so he outlined the problem in writing and hoped to obtain some results. Some of Manning's,SH complaints were: difficulty getting the attention of the medical examiner. Smith,J; there was a lack of secretarial help and equipment; and also that Manning,SH was to have been promoted to "GS12" shortly after he came aboard, but had not been for three years. By that time Manning,SH had become certified in industrial hygiene practices and was going to leave the job if things did not change. Manning,SH initially was able to use the medical officer's secretary and in 1973 obtained his own secretary. Manning,SH had minimal equipment to deal with problems apt to occur. Had dust counting, and certain field-type instruments. Lacked some essential equipment and borrowed it sometimes, but it Was awkward. Needed noise measuring equipment, mercury meter, equipment to check ionizing radiation, and equipment to monitor the air supply used in the respirators. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0008 STARTING PAGE: 0020 ENDING PAGE: 0022 TOPIC: HYGIENE DEPARTMENT Sandblasters and painters used air supply respirators at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), but asbestos workers never did while Manning,SH was there. Manning,SH never had control over the Hygiene Department's budget. Attended all conferences of the American Industrial Hygienist Association (AIHA) between 1967 and 1974 except one in Chicago in 1967. The medical officer, Smith,U, was not aggressively supportive of the Hygiene Department, which was one reason Manning,SH wrote a report to Smith,J. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS . PARA NUMBER: 0009 STARTING PAGE: 0022 ENDING PAGE: 0025 TOPIC: NAVY ORDER 5100.26 Manning's,SH recollection of Navy Order 5100.26 is that it contained various guidelines for control of asbestos container material. It required Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) personnel to be indoctrinated twice a year as to the dangers of working with asbestos and precautions to be taken. An indoctrination program was set up subsequent to the issuance of 5100.26. Prior to the directive, Manning,SH conducted an educational program regarding asbestos. These five meetings were held in February 1968 and were directed at the pipe coverers and insulators out of Shop 56. These workers were required to attend but Manning,SH had nothing to do with whether they attended or not. DOCUMENT NUMEER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0010 STARTING PAGE: 0025 ENDING PAGE: 0027 TOPIC: SUBSTANCE OF MEETINGS IN Manning,SH informed the workers during the meetings of February FEBRUARY 1968 1968 of Selikoff's,IU and Marr's.W reports of the dangers of AND MEETINGS asbestos. People who were exposed to asbestos were likely to IN 1971 AND contract a higher incidence of lung cancer, especially people who 1972 smoked. Raymond,A, superintendent of Shop 56, pointed out that workers could work in a way that they would not produce as much dust by using the proper kind of tools. The next series of educational meetings, held in June 1961, was for the front line supervisors of all the shops in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) about protecting workers from asbestos hazards in the work area. None of the subordinates involved with asbestos work were 232 Manville LZl 1 MT-PWHD-012983 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P, 1 ,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 5 TIME: 140814 at the meetings. "OPNAV" required meetings be held twice a year on a continual basis. Two meetings for workers were held in 1972; one in May and one in October. Only one meeting was held in 1973, in November, because Manning,SH was "swamped" with other work involving noise hazards, hearing loss claims, and other pressing work. NAVY Order 5100.26 did not have the force of law, and the shipyard commander had the right to accept or reject these kinds of guidelines. Manning,SH had no resistance in the asbestos indoctrinations, but from time to time found resistance in the area of indoctrination concerning hearing loss, because it took men away from their work. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0011 STARTING PAGE: 0027 ENDING PAGE: 0029 TOPIC: SPECIAL CLOTHING FOR Manning,SH states around 1969 a "NavShip" instruction was issued ASBESTOS that special clothing would be provided to pipe coverers and WORKERS insulators. The Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) complied with this one year and a half to two years later. The production officer and the head of the mechanical group, Nease.F, and Chapman, opposed the idea of coveralls for the workers because of the added cost. The workers were to be given coveralls before each shift and at the end of the shift the coveralls were to be turned in to be laundered. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMOOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0012 STARTING PAGE: 0029 ENDING PAGE: 0030 TOPIC: DIFFERENTIAL PAY FOR Manning,SH was involved in obtaining differential pay for asbestos ASBESTOS workers in December of 1969. The workers received differential WORKERS pay about a year later ,in 1970. The reason for the pay increase was to compensate workers for hazardous conditions that management could not control or could not guarantee worker safety in. Manning,SH does not know what shop or shop members received differential pay, although he personally recommended that asbestos workers out of Shops 56 and 41, and electroplating shop workers should receive differential pay. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0013 STARTING PAGE: 0030. ENDING PAGE: 0031 TOPIC: GROUP FROM INSULATION A group from the Insulation Industrial Health Research Program INDUSTRIAL consisting of Nickerson, Hoiiday,D, Hammond and Reitze.R toured HEALTH RESEARCH Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1970, spending the better part PROGRAM of a day there. The group wanted to familiarize themselves with the working conditions of people who worked with asbestos. Manning,SH only spoke briefly with the group; Ay,W was responsible for leading the group through the yard. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMOOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0014 STARTING PAGE: 0031 ENDING PAGE: 0032 TOPIC: RESIGNATION FROM LONG When Manning,SH left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in February BEACH NAVAL 1974, he left his files, records and dust count equipment there in SHIPYARD (LBNS) good working order. Unmark,F was hired 3 months later to replace Manning,SH. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHMOOOOI WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0015 STARTING PAGE: 0032 ENDING PAGE: 0033 TOPIC: LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (EXAMINATION BY NELSON,DL FOR RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN (RAY.) (LBNS) MEETINGS Manning,SH states the two meetings in 1972 and the one meeting in HELD IN 1972 1973 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) were directed at making AND 1973 FOR known the hazards of working with asbestos to pipe coverers, ASBESTOS insulators, and boilershop workers. The dangers were the WORKERS possibility of contracting fibrosis, lung cancer, the enhanced incidence of lung cancer due to smoking. The ventilation being used to reduce asbestos dust was inadequate. It was highly desirable for the workers to use their respirators often. Work habits, such as using a knife instead of a hatchet in a rip-out, had a lot to do with the amount of dust in the air. Putting asbestos containing waste material in plastic bags, and using the vacuum method instead of sweeping were also good ideas. 233 Manville LZ11 MT-PWHD-012984 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P, 1 ,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 6 TIME: 140814 DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0016 STARTING PAGE: 0033 ENDING PAGE: 0035 TOPIC: SAFETY PRACTICE S FOLLOWED AT All practices that workers at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) LONG BEACH were informed of, involving asbestos work areas, became a part of NAVAL SHIPYARD the shipyard (LBNS) safety manual. The practices were in effect (LBNS) when the 1972 and 1973 meetings were held, however, enforcement was in the hands of the first line supervisors. The enforcement of these practices was in the hands of the foremen because of a union contract between the Shipyard Metal Trades Council and the shipyard commander. Most workers did not comply in wearing respirators, but did wear their coveralls. Workers did not always use the vacuum method, instead of sweeping, because sometimes vacuum cleaners were not available. Manning,SH got some lightweight vacuum cleaners to replace the commercial type heavy vacuum cleaners before he left the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Manning,SH had instances brought to his attention where workers, "possibly ship's crew" do "what they call blow down a compartment to get a nozzle of compressed air and blow that stuff all over the place, and this was their idea of clean up". This also happened in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) once when Manning,SH took a group,.who were from the Environmental Health Center in Cincinnati, into a compartment to observe a rip-out process. Manning,SH had to leave for a few minutes and someone "picked up a nozzle and blew the whole place down". There was no disciplinary action, because no one knew who did it. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0017 STARTING PAGE: 0035 ENDING PAGE: 0036 TOPIC: LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD When Manning,SH arrived at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), (LBNS) COMMANDE Dolin was commander. Dolin was 'Commander for possibly a year RS after Manning's,SH arrival. Manning,SH does not know if Dolin is still in the NAVY. After Dolin, came Hart, who remained at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) from 1968 to 1971. Then there was Fay, who had a tour of similar length. Fay was replaced by Doncheck shortly before Manning,SH left the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1974. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0018 STARTING PAGE: 0036 ENDING PAGE: 0037 TOPIC: PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS WHO Manning,SH does not know if everyone who worked with asbestos KNEW ABOUT attended the 1972 and 1973 meetings about asbestos dangers: it ASBESTOS not Manning's,SH responsibility to see who made it to the DANGERS meetings, and who did not. There was no sign-in sheet at the meetings. was DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0019 STARTING PAGE: 0037 ENDING PAGE: 0039 TOPIC: AY,C/EMPLOYMENT Ay,W, who worked for Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) died of lung cancer. Ay,C is Ay's.W son. Ay,C was employed at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) the entire time Manning,SH was employed there. Ay,C was a pipe covering insulator for some time and at one time a foreman. Manning,SH never worked with Ay,C in the course of performing Manning's,SH job as industrial hygienist. Manning,SH met Ay,C in 1967 when Manning,SH was a "worker" and Ay,C had complained about smoke getting into the compartment where Ay,C worked. This was during the time the "U.S.S. New Jersey" was being overhauled in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Manning,SH took "samples" in situations where Ay,C was foreman. Recalls being called by Ay,W to check out a situation aboard a tanker which had some "exposure". Ay,C was foreman of the group working aboard the ship. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0020 STARTING PAGE: 0039 ENDING PAGE: 0041 TOPIC: DUST CONTROL BETWEEN 1964 (EXAMINATION BY DICKERSON,JH FOR CELOTEX (CEL).) Manning,R is no AND 1967 AT relation to Manning,SH. Manning's,SH job description is in the LONG BEACH first deposition that was taken of Manning,SH. Between 1964 and NAVAL SHIPYARD 1967 there was no industrial engineer at Long Beach Naval Shipyard 234 Manville LZ11 MT-PWHD-012985 LP05R052 USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 7 TIME: 140814 (LBNS) (LBNS). During this time, Levetan, of the Safety Department, attempted to fill in, in the industrial hygiene area. Levetan retired after Manning,SH joined Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). The safety department could not take dust counts; Marr.W had borrowed the equipment to take some dust counts during Marr's.W tenure from the California Department of Health. Manning,SH found this out from Kaplan,P. The Bausch and Lomb dust counter Marr.W borrowed was not the one prescribed in the standard procedure. One criticism of Marr's,W study is that dust counts were not done in prescribed method. Does not know who manufactured the midget impingers Manning,SH used at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0021 STARTING PAGE: 0042 ENDING PAGE: 0045 TOPIC: ELIMINATION OF ASBESTOS AT There was never any disciplinary proceedings initiated against LONG BEACH pipe coverers or insulators at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) NAVAL SHIPYARD for failure to comply with asbestos safety rules while Manning,SH (LBNS) was there. Prior to Manning's,SH arrival, and afterward, there were people, like Ay,W, trying to eliminate Unibestos, which was manufactured by Pittsburg Corning Manufacturing Company (PIT) and contained 100 percent amosite. Manning,SH was never involved in an effort to remove pipe covering from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). The elimination of the asbestos problem involved 100 percent substitution of other materials in place of asbestos. There were efforts to reach people in authority who were responsible for acquiring materials starting in 1969 with the report Manning,SH wrote to Smith,J. Had thought the, people in Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) would have influence, but apparently they did not. Eventually "last" cloth was substituted for asbestos cloth in the pad shop and preformed insulation material used glass as a binder instead of asbestos. Ay,W had said asbestos use was reduced 40 percent. The main problem was that every ship in the NAVY had asbestos material covering pipes and boilers; and when the covering had to be removed, there was a great asbestos exposure problem. Manning,SH had never been to a shipyard at Mare Island (MINS) in Vallejo, California and had no knowledge of the asbestos hazard control program there. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0022 STARTING PAGE: 0045 ENDING PAGE: 0046 TOPIC: WRITTEN REPLY RECEIVED FROM (EXAMINATION BY SHEPHERD,JM FOR GAF. ) When Manning,SH sent his SMITH,J report, regarding lack of support for Manning's,SH Industrial Hygiene Office, to Smith,U, Manning,SH received a written reply which was signed by Smith,U but written by an administrative officer. The reply was negative and not supportive of Manning's,SH program. The one and a half year delay in getting workers their coveralls was due, not to administrative assistants, but to a production officer named Chapman. Chapman was less knowledgeable in the industrial hygiene area, and did not rely on the judgement of people, like Manning,SH, who were hired to work in special areas. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0023 STARTING PAGE: 0046 ENDING PAGE: 0048 TOPIC: VENTILATION CONTROL Manning,SH recommended using respirators, at the 1972 and 1973 MEASURES meetings at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), to prevent worker exposure to asbestos. As control measures progressed, attempted to increase ventilation in ship compartments. By nature of ship's construction and limited access to compartment, there are limits as to how much ventilation can be put in. There is a limit to how many holes you can burn in a ship. In the context of overhauling ships in naval shipyards, there was no way of supplying enough ventilation to eliminate the hazards of breathing asbestos dust. The respirators, Manning,SH suggested at the 1972 and 1973 meetings, should not be relied on exclusively for elimination of any dust hazard. Proper tools were available for the workers.so that workers could hold down the amount of asbestos dust produced. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS 235 Manville LZ11 MT-PWHD-012986 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P,1,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 8 TIME: 140814 PARA NUMBER: 0024 STARTING PAGE: 0048 ENDING PAGE: 0049 TOPIC: SMITH,J/EMPLOYM ENT (EXAMINATION BY NELSON,DL FOR RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN (RAY). Smith,J was medical officer of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and reported to the shipyard commander. When the administrative change occurred in August, 1972 Smith,U reported to the head of the Naval Regional Medical Center (NRMC). Smith,U retired a couple of years after Manning,SH left the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Manning,SH left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in February, 1974. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0025 STARTING PAGE: 0049 ENDING PAGE: 0049 TOPIC: NAVY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (EXAMINATION BY DICKERSON,UH FOR CELOTEX (CEL). Manning,SH states (NRMC) the Naval Regional Medical Center (NRMC) is an organization encompassing, among other things, the Long Beach Naval Hospital. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0026 STARTING PAGE: 0049 ENDING PAGE: 0050 TOPIC: EMPLOYMENT (EXAMINATION BY CARLSON,KW FOR ROBINSON,UC.) Manning's,SH job duties at the Pennsylvania Department of Health involved the recognition, evaluation and control of industrial health hazards while touring industry facilities. When Manning,SH found situations that needed to be corrected, there was sometimes employer resistance in implementing Manning's,SH recommendations, which sometimes took up to a year to implement. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0027 STARTING PAGE: 0051 ENDING PAGE: 0053 TOPIC: ASBESTOS EXPOSURE In 1961, soon after Manning,SH began working as an industrial hygienist, he became aware that asbestos was a potentially hazardous material. Was not Manning's,SH understanding that the danger in working with asbestos was only to mine and factory workers, and not to people using asbestos products. In 1970 or 1971 Manning,SH saw warnings printed on asbestos preform products, but until February 1968 had not seen or heard of warning labels on asbestos insulation products at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Manning,SH does not recall what the warning stated, but it was not an adequate warning. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS; MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0028 STARTING PAGE: 0053 ENDING PAGE: 0055 TOPIC: 11FLEISCHER-DRIN KER REPORT" AND ASBESTOS Manning,SH heard of the "Fleischer-Drinker Report" in the early 1960's when Manning,SH was employed by the Pennsylvania Department EXPOSURE of Health. This report dealt with asbestos. Does not recall from this report what segment of the population studied was exposed to asbestos over 20 years. The report mentioned the Insulation Industrial Health Hygiene Institute's tour of Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1970. One of the individuals who toured, Reitze,R was employed by JMC. Reitze,R and Manning,SH had a brief conversation about the new method of counting dust involving membrane filter. Prior to this 1970 tour. Manning,SH was never contacted by any representative of any asbestos company. At the indoctrination meetings, held in 1972 and 1973 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), Manning,SH did not imply to the people in attendance that if they wore a respirator they had little or no risk of getting an asbestos related disease, but told them that when and if they wore a respirator, the respirators were effective. Manning,SH was initially exposed to asbestos when employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Was also exposed while taking dust samples in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Manning,SH has been told by a doctor that he has an asbestos-related illness. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0029 STARTING PAGE: 0056 ENDING PAGE: 0056 TOPIC: ASBESTOS LAWSUIT (EXAMINATION BY NELSON,DL FOR RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN (RAY).) Manning,SH is a plaintiff in an asbestos-related pending lawsuit 236 Manville LZ11 MT-PWHD-012987 LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG065 COMMAND: P, 1 ,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 01/17/85 PAGE 9 TIME: 140814 with his counsel being Steinberg,R of Rose, Klein and Marias, DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING,SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0030 STARTING PAGE: 0057 ENDING PAGE: 0058 TOPIC: RESPIRATOR USE (EXAMINATION BY MARDEN,SM FOR JMC.) When Manning,SH worked at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) he always wore a respirator while taking dust samples of asbestos insulation products. It was not Manning's,SH usual practice to wear a respirator while he was employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health; there were none available, and it was not good practice to wear a respirator and alarm all the workers. While with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Manning.SH inspected facilities that manufactured finished asbestos products from raw asbestos fiber. Manning.SH, had difficulty contacting authorities in Washington, District of Columbia while working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), but has no knowledge if any manufacturers of finished asbestos products ever had contact with authorities in Washington, District of Columbia. DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0031 STARTING PAGE: 0058 ENDING PAGE: 0058 TOPIC: 1972 AND 1973 MEETINGS ABOUT (EXAMINATION BY DICKERSON,JH FOR CELOTEX (CEL).) Manning.SH ASBESTOS AT thought the meetings held at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in LONG BEACH the late 1960's, 1972 and 1973 were adequate to inform the workers NAVAL SHIPYARD of the dangers of asbestos exposure. (LBNS) DOCUMENT NUMBER: SHM00001 WITNESS: MANNING.SH LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0032 STARTING PAGE: 0059 ENDING PAGE: 0060 TOPIC: RECOLLECTION OF ROBINSON,J (EXAMINATION BY MARDEN,SM FOR UMC.) Manning.SH does not know if he ever had contact with Robinson,U. Does not know if Robinson,J acted as foreman. (COLLOQUY RE: DISCUSSION OF CLOSE OF DEPOSITION, LENGTH OF TIME MANNING.SH IS ALLOWED TO KEEP AND READ DEPOSITION, WHICH LAW OFFICE WILL HOLD DEPOSITON UNTIL TRIAL, P. 69.) 237 Manville Lzn MT-PWHD-012988 238 Manville LZ1! MT-PWHD-012989 ___________________CERTIFIED COPY 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY 3 4 IN RE ASBESTOS CASES 5 CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY 6 JOHN C. ROBINSON, 7 8 vs . 9 Plaintiff, JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES 10 CORPORATION, et al.. 11 Defendants. / No. 529948-7 AND 501419-4 - 12 13 14 Deposition of SHELDON H. MANNING, taken on behalf of 15 Defendant Johns-Manville, at Holiday Inn, 2650 Lakewood Boulevard, 16 Room 1112,. Long Beach, California, on Monday, August 3, 1981, 17 commencing at 10:10 A.M., before William R. Pay, CSR No. 1228, 18 Notary Public, pursuant to Notice. 19 20 21 22 /--7 23 24 ..... a let " Uuin & Trutnet Ntoore, Guitrd, 25 26 27 MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 28 7890 Garner Street Long Beach. California 908O8 434-04 1 9 MT-PWHD-012990 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 4 5 For Plaintiff: 6 7 8 KENNETH W. CARLSON 1970 Broadway, Suite Oakland, California 1250 . 94612 9 For Defendant Johns- Manville: 10 11 12 MOORE, CLIFFORD, WOLFE, LARSON TRUTNER BY: STEVEN M. MARDEN 201 - 19th Street - Oakland, California 94612 & 13 14 For Defendant Raybestos- Manhattan, Inc.: 15 16 17 MALONEY, CHASE, FISHER & HURST BY: DONALD L. NELSON 600 Montgomery Street, 32nd Floor - San Francisco, California 94111 18 19 For Defendant Celotex Corp.: 20 21 BERRY & BERRY BY: JOHN H. DICKERSON Clorox Building, Suite 1880 Oakland, California 94612 22 23 For Defendant Owens- 24 Corning: 25 26 POPELKA, ALLARD, McCOWAN & JONES BY: JONEE M. GRASSI 1 Almaden Boulevard San Jose, California 95113 27 28 MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-012991 ii 1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) 2 3 4 5 6 For Defendant GAF: . 7 8 9 10 11 For Defendant Fibreboard Corp.: 12 13 14 McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN'S ENERSEN BY: J. MICHAEL SHEPHERD Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California - 94111 RONALD HOTHEM BY: BRUCE C. DAVIS 369 Broadway San Francisco, California 94133 15 For Defendant Unarco: 16 17 18 SHIELD & SMITH BY: SUSAN EVANGELISTA, PARALEGAL 1200 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 90017 19 20 For Defendant Nicolet, Inc. : 21 22 23 ST. CLAIR, ZAPPETTINI, McFETRIDGE & GRIFFIN (NOT PRESENT) 635 Russ Building San Francisco, California 94104 24 25 26 27 28 MIDDLETOS, O'BRIES & PAY MT-PWHD-012992 1 1 2 3 4 5 WITNESS 6 Sheldon H. Manning 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INDEX EXAMINATION BY Mr. Harden Mr. Nelson . Mr. Dickerson Mr. Shepherd Mr. Carlson EXHIBITS (NONE) PAGE 4 57 59 32 _ 48 56 39 - 49 58 45 49 MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PA >' MT-PWHD-012993 4 V 1 2 SHELDON H. MANNING, called, as a witness on behalf of Defendant Johns-Manville, '3 4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. MARDEN: - . 8 Q. Sir, would you state your full name for the record, 9 please. . 10 A. Sheldon Hyatt Manning. 11 Q. Mr. Manning, you have gone through several 12 deposition previously; is that correct? ' 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So you are aware of what we are going to be doing 15 here today; is that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Rather than go through all of the ground rules of 18 a deposition, I would just like to refresh your memory as to 19 one: That is, if somebody asks you a question here today that 20 you don't understand, please have that individual rephrase it. 21 Is that okay? 22 A. Yes. ' 23 Q. Sir, you were born July 28, 1919; is that correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you have a collegediploma? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. And what is that in? 28 A. Bachelor of Science in commerical chemistry from MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-012994 5 1 Penn State University. 2 Q. When did you receive that degree? 3 A. In May of 1943. 4 Q. Where are you currently residing? 5 A. I am residing at 15403 Piuma, in Norwalk, California. 6 Q. Prior to coming here this morning, have you reviewed 7 any documents or writings of any type? 8 A. Just last Sunday I went over some things, my log 9 to refresh my memory about things. " 10 Q. When you say "last Sunday," do you mean August 2nd, 11 1981 or -- 12 A. Sunday prior. 13 Q. So that would be the last Sunday in July; correct? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. Now, in preparing to givetestimony, have you 16 discussed with anyone what you are going to be testifying to? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Who have you had those discussions with? 19 A. Yesterday I had a half-hour discussion with 20 George Rosenberg of Greene & O'Reilly, I think, with permission 21 of my attorney, Robert Steinberg, and we went over some of 22 the points from my previous testimony. 23 Q. Can you tell us what points from your previous 24 testimony you went over with Mr. Rosenberg? 25 A. Well, we discussed what my duties ,were at the 26 shipyard, and he was interested in what other things I had to 27 do besides current things of interest. Just kind of a general 28 discussion. I can't say too much more about it, I guess. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-012995 6 V 1 2 I don't recall. 0. Is that because you don't recall anything else 3 about that one-half hour discussion with Mr. Rosenberg? 4 A. Well, it was nothing. I told him what I had to do 5 was to tell the truth, and I laid it out that I had had lengthy 6 depositions and I couldn't deviate from anything that I said. 7 Q. Was Mr. Rosenberg attempting to have you change 8 your testimony? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Outside of Mr. Rosenberg, have you had any 11 discussions or conferences with anyone, any attorney other than 12 Mr. Rosenberg, over the past three-month period? Excluding, 13 of course, any conversations you had with your own attorney, 14 Mr. Steinberg. 15 A. No. . ' 16 Q. And you have only met w.ith Mr. Rosenberg once? 17 A... I run into him in my own attorney's office, met 18 him briefly. That was about it. 19 Q. During that brief meeting with Mr. Rosenberg in 20 your attorney's office, did you two have any discussions about 21 your testimony? . 22 A. I think he just made reference to the fact that I 23 was probably going to be testifying, and that was about it. 24 Q. Was this testimony going to be in this deposition, 25 or in another trial? 26 A. In the trial. 27 Q, Sir, has that conversation or those conversations 28 with Mr. Rosenberg caused you to alter the nature of your MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-012996 7 1 testimony? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Now, sir, you were employed and you worked at 4 Long Beach Naval Shipyard; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. , 6 Q. When did you begin your employment at Long Beach 7 Naval Shipyard? 8 A. March 7, 1967. 9 0- When was that last day that you worked, at Long Beach 10 Naval Shipyard? 11 A. February 25, 1974., 12 , & During that period of time what was your job? 13 A. I was industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval 14 Shipyard. 15 & During that entire period was there ever another 16 industrial hygienist at that specific yard? 17 - A. No -- correction. From October, 1973, there was 18 a Robert Manning who was hired as the head of the industrial 19 hygiene branch, I think it was called, Naval Occupational 20 Health Center. 21 Prior to that the Long Beach Medical Health 22 Department had been transferred administratively into the 23 Naval Regional Medical Center. 24 & Where is the Naval Regional Medical Center located? 25 A. Their office is at the Navy Hospital in Carson -- 26 on Carson. 27 The duties were the same, but -- and my office was 28 in the Shipyard, and I had the same duties, but the MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-012997 8 1 administration end of it was transferred over to the other 2 entity. ' 3 Q. Now, prior to your employment at Long Beach Naval 4 Shipyard, had you ever worked as an industrial hygienist 5 previously? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Where was that? 8 A. I worked as industrial hygienist for the 9 Pennsylvania Department of Health of the Williamsport, 10 Pennsylvania office. 11 Q. Can you give me the-dates of employment with that 12 entity? 13 A. It was about September, 1961, to the end of 14 February of 1967. 15 Q. Did you receive any special training or education 16 in industrial hygiene while employed with the Pennsylvania 17 Department of Health? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was that just one course, or a series of courses? 20 A. There were a series of courses that I attended, 21 mostly put' on, sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Department. 22 Q. Where were those courses held? 23 A. One was held in the School of Public Health in 24 Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health in Pittsburgh, and 25 I went, attended a course later that involved nuclear physics 26 and nuclear health aspects. I attended some courses in 27 Harrisburg that dealt with noise and industrial hygiene 28 engineering. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-012998 9 1 Q. Prior to working with the Pennsylvania Department 2 of Health, had you ever been employed in the capacity as 3 industrial hygienist? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Had you received any special training oreducation 6 in that field before your employment with the Pennsylvania 7 Department of Health? 8 A. Not specifically, no. 9 Q. Now, prior to your beginning youremployment at 10 Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you have an interview with the 11 Navy for that position? . 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall the substance of those conversations 14 during that interview? 15 A. Well, I was interviewed in Philadelphia. The name 16 of the man escapes me at the moment. He was the industrial 17 hygienist there, and he interviewed me and went over my 18 background, and he indicated at the time he thought I was 19 suitable for the job and, as a matter of fact, he says he 20 thought I had the job. 21 Q. Do you recall if you had any conversations during 22 that interview regarding what staff and equipment you would 23 have in Long Beach? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Can you describe for us your duties as an industrial 26 hygienist at Long Beach? 27 Strike the question. 28 Can you describe for us the duties you had as MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-012999 10 1 an industrial hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 2 A. Well, my duties, of course, were involved with 3 recognition and evaluation and recommendations for control of 4 industrial health hazards. I had a job description. I think 5 they spelled out with more specifics, that I was involved in 6 radiation control which they tacked on me, and "Any other 7 duties as may be assigned." 8 So, you know, it kind of opened up the thing to 9 add anything that was assigned, really. . 10 MR. MARDEN: Off the record. 11 (Discussion off the record.) ' 12 Q. BY MR. MARDEN: Whenyou arrived at Long Beach Naval 13 Shipyard in March, 1967, was there an industrial hygienist 14 present at the Yard? 15 A. No . 16 Q. Who was the last industrial hygienist at Long Beach 17 before you arrived? 18 A. William Marr. . 19 0. Is that M-a-r-r? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you know when Mr. Marr left? 22 A. Best of my knowledge, he left sometime in the fall 23 of 1963. 24 Q. Fall of 196\? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. During the period of time between the fall of 27 196^3 and March of 1967, was anyone acting as an industrial f 28 hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, to your knowledge? MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013000 11 1 A. Is that question "acting"? 2 Q. Acting. Well, strike the question. 3 During the period from the fall of 1963 through 4 March of 1967, was anyone assigned responsibilities of an 5 industrial hygienist? 6 A. Well, if you rephrase the question, "Was there 7 anybody in the position of industrial hygienist?" I can give 8 you an answer. 9 Q. Okay. Let me rephrase the question. 10 During that period of- time, from the 'fall of 196 3, 11 through March of 1967, was anybody in the position of 12 industrial hygienist? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Now, when you arrived at Long Beach, did you have 15 an office? 16 A. Yes. ' 17 Q. What building was that office located in? Do you 18 recall? 19 A. I really don't recall ;the exact number. 20 Q, Were there any materials in that office that had 21 been left by the previous industrial hygienist? 22 A. The office was empty. 23 Q. Were there any files or reports prepared by 24 Mr. Marr that you had access to when you first arrived in March 25 of 1967? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Did the industrial hygienist office have a 28 technical library of any type when you first arrived in March MIDDLETOK, O'BRIfX & PAY MT-PWHD-013001 12 1 of 1967? 2 A. There was some books of a technical nature there 3 that were in the shipyard library, and I was able to take those 4 out of the library and use them. 5 . Q. Do you recall the names of those books? 6 A. Oh, one was Petty's volume. 7 Q. Is that P-e-t-t-y? 8 A. Petty's volume of Industrial Hygiene Practice, I 9 think is the title of it. Reference I think we had to the 10 Industrial Environment Evaluation and Control. That was 11 published by U.S. Public Health. . 12 Sax volume on Industrial Toxicology I believe is 13 the title. 14 Q. How do you spell that? 15 A. S-a-x. 16 0. Do you recall any other books that were in the 17 library? 18 A. I don't really recall. It was a fair amount of 19 literature that was in'the library, and I was able to acquire 20 more. 21 Q. Did the library have any back issues of technical 22 journals? 23 A. No. 24 Q- Let me rephrase that. 25 Did the library have any back issues of industrial 26 health of industrial hygiene technical journals? 27 A. No. 0-28 Were those industrial journals important to the MIDDIETOS, O'BRIES & PA Y MT-PWHD-013002 13 1 performance of theindustrial hygienist's job and duties? 2 A. Yes, it was. 3 Q. Now, when you arrived at the Long Beach Naval 4 Shipyard in March of 1967, did you have any equipment to take 5 dust samples with? 6 A. No. . 7 Q. Did you request that the necessary equipment be 8 provided to you? 9 A. Yes. ." 10 Q. When was that equipment delivered to you? 11 A. Well, I finally received everything that I needed 12 to count dust about June of '68. 13 0. 3 14 of ' 6\? And did you begin to make dust studies after June 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Can you tell us what equipment was necessary for 17 the performance of dust studies? 18 A. At that time it was necessary to have a microscope 19 capable of 100X and 950 power; air pumps; Midget, small 20 impingers, Midget impinger; dust counting slides and covers. 21 They needed a device called a Whipple Disc and a Stage 22 micrometer, various flasks. They needed a gas burner, needed 23 a membrane filters and reliable supply of distilled water. 24 That, I think, about covers it. 25 Q. Now, after you received the necessary equipment, 26 you did perform dust studies; is that correct? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. Can you tell us how frequently you performed dust MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013003 14 1 studies? 2 A.. Well, I performed those over a period of time as 3 frequently as I found time. I performed enough dust studies 4 probably in a nine-month period to write a report which I think 5 fulfilled my duty as far as evaluation of the hazard. 6 There was prior work in this area of Bill Marr's, 7 and he had also written a report, and things that I found were 8 parallel to things that he found. 9 Q. Do you have a date of that, of Mr. Marr's report? 10 A. I think this report is -- that was published in 11 Industrial Hygiene Journal, and I think it is dated sometime 12 1964. It's on the record. 13 0. When did you first read Mr. Marr or the report that 14 was published in Industrial Hygiene Journal by Mr. Marr? 15 A. I was able to acquire a copy of it soon after I 16 arrived at the Shipyard. I read it. 17 Q. Do you recall who you acquired that report from? 18 A. I may have acquired it from the people at the 19 California Department of Health. 20 Q- It wasn't provided to you by anyone out of the yard' 21 A. No, I don't think so. 22 Q. Prior to you receiving that report from the 23 California Department of Health, had you had any discussions 24 with anyone at Long Beach Naval Shipyard regarding Mr. Marr's 25 report? 26 A. Yes. Best of my recollection, I think Cliff Kreiger 27 who was the safety superintendent, as I recall, brought up the 28 matter of his report. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013004 15 1 Q. Do you recall when you had that discussion with 2 Mr. Kreiger? 3 A. That was probably early on after I arrived at the 4 Shipyard. Very early. 5 . Q. Do you recall the substance of that conversation 6 with Mr. Kreiger? 7 A. As I recall, he mentioned the report, and either 8 then or later he informed me that Bill Marr had published this 9 report without prior permission from the Shipyard command, as 10 was required by Navy regulations. 11 He also indicated that this caused some 12 consternation among Shipyard administrative people. 13 Q. We have discussed or we have made reference to 14 dust studies previously today. Can you tell us what substances 15 you were taking dust studies of? 16 A. At the Shipyard there were two types of dust. Of 17 course, the dust that contained asbestos fibers, and there was 18 the dust problems connected with sandblasting, and I checked 19 samples in both areas. 20 Q. Can you give us an idea of what percentage of your 21 dust studies were done relative to asbestos? 22 A. As an estimate, I would say probably 85 percent of 23 my dust studies were concerned with asbestos. The other 15 24 percent of the dust contains the other. . 25 Q. When you arrived at Long Beach in March of 1967, 26 when you began to work there, was anyone else in the industrial 27 hygiene department with you? 28 A. No. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013005 16 1 Q. You were the only member then of the industrial 2 hygiene department? 3 ^ A. Yes. 4 Q. Can you tell us who you would report to in the 5 command structure at the Shipyard? 6 A. I reported to a medical officer. Initially it was 7 a Captain George Watkins. 8 Q. Now, were your reports written when you first 9 arrived there? , 10 A. I would say the stipulation imposed by 11 Captain Watkins was that there, would be no written reports. 12 Q. Do you know what Captain Watkins' reason was for 13 having no written reports? 14 A. I would think that he was nervous about having 15 material in writing that might get outside the Shipyard possibly 16 and embarrass him. 17 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with 18 Captain Watkins where you discussed the fact that he wanted 19 all of your reports orally as opposed to in writing? 20 A. There was some conversation. I recall he made a 21 specific point of seeing that I read the regulation that 22 required prior approval for any speeches or written reports 23 that were done or made outside the Shipyard. I particularly 24 recall that he required me to read that regulation in front of 25 himself and the administrative officer. 26 Q. You never published anything, did you? 27 A. No. 28 Q. When you first arrived at Long Beach, were MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013006 17 1 wet-down procedures being used anywhere in the yard when 2 employees were working with asbestos products? ' 3 A. No, not at that time. 4 Q. Were any facilities set up with theequipment 5 necessary to wet-down asbestos products before they were used? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What facility was there? 8 A. That facility was known as thepad shop where 9 insulation pads were fabricated, and.in that shop prior to my 10 arrival there had been set up facilities for wetting down the 11 asbestos cloth before it was cut, and one of the first things 12 I noticed they were not using, and this was immediately 13 straightened out. 14 Q. Can you describe for us what type of equipment 15 was available in that shop for wet-down procedures? 16 A. It was a hose connected to a water pipe and a 17 valve, and there was a device that I think was made out of a 18 pipe with a series of holes in it, and it was about, oh, I 19 would say three feet long and was, sent out 15 to 20 sprays 20 of water, and it would cover the cloth that was laid out on the 21 table, wet it down. 22 The cloth was -- my recollection would be it was 23 at least four feet wide. 24 Q. Was the equipment that was present in the pad 25 shop changed or modified at all before the employees in the shop 26 began to use it? 27 A. No, with the exception, I think, when I first 28 arrived there was a saw, circular saw that was used to cut the MIDDLETOS. O'BRIES' & PA Y MT-PWHD-013007 18 1 preformed insulation material, and I believe, best of my 2 knowledge, there was some ventilation along with that, but it 3 wasn't -- if I recall, it didn't work very well. 4 Q. But there were no changes to the equipment used for 5 wet-down in the pad shop? 6 A. For wet-down, no. 7 Q. Did you ever draft a report to Commander Jose Smith'' 8 A. Yes. . 9 Q. 10 drafted? 11 A. 12 ' 70. Do you recall the date that that report was That went out sometime I think in late summer of 13 Q. What was your purpose for writing that report? 14 A. Well, at that time I felt that the industrial 15 hygiene office had not received enough support to fulfill the 16 duties that were required of the job, and I had been having 17 difficulty getting the attention of the then-medical examiner. 18 Dr. Smith, on these matters, and I decided that the best thing 19 to do was to get what I needed and outlined the whole problem 20 and get it before him in writing and, hopefully, get some 21 results. 22 Q. Can you tell us what complaints you had at that 23 time with the way that the industrial hygiene department was 24 not receiving enough support? 25 A. Well, one of the problems that I had up until then 26 was lack of secretarial help by the time there were reports to 27 be written, and as things developed, there were, especially, 28 hearing loss claims to be developed and considerable amount of MIDDLETON. 0`BRIF.S & PA Y MT-PWHD-013008 19 1 paper work. We had quarterly reports, and I had no steady 2 secretarial help. 3 Sometimes I had to do my own typing, which I don't 4 do very well. There was equipment that I should have had. 5 I had been -- when I came aboard, it was indicated 6 to me that although I qualified for a higher rating, that when 7 I came aboard, at some period - I thought it was a short 8 period - but I would be promoted to a GS-12, and this had gone 9 on now for three years, and I think by that time I had become 10 certified in industrial hygiene practices, and it got to the 11 point where things were going to change or I was going- to 12 leave, was about it. 13 I needed more staff. First, I was going to fulfill 14 the duties that they wanted me to do. These kind of jobs 15 expand along the way in the amount of work you are expected to do, 16 but if you have more manpower, why, there is nothing -- certain 17 areas get neglected. 18 Q. Did you receive secretarial help after that report 19 to Commander Smith? 20 A. Well, initially I was given the privilege of using 21 the medical officer's secretary from time to time, and that 22 worked out partially. - 23 Eventually I had my own secretary, and that didn't 24 come about until the summer of 1973. 25 Q. Well, you indicated that one of your complaints to 26 Commander Smith was that you needed additional equipment; is 27 that correct? 28 A. Yes. MIDDl.ETOS. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-ni^nna 20 1 Q. Can you tell us briefly what additional equipment 2 you needed at that time? 3 A. Well, I probably, at that time, I needed a whole 4 gamut of the noise measuring equipment. It's hard for me to 5 reflect just what I had at the time and what I didn't have at 6 the time. Probably at that time I had a very minimal amount 7 of equipment to deal with the things that were likely to crop 8 up. 9 I did have the dust counting capabilities, as you .fWl A 10 know, at the time. I had certain fuedr-type instrumentation, ^ 11 but I think probably I lacked .a mercury meter and an ability 12 to check ionizing radiation, and these things were fairly 13 essential and necessary. 14 Prior to this sometimes I filled the gap by being 15 able to borrow this kind of equipment here and there, but things 16 were awkward. I think also I lacked all the necessary 17 equipment to monitor the air supply that the people were using 18 air supply respirators with. - 19 Q. What were these employees using the air supply 20 respirators for, what type of work? 21 A. Sandblasters used air supply respirators, and 22 painters used air supply respirators that were involved in 23 painting inside compartments of ships. This maybe about 24 covered it. j 25 Q. Do you know if any workers were working with or 26 around asbestos insulation products were using air supply 27 respirators? 28 MR. CARLSON: When? MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013010 21 1 MR. MARDEN: At the time he was asking for new equipment. 2 THE WITNESS: No. Asbestos workers never used air line 3 respirators when I was there. 4 Q. BY MR. MARDEN: At the time that you wrote this 5 report to Commander Smith, did you have control over the 6 industrial hygiene department budget? - 7 A. No. ' 8 0. Did you eventually receive control over the 9 department's budget? . 10 A. No. 11 Q. At the time you wrote this report to 12 Commander Smith, were you attending conferences and conventions 13 of the American Industrial Hygienist Association on a regular 14 basis? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Can you tell us how often you would attend these 17 conventions or conferences? 18 A. The conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist 19 in conjunction with the American Industrial Hygiene conference 20 was scheduled once a year, and I attended every one of those 21 conferences except one. 22 Q. Which one did younot attend? 23 A. I did not attend the conference in Chicago which 24 happened in 1967, soon after I came aboard. 25 Q. But you attendedevery conference after 1967 until 26 the time you left the yard in 1974? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. At the time you wrote the report to Commander Smith MIDDl.ETOS, O'BRIF.S & PAY MT-PWHD-013011 22 1 were the medical officers that you were reporting to supportive 2 of your efforts as industrial hygienist? 3 A. Commander Smith was the medical officer. 4 Q. Was Commander Smith supportive of your program? 5 A. My attitude, I believe, at the time was that he 6 was not aggressively supporting the program, and this.was one 7 of the purposes in writing the memorandum to him, to get his 8 attention to outline the problems and hopefully get some action 9 MR. MARDEN: Off the record. . 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 Q. BY MR. MARDEN: Now, Mr. Manning, have you ever 12 reviewed Navy Order 5100? 13 A. Could you be more specific? Does it have a title? 14 Q. I don't recall the title. I do believe it was 15 a directive regarding the elimination of asbestos from ships. 16 MR. NELSON: He means OPNAV instructions. That's 17 published by the Operations in Washington. 18 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I know what it means. Do you know 19 the date of that report? 20 Q. BY MR. MARDEN: I believe it was inNovember, 196 9 . 21 A. 5100, you say? 22 Q. Right. 23 A. I think that I would have been familiar with that. 24 I got -- the answer would be yes, at the time I was familiar 25 with it. I don't have a recollection of exactly what it 26 contains at this time without it being before me. 27 Q. Do you have any specific recollection of OPNAV 28 instruction 5100.26? M1DDLETOS, O'BRIES & PA Y MT-PWHD-013012 23 1 A. I have a vague recollection. 2 Q. Can you describe for us what your vague recollection 3 is? 4 A. If that's the report of the time you say it is, 5 it contained various guidelines for control of probably 6 asbestos container material. . 7 Q. Do you know, sir, if any efforts were taken at 8 Long Beach Naval Shipyard to comply with the guidelines set 9 forth in this instruction 5100.26? . 10 A. I think that regulation which was a guideline 11 contained requirements that the Shipyard personnel be 12 indoctrinated into the, as to the dangers of working with 13 asbestos and precautions to be taken, I believe, twice a year. 14 I think it would have contained other things like the 15 ventilation should be applied to the situation, wetting-down 16 procedures. I believe it probably contained requirements that 17 waste material be collected in plastic bags. 18 Q. When you refer to waste material, you mean asbestos 19 waste material? 20 A. Asbestos waste material; respirators should be 21 worn by people who work with asbestos-containing material. 22 Q. Do you know, sir, if an indoctrination program was 23 set up at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 24 A. Yes. 25 MR. CARLSON: At any time? - 26 MR. MARDEN: Let me rephrase the question. 27 Q. Do you know, sir, if an indoctrination program was 28 set up at Long Beach Naval Shipyard subsequent to the issuance MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013013 24 1 of 5100.26? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Prior to that directive had you ever conducted an 4 educational program regarding asbestos? 5 . A. Yes. I participated .in such a program. 6 Q. Can you recall the date of that program? 7 A. That indoctrination -- those indoctrination meetings 8 'were held in February, 1968. As I recall, there were five 9 separate meetings in which I, along with numerous other people, 10 the supervisory types that supervised the asbestos workers, 11 plus the safety department, helped indoctrinate these workers 12 and educate them. 13 Q. Who were the workers that this program in February, 14 1968, was directed to? - 15 A. I think the workers exclusively were the pipe 16 coverers and insulators. 17 Q. Do you recall what shop the pipe coverers and the 18 insulators worked out of? . 19 A. Shop 56. 20 Q. Was it mandatory for the workers out of Shop 56 to 21 attend this indoctrination program in February of 1968? 22 A. I had nothing to do with whether the people 23 attended or didn't attend. Getting the people to the meeting 24 was the responsibility of, number one, I think the training 25 department and the supervision of the pipe coverers and 26 insulators. I think the theory was they were required to attend 27 and the supervision were responsible for seeing that they got 28 to the meeting. MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013014 25 1 Q. Do you recall the substance' of those meetings held 2 in February of 1968? 3 A. I recall my part of it. By that time 4 Dr. Irvin Selikoff's initial reports were public, in print. 5 I first went over the content of Bill Marr's report and told 6 them things that probably they already knew, were the most 7 dangerous. I did tell them about the content of Dr. Selikoff's 8 report, the new information that people who worked or were 9 exposed to asbestos were likely to contract a higher incidence 10 of cancer, mostly of the lungs. 11 I did point out the findings of that report that 12 indicated that smokers who also worked with asbestos were likely 13 to have a much higher incidence of cancer. . 14 The other people there pointed out some of the 15 practical aspects of controlling the exposure. I remember 16 Art Raymond who is the superintendent of Shop 56 pointed out 17 the workers could work in such a fashion that they wouldn't 18 produce as much dust by using the proper kind of tools. 19 That's about all I recall at those meetings. 20 Q. Now, do you recall when the next series of 21 educational meetings were held regarding asbestos at Long Beach 22 Naval Shipyard? 23 A. Yes. There were a series of meetings that were 24 held in the summer, I think around June of 1971, and these 25 were held in the building occupied by the safety department, 26 and these meetings, all the first line supervisors, foremen, 27 supposedly all, I can't vouch for that, but held indoctrination 28 sessions for the front line supervisors, foremen of all the MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013015 26 1 shops in the Shipyard in regard to protecting workers from the 2 hazards of working with asbestos or around it. 3 Q. Were any of the actual employees that were doing 4 the work involved with these meetings that were held in June 5 of 1971? 6 A. No. .. 7 Q. To your knowledge, sir, were indoctrination meetings, 8 as you testified were required by OPNAV nstruction 5100.26 9 ever held on a continual basis twice a year? . 10 A. Yes. There were two meetings held in 1972, and 11 I think one in May, and the other in probably October. 12 Q. Were there two meetings held in 197 3? 13 A. No. 14 Q. How many meetings were held in 1973? 15 A. There was one such indoctrination session in 16 November of 1973. 17 Q. Do you recall any reason why, sir, two meetings 18 were not held in 1973? 19 A. My recollection is that during that time I was 20 swamped with other work. For instance, I had, then was 21 involved in this indoctrinating everyone in the Shipyard 22 regarding the noise hazards, and we were holding meetings twice 23 a day with groups of possibly 30 or 50 shipyard workers, and 24 there were hearing loss claims to be reprocessed and pressing 25 work that was just overload in the past or something. 26 These recollections or instructions that you 27 refer to do not have the force of law. They were guidelines, 28 and although they are printed by or sent out by somebody in MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA V MT-PWHD-013016 27 1 Washington, these regulations, OPNAV I guess in this case, 2 all these instructions are reviewed inside the Shipyard, and 3 from these Shipyard instructions that probably included in the 4 safety manual are written up and signed by the Shipyard 5 commander. The Shipyard commander has the same authority as 6 a captain of a ship at sea. He is final authority, and he has 7 the right to accept or reject these kind of guidelines. 8 Q. Thank you. During the period that you were 9 providing indoctrination programs to asbestos workers, did you 10 find or experience any resistance from management personnel as 11 to calling these men away from their jobs for these programs? 12 A. In the area of these asbestos indoctrinations, I 13 know of no resistance. In the area of indoctrination and 14 hearing loss, conserving hearing, there was sometimes that 15 groups didn't show up. These kind of things naturally took 16 men away from their work, and there was, from time to time, 17 resistance of this nature. I didn't particularly have to 18 contend with it. 19 Education and training and indoctrination were 20 in the hands of a group that had this responsibility. As I 21 say, I was not directly involved in getting the people to these 22 sessions. 23 Q. In seeing that special clothing was issued to 24 workers who were working, with or around asbestos products? f 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. When was that? 27 A. It probably was somewhere around 1970, in there. 28 I am kind of vague on just when it was. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013017 28 1 0. Do you know when the guideline or order was issued 2 that special clothing would be provided to pipe coverers and 3 insulators? 4 A. Best of my recollection, it was around 1970 that 5 the directive came outof Washington. It probably was a 6 NavShips instruction. . 7 Q. Do you know when:the Shipyard complied with that 8 directive? 9 A. It was much later. , 10 Q. Can you tell us how much later? 11 A. It was probably a year and a half to two years. 12 0. Can you tell us what the difficulties were in 13 implementing that program? 14 A. Initially, the understanding that the production 15 officer, along with possibly the head of the mechanical group 16 which was Frank Nease, and the other gentleman was 17 Captain Chapman, opposed the idea of providing coveralls for 18 these workmen. 19 Q. Then did they oppose that program? 20 A. I believe they objected to the added cost. 21 MR. NELSON: When was this, sir? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, it may have been 1969 or thereabouts 23 that directive came out, because Captain -- I am thinking about 24 when Captain Chapman served. He was production officer out 25 there when I first came aboard and was that for maybe two years 26 So it probably came out about - correct my earlier statement - 27 about 1969. 28 Q. BY MR. MARDEN: So 196 9 the directive came out MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PA >' MT-PWHD-013018 29 1 regarding special clothing for asbestos workers; correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Can you describe for us what this special 4 clothing was? 5 A. I believe the content of that instruction was that 6 the pipe coverers and insulators were to be supplied with 7 coveralls before each shift and that they were to remove these 8 coveralls when they came back from their work and turn them in, 9 that these coveralls would be laundered. Also, I think it was 10 necessary to provide lockers for each man in order to change 11 clothing. 12 Q. Approximately a year and a half to two years after 13 this directive came down, that program was implemented; correct'' 14 A Yes. 15 Q. Were you ever involved, sir, in obtaining 16 differential pay for asbestosworkers? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q, When was that? 19 A. My recollection that differential pay was indicated 20 is probably December of '69. I gradually became involved over 21 a period of years. 22 Q. Do you know, sir, when asbestos workers began to 23 receive a differential pay for working with asbestos products? 24 A. Probably about ayear later. Probably '70, 25 somewhere in that area. 26 Q. Do you know the basis for giving asbestos workers 27 that differential pay? 28 A. Well, the reason for writing the differential pay MIDDl.ETOS. O'BRIF.S & PA Y MT-PWHD-013019 30 1 plan, as far as I could discern, was to compensate workers 2 for hazardous conditions that the management could not entirely 3 control or could not guarantee that the worker was safe. That, 4 I believe, was the intent of the directive. 5 . 0- Do you know what shop or members of what shop 6 received differential pay? 7 A. Not entirely. I can tell you what I recommended. 8 I recommended that the asbestos workers receive differential 9 pay and that the personnel working in the electroplating shop 10 have differential pay, and I thought that anything beyond that 11 should be handled on a case basis and looked at. 12 Q. When you say asbestos workers, do you refer to 13 those employees working out of Shop 56? . 14 A. The pipe coverers and insulators and probably the 15 boilermakers who were involved in working with asbestos, and 16 these were a part of Shop 56 -- beg your pardon. Pipe coverers 17 and insulators are a part of Shop 56. Boilermakers are a part 18 of Shop 41. . 19 Q. Were you ever present when a group from the 20 insulation industrial health research program toured Long Beach 21 Naval Shipyard? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you recallwhen that tour took place? 24 A. I believe it was probably 197 0. . 25 Q. Do you recall who the individuals were that made 26 up that group? 27 A. There was a Dr.Nickerson. 28 Q. Dickerson? MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013020 31 1 A. Nickerson, I believe. Duncan Holiday, a 2 Dr. Hammond, and Bob Reitze, and that was it, I think. 3 Q. How long were they at the Yard? 4 A. They spent the better part of a day in the Yard. 5 Q. Do you know their purpose for touring the Yard? 6 A. Well, that group was, I think, part of Dr. Selikoff s 7 organization, and they probably wanted to familiarize themselves 8 with the working conditions of people who worked with asbestos 9 in the shipyard overhaul. ' 10 Q. Did you have any discussions with any members of 11 that group regarding how asbestos products were being used in 12 the shipyard? 13 A. I had brief conversations with that group. I was 14 not heavily involved with them. 15 Q. Who was the individual that was responsible for 16 leading that group through the Yard? 17 A. Web Ay. 18 Q. When you left Long Beach Naval Shipyard in February, 19 1974, did you leave your files and records there? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was the dust count equipment left in good working 22 order? ' 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was your replacement hired before you left? 25 A. No. 26 Q. Do you know when a replacement finally was hired? 27 A. Oh, some three months later. 28 Q. Do you know thatindividual's name? MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013021 32 1 A. Last name was Unmark. First name was Frank. 2 Q. Do you know when Mr. Unmark began at the Yard? 3 A. I believe it was probably May of '74. 4 MR. MARDEN: Sir, I have no further questions at this 5 time. 6 Why don't we take a brief break. . 7 (Brief recess taken.) 8 9 EXAMINATION ." 10 BY MR. NELSON: 11 Q. Mr. Manning, my name is Don Nelson. I represent 12 Raybestos-Manhattan in the San Francisco litigation. 13 Earlier, when Mr. Marden was directing questions 14 to you, he asked you about a couple of meetings that were held 15 in 1972 and one meeting that was held in 1973, the purpose of 16 which meetings was to indoctrinate shipyard personnel themselves. 17 My question is: What categories of workers were those 18 indoctrination sessions directed toward? . 19 R. Those sessions, we addressed all the pipe coverers 20 and insulators, and in one of those sessions we indoctrinated 21 people who worked in the boiler shop who were involved with 22 working with asbestos materials. 23 Q. Can you;be a bit more specific on what you told 24 these people about asbestos? 25 A. Well, I certainly told them about the dangers 26 involved in working with asbestos, both the possibility of 27 contracting fibrosis which was the original asbestos from 28 breathing the fibers and causing lung scarring which would MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013022 33 1 reduce the effectiveness of their lungs.. I also pointed out 2 the danger involved with breathing asbestos whereby the 3 incidence of cancer in those people breathing asbestos was 4 increased. 5 I pointed out the effect of smoking that enhanced 6 and increased the incidence of contracting cancer. I pointed 7 out that -- we pointed out at the time that really the 8 defense that we had was probably inadequate as far as ventilation 9 was concerned, all the half-measures that we tried, to apply, 10 that it was highly desirable for them to wear their 11 respirators as much and as often as they could. 12 From time to time I think included in that was I 13 pointed out that the work habits had a lot to do with how much 14 dust was put in the air, that I pointed out it was highly 15 desirable to use a knife instead of a hatchet in a rip-out, 16 and that it was good practice to put this asbestos-containing 17 waste material in plastic bags and tie it up, that good 18 housekeeping in these situations is highly desirable; that the 19 vacuum method should be used for clean up instead of sweeping, 20 et cetera. 21 Q. Did it become mandatory that these practices which 22 you recommended or instructed the workers about, that these 23 practices be followed? 24 ft. All these practices became a part of the Shipyard 25 safety manual. 26 Q. Starting in 1972 or 1973 or at the same point in 27 time as these meetings were being held - 28 ft. They were in effect when these meetings were held. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013023 34 1 Of course, enforcement of these kind of regulations is difficult. 2 Q. What do you mean by that? Were there any 3 provisions for enforcing these regulations? If so, how were 4 they enforced? 5 A. Actually, there was -- any enforcement of anything 6 in the Shipyard was in the hands of the first line supervisor, 7 and this was part of the union contract which the Shipyard 8 Metal Trades Council had signed with the Shipyard commander, 9 and the enforcement was in the hands of the foreman. Adverse 10 procedures against any worker had to be initiated by foremen. 11 So that generally these kind of things to be put in effect had 12 to be accepted by the workmen, and they had to be shown it was 13 in their own interest and motivate some way to do these things. 14 Q. Did most people comply, to your knowledge? 15 R. In the area of wearing respirators, I would say 16 most people did not comply. 17 0. Did not comply? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. How about any other areas? For example, wearing 20 special clothing, coveralls. 21 A. This they did religiously because they were issued 22 coveralls in the morning at a specific place,and to my 23 knowledge they always wore their coveralls. 24 Q. Did they use vacuum methods as opposed to sweeping 25 after they were so instructed? 26 A. Not always. In some cases vacuum methods were 27 not available. I was highly involved even late in my tenure 28 at the Shipyard in getting some light weight type vacuum MIDDLETON. O'BRIES & PAY MT-PWHD-013024 35 1 cleaners or easy to move around ones made available in the 2 Shipyard, and before I left they were available. Before that 3 there were commercial-type vacuum cleaners which were very 4 heavy and bulky, and I know at times people, in instances, 5 brooms were used. 6 I had instances brought to my attention where 7 somebody, maybe not the workers, but sometimes a habit of 8 possibly ship's crew to, what they call blow down a compartment 9 to get a nozzle of compressed air and blow that stuff all over 10 the place, and this was their idea of a cleanup. These things 11 happened. -. 12 In one instance I remember there was a group in 13 the Shipyard, in the Environmental Health Center in 14 Cincinnati, I had taken them into a compartment where there was 15 a rip-out in progress, and they had taken samples and observed 16 the whole thing, and I left that compartment for some other 17 purpose to meet somebody in the ship or another purpose, and 18 after that happened somebody picked up a nozzle and blew the 19 whole place down, and this was brought to the ship commander's 20 attention. 21 He says that -- of course, he said maybe that's a 22 case for some disciplinary action, which he was talking out of 23 his -- there was no way of applying disciplinary action, 24 because nobody knew who it was, first, and &gain, he had signed 25 a contract that the workers, if there is any disciplinary 26 action initiated, it would be by the first line foreman. 27 Q. Who was the Shipyard commander whenyou arrived at 28 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? ' MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013025 36 1 A. It was Admiral Dolan. 2 Q. Do you know if he is still in the Navy? 3 A. No. - 4 Q. Is he out of the Navy? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. How long was he Shipyard commander after you arrived 7 there? 8 A. Possibly a year. 9 Q. Who took his place? , 10 A. The captain, later Admiral Hart, H-a-r-t. 11 Q. How long was Admiral Hart there? 12 A. He remained three years, I think. 13 Q. From '68 to '71, roughly? 14 A. (Indicating in the affirmative.) 15 Q. Who after Admiral Hart? 16 A. There was a Captain Fay, and he had a tour of 17 similar length. 18 Q. Was he in charge when you left in March, '75? 19 A. He had been replaced only recently by . 20 Captain Doncheck, I believe his name was. 21 Q. That was back in '74, approximately? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Couple other questions. Do you think -- let me 24 put it this way. What percentage of the workers, of the 25 asbestos workers at the Long Beach Shipyard do you think you 26 were able to communciate with or get your message to back in 27 '72, '73, when you were having these indoctrination sessions 28 of all the asbestos workers there? You told me the categories MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013026 37 1 of workers. Did you get to 100 percent of the workers? Did 2 they get the message? 3 A. I would have no way of knowing whether everybody 4 that was involved in working with asbestos got to those 5 sessions That was not my responsibility, to see who got there 6 and who didn't, but it was my understanding that of everybody 7 involved every effort would be made to get them there. 8 Q. Did they have a sign-in sheet? 9 A. To my knowledge, no. 10 Q. In 1970, a group from the Insulation Industrial 11 Health Research Group came through the Shipyard, and you 12 indicated that Web Ay was responsible for leading this group 13 through the Yard. 14 Do you know Mr. Web Ay? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you still have contact with him now? 17 A. He is deceased. 18 Q- I am sorry. . 19 A. Cancer of the lung. 20 Q. Do you know Charles Ay? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you have contact with him now? 23 A. Not on a regular basis. I have -- last time I 24 saw Charles Ay was at the trial in which I testified, the 25 Hogard trial. I believe he was in attendance, and I saw him 26 and briefly talked with him. 27 Q. Were you and Charles Ay at the Long Beach Shipyard 28 during at least some period of time in common? Is that right? MIDDLETOS. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013027 _____________________________________________________________________________ 38 1 A. I think the entire period. 2 Q. Do you know what his job was there? 3 A. He was a pipe coverer and insulator, and at one 4 time he was a foreman. Pipe covering insulator some period of 5 time-. 6 0- In performing your duties as industrial hygienist 7 at the Shipyard, in the course of your duties did you ever have 8 occasion to have professional contact with him? In other words 9 did you work -- . 10 A. Would you rephrase the question for me? 11 Q. Sure. Did you ever work with Charles Ay in the 12 course of performing your job as industrial hygienist? 13 A. No. 14 Q, How did you first come to know him? 15 A. I had contact with numerous people that worked in 16 the Shipyard, and he was one of them. I didn't have any great 17 contact with Charlie Ay. 18 I first met him when I was a worker, I think, and 19 he had, as I recall, some kind of complaint about smoke getting 20 into a compartment in which he was working. 21 o. Do you recall when you first met him. Mr. Manning 22 A. Probably 1967, sometime thereabouts. It was when 23 the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY was being overhauled in the Shipyard, 24 and I recall that he was one of the complainants and that I 25 met him there and, of course, knew who he was, the Ay family 26 being not too widely a known name, and over the course of time 27 I would have contact with him. 28 I think I took samples in situations where he was MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013028 39 1 the foreman. That was about it. 2 Q. In what situations was he the foreman where you 3 took samples? 4 A. Well, I recall one instance where I was called out 5 by Web. 6 Q. That's his father, for the record; right? 7 A. Huh? 8 Q. Web is Charlie's father, for the record? 9 A. Yes. Asked by Web to check out a situation that 10 was aboard a tanker and where there was some, supposedly some 11 exposure, and I took samples, '.and Charlie happened to be the 12 foreman in charge of the group that was working. . 13 Q- . Aboard the ship? 14 A. Yes. 15 MR. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Manning. I have no further 16 questions. 17 18 EXAMINATION . 19 BY MR. DICKERSON: 20 Q. Mr. Manning, my name is John Dickerson. I represen: 21 Celotex Corporation in the Bay Area litigation. 22 You mentioned a Long Beach Shipyard employee earlier 23 today by the name of Robert Manning. Is that any relation 24 to you? 25 A. No. 26 Q. You also mentioned that you had a job description 27 when you were hired. Has it ever been reduced to writing? 28 A. Yes. My recollection would be that's in the MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013029 40 1 records somewhere in the first deposition, and it was part of 2 a large number of documents that were subpoened and transcribed 3 Q. Well, as long as we know where to get it. 4 Also, between 1963 and 1967, as I understand it, 5 there was no industrial hygienist at all at the Long Beach 6 Shipyard; is that right? . 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was there somebody at -the Long Beach Shipyard who 9 performed a substantial percentage of the duties described in 10 your job description during that four-year period? 11 A. Two and a half year period, I believe. 12 Q. Okay. I have it down as '63 to '67, but -- 13 A. Whatever. '64 to mid '67, I guess. 14 Q, Was there anybody at the Shipyard who performed a 15 substantial portion of what is listed on your job description? 16 A. Best of my knowledge, the safety department 17 attempted to fill in in that area. I know that at least one 18 individual in the industrial laboratory was going some, 19 answering some questions and doing some work in this area. 20 Q. What was his name? 21 A. Well, in regard possibly to toxicity or shipping 22 dangerous materials. The reason I know this, I walked into his 23 office and heard him in telephone conversation telling somebody 24 giving out information in this area, and he had the textbook 25 written by Sax that I mentioned in front of him, and he was 26 giving out information. 27 Q. Can you tell me the name of this individual? 28 A. His last name was Levetan. I can't remember his M1DDLETOS, O'BRIES' & PAY MT-PWHD-013030 _________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 41_ 1 first name. 2 Q. Do you know if he is still at the Shipyard? 3 A. No. He retired soon after I came aboard. 4 Q. Do you know if the safety department was doing any 5 dust counts between in that two and a half year period we are 6 talking about in the mid '60's? 7 A. The safety department didn't have any such 8 capability. _ 9 Q. As a matter of fact, the capability to. do dust 10 counts didn't exist until sometime after you were hired; is 11 that right? . 12 A. No. Bill Marr took some dust counts during his 13 tenure. 14 Q. . Well, what I am getting at: To your knowledge, 15 what happened to the equipment and so forth between the time 16 Marr left and the time you arranged to have the proper 17 equipment in about 1968? 18 A. Bill Marr borrowed the equipment that he used to 19 make his study from the California Department of Health, and it 20 was a Bausch & Lomb dust counter, and I heard this when I 21 visited that office and talked to Paul Kaplan, and this 22 particular dust counter is not the one prescribed in the 23 standard procedure then in effect for counting dust. This is 24 one of the criticisms in Marr's study that really the dust 25 counts were not done in the prescribed method. 26 Q. Can you tell me who manufactured the Midget 27 impingers that you used while you were at Long Beach? 28 A. No, I don't know. MIDDLETOX. O'BRIEX & PA Y MT-PWHD-013031 42 1 Q. To your knowledge, were there any disciplinary 2 proceedings initiated against any pipe coverers or insulators 3 at Long Beach for failure to comply with asbestos safety rules 4 while you were there? 5 - A. No. 6 Q. Were you ever involved when you were at the Long 7 Beach Shipyard in an* effort to remove any one particular brand 8 of pipe covering from the Shipyard? _ . 9 A. No. 10 Q. To your knowledge, was there ever such an effort 11 made? 12 A. Yes. Prior to my arrival and afterward there was 13 an effort made by people who -- well, Web Ay, other people, 14 to eliminate the material I believe was called Unibestos that 15 contained almost a hundred percent amosite, and I guess was 16 manufactured by Pittsburgh-Corning Manufacturing Company, 17 among other people. 18 0. To your knowledge, was there ever an effort made 19 to remove any other pipe covering product by Web Ay or 20 Charlie Ay or any of the other pipe coverer insulators? . 21 A. As part of the effort as it developed over a period 22 of years it became plain to me and other people who were 23 involved in this that the elimination of this problem totally 24 involved 100 percent substitution of other materials for 25 asbestos in the contents of shipyard.overhaul. 26 Somewhere along the line, very early, there were 27 efforts made to reach people in authority who had responsibility 28 for acquiring materials for making that. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN <& PA Y MT-PWHD-013032 43 1 Q. Who are the people in authority who was responsible 2 for acquiring materials, or who were they when the effort was 3 made to eliminate asbestos? 4 A. Well, there is - 5 0- I don't mean specific names, but what would their 6 job titles be? 7 A. I don't know their job titles. There were people 8 who were deep in the bureaucracy in Washington in the office 9 of material command whose job it was to first write up 10 specifications for these materials and other people who were 11 involved in signing contracts for the purchase of these 12 materials. 13 Q. ' Can you tell me what time period we are talking 14 about here? When did this start, this effort? 15 A. This effort? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. Well, in that firstreport thatI wrote dated, 18 I think 1969, I recall making the statement in view of the fact 19 that asbestos materials are implicated in the higher incidence 20 of cancer and asbestos workers, that it's very difficult to see 21 what kind of level of exposure, if any, would be safe. 22 Q. Who besides you was involved in this effort? 23 A. Web Ay, among others,tried toget the message 24 across. There were several meetings with the shipyard commander 25 in which I accompanied an officer from the Bureau of Medicine 26 in Washington, and we went up and -- 27 Q. When you say "I accompanied to this meeting," you 28 mean Sheldon Manning and not Web Ay? MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013033 44 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I just wantthe record to beclear onthat. The 3 same thing about Sheldon Manning's report and not Webster Ay's 4 report? The report you wrote? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You weregoing tothe shipyard commander? . 7 A. In my level, it was very difficult to communicate 8 with people who were in Washington and responsible for this, 9 and I never did get any direct communication with them. I had 10 to work through other people, and so did Web Ay, and I had 11 thought that possibly the people in BUMED who was kind of 12 responsible would have some kind of influence. Apparently 13 they did not have enough at that time anyway to reach these 14 people. 15 Q. So the bottom line is you were more or less 16 unsuccessful in this effort; is that correct? 17 A. Bottom line is that gradually over a period of time 18 while I was there, for instance, last cloth was substituted 19 for asbestos cloth in the pad shop, and there were instances 20 when the asbestos would reappear. Gradually there appeared in 21 the Shipyard preformed insulation material that used glass as 22 a binder instead of asbestos. I think over that period of time 23 I believe Web said, "Well, we have reduced maybe 40 percent of 24 what we were using sometime prior to that," maybe when they 25 were using all asbestos materials. There was some progress in 26 this area. We just couldn't stop it altogether. 27 Q. I didn't mean to interrupt you. 28 A. And, of course, the big problem was that every ship MIDDLETOS. O'BRIF.S & PAY MT-PWHD-013034 45 1 in the Navy had asbestos material, probably, covering pipes 2 and boilers, and this stuff had to be removed on overhaul, and 3 this is where a very large part of your exposure lay. 4 Q. Have you ever been to a shipyard at Mare Island in 5 Vallejo, California? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you have anyfirst-handknowledge at all 8 concerning the asbestos hazard control program at Mare Island 9 in their shipyard? . 10 A. No. 11 MR. DICKERSON: That's all I have. Thank you. 12 MS. GRASSI: I have no questions. 13 MR. SHEPHERD: I have just a few, Mr. Manning. 14 15 EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. SHEPHERD: 17 Q. My name isMichael Shepherd, and Iam representing 18 GAF Corporation in the San Francisco litigation. 19 You testified earlier about the memorandum you 20 wrote to Commander Smith which you said was designed to bring 21 the problem to his attention and to, I guess, encourage him to 22 be more aggressive in his approach to the situation. What was 23 Commander Smith's reaction? 24 A. There was a reply written with that memorandum, 25 signed by Commander Smith, I believe written by an administrative 26 officer. There was some concessions made. 27 Much of that memorandum reply was rather negative. 28 I think the administrative officer's attitude more or less MIDDLETOS. O'BRIES & PA >' MT-PWHD-013035 46 1 formed by the attitude of the previous medical officer. 2 Captain Watkins, during the time he was the administrative 3 officer, he had charge of the budget, and he was not very 4 supportive of my program. I think partly because of ignorance, 5 partly because he was influenced by the previous medical 6 officer's attitude. Does that answer your question? 7 Q. Yes, it does. Thank you. Do you feel that the 8 one and a half year delay in receiving, the recommended coverall:; 9 was a reflection of his, as you have characterized it, lack 10 of an aggressive support of the program? 11 A. In answer to your question, I would say this, that 12 the decision as to implementing that program or not was not, 13 I don't believe, left in his hands. My understanding of what 14 happened was that the production officer interceded, was given 15 the authority to deal with this, and as is, with officers with 16 high rank in the Navy, Captain Chapman probably was very familic 17 with the job of overhauling ships or possibly using ships in 18 combat, and as he dealt with things further and further from 19 that area, he was less knowledgeable, and with people with 20 this kind of authority, tend to make snap decisions and with 21 quick and easy solutions to complex problems is the way it 22 turns out. 23 I think the weakness here is that these people did 24 not rely on the judgment of people who were hired, like myself, 25 to work in special areas which he probably had little knowledge. 26 That probably was the weakness of all bureaucracies. 27 Q. At the meetings that were held in 1972 and '73 28 that we discussed earlier, you said you recommended the use of MIDDLETOS. O'BRIES & PAY MT-PWHD-013036 __________________________________ '________________________________________________ 47 1 respirators. Was this a suggestion coordinated with a plan 2 for larger ventilation procedures, burning holes in the'side 3 of the ship, for example? 4 A. As control measures progressed, there were attempts 5 to increase the ventilation in these spaces, but by the nature 6 of construction of ships, the fact that it is not healthy and 7 you have limited access to these compartments, there is a limit 8 to how much ventilation you can put in. 9 To point out, one of the answers was to burn holes 10 in the side not only to better ventilation for these 11 compartments, but it made it easier to eliminate waste materials, 12 also. There is a limit to how many holes you can burn in a 13 ship, also. Generally it is limited to maybe the boiler room. 14 Q. Assuming that both the ventilation and respirator 15 procedures could be implemented, would you find one procedure 16 more beneficial or more useful than another, or would you 17 recommend respirators in reference to other ventilation efforts'' 18 A. You are probably asking two questions. I will 19 answer this way: In the context of overhauling ships in Naval 20 shipyards, it is my opinion that there was no way of supplying 21 enough ventilation to eliminate the hazard. 22 To your question about the effect of respirators, 23 it is well-known and in industrial hygiene practice and taught 24 in, for instance, by the U.S. Public Health Service, that the 25 type of respirator that we are referring to should not be 26 relied on exclusively for elimination of any hazard, that these 27 things should only be used for a fairly short period of time 28 until proper and adequate procedures, other engineering MIDDLETOS. O'BRIES & PAY MT-PWHD-013037 48 1 procedures or whatever can be applied. 2 Does that answer your question? 3 Q. Yes. Thank you. One other thing. One other line 4 of questioning I would like to pursue. 5 You mentioned that Art Raymond who is a 6 superintendent of Shop 56 pointed out, please correct me if I 7 am characterizing your testimony improperly, that with the use 8 of proper tools, the workers could hold down the amount of 9 dust produced. Is that correct? . 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did you find in your review of this recommendation 12 or this suggestion that proper tools were not available to the 13 workers? 14 A. Proper tools were available. 15 MR. SHEPHERD: Very good. Thank you very much. 16 17 EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 18 BY MR. NELSON: 19 Q. Mr. Manning, who was Commander Smith? What 20 specifically was his job title? What did he do at the Shipyard? 21 A. His job title was medical officer of the Naval 22 Shipyard. 23 Q. And he reported to the Shipyard commander? - 24 A. He reported directly to the Shipyard commander. 25 MR. NELSON: Thank you very much. 26 THE WITNESS: Later on when the administrative change 27 came, why, of course, the setup changed then which occurred in 28 August of 1972, and then he would report to the head of the MIDDLETOX. O'BRIEX & PAY MT-PWHD-013038 49 1 Naval Regional Medical Center. 2 MR. NELSON: Do you know if he is still in the Navy? 3 THE WITNESS: He is not in the Navy. He is retired. 4 MR. NELSON: Do you know when that was? 5 . THE WITNESS: Not specifically. It was maybe a couple of 6 years after I left. 7 MR. NELSON: Thank you, sir. 8 9 10 BY MR. DICKERSON: EXAMINATION (RESUMED) . " 11 Q. Just one more. The Naval Regional Medical Center, 12 is it true this is an organization rather than the name of a 13 building or something like that? 14 A. The Naval Regional Medical Center is an organization. 15 Q. It's not a specific hospital or anything like that? 16 A. Encompasses, among other things, the Long Beach 17 Naval Hospital and other facilities. . 18 MR. DICKERSON: Thank you. 19 MR. CARLSON: Any other questions around the table? 20 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. CARLSON: 23 Q. Mr. Manning, when you were employed with the 24 Pennsylvania Department of Health, what were your job duties? 25 A. Well, again, it was involved, the thumbnail 26 definition of what is an industrial hygienist, and it's the 27 recognition and evaluation and control of industrial health 28 hazards, specifically in trying to -- MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013039 50 1 The- kind of work that I was involved in was 2 inspection of industrial plants, in large part, to discover 3 whether or not there were industrial health hazards that were 4 not controlled. 5 If, in the event I found a situation that I thought 6 might be out of control or needed to be defined, I would then 7 go in later and take' samples and make measurements and try to 8 define the situation. .. 9 If in fact I thought it was out of control, I then 10 wrote -- in any event, wrote a report, but if it was out of 11 control, then wrote a report containing recommendations 12 designed to control the problem, whatever it was. 13 Q. These were private industry shops or facilities you 14 were touring; is that correct? 15 A. Yes, for the most part. 16 Q. Did you ever find any situations where it was 17 required to make recommendations to curb some potential hazards'' 18 MR. MARDEN: Throughout the entire period? ' 19 MR. CARLSON: Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 Q. BY MR. CARLSON: And did you ever encounter any 22 resistance on the employer's part in implementing those 23 recommendations? 24 A. Sometimes. 25 Q. How long was the maximum time that you can recall . 26 between you recommending a safety change and that change being 27 implemented? 28 A. Sometimes a year. MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013040 51 1 Q. Mr. Manning, when was the first time you ever heard 2 about the fact that asbestos when breathed caused a health 3 problem to human beings? , 4 A. Soon after I started to work as industrial hygienisu 5 I became aware of a list of potentially hazardous materials, 6 and early on which would have been, would have some knowledge 7 that asbestos would cause fibrosis. 8 Q. This is around 1961 or '62, sometime around there? 9 A. 1961. .' 10 Q. When you first became aware of asbestos as a 11 potential health hazard, was it your understanding that the 12 danger in working with asbestos was to mine workers and factory 13 workers rather than to people using the end products? 14 MR. MARDEN: I am going to object to that question on 15 the ground it is vague and ambiguous. 16 MR. NELSON: Can we have a stipulation that the objection 17 of one defendant is the objection of all? 18 MR. CARLSON: Always. 19 0. Do you want me to repeat it? 20 A. Rephrase the question. 21 Q. Let me ask it again. At the time that you first 22 heard that asbestos was a health problem, was it your 23 understanding that the danger in working with the asbestos 24 was to mine workers and factory workers rather than to people 25 using asbestos products? 26 A. No. 27 Q. As of February, 1968, did you ever hear of or see 28 any warnings on any asbestos insulation products at the MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013041 52 1 Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 2 A. Best of my knowledge, no. 3 Q. At any time subsequent to that date did you ever 4 hear of or see any warning on asbestos insulation products at 5 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 6 A. Yes. . 7 Q. When was* the first time? 8 A. Actually printed on the container, it would have 9 been, I think, '70, '71, somewhere in there. . 10 Q. Do you remember what type of product it was that 11 you saw that on? '. 12 A. Preformed insulation, boxes. 13 Q. 14 stated? Do you remember in substance what the warning 15 A. Not really. \ 16 Q. As you sit here today, can you recall whether, when 17 seeing the warning, you felt it was an adequate warning? 18 MR. MARDEN: I am going to object on the grounds that -- 19 Well, we have got all the objections but form of 20 the question reserved to trial; right? 21 MR. CARLSON: Always. 22 MR. MARDEN: No objection at this time. 23 MR. NELSON: I will object on the ground it asks the 24 witness to speculate and form an opinion as to that which is 25 "adequate." 26 Q. BY MR. CARLSON: What I mean by "adequate," 27 Mr. Manning, is you, as an industrial hygienist, did you feel 28 it adequately told the worker of the potential warnings? I MIDDLETOS. O'BRIES & PAY MT-PWHD-013042 53 1 mean the potential hazards of working with the product. 2 A. I would say no. 3 Q. At any time have you ever heard of a Fleescher4 Drinker Report? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When would be the first time you heard of . that? 7 A. Oh, somebime in early '60's when I worked for the 8 Pennsylvania Department of Health. 9 Q. Can you recall what it is you heard about it at 10 that time? ' 11 A. I should think the report was part -- the 12 Fleescher-Drinker Report was part of the background material 13 in the nature that dealt with asbestos -- or Drinker and 14 Hatch wrote a book, I think, entitled Industrial Dust, which is 15 one of the references used in the business of industrial 16 hygiene, and I read the report, parts of that book, and that's 17 about the way I learned about what was in that report. 18 Q, Do you recall from that report what segment of the 19 population studied was exposed to asbestos over 20 years? 20 A. No. 21 0- There was a mention of an Insulation Industrial 22 Health Hygiene Institute who apparently toured Long Beach Naval 23 Shipyard in 1970. 24 Do you recall that question? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Do you know whether any of the individuals who 27 toured the Long Beach Naval Shipyard were employed by the 28 asbestos industry? MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013043 54 1 A Yes, Bob Reitze was employed by Johns-Mansville 2 Corporation. . 3 Q. Did Bob Reitze or any of the other individuals on 4 that tour give you or anyone, to your knowledge, any 5 information regarding the suppression of asbestos dust or the 6 health hazard problem? 7 MR. MARDEN: I will object on the ground it's compound. 8 Q. BY MR. CARLSON: Why don't you answer either half. 9 A Bob Reitze and I at that particular time had very 10 brief conversation, and to the best of my recollection what we 11 talked about was the upcoming new method of counting dust 12 which involved the membrane filter, and I think that was about 13 it. His time was taken up by other individuals. He did not 14 specifically come up with any recommendations that I recall. 15 Q. At any time prior to that 197 0 tour, were you ever 16 contacted in person or in writing by any representative of any 17 asbestos company? 18 A No. 19 Q. At any time prior to 197 0, were you ever made 20 aware of any brochures or safety instructional manuals published 21 by any asbestos company? 22 A. Prior to what? 23 Q. 197 0. 24 A No. 25 Q. At theindoctrination meetings which you held, did 26 you imply to the people in attendance that if they wore a 27 respirator they had little or no risk of getting any asbestos- 28 related disease? MIDDl.ETOX, O'BRIEX & PAY MT-PWHD-013044 55 1 A. No. 2 0. Did you tell those people in attendance to wear 3 a respirator when working with asbestos? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you tell them that the respirators that they 6 would be wearing were ineffective? . 7 A. No. ' 8 Q. Did you tell them that the respirators were 9 effective in suppression of asbestos dust? . 10 A. I told them that when and if they wore a 11 respirator that they were effective. 12 Q. When was the first time, if ever, that an 13 individual represting any asbestos company contacted you while 14 you were at Long Beach Naval Shipyard regarding the safety or 15 health hazards to do with asbestos? 16 A. I was never contacted by any manufacturer's 17 representative while I was at the Shipyard. 18 Q. Have you ever been exposed to asbestos, Mr. Manning3 19 A. Yes. 20 0. Where were youexposedto asbestos? 21 A. Initially, I wasexposed in various occasions when 22 I worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Health. I was 23 exposed to asbestos when I took samples next to the man that wa ; 24 working in the Shipyard. 25 0. Have you. been told by any doctor that you have an 26 asbestos-related illness? . 27 A. Yes. 28 MR. CARLSON: I have no other questions. MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013045 56 1 EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 2 BY MR. NELSON: 3 Q. Have you ever been a plaintiff in an asbestos- 4 related lawsuit? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is that still a viable lawsuit? 7 A. Yes, in part. 8 Q. In other words, it has not been drawn to a 9 conclusion? . 10 A. My understanding is there is one that has been 11 passed back. It has been appealed. 12 Q. I didn't understand. 13 A. It's on appeal. 14 Q. Did you hire a lawyer on yourbehalf in the 15 Los Angeles County Superior Court? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who was that lawyer? 18 A. Robert Steinberg; Rose, Klein & Marias. 19 Q. Was there actually a trial held? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you know what the nature of the appeal is? 22 MR. CARLSON: There is a lawsuit pending. It's not an 23 appeal. 24 THE WITNESS: Is it? I don't know. 25 MR. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Manning. 26 // , 27 // 28 // MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013046 57 1 EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 2 BY MR. MARDEN: 3 0- When you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did 4 you ever wear a respirator of any type while taking a dust 5 survey on asbestos insulation products? 6 A. Yes. ' 7 Q. Was it your usual, common practice to wear a 8 respirator? 9 A. Yes. . 10 Q. Now, while you were with the Pennsylvania 11 Department of Health, did you ever wear a respirator while takin g 12 a dust count regarding asbestos? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Can you tell us the reason for that? 15 A. Number one, there were none available; and number 16 two, it was regarded in industrial hygiene practices not good 17 practice to go into a place wearing a respirator and begging 18 the question and alarming the workers. The thought behind all 19 this was that probably the industrial hygienist was involved in 20 limited exposure and possibly it was just part of the territory 21 and part of the job to be exposed to materials that were being 22 checked out. 23 Q. While you were with the Pennsylvania Department of 24 Health, part of your responsibilities was to inspect asbestos 25 manufacturing facilities? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Now, were these facilities manufacturing finished 28 asbestos products from raw asbestos fiber? MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013047 58 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Now, throughout your entire period of employment 3 at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you had difficulty in 4 communicating with the authorities back in Washington, D.C.; 5 is that correct? 6 A. Yes. The answer would be yes. . 7 Q. Do you have any knowledge, sir,of whether any 8 manufacturers of finished asbestos insulation products were 9 in contact with the authorities back in Washington., D.C., 10 regarding potential health hazards or safety programs? 11 A. I would have no knowledge of that. 12 MR. MARDEN: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions 13 at this time. 14 15 16 BY MR. DICKERSON: EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 17 Q. Earlier, Mr. Carlson asked you if you thought the 18 warning you saw on the box in 1971 was adequate. I would like 19 to ask the same question of you regarding the meetings that 20 were conducted in the beginning, in the late '60's, also in 21 '72 and '73. Were they adequate? 22 MR. CARLSON: For what purposes? 23 Q. BY MR. DICKERSON: Following your question to 24 warn the workers of the dangers. 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Now, if you took -- 27 Forget that. That's all I have. Thank you. 28 MR. MARDEN: One final question. MIDDLETON. O'BRIEN & PA Y MT-PWHD-013048 59 1 EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 2 BY MR. MARDEN: 3 Q. Sir, while you were employed at Long Beach Naval 4 Shipyard, did you ever happen to have contact with an 5 individual by the name of John Robinson? 6 A. It's possible that I had some fleeting contact. 7 I have vague memories of two of Web Ay's son-in-laws who were, 8 at one time, foremen, and the contact would have been a 9 one-on-one situation that was not very extensive. . 10 I, in the course of my work, would possibly have to 11 contact people who were foremen or had some prior knowledge of 12 where work would be,and these kind of discussions, it's possibl^ 13 that I talked to many foremen. 14 Q. To your recollection, sir, was John Robinson a 15 foreman during your period of employment at Long Beach -- let 16 me strike that. It's poorly phrased. 17 To your recollection, sir, did John Robinson act 18 as a foreman? 19 A. My knowledge of that would be that I knew that 20 Web Ay had two son-in-laws who were foremen at the Shipyard, 21 and putting John Robinson and foremen together, I mean, I just 22 I have no way of knowing. I really -- 23 John Robinson is a vague name to me. 24 MR. MARDEN: Thank you. I have no further questions. 25 I don't believe anybody else does. Thank you for 26 your time today. 27 Off the record.. 28 (Discussion off the record.) MIDDLETON, O'BRIEN & PAY MT-PWHD-013049 60 1 MR. HARDEN: To the discussion of the signature, the 2 signing of the deposition, because Judge Minder ruled last 3 Friday the trial was not to begin before September 28th, we 4 feel there is adequate time to allow Mr. Manning the 30 days 5 in which to read and make any necessary changes in his 6 deposition. . 7 It has also been stipulated that the original of 8 the deposition be sent to the office of Moore, Clifford for 9 control until trial. . 10 MR. CARLSON: And what will be done with the copy that 11 Mr. Manning is to see? Will it be provided to him, or is he 12 going to have to go somewhere to read it? 13 MR. MARDEN: I have no objection to having a copy sent 14 to Mr. Manning at his residence and then allowing him the 15 opportunity to review it. 16 MR. CARLSON: I think it would be a lot easier for him, 17 rather than having him drive somewhere. 18 MR. MARDEN: Is that agreeable, Mr. Manning? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 MR. MARDEN: Thank you very much. That's all. 21 22 (The undersigned, being fully aware of 23 the pains and penalties of perjury, 24 solemnly affirms the truth and veracity 25 of the foregoing testimony.) 26 Executed at (t/\~ , on 27 this (% day of 1981. 28 RSHELDON H. MANNING f MIDDLETOS, O'BRSES & PAY MT-PWHD-013050 'I Iwf?' ' 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Los Angeles) ss . 61 3 4 I WILLIAM R. PAY CSR No. 1228 5 a Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles 6 State of California, do hereby certify: 7 THAT prior to being examined, SHELDON H, MANNING, 8 the witness named in the foregoing deposition, was by me duly 9 sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 10 the truth; 11 THAT said deposition was taken before me pursuant to 12 Notice' at the time and place therein stated, 13 and was taken down by me in shorthand and thereafter 14 transcribed into typewriting under my direction and supervisior, 15 and is a true record of the testimony given by the witness; 16 THAT it was stipulated by and between counsel that the 17 reporter may be relieved of his duties and responsibilities 18 under Section.2019 (e) and (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure; 19 THAT it was stipulated by and between counsel that said 20 deposition may be read, corrected and signed by the witness 21 under penalty 'of perjury. 22 I further certify that I am neither counsel for nor 23 related to any party to said action, nor in anywise interested 24 in the outcome thereof. 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name 26 and affixed my seal 27 Nptary Publi 28 Lais__artgpl e*<=. MIDDI FTOS O'RRIFX X Pi ) MT-PWHD-013051 V MT-PWHD-013052 MEMO TO )N RE: Hance vs. Johns-Manvilie -Deposition of S, Manning Trial Date: Conf. Date: Trial Atty: Not Set Not Set Unassigned p.|M|Hfr5 il|ctfoir|pi^^r & botw. ' 'LOS .ANGELES; ^AUFORNIA . NEWPO.Rt.BfACHji'm^lFORNiA 15, 1980 . The deposition of Mr. Manning was tfeken pursuarft to subpeona on December 12, 1980, in our offices in Santa Monica. The undersigned appeared on behalf of Johns-Manville. Bill Kelly appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Manning was repre sented during the morning session of the deposition by Mr. Steinberg. In the afternoon session, he was aat repre sented . IMPRESSION OF THE WITNESS Mr, Manning is a very pleasant man in his early sixties, who appears to be his stated age. He has a habit of pulling on his mustache, which is somewhat distracting and talking into his hands. He also is experiencing great difficulty in breathing and has to take frequent gulps of air to finish sentences. He is intelligent and fairly forthright, and I would say that he would make a good witness on his own behalf, however, his breathing problem is so pronounced that his deposition would read better than his actual performance. BACKGROUND Mr. Manning graduated from Penn State University in 1943, with a Bachelor of Science in Commerical Chemistry. From 1943 to 1945, he worked for Hooker;, Chemical as a chemical operator in Niagara Falls. From 1945 to 1946, he drove a truck. From 1947 to September of 1961, he Worked for Bethlehem Steel as a chemist in quality control. From September 1961 to March of 1967, he worked for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as an industrial , hygenist, He was trained in the job and also took a course, given by the United States Public Health Service in 1962. He can recall that he had been a member of the Navy Industrial Hygiene Association and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Long Beach Naval Shipyard - Mr. Manning served as an industrial hygenist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard from March 1967 to February 1974. He felt his basic duties as a shipyard industrial hygenist were similar to that he experienced working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, however, in the shipyard he had very little evforcement capability. He only served in an advisory capacity. The witness described the chain of command, should he spot a violation, as follows: He would have to re port it to his superior, which was the chief medical officer, who would then have to report it up the line, to the commander of the shipyard, and down the line through the production department MT-PWHD-ni^rv^ MEMO TO IN RE: D. MarMussen Hance vs, Johns-Manville, Deposition of S, Manning, flfl 11 1 k 1 ',"4b*'..fi af i BBmr>own Sl Bonesteel CALIFORNIA - EWjfOR'( BEACH, CALIFORNIA Trial Date: Conf, Date : Trial Atty: Not Set Not Set Unassigned mber15, 1980 Page Three available at other locations in the shipyard. He beleives that from May 1967 to October 1968, there was a Navy rule or instruction that insulators and insulator helpers had to respirators when working with asbestos. Since the witness had no enforcement, he indicated that the enforcement power would be the first line foreman. The witness testified that he had discussions in February 1968 with the insulators and insulator helpers. He could not be sure that he got them all, but he beleives that the shop called them in and certainly whereby Weeby -was very involved in this. They covered more than one shift. He was aware at this time of Dr. Selikoff's 1964 works and he' talked to the men about asbestosis and cancer and beleives that may have even indicated the connection between smoking and cancer. He did tell the insulators and the insulator helpers to wear respirators and to use good housekeeping procedures when working with asbestos. , PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION The witness testified that he beleived 70% of the products he saw at the shipyard had a Johns-Manville label on them. He did not know whether or not the boxes were, in fact, a non-asbestos containing products, or if, in fact, they were other products, other than thermal insulation, manufactured by Johns-Manville. However, he did see Raybestos-Manhattan cloth, Phillip Carey products, Eagle Pitcher products, Pabco, Kaylo and Unibestos (only one occasion). He saw these various products at the shipyard, at locations outside of the shop, on barges, piers and warehouses.He believed that cloth was in cardboard cartons but he was not certain. ! MEDICAL OFFICERS In a very frank discussion, Mr. Manning indicated that he felt that the medical officers, who he worked under were a little paranoid about what industrial hygenists could do. He stated that Dr. Watkins was not helpful at all. Dr. Watkins refused his permission to put anything down in writing and made him make all reports directly to Dr. Watkins before taking any actions. The witness reported that when Captain Smith took over from Dr. Watkins, it took the witness some time to get Dr. Smith's attention that /there were problems at the shipyard. He did not seem concerned. However, Smith did allow written reports. EXHIBIT E Defendants' Exhibit E is a June 30, 1970 memorandum of Mr. Manning's, in which he relates to Captain Smith all the problems with industrial hygiene billet, the shipyard. MT-PWHD-013054 MEMO TO IN BE: D. Markussen Hance vs. Johns-Manville, et al Deposition of S. Manning, Trial Date: Conf. Date: Trial Atty: Not Set Not Set Unassigned &Haight, Dickson, Brown Bonesteel | fHoS^ANGEMlES*^A LI FO R NIA " l 1 8 ft- ft-U NEXPORT; 5e8cffl CALIFORNIA ' !giAie]|' 15 , 1980 wo to enforce or change the practice At the time he entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, there were 8,500 individuals working there. He was the sole industrial hygenist and he testified that all of the shipyards had more industrial hygenist except for Philadephia, which had the same number. He tried to submit budgets over the years, but he never was successful. He was faced with no equipment and it was not until June of 1968 that he got dust equipment, He did not get a phone for three years and he indicated that was an essential tool for an industrial hygenist. There was nothing left by Mr. Moore, who he learned had left in the fall of 1964 and went to the Canal Zone for advancement. The witness that the job of industrial hygenist was actually abolished, until he took the job. He believed that during that span of time, there were rules and regulations in force at the shipyard, that mandated that they have an industrial hygenist, but they did not. He felt that was not until 1971 or 1972 that he was equipped enough to perform the necessary tasks as an industrial hygenist. . EXHIBIT A Defendants Exhi lit A is BuMed instructions 6270.3d, dated February 1966, which shows the T.L.V. of 5 million particles/cubic foot for asbestos. The witness described T.L.V.'s generally as being the value at which medical and scientific evidence would seem to indicate no disease process would o-cur. EXHIBITS B,e, D Defendants Exhibits B, C and D are safety assurance bulletins dated April 1965 and a single page of text concerning asbestos control. The witness!identified the document as seeing it, and belived it was enforced in effect at the time he arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The document calls for general ventilation to be used, exhaust hoods on tools, respirator use and use of induatrial vacuum cleaners. The witness believed that when he arrived there was good ven tilation in the pad ship, hoever, changes were made sometime during a ten year . He beleives that he took dust counts both before renovations and after and that before the count was .7 million particle/cubie foot and after it was .26 million partiacls/cubic foot. The Witness also indicated that respirator use was intermittent at best. The employees on the ships working on asbestos were supplied with dust respirators and if not, they were certainly MT-PWHD-013055 MEMO TO IN HE: D. Markussen Hance vs, Johns-Manville, c Deposition of S, Manning Trial Date: Conf. Date: Trial Atty: Not Set Not Set Unassigned Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bqnesteex, IP #%OpB^Pf.LES, CALIFORNIA ;EACH, CALIFORNIA r 15, 1980 Interestingly, since he had no secretary, he was asked where he got this typed. He indicated that he hired an outside secretarial service to do it and paid out of his own pocket. He testified that everything written in there were his true feelings at the time, and he still supports them. RESPIRATOR USE The witness indicated that the respirator use was not usually acceptable to workers because there was resistance to breathing and it was uncomfortable. He indicated there should be as much ventilation as possible, but even under the circumstances he did recommend to wear respirators. He fait however, that normally, dust respirators are used for " emergency situations" until better controlled methods could be installed. RIP- OUT He felt that the greatest exposure was aboard ships during rip out operations. He was not notified when a rip out was going on, but he made some inquiries occasionally and became quite good at finding out when these would occur. Steven L. Hoch lh MT-PWHD-013056 fl988JJi[lJ3M . G oaaxgawoa * wwcJaa .woajioia ,thoiah AIMHOTUAD ,83JJ AIMHCHIJAO ,H0A3 osei ,61 i 8Xiro'l eg M-l 9 , 9lIxvnnM-anxloL . av 9onnH gnxnnnM .3 lo noxliaoq9Q 193 loK 190 loW bongiaannU : 9ln(I InxxT : 9InG . InoO : YllA InxxT 9*i9rlw b95laj3 3bw 9d ,YiBJ9X09a on bnxi 9x1 9onxa , Ylgnxi-aea^tnl obxalxro nn b9xxxl 9x1 Inxil b9lnoxbni 9H .b9qyl axxil log 9ri loxlooq nwo axxl lo Ixro bxnq ban lx ob ol eoxvxaa lBiiBJ9xo9a 9xrxl gill 9X9W 9X9X11 nl n9llXXW gnirllYX9V9 Inxil b9Xlxl39l 9H .rasrll alxoqqxra Ilxla 9x[ bnn \9mil 9x11 In agnxl99l OTOM3M :3fl Ml aau HQTAHiqaaH Yllniraxx ion anw 9a n xoinxxqa9x 9ril Inxil b9inoxbnx aaaniiw exiT gnxxiingxd ol 9onniax39x anw 9X9x11 9axrno9d ax9Jlxow ol 9ldniq9Don an 9d blxroxia 9X9xfl b9inoxbnx sH . 9ldnlxolmoonxr anw lx bnn 39onnlaranoxxo 9ril x9bnxr neve Ixrd , eldxaaoq an noxinlxingv xionm Inxil , x9V9woxl Uni 9H . axoinxxq39x xn9w ol bn9mmoo9x bib 9xi "anoxinxrixa " xl b9axr 9xn axoinxxqa9x laxrb , Yllnmxon .b9llnlanx 9d blxroo aboxii9m b9lIoxlnoo X9ll9d Ixinxr Tuo-qifl " gnixxxb aqiria bxnodn anw 9xxraoqx9 Ia9in9xg 9x11 Inxil II9I 9H anw ixro qxx n xi9xlw b9xlxion Ion anw 9li . anoxinxaqo luo qxx 9mno9d bnn yllnnoxanooo 39xxxxrpnx 9 mo a 9bnm 9xt Ixrd , no gnxog . xnooo blxrow 939x11 n9iiw Ixro gnxbnxl In boog aixxrp rlooll . J H9V913 rll % MT-PWHD-013057 MT-PWHD-013058 MT-PWHD-013059 MT-PWHD-013060 MT-PWHD-013061 cj/' fILE COPY ( JTtve^vaJpy 5"X //s> ---1 / -- S' 6>2J. ^//Wsi*f3 J"3 P^e 3 ^ //A* 2- 2? P^/Lp&z ^-/fi&3 / ''"" /^ 7~k Vi^-yiP J MT-PWHD-013062 dd j ddd " 5?1?j //n3 / ~~ dd y Vi ^Hd~yy^v&nv^- j <f*^e s? ) //r>*s /~ V JTSP, //rUs ddy 5^ d /siZd /' S d^2Ty yd^dvd^yJ tffyc //n4 ^3>-2d S& yece- v dd j //>S$ ? 7~2<Z d7 ) d //?5 / ~~ < / d^A^JZy d ~7 j d/d&g r7"~Z%? MT-PWHD-013063 /-/ *'> J/sut'Z /-? - ?-% 72. ) /'/sif^ -/ >% ,72 /'/*$ '7-??' VSj /./n5 /'// / 7- 2? //r*S /-/7 g- /o fyv<iAu<tZ^~J /y<? J f/?6l&4*y J MT-PWHD-013064 '-J t_ P_2. X. 2-- 2L_ -- ~?--'S> */(e VJ 60 - Sf6 6~9 &o - ifo 16/ 16Z-- %V /y~ z-s /- 2J6 J-SiSl 2-6~~ z6i /- Z-'g' /~/2. /< /- Z-S /~3 6 -cS'S /-^?2 -D//2 cdT" /^r- 2-S* /-/? /sj~ 2-S' y ~~`6\ o / - 2_ s- MT-PWHD-013065 LV-S" do /pO - is'o ffj J yy- 2."S / - Zds y-SSl 2-ST"2- / -- 's' tr fe===-- ^ /"/2. /< /y /7-^3 / - Z-'g /-S d'-^s / cjs) _ 99 / CTO y -- Z- ^L MT-PWHD-013066  CERTIFIED COPY 6t>$-Md>an<' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING llAl.l ROBERT L. HANCE, Plaintiff, vs. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) J-M No. C-79-307B 83 DEPOSITION OF SHELDON H. MANNING, a witness herein, taken by the defendants at 9;50 a.m., Friday, December 12, 1980, at 2800 - 28th Street, Santa Monica, California, before Lucia Moskal, CSR, a Notary Public. Reported by: Lucia Moskal, CSR 1222 Registered Professional Reporter No. OLA-5272-8Q RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Certified Court Reporters LOS ANGELES, 3436 North Figueroa, 90065, (213) 223-1191 CAPISTRANO BEACH - (714)496-7121 SANTA ANA - (714) 972-9109 SAN DIEGO - (714) 268-8246 MT-PWHD-013067 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Johns-Manville Sales Corporation: For the Witness VLASTOS & REEVES and HAIGHT, DICKSON, BROWN & BONESTEEL BY STEVEN L.HOCH ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS BY ROBERT B. STEINBERG INDEX WITNESS: Sheldon H. Manning Examination by Mr. Hoch Examination by Mr. Kelly Page 3, 86 45, 96 EXHIBITS DEFENDANTS' A - BUMED Instruction 6270.3D (10 pages) B - Department of the Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities NAVSO P-2455 April 1965, and attached page 20-22 (2 pages) Marked 19 21 C - Department of the Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities NAVSO P-2455 April 1965 "Reviewed and Approved: 15 May" and attached page 20-22 (2 pages) 21 D - Safety Precautions for Shore Activities, NAVSO P-2455, April 1965, CH-1, June 1967, and attached page 20-22, Change 1, June 1967 (2 pages) 21 Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS' E X H I B I T S (Continued) Memorandum, Code 725, 30 June 1970 (11 pages) 2A Marked 38 Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013069 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 SHELDON H. MANNING, a witness herein, having been sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. HOCH: Q. Mr. Manning, would you please state your full, name for the record? A. Sheldon Hiett Manning. Q. Your present residence address, sir? A. 15403 Piuma Avenue, Norwalk, California. Q. Mr. Manning, I know that you've had your deposition taken before, and I know that you've testified in court. Just for the record, though, I want to remind you that this deposition is being taken pursuant to Court Order in the Hance case filed in the United States Distric Court in the District of Wyoming. You have been put under oath by the court reporter, who is an officer of the court, and the oath you have taken is the same oath you would take in a court of law and has the same force and effect. You understand that, do you, sir? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Counsel. May we have the stipulation that this deposition is being taken at this time and place pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and may be used for all purposes provided therein. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013070 4 1 Further, that this case has been set for trial on 2 January 12th, 1981, at Casper, Wyoming, United States 3 District Court of Wyoming, and that Mr. Manning's deposition 4 may be used at the time of trial in lieu of his appearing 5 in person, in view of the fact that he resides more than 6 100 miles from the place of trial. 7 MR. HOCH: Certainly. There is no problem. If 8 Mr. Manning wants to go to Wyoming -- I don't think he 9 wants to, since he is nodding his head. I'll certainly 10 agree to that stipulation. 11 Q. Mr. Manning, just again to clarify the record#**^ iWMBWffl 12 is there anything about the deposition procedure that 13 you would like explained to you again, or can we proceed 14 right to the deposition? 15 A. No. 16 Q. It's all right to go right to it? 17 A. Yes. Q. Mr. Manning, at some point in time, you were the industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. From March, 1967, to February, 1974. Q. Are you a college graduate, Mr. Manning? A. Yes. Q. When did you graduate college, where, and with what degree? A. Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 1943, Bachelor Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 of Science in commercial chemistry. Q. Where did you work after college? A. Hooker Electric Chemical Company in Niagara Falls, New York. Q. In what capacity? A. I was a chemical operator and what they call a head operator later on, which is first-line supervisor Q. What years did you work there? A. May of 1943 to late in August, or something like that, of '45, I believe. Q. Where was your next employment, sir? A. I worked for Weaver Trucking firm for about is a year and a half. Q. You drove a truck there? A. Yes. Q. And after that, sir, where were you employed? A. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, from early 1947 j to - I MR. KELLY: Maybe we could stipulate, to help the witness, I believe it was September of 1961. THE WITNESS: Right. * j j Q. BY MR. HOCH: Is that correct, sir? ^ A. That's correct. Q. What did you do forBethlehem Steel? A. I was a chemist in the quality control laboratory Q. What facility did you operate out of? A. Steelton, in Steelton,Pennsylvania. Q. In Pennsylvania? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Yes. Q. x Then in 1961, you became employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. In what capacity were you employed? A. Industrial hygienist. Q. You were employed by them in that capacity until March of 1967, when you went to the shipyard? A. That's correct. Q. While you were with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, did you take any further educational courses? A. Yes. I was given several short courses dealing with industrial hygiene given by the U.S. Public Health . Service. I think that occurred sometime in January or thereabouts of 1962. Q. Can you describe briefly what type of dutij you had as an industrial hygienist for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? A. It involved inspection of industrial plants to see if they complied with the rules and regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Health in regard to occupational health standards. It involved performing what we called surveys, which involved taking samples of the atmosphere, or the environment. We wrote reports of what we found, made recommendations if there was anything to correct. The work involved going back to see whether anything was accomplished. That was the main thrust of the work, I would say. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Q. Did you also make recommendations to facilities, private companies, as to how to best control certain environmental hazards? A. Yes. Those were the kind of recommendations that were made, how to control the environmental hazards. Q. And the purpose of all this was to establish the safest possible working conditions for the employees in that area and the public at large? A. Yes. Q. Are you a member of any professional associations, sir? A. Then or now? Q. Well, you're retired presently, aren't you? A. Yes. Q. Can you give us the professional associations that you have been a member of over your career? A. The American Industrial Hygiene Associatic and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial^***8 Hygienists are two. J Q. Are you a member of something called the International Hygiene Association? A. The two that I mentioned were the proper names. You may have a name that isn't cofrect. Q. Was there also a Navy Industrial Hygiene Association? r A. Yes. As an employee in industrial hygiene and in the Navy, I was automatically a member of it, I think at the cost of $1 a year or something. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013074 MR. KELLY: I'd like to association. MR. HOCH: Ye^-r^lMdTpay the dollar. THJ^WTTNESS: Whatever. Q. BY MR. HOCH: The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists also consisted of industrial hygienists who worked in other shipyards of the United States Navy? A. Yes. Q. It also included other industrial hygienists that were employed by the government in other facilities around the country? A. Yes. SssQ. Were the duties that you performed or were supposed to perform at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard as an industrial hygienist similar to what you described that you did for the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania? A. Yes, it was similar. Q. Werethere any differences youcan highlight for us? A. Well, there was thisdifference, I think. Working for a government, there was, oh, inherent in that kind of a position some enforcement ramifications. With working for the shipyard, there was very, very little enforcement capabilities, really. It was an advisory sort of job. Any enforcement of any rules or regulations was generally in the hands of the first- line supervisor. Q. So that we can discuss that a little further. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 is it correct that in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you reported directly to the chief medical officer of the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. And during your tenure, there were two gentlemen that held that position: Dr. Watkins and a Dr. Jose Smith. Is that correct? A. That's correct, except there was an interim period of two or three months where Dr. Ownbey filled in. Q. They were all Navy captains, I believe. Is that correct? They were naval officers? A. Naval officers. Dr. Watkins was a captain, and Dr. Smith was initially a commander, and was promoted later to captain. Q. Those gentlemen, those doctors, they were in charge of the occupational health program at the shipyard; is that correct? A. They were chief medical officers and, as such, I reported directly to them in both cases. As part of their work, I might say they were in charge of the occupational health end of it. Q. So we further understand the lines of authority, if you spotted something in the shipyard, from an industrial hygiene point of view, that had to be corrected, you had no enforcement power directly to change that condition or manner of work; is that correct? A. That's correct. -m m\ Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013076 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 Q. You had to report it up the line? A. Go through the chain of command, that's correct. Q. The chain of command would be from you to your supervisor with the chief medical officers. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Then from there, they would report it to the cognizant supervisor of the trade or area where this practice was going on; is that correct? Or did it go higher? A. I think the chain of command actually getting involved in these things would be from the chief medical officer reporting to the shipyard commander, and the shipyard commander actually would convey down to whate\jerj the chain of command, whoever was involved. This was not always followed, really. Sometimes these things would go from, as you point out, a medical officer would direct his correspondence to possibly a shop superintendent. Q. This setup was different from the one in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where you had some direct enforcement power; is that correct? A. Inherent in the setup, since the government was involved, there is that capability somewhere down the line, that the government can enforce, or shut down something ultimately if it has to happen, which is enforcement. In my case, in the shipyard, I had no power to enforce discipline or anything of this nature. It was according to the union contract that was assigned in the shipyard. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 The first-line supervisor was the one involved in any enforcement. Q. Did you have an interview for the job at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember who you spoke to? A. Oh, boy. It was a Dr. Kronsveter, I think, or something like that, in Philadelphia, if that's close enough. Q. That's fine. And you accepted the job, and you moved from Philadelphia to Long Beach? A. Yes. | 6 | Jl Q. When you reported aboard at the Long Beach , Naval Shipyard, do you recall the size of that facility in terms of the population? se!- A. The facility, the shipyard itself, probably had about 8,500. Q. Did you understand that you were going to be the sole industrial hygienist for that facility? A. Yes. Q. What were you led,in your interview or within the first few days or weeks when you were at the shipyard, to believe as to the size of the staff you would have to work with? A. Well, I found that I was going to be working alone without any staff whatsoever. Q. That would include no clerical staff, secretarial Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 staff, that sort of thing? A. Yes. Q. Did you learn, during your course of your employment at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the staffing size of industrial hygiene billets in other naval shipyards? A. Yes. Q. With the exception of Philadelphia, all the other shipyards had more industrial hygienists than Long Beach did; is that correct? A. Yes. jrt go Q. Philadelphia just had one, also? A. That's correct. Q. But the Philadelphia industrial hygienist had some support staff with him, did he not? A. I have noknowledge of this, exactly what his support was. Q. Did he have a secretary? A. Off the top of my head, I can't say. I would think so. Q. And you learned of the size of the industrial hygiene staffs from conversations with other hygienists at the ACGIH meetings and in an informal method, as well; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. You would ask, "How many industrialhygienists do you have," and they would tell you? A. Yes. Q. Were yousupplied at any timewhen you were Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 working with the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, with a budget? A. No. Q. Did you ever submit a budget to anyone? A. I attempted to submit it, and was not successful. Q. What kind of things were you asking for in your budget? A. Well, initially, I had -- there was no equipment available to do the job, and I had to try to get the most essential instruments to try to take samples of the conditions in the shipyard, whatever it happened to be. It was a long, drawn-out process, I thought, at the time. I think the record shows that it wasn't until about June of 1968, I believe, that I was able to count dust, which was a very important capability, considering conditions there. Q. we might, Let's go through Mr. Manning. When ' some of these you first got **mmm*. Ck things, if. g g J SnuJnSNUt to the Long |paHMW Beach Naval Shipyard, did you make any inquiries as to who the previous industrial hygienist was? A. Yes, I knew -- found out who the previous industrial hygienist was. oa I*!?# Q. Who was he? A. It was Bill Marr. Q. Did you find out through conversations with people? A. Yes. Q. Did you also discover when Mr. Marr left Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. Eventually, yes. Q. When did you learn he left, sir? A. I believe he left sometime in -- I think it was the fall of '64. Q. Did you inquire at the shipyard as to whether or not anyone had filled the industrial hygiene spot between '64 and when you arrived in '67? A. I found out that the job -- I was"informed sometime that the job had actually been abolished for some period of time. Q. To the best of your knowledge, during that period of '64 to '67, was there a requirement by the Navy or the government to have an industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. I think so, yes. Q. This is something that you read or saw, in terms of an instruction or manual or memorandum of the Navy? A. Yes. Q. Were you presented with any of Mr. Marr's documents, tests, studies, papers, surveys, anything of that nature that he might have done while he was at the yard? A. I found nothing that he had written. Q. Would it have been of some help to you, to carry out your tasks as the industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, to have had those kinds of Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013081 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 things left by Mr. Marr? A. If they existed, yes. Q. Now, did you have an office? A. Yes. Q. Did you have a phone? A. Initially, no. Q. How long did it take you to get a phone? A. Over three years. Q. I don't mean to be facetious, but is availability of a phone something that industrial hygienists at a facility such as the Long Beach Naval Shipyard would need to have to do his job? A. Yes. Q. I think you mentioned a few minutes ago about some equipment. Was there any equipment given to you?^J^2|` By this, we should categorize it as testing equipment^^8*^* such things as microscope or air-sampling devices. I don't mean phones or pencils and papers. A. You,mean initially? Q. A. be used. Yes. Initially, sir. Initially, there was no equipment that co Q. Specifically, you did not have any equipment to take dust samples; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. That, you said, took until June of '68 to get that kind of equipment? A. Yes. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013082 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 Q. Was there any other equipment that you needed to not only take dust samples, but to analyze them, that wasn't available when you arrived at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. What kind of things were they? A. There were no direct reading instruments available. There were no lab equipment whatsoever. There were no instruments available to take noise measurements, Actually, no instruments at all. I generally asked, and eventually did get a fair amount of equipment that could be used in the field. I never did try to put together a sophisticated laborat| In my opinion, it wasn't necessary. It was my opinion! that I could buy the services of an outside laboratory cheaper, or use some facilities within the Navy, if theygjgSSE were available, or within the government. Q. That would be to do some more sophisticated work? A. Yes. I mean complicated work that required sophisticated chemical techniques. Q. When did you feel that the industrial hygiene facility at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was adequately equipped to do the job as you understood it to be? MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Counsel. I assume we have the standard stipulation that all objections may be reserved. MR. HOCH: Oh, sure. MR. KELLY: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Well, it was somewhere in the area Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013083 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 of 1971, '72, in thereabouts, it became fairly well equipped. Q. BY MR. HOCH: In terms of being able to take and analyze dust particles and get dust counts, you were able to start that work in late '68; is that correct? A. The middle -- about somewhere in the summer of *68, I was able to collect and count dust, yes. Q. Can you describe brief ly to us the manr^rjj^JI in which dust counts were taken by you in 1968 at t^S*5 - Long Beach Naval Shipyard? And let's specifically a limit that to taking samples of dust where asbestos wa&*% present. A. Well, the method used at that time and accjntiMss is a standard method called a midget impinger collection method, where air was drawn through a glass device known as a midget impinger that contained fluid -- usually distilled water -- and the device collected dust in the water, and this then could be transferred in a measured amount under a microscope, and using the light field technique under a hundred-power microscope, why, the dust could actually be counted, and by the mathematics involved, we could convert the dust count to millionparticles-per-cubic-foot concentration in the air. That's a simplified explanation. Q. Now, during the first year that you were at the shipyard, was it your understanding that the Navy had some rule or regulation concerning a threshold limit value for asbestos? A. Yes. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013084 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Q. Could you please explain the term "threshold limit value" as you understand it? A. Well, a threshold limit value is a standard that generally was adapted by a committee of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and it was their intent that if a worker was exposed to less than the threshold limit value for an 8-hour period work, that if he was a normally healthy individual, he would not sustain a large amount of adverse health effects. Q. In terms of your job, it was your duty to go out and take these measurements, and if there was a value that you found above the threshold limit value, you had to assume that was a hazardous condition, and you had to report it, and somebody had to take the necessary steps to fix it, or fix the operation or control it. Is that basically correct? A. The answer to that is sort of, not exactly. What I did was take samples in the air to define the problem, really, and of course there was no capability to examine all the conditions everywhere. What I actually did was take a number of samples in a number of situations to define the problem, the intensity of the exposure under certain conditions. It didn't exactly work this way, I go out and take a sample and after I took the sample and counted it and everything, the condition had passed. There was no way of going out there and saying, "Stop," like this. It wasn't Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013085 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that directly involved. ::Xc 19 That's about all I have to say. Q. Mr. Manning, let me show you a document which we will label to this deposition as Defendants' A. It's a BUMED Instruction 6270.3D, dated 15 February '66. (Whereupon the document referred to is marked by the reporter as Defendants' Exhibit A, for identification.) Q. BY MR. HOCH: By the way, what is "BUMED" I**18? A. That' s the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery |1|rJLJI in the United States Navy bureaucracy. . 1ssaaafm g& Q. Did you work within the framework of the instructions issued by BUMED? ^a0***^ A. As a general statement, yes. Q. Let me show you this document, and ask you to look it over briefly. ' You've seen that before, haven't you, sir? A. Oh, yeah. Q. Was this the BUMEDinstruction which was in effect at the time you started working at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, to the best of your recollection? A. Yes. Q. That is, in fact, a true and correct copy of that document? : A. Yes. Q. Turning your attention topageyg^ofthat ^ document, under the column marked "Respirable Dusts Evaluated by Count," we find "Asbestos"; is that correct, sir? .. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013086 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 A. Yes. Q. What was the standard threshold limit value which was in effect for asbestos at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard at the time you arrived there? A. Five million particles per cubic foot. Q. Did you discuss at any time, say within the first year that you were at the shipyard, any problems concerning asbestos exposure? A. Discuss with various people, or -- Q. Let me clarify my question. Did you ever, have any conversations with a gentleman named Webste Ay concerning asbestos exposure? A. Yes. Q. Who was Webster Ay? 5* A. When I first went to the shipyard, he was ' a first-line foreman. Q. In what department, sir? A. Pipe coverer and insulator. Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. And he was also president of the Metal Trades Council, which was a union position. Q. Could you describe briefly what the Metal Trades Council was, to the best of your understanding? A. It was a confederation of craft unions whose members worked in the shipyard. Q. In your conversations with Webster Ay, he expressed some concern over asbestos exposure at the shipyard? * a Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 A. Yes. Q. Was it your understanding at the time you arrived at the shipyard that there were some Navy rules or regulations concerning the control of asbestos exposure? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us briefly, to the best of your recollection, what those rules and regulations were? A. I think -- my understanding is at that time -- I'd be searching my memory. I think there was some simple rules set up in the safety manual regarding asbestos. It probably involved wearing respirators. And I think inherent in this instruction would be that the exposur should be below the threshold limit value. Q. You were pointing to Defendants' Exhibit A? A. To Exhibit A, yes. Q. Were there also some rules andregulations concerning ventilation, as far as asbestos was concerned? A. I'm not certain exactly at that stage what was written, without reading it or refreshing my memory. There probably were some written instructions to this effect. I can't remember what they were. Q. Let me show you three documents, and ask if they do refresh your recollection. We'll label them . B, C, and D, respectively. (Whereupon the documents referred to are marked by the reporter as Defendants' Exhibits B, C, and D, for identification.) Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013088 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 Q. BY MR. HOCH: They're all two pages. They consist of a cover page and a page out of the manual that they come from. B, for the record, is a Department of the Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities issued April, '65. C is a Department of the Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities, also, April, '65, but having a different cover page. . And D is Safety Precautions for Shore Activities, also issued April, '65, from the Office of Civilian Manpower Management, Department of the Navy. Take a look at those three documents, sir. I apologize for the Xeroxing. When we got those from Uncle Sam, that's the way we received them. A. Yes. Q. Have you had a chance to review those, sir? A. Yes, I have. I had knowledge of these, of course. Q. I've read them. Those appear to be true and correct copies of what they purport to be? A. Yes. Q. They were issued apparently prior toyour coming to the shipyard, but they were in force and effect when you arrived? A. Yes. Q. A. MT-PWHD-013089 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 Q. Now, according to these documents, there are certain steps which are supposed to be taken to control asbestos exposure. Now, having looked at these documents and refreshed your recollection, can you tell us what was supposed to be done at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard upon your arrival, insofar as these instructions pertaining to asbestos exposure? A. It required general ventilation in areas where dust-producing operations were generally performed, install exhaust hoods over saws and other dust-making machine tools, and C, require workers to wear dust respirators where dusty operations cannot be adequately ventilated. It says, "Use industrial vacuum cleaners in lieu of dj sweeping of" -- I can't read it. I guess, "of floorsl and other" -- Q. "Surfaces"? A. -- "surfaces," I suppose, yes. Q. When you arrived at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you survey the asbestos operations at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. And you had some conversations with Mr. Webster Ay concerning them, as well? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Ay express to you -- by the way, he's deceased, is he not? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Ay express to you someconcern over Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013090 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the method of handling asbestos in the shipyard? Is 24 that correct? A. He was concerned with the problem- I think he desired as much protection for his workers as possible. Webster Ay, of course, was a layman, as far as ventilation, knowledge of ventilation is concerned. He had, I think, some ideas that he gleaned from the previous industrial hygienist. It was his belief, I think, when I first came aboard in the shipyard, that amosite type of asbestos was most harmful, and if that was eliminated, I think it was his viewpoint that a very large part of the problem would be eliminated. Q. In your survey, initial survey of the operations at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you find that there was general ventilation in areas where asbestos operations were going on? A. There was one place where most of the fabrifcafi of what we call pads occurred, and this was a place whe this kind of work was performed every day, and the kind of thing where you could possibly apply ventilation and have some effect. Aboard ship -- Q. Excuse me. The place where they made pads, would that have been a particular building at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. Would you describe just briefly what a pad is? A. A pad is a piece of insulation that's fabricated Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013091 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 by -- and it may have an irregular shape, depending on whatever device it's needed to cover. It consists of generally two pieces of insulation cloth that have been cut out to fit, and they would mate, of course, and be I the two pieces of cloth would be inserted some kind of insulation blanket. Q. Did it look like a little pillow? A. Yes, in general, it would be something a pillow. Q. A. Was the cloth you referred to asbestos? Cloth on the outside, and the interior stuff, insulation material. Q. Was the cloth you referred to asbestos cloth? A. Initially, when I came aboard, it was always asbestos cloth. Q. I'm sorry. Did you finish, sir? A. I think atthe time I came aboard, the stuffing was always glass. They never -- sometime prior, it was my understanding that they did stuff this with amosite, and through Bill Marr's efforts and Webster Ay's efforts, they tried to eliminate the amosite from the shipyard. Q. When you arrived, they were using fiberglass as a stuffing? A. Yes. Q. In your initial survey of the asbestos operations, Mr. Manning, can you tell us what you found in the area of respirator use? A. My findings generally were that aboard ship. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013092 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 the employees who worked directly with asbestos were generally supplied with a dust respirator, and they had it available. From my observations and knowledge I gained from other people and talking to the employees, most were intermittently used. They were not always worn. MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Counsel, in reference to your question that you just asked as to when he arrivedfes would we then be dealing with the period of March, 1967? MR. HOCH: Yes. Let's deal with March, '67. With that understanding, and I want to go further with - f #*#*'** it. Q. Is that correct, sir, those were your findings in March of 1967? A. Yes. Q. Is it also correct that that was the practice which occurred from the time you arrived at the shipyard at least until the early seventies? A. Well, the kind of respirator that was provided was the Dustfoe respirator and variations of that model. It was manufactured by the Mine Safety Appliance Company, and as long as that was the one that was provided, the general acceptance was about the same, I would say. It was accepted and used at about the same level throughout that period. Q. From the period of May, '67, until the end of October of '68, were respirators available and made available to insulators and insulator helpers who were i Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013093 27 handling asbestos on board naval vessels at that shipyard? A. Yes. Q. It was your findings that during that time period, they were intermittently used, at best, I believe you said. A. Yes. Q. This was based upon your ownpersonal observations? A. In part, yes. Q. To the best of your recollection, during that time period -- that would be May of '67 until the end of October, '68 -- was there a rule or regulation which was to be enforced at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard which required the insulators and insulator helpers to wear respirators during asbestos operations on board vessels? XJt ***& A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Off the record, MR. HOCH: Stare. \ / ' / \J (A-discussiori is held..Off the record.) l Q. BY MR. HOCH: Let me restate the question, Mr. Manning. Was there a rule or regulation in effect from the % Si t time you came to the shipyard until the end of October of 1968 which required insulators and insulator helpers to wear respirators while performing asbestos operations on board naval vessels? A. Yes. Q. Who was responsible for enforcing that rule? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013094 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. The first-line foremen were the only ones that had any enforcement powers. Q. In terms of the insulators and insulator helpers at the shipyard, who was the first-line foreman who would have that responsibility? A. Well, there were several foremen. In general, I think they carried three or four or five of them. One of them, of course, was Webster Ay. The others, I don't know off the top of my head. Q. Did Webster Ay, in your presence, ever talk to the insulators or insulator helpers concerning the need to wear dust respirators? A. He talked at several indoctrination sessions that we had. At this time, I'm not sure of the content of what he said, really. Q. Let me ask you this, sir: Did you at some point in time have a discussion with the insulators and insulator helpers concerning ways to control asbestos exposure? A. Yes. Q. When was the first time that you had that type of discussion with those people? A. It would have been, I think, February of 1968. Q. Who were the recipients ofthisdiscussion? They were the insulators, insulator helpers? A. Yes. Q. Did youmake sure thatyou gotthem all? m Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. I could not be sure I got them all, because it was not within my power to make sure '\ 1 - ' ; got there. The shop involved were the that ones everybody . that brought the bodies to the session and saw that they got there, and I had nothing to do with that. Q. You wanted to tell them all. Correct? A. It was my intent to tell them all, if I could Q. Did you cover more than one shift? A. Yes. I am not exactly sure exactly what the format was in that first session. I believe we saw more than one group. Q. What kind of things did you tell these people A. Well, my part of the presentation -- there were quite a few other people involved in that first session, I think -- I didn't have any data of my own, so I used Bill Marr's -- I had available Bill Marr's data, because I had found his article in the American Industrial Hygiene Conference publication, or I had found it somewhere. I also was in possession of Dr. Selikoff's initial findings at that time, and I briefly went over what they probably already knew, what the most dangerous situation was, the ripout, and I brought up the matter of Selikoff's findings, which mostly dealt with the incidence of cancer among asbestos workers. .....Q. Dr. Selikoff's work that you're referring to, was that published out of the New York Academy of j Science beginning in 196 4;' is that correct? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013096 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 A. There was work published -- I'm not just certain. I don't believe this particular work was published that early. I think it generally became available -- these first initial studies of about 625 members of a union somewhere around New York, I believe -- he found a high incidence of cancer among these people, and the work was published and available in the area of '66 and '67, '68. Q. Do you recall that Dr. Selikoff also publi a study in '64 that dealt with asbestosis and insulato A. I had it available and probably knew about it. I had read some of the things in that study, not all of it -- Q. I understand. A. -- at that time. Q. In your discussionwith theinsulators and insulator helpers in February of '68, you discussed asbestosis; is that correct? A. I talked about asbestosis and the work of Dr. Selikoff>|and I think, of course, one of the things brought out then was exposure to asbestos along with smoking magnified the chances of contracting bronchogenic carcinoma.1 Q. In the February '68meetings that youhad with the insulators and insulator helpers, you did discuss asbestosis; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you discuss with them what the men should Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013097 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 do to protect themselves? A. Yes. Q. Did you discuss the wearing of respirator A. Respirators were part of the -- the advice'2**^ was to wear respirators whenever exposed to asbestos. It was realized that especially aboard ship, and especi during the operation called ripout, which is the reraova of asbestos from pipes and machinery, that controls were not adequate, and chances are there was no way of providing adequate controls, and that the only way to get anywhere near any kind of protection was the wearing of respirators. Q. Did you also discuss with them, Mr. Manning, housekeeping procedures? A. I don't know whether I was the particular one that brought that up or not. Q. Do you recall it was discussed in the February '68 meeting by somebody? A. Oh, that and related topics about -- I think there was one supervisor who brought out the fact that employees can work in such a way that they can create more dust, and if they worked in more careful ways, that the dust dispersion would be reduced, which is true. Q. Now, when you took your first dust sample of an asbestos operation, was there some requirement or rule, regulation, of the United States Navy which . detailed how often that was to be done? A. Being familiar with Navy operations -- you know, my memory fails a little bit, but I would think Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013098 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32 there probably was. Q. Do you recall what the requirement was? A. No. Q. You weren't able to take a dust sample frM the time you arrived until sometime in '68. Correct A. That's correct. Q. You didn't have the equipment for that? A. That's correct. .. Q. Was it your understanding that during t time period when no dust samples could be taken, t within that time frame, the Navy would require it to be taken? You just couldn't do it? Do you understand my question? A. Yes, sir. Not having the equipment, I couldn't take samples. Q. And samples were to have been taken during that time period, according to the Navy? A. And the prior time period when there was no industrial hygienist. Q. Correct. At some point in time between May of '67 and the end of October of '68, you did have occasion to go to the shop building where the insulators did some of their work. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you also have a chance during that time period to see products, asbestos products, insulation, stored around the shop? <3 1 Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013099 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33 A. Yes. Q. Were they also stored in some other places around the shipyard, to your knowledge? A. Yes. Q. Where else were they stored, sir? A. Oh, they were stored -- insulation product were stored on a barge. cQjii It was located at various time at various places, I guess, in the shipyard. A lot of insulation products were just stored in ggp the open, on board piers. Q. I'm sorry. Did you finish, sir? A. There may have been a storage area in the shipyard, a supply area, and, of course, the Naval Supply Center was adjacent to the shipyard, and that was, of course, a lot of warehouse area, and there were, of course, insulation products stored there, too. Q. During that time period from May of '67 to the end of October of '68, you had occasion to see asbestos- containing insulation products stored in those various facilities. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you have a recollection of the name of the manufacturers of any of those asbestos products? A. Well, immediately comes tomindJohns-Manville as one manufacturer. Q. Any others? A. I believe Raybestos-Manhattan is a manufacturer of a lot of the cloth, as I recall. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34 There were others, I would think. Q. Let me give you some names and see if that refreshes your recollection. Do you remember seeing any products manufactured by Philip Carey? A. You're talking about a time interval? You know, my recollection about what times I saw these things, of course, is very vague now, but at some time I saw products by Philip Carey in the shipyard. I'm sure. Q. Do you alsorecall any Eagle-Picherproducts? A. Yes. Q. Just so it's clear, we're referring to containing insulation products. A. Yes. Q. Do you recall the name "Pabco"? A. Yes. Q. Did you see products of asbestos-containing insulation with the name "Pabco" on them? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall the name "Kaylo"? Does that refresh your recollection? A. Yes, I saw that. Q. That was also anasbestos-containing thermal insulation product of some type? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Q. was? Do you recall who the manufacturer of Kaylo A. No. Q. Does it refresh your recollectionconcerning Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35 asbestos-containing products if we mention Unibestos? A. Yes. Q. Did you see Unibestos at the shipyard? A. I think, on one occasion. Q. Any others you can recall at this time, sir? A. No. Q. With the exception of Unibestos, generally, were the other products of the manufacturers we named products which were at the shipyard generally throughout your course of employment there? A. As far as I can recollect. You know -- Q. The asbestos cloth products that were available at the shipyard, do you recall how they were wrapped I i > or packaged? A. They generally were in rolls that were in yL-l cardboard containers, long, square cardboard containers, as I recall. Q. Mr. Manning, for the first three years that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you did not have a secretary; is that correct? m i .1 A. Not of my own, no. Q. You sort of borrowed one when you could? A. From time to time I had some use, I could use the medical officer's secretary for some tasks. Q. Why was it important to you to have a secretary? A. Well, as my work progressed, I had more paperwork -- reports to get out, replies to inquiries. I had to process a lot of hearing-loss claims. I had periodic reports Rendel'B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 36 to make to BUMED. Q. Was it the idea that if you didn't have a secretary, you had to do the typing yourself, and therefore, you couldn't be in the field doing your job? A. Yes. Q. Did you have a belief within the first three years that you were at the shipyard, Mr. Manning, as to the understanding that the medical officers had cone industrial hygiene programs at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. What did you feel about that? A. Well, I've had a little time to think it. We went over it quite a bit. My feeling is that the medical officer. Captain Watkins, and the ship^cu.^ commander at the time that I came aboard, and some other individuals probably, were a little bit paranoid -- more than a little bit paranoid about what an industrial hygienist might do and what trouble he might cause, especially if he wrote reports and had some kind of contact or did some writing for an outside publication or contacted a newspaper, like this, and the reason for this was that Bill Marr did, as I understand it, publish apparently without permission, and he did, I think -- to my understanding -- make some contact with a local paper about the asbestos hazard. And it was because of this that these people were somewhat paranoid about getting things in print, or even written down, and this is my understanding now, in looking Rendel B. Hutch!-gs Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013103 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37 back on it, and the job had been abolished, and although I have no direct knowledge, it is my feeling, when I was hired, that it was with the understanding that I didn't get too rambunctious and cause a lot of trouble for the Navy in regard to these areas. Captain Watkins was not very, to say the least, very helpful in promoting the industrial hygiene program, and it was a little while, when Captain Smith came aboard, before I could get his attention and really get things going. Q. Mr. Manning, is it your understanding that Mr. Marr was shipped to Panama after his stint at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. I have no direct knowledge of just exactly what the circumstance was. I don't think that was so. I think Mr. Marr -- the opportunity for a promotion was available within the Federal framework, and he took advantage and took the promotion and went to Panama. I don't -- I never understood that there was any coercion or force. Q. Is it your understanding, though, that Mr. Marr, when he finished with the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did go to Panama? A. That's correct. Q. During the first three years that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, were you instructed by any of the medical officers to report directly to them prior to putting anything down on paper? A. Captain Watkins wouldn't allow any written Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reports. 38 Q. What about Captain Smith? A. When Captain Smith came aboard, I immediate! started writing reports, and it is just good form to send these things out under the signature of the medical officer. I think he wanted it this way. Q. At some point in time, sir, did you make any comments to the effect that you believed the industri" hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was merely window dressing? A. That comment was made in a memorandum I addressed to the medical officer. Q. And that memorandum, sir, outlined your observations and impressions of the problems with the industrial hygiene program at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard that you observed from the time you arrived there until the date of the memo ? A. Yes. Q. Let me show you a copy, sir, of a document which we will label as Defendants' E. (Whereupon the document referred to is marked by the reporter as Defendants' Exhibit E, for identification.) Q. BY MR. HOCH: And I'll ask you to take a look at it. For the record, it is a memorandum dated 30 June 1970, to Commander Jose C. Smith from Sheldon Manning. It is apparently 11 pages in length. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 39 A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Off the record. (A discussion is held off the record.) Q. BY MR. HOCH: Have you had a chance to review that, sir? A. I have looked it over, yes. I see what's in it Q. Does it appear to be a true and correct copy of the memo which you issued on that date? A. Yes. Q. This was issued during your regular course of employment as the industrual hygienist at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. By the way, did you type this one yoursel A. No, I didn't. I had some outside secretar to type it. Q. Somebody you paid to have type it? A. Yes. Q. Out ofyour ownpocket? A. Yes. Q. On page 10of the memorandum, sir, you state quote, "It is realized that there are many obstacles in the way of improving the industrial hygiene program lack of space - lack of money. However, the greatest obstacle in the way of upgrading the program is lack of backing from key people in the power structure of the shipyard, who apparently have little understanding of the need for environmental control and, consequently, could not care less about upgrading the program," unquote. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40 Do you see that paragraph, sir, on the bottom under "D. Discussion"? A. Yes, I see that. Q. Did I read it correctly? A. Yes. Q. That, in fact, was your feeling concerning the functioning of the industrial hygiene program at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard between the time you arrived there and 30 June 197,0. Correct? A. Yes, that was my understanding. Q. This comment you made, I assume, was not made lightly. Correct? A. No. Q. It was based upon what, sir? A. Well, up to that time, I had been there three years, and two years were spent under the direction of Captain Watkins, and there was not, from what I thought, sufficient headway made insofar as even getting equipment, and, of course, the telephone and all the other things were brought up here. As I stated before, I think that the motivation of Captain Watkins was that he was fearful of what a well-equipped industrial hygienist may do or say that would embarrass him. Q. He was in charge of the occupational health program; is that correct? A. Yes. For two years. I might say that I recognized initially the situation. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 41 and had to make a decision whether to leave or stay, and my understanding, he only had one year to go to retire, so I felt I could manage that, but he kind of threw me a curve and stayed an extra year, which was a little harder to take. And Dr. Smith came aboard, and I found, for the first year, that it was very difficult to get his attention. Another obstacle was that an administrative officer of the dispensary that worked for Captain Watkins carried over and had -- of course, having worked with him, knew his viewpoint, and accepted that viewpoint, which was a pretty low opinion of industrial hygiene and no moti to upgrade it, really, and probably no understanding of it, but having the power of the pursestrings. So, having no understanding, no motivation, he was not a force in building the industrial hygiene program, and he worked for Captain Smith -- or Commander Smith at the time. And Commander Smith depended on him a lot for whatever went on in the dispensary, and, in fact, at the shipyard commander's, say, weekly meetings, he sent his administrative officer instead of going himself. So that was part of the obstacle. And since I couldn't get his attention verbally very much, I had to make some kind -- I felt at the time, I was probably a little more emotional than I should have been -- that I had to get something down on paper and get it on the record, and in that way he would have to do something about it, or I had the option of getting Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 42 out of there if nothing happened. Q. Mr. Manning, the asbestos control procedures that you discussed with the insulators and insulator helpers and the rules and regulations that we've cited all were part of the industrial hygiene program which was to take place at the shipyard. Correct? A. This was my area. Q. And all of that also fit under the heading of the occupational health program generally, which medical officers were to enforce or were in charge I should say. I'm sorry. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. When you arrived at the shipyard, you no equipment with which to do your job. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And youfound that the chiefmedicalofficer wouldn't allow you to put things down in writing that you found. Correct? A. He stated he didn't want my written reports. Q. And you had to -- A. He wanted them verbal,everything verbal. Q. You had to clear actions that you wanted to take with him? A. Yes. Q. You also were burdened withsome other tasks outside of the control of asbestos, such as fitting earplugs . and running some urine tests. Correct? A. Yes. These were tasks that I performed. Rendel B* Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43 Q. It was your belief that those tasks could have been performed by somebody else so that you could spend your time out in the field. Correct? A. Yes. Q. When you wanted to talk to workers concerning the asbestos problem, did you find that there was s reluctance on the part of the Navy to allow you to down with these men and talk to them? A. No, no. Q. Did you find that it was difficult to get these workers away from their jobs to talk with them? A. Well, at times during -- maybe not in relation to asbestos sessions -- naturally, if a worker was in some kind of session involving education, he was not on the job, and you would find -- I found -- and this was in regard to the hearing conservation more than asbestos. Whenever the asbestos sessions were called, the people got there when they were called. In the hearing conservation, there were times when groups did not show up that were supposed to show up, and there was nothing you could do about it. That was something that supervision had to enforce. I would say, as a general rule, production people were reluctant to have their workers taken off the job and put in hours and places and situations that were not productive. This is a normal viewpoint. Q. Was it the general rule, then, that you ran into problems in getting men to get away from their work Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45 if they were carried out to the letter, it would require huge staffing. These people in Washington were very good at writing instructions, but the reality of the situation is, if all these instructions were follo^ffe^^, gO to the letter, it would have been almost impossible1 get anything else done in the shipyard. What was the question? I got off the track. MR. HOCH: That's all right. That's all I have for now, sir. Thank you. Do you want to take a break? MR. KELLY: Sure. (Lunch recess taken from 11:15 a.m. to 1:20 p.m.) (Mr. Steinberg is no longer present.) EXAMINATION \ BY MR. KELLY: Q. May the record show that we have adjourned, and, Mr. Manning, you have previously been sworn, and that same oath still affects your testimony, and you understand that? A. Yes. Q. With respect to your education, Mr. Manning, before you became an industrial hygienist, did you obtain any other degrees? A. No. Q. Do youhave adegree inchemistry? A. Yes. Q. Was thatobtained during your studies in . becoming an industrial hygienist? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013111 \1 2 3 4 5 6 ;7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 44 so you could train them and talk to them concerning industrial hygiene matters? A. Actually, there were only two kinds of sessions that were held while I was there, and one was hearing conservation, and the other was involved with asbestos exposure, and maybe I think -- I was not involved in it, but I instigated it. Some workers were given some training in radiation protection. Q. Approximately what percentage of your time over your career at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard did you spend on asbestos-related matters? A. Truthfully, that would be a wild guess, questions have been asked before. Q. We don't want you to guess, sir. A. It would be a real guess. Q. That's all right, then. Guessing doesn't help anybody. Just one last question, Mr. Manning. Did you ever make a request to your superiors for additional industrial hygienists to be employed by the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. When was the first time you made that request? A. I think, in this exhibit,there was some reference to -- in the letter I wrote to Smith -- a need for additional staff. You've put some instructions on the record, and I might point out to you that from the area of BUMED, there were many instructions in many areas that required -- Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 46 A. No. Q. Did you obtainthatafterwards or before? A. I graduated with aB.S. degree in commercial chemistry in 1943. Q. And then in which year did you become an industrial hygienist? A. In 1961. Q. Earlier, you had testified that you had wor for the Hooker Electric Chemical Company. A. Yes. Q. Do you remember approximately which years that would have been? A. '43 through the latter part of '45. ferJLJf Q. And then I believe you were a chemist with Bethlehem Steel. A. Early '47 to where, September, I guess, '61. Q. During the period of time that you worked for Bethlehem Steel as an industrial hygienist or chemist, did you run any quality control tests? A. Yes. Q. What type of tests were those? A. Oh, they involved chemical, physical analysis of coal -- Q. Did you run any tests relative to air control or air pollution? A. No. Q. When you worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, I believe, from 1961 to 1967 as an industrial Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013113 Mi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 47 hygienist, did you do any work or perform any surveys to determine if there were any health hazards in any of the manufacturers' plants or foundries that you were inspecting? A. Yes. Q. During thatperiod of time, didyou do an inspecting on any asbestos plants or manufacturers? A. Yes. Q. Approximately how many did you inspect or make surveys of? A. There was only one plant in my area that actually manufactured insulation. That was -- oh, bo Pittsburgh Corning plant in Port Allegany, Pennsylvania. There were, I think, other surveys done that involved asbestos,but that was the only manufacturer. Q. Withrespect toyourinspections of that asbestos manufacturing plant, what were the particular subject matters which you were the most concerned with or worried about? A. Well, this plant manufactured a variety of products, but during the time that I was employed with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, they started up a plant that manufactured preformed pipe insulation. Q. Did that contain asbestos? A. Yes. Q. Were youconcerned about the dust levels in that particular plant? A. Yes. Rendel B. HutchingsCertified CourtReporters MT-PWHD-013114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Q. How did you go about at that time in 48 measuring the dust levels to determine whether or not there were any hazards present by reason of the asbestos dust? A. We used the same midget impinger, light field technique previously mentioned. A midget impinger was . used to collect the dust, and the microscope, 100-power microscope was used to count the dust on a slide. Q. Did you say "100-power"? A. Yes. Q. Are there any other measuring devices to measure dust levels other than the midget impinger? A. Yes. Q. What other brands and makes are you aware of? A. Oh, one device comes to mind. Therewas a Bausch-Lomb counting device that used a plate that had adhesive material on it, some kind of sticky, adhesive material. In this particular device, as I recall -- I never used the device at all. I just read about it -- a fixed amount of air was forced against the adhesive or stickum material, and the particles presumably stuck to this material, and then they were counted under a microscope that was part of the instrument. I think -- well-- Q. Are you aware of any type of measuring device that is better than the midget impinger? A. Well, later, the membrane filter collecting 1 Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49 method that used a phase contrast microscope for counting fibers became the standard counting method, and I would believe -- believe it is a superior way. Q. In what year did you first learn about it? A. This way of collecting dust, I knew about that rather early on in 1961, because collecting on a millipore filter was done in evaluating silica exposures. It was used.to make a particle size evaluation. It became standard procedure to use the phase contrast microscope and millipore filter method around, I think, '71 or '2. '71, probably, I think. This was made the standard method by the TLV, but the method was used, I think, in England before that, and parts of the method had been used for other purposes before this. Q. Would that have been used prior to 1961 in England, to your knowledge? A. I don't know. Q. In your opinion as an industrial hygienist, what advantages would the membrane filter have over the midget impinger, insofar as being able to detect or measure the dust count levels relative to asbestos? We will just wait until he gets back. Do you need the question read back? A. No. You're asking what superioritythe one method had over the other method? Q. Yes. A. The millipore collecting device/phasecontrast Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 50 microscope counting method counted fibers, actual fibers, over five microns in length, and the prior method counted gross dust samples which may or may not have been asbestos. Q. So, then, if I understand you correctly, the midget impinger would be taking a gross count of all types of particles in the air, and not just asbestos fibers alone? A. Yes. Q. Was the membrane filter type of measuring device known and available in 1961? A. The collection method was known. It would just be beyond the scope of my knowledge whether the phase contrast microscope was in use for this purpose. It may have been or may not. I know that this method was used in England before we used it here in this country, and that's about the extent of my knowledge. Q. Do you know whether it was used before you went to work as an industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. No, I don't know that. Q. With respect to the collector type as distinguished from the midget impinger, could you explain to us mechanically what the collector type did, and what superiority it had over the midget impinger in measuring hazardous dust levels associated with asbestos or any other contaminants? A. Well, the millipore filter obviously is specific. A trained observer could determine whether an asbestos fiber was an asbestos fiber, and count it. Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 51 The millipore filter -- or millipore collector device had a number of drawbacks. Number one, you had to count it within a short period of time, because the particles would coagulate. You might get some kind of organisms in there to multiply. It is possible that some, depending on -- you might have some things go into solution. Q. How are you spelling "millipore"? A. M-i-l-l-i-p-o-r-e. It's membrane -- actually, the scientific designation is membrane filter. Millipore is a trade name. There are other people. Galvin manufactures it. Q. What particular advantage did the membrane type have over the midget impinger, as far as being accurate with respect to the dust level count? A. Well, the method allowed you to count the actual asbestos fiber and get a number. Secondly, the sample didn't deteriorate, either. You could count it in a week or a month, or whatever, and you could use part of the sample and save the othe part, and so -- Q. During the time you were with the Pennsylvania Department of Health from 1961 to 1967, which were the most dangerous factories that you inspected, as far as hazards were concerned,relative to dust count levels? A. The two plants that we checked out for asbestos were dangerous. As it turned out, under the standards of the time, there were brickyards that I sampled in that were dangerous. Foundries. Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52 Q. Was that because of the dust levels, insofar as the foundries and brick factories were concerned? A. Yes. Q. During the period of time that you were an industrial hygienist with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, did you have occasion in performance of your duties to measure silica dust levels? A. Yes. Q. With respect to the various measuring devices that you've testified to, such as the midget impinger and also the membrane collection device, were these devi^ actually designed to accurately measure the count of asbestos fibers in the air? A. No, I don't think they were actually for the specific purpose of measuring asbestos. Q. Werethose devicesactuallymeasuring a gross count of asbestos and all other contaminants in the air? A. Yes. Q. During the timethat youworked forthe Pennsylvania Department of Health, did you have any special training or courses which related to the subject matter of asbestos or asbestos hazards? A. No, nothing specific. Q. During that period oftime, did you have occasion to read and study any articles which were printed or published relative to asbestos hazards? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall any of theparticular articles Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53 that you read relative to asbestos hazards or asbestos dust hazards? A. Oh, I read during that time the book entitled, I think, "Industrial Dust," by Drinker and Hatch, which covers the field of dust exposure. Probably Patty's book -- Q. How is Patty spelled? Excuse me. A. P-a-t-t-y, I think. Q. What was Patty's book on? A. It had "Industrial Hygiene" in it. "Industril Hygiene" -- there was another word in there, but Patty uJij is a fundamental text in industrial hygiene. Q. Do you remember in which particular year or approximate year -- was it "Draker" or "Drinker" and Hatch? -- A. Drinker and Hatch. Q. -- which year that book would have been published or in circulation? A. Oh, probably 1955 or thereabouts. Q. What about Patty's book? A. Late fifties sometime, his initial book. Q. Did either of those books mention the inherent dangers of asbestos or asbestos dust? A. Yes. Q. In which year would you have first become aware of the potential hazards of working with asbestos and asbestos dust? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 54 A. Oh, early around >-- soon after I started work with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, I would have a cursory knowledge of the various things that would be hazardous in an industrial environment. It would probably just start out with knowledge of the TLV. Q. That would have been in 1961? A. ' 1. There were -- I think, first, the Pennsylvania Department of Health published a little 1-page instructions of something of this sort, dealing with specific hazards. I probably would have read that, which just touched the high points. Q. Would these things have been known to indust hygienists and anyone working in those fields during those years, 1961? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Manning, in your expertise as an industri hygienist, when you take into consideration any type of safety measures, do you also take into consideration the human nature of people and workers? A. Yes. Q. Earlier you testified with respect to the wearing of respirators at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and I want to ask you, in your opinion as an industrial hygienist, as to whether at that time during the years of 1967 throughout 1974, up until the time you quit on February 25th, 1974, did you place complete dependence upon respirators as a protective device for the workers? A. No, I didn't. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 55 Q. Would you explain your answer, please, fully? A. Well, in the field of industrial hygiene, when people are involved, in trying to control industrial hazards, it is taught by the people -- for instance, in the U.S. Public Health Service publications and anybody else fairly knowledgeable in the field -- that these types of respirators we're talking about, dust respirators, can really only be depended on only for emergency situations r and for a period of time until better control methods can be installed. Q. Why is that? A. Well, this type of respirator is generally not accepted by the worker. Q. Based upon your experience and your obser-|a^o^s( as an industrial hygienist, and especially during the years that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, would you explain what your understanding is as to whY jirnirr the respirators were not acceptable to the workers? A. Well., the respirators of the type that we used, used a fabric type of filter. They had resistance to breathing, which caused -- would cause respiratory fatigue after a while. Generally, these workers were involved in moderately physical effort, and it is known that a worker will just stand so much of this and then take the things off. They're uncomfortable. They prohibit or inhibit communication. They load up, of course, and the resistance gets greater as they load, causing the necessity to have replacements for the filter if they're Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 56 going to be used. It is just part of human nature that a human being doesn't like to be muzzled, and at least in my observations and what I knew about the subsequent respirators of this type, to put your dependence solely on those things as your only defense is an exercise in futility. Q. Would that be your opinion today, as well as back in 1967, when you went to work at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. Well, given that type of respirator and human^ nature not changing, I would say yes. I might add, there were throwaway respirators come into use, I think, later that were better accepted for a number of reasons, but that particular respirator during" BSMSi. ri bbW that period of time was not well accepted. Q. During the time that you were with the Pennsylvania Department of Health from 1961 through '67, did you have occasion to inspect any chemical plants? A. Yes. Q. Were you involved in any cleanups of any contamination during that period of time at any of those chemical plants? A. Well, the only involvement in decontamination was the manufacturer of -- Kilsdonk Chemical, or Chemical Company, I think, was the name of the -- Q. What was the particular hazard or danger there, as far as the chemical is concerned? A. Well, they had manufactured a dye. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 58 I believe it happened in late '64, as I recall, and I later obtained the transcript of the proceedings, and early on at least glanced through it. Q. During the time that you were working for the State of Pennsylvania, 1961 to 1967, and inspecting these chemical plants, did you yourself wear a face mask or respirator or any type of protective clothing in carrying out your duties? A. The answer is no, except on some isolated occasions. Q. What would be the reason for not wearing a respirator during that period of time? A. Well, first of all, we were not provided with respirators. They were not available. And it w< felt as good practice for an industrial hygienist, wh<^)]|rrrM he's taking samples, not to unduly alarm the which would -- you know, actually jumping to the concll that things were out of hand. If you walked in there and checked something out without really knowing one way or the other -- Q. That would be not wanting to alarm or frighten the employees? A. Well, it would be bad form. For instance, Patty, in his book, made fun of pantywaist industrial hygienists who go around, you know -- the idea was, the industrial hygienist was exposed to a less extent than the employee, and wearing a respirator would be begging the question, "This is out of hand. I'm wearing a respirator>" Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37 beta-naphthylamine, that had been proven to cause -- be the direct cause of bladder cancer, and -- Q. Excuse me. Go ahead. A. -- and the Pennsylvania Department of Health, because it was known to cause bladder cancer, I guess from studies made by Dr. Lieben, who was the head of the Occupational Health Branch, the state outlawed, actually outlawed the use of the beta-naphthylamine in the State of Pennsylvania. And I think Kilsdonk Chemical Company was the only manufacturer involved, and they ceased to manufacture, and when I was employed, most of the work had been fi and they ceased to manufacture, but the building was still there, the room was still there, and I went in Vj*8 with somebody else to see that the place was free of the contaminant. Q. In which year did you first become aware of the fact that working with asbestos could cause cancer %* in the workers who worked with asbestos products? A. It first came to my attention, I believe, probably sometime in early 1965 or thereabouts. It was -- Q. How did you first learn about that? A. Actually, my supervisor, whose name was Paul Gronka, obtained knowledge of that at a staff meeting in Harrisburg, where Dr. Jan Lieben participated in that staff meeting, and he had, I guess, just recently attended the sessions on asbestosis and related problems given by the New York Academy of Science. Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and everybody looks around. The same thing applied to the shipyard. If you walked around there with a respirator all the time, somebody would throw a net over you and you'd pretty soon get fired, because -- Q. With regard to the number of employees that were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard when you first started there in 1965, I believe you testified earlier to a figure of approximately 8,500, and my question is, out of those 8,500, approximately how many shipyard workers in 1967 would have been working directly with asbestos products? , MR. HOCH: Just to correct the record, your question started with saying the witness started working in '65. I think you meant '67. MR. KELLY: Yes. I meant '67. Will you correct that? Thank you. MR. HOCH: Sure. BSsK&afcptsrta.* Ss,2S?St.3`%\ THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, the pipe coverers and insulators numbered somewhere in the imiae&M neighborhood of 100, 110, 130, thereabouts. It probably varied, depending on the load. Subsequently, I found that there were other exposures in other trades intermittently, some of them just for short periods of time. It might have involved 40, 50 other employees. Q. BY MR. KELLY: Just as a ball-park figure, then, in your opinion, would it have been less than 300 Rendal B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 60 workers who were working directly with asbestos products in 1967 at the shipyard? A. Yes. Q. Based upon your experience as an industriaij^j^j hygienist and during the years that you worked at the Jfammazu Long Beach Naval Shipyard from '67 to '74, if you were^*ss8t> to enumerate on a 1-2-3 basis the most hazardous areas in the shipyard pertaining to working with asbestos or asbestos dust, which places would you name in order as; being the most dangerous or hazardous? A. Could you clarify what you mean by "places"? We have -- Q. I should probably be asking about work projects or tasks or duties that were being carried out. A. First of all, the greatest exposure to asbestos was, without a doubt, aboard ships that were under repair, and more specifically, in the engineering spaces, meaning the boiler rooms and the engine rooms of these ships, and the greatest intensity, of course, was the removal of the asbestos from the machinery, from the boilers, from the pipes, what was generally known as ripout, and these were the most intense exposures. Q. Would you explain to us what^ particular factors or things would be involved in the ripout operation aboard the ships that would cause or create the most intense and greatest hazards to asbestos and asbestos dust?' A. Well, creation of a dusty situation involves generally the application of mechanical work of some a Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 kind, and when this material was removed, it was generally removed in a physical manner. It was cut off, or sometimes they used a hatchet. Sometimes a knife was used to remove this material. It was pulled off physically and dragged out on occasion. They'd remove, for instance, the portions of asbestos blanket and just drag it out through everything and bounce it over everything and toss it in -- this is the way it was when I went there initially -- toss it into a dumpster or something outside or nearby. Q. Continue. Excuse me. A. This kind of activity -- and the material was very dry, of course, having been in a hot situation a long period of time. Dry and fragile and wore out, probably, and it just disintegrated into a cloud of dust. Q. When you speak of a ripout operation, is this the actual tearing or cutting and removing of asbestos that's in place around pipes and other equipment aboard ship? A. Yes. Q. In what areas of the ship would the ripout operations be engaged in? A. Well, anytime something had to be repaired or replaced aboard ship and it had insulation on it, the insulation first had to be removed to get at whatever whether it was machinery or pipe or whatever. Most of this was done, as I previously stated, in the engine spaces and in the boiler rooms of ships, was the greater amount. There were other applications for insulation. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 62 Q. Would that be in the hold of the ship where the steam pipes are? A. That's right. Firerooms or places where there are boilers. Q. Would the workers, then, who were engaged in a ripout operation aboard these ships be working i: crowded and confined spaces, as far as room and venti was concerned? A. The engineering spaces aboard naval craft, as a general rule, are very crowded and filled with engineering equipment, boilers, and compressors and generators. The smaller the ship, the more confined it is. The destroyers come to mind as being very confined. If you got up to a cruiser, why, there was a little more room there. And possibly aircraft carriers would have a little more space. Not a whole lot, but -- Q. Realizing, of course, that these ships, battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, would all vary in size, once a ripout operation were to commence, approximately what would the time period vary between? Would it be a matter of weeks or months that these ships would be in dock while a ripout operation was being engaged in? A. Well, the sequence in the repair and overhaul of ships -- the extent of the work varied, depending on what they were doing. Sometimes these ships were completely overhauled and changed. But the sequence would be, when the ship first come into the yard to have work performed on whatever machinery or whatever was Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 63 being done, the ripout would occur then, and then maybe would extend -- then maybe they'd change their mind or maybe they would add something on later that they were going to do. Well, then, maybe additional ripout would occur. But, generally speaking, most of the ripout would be done when the ship initially hit the yard for overhaul, because the machinery had to be exposed and the pipe exposed, and so forth, to get the things out to repair them. Q. Generally, would the workers themselves who were engaged in the ripout operation be working in the hold of a ship for eight hours at a time for several days or longer during the course of a ripout? A. Oh, I suspect, and probably know of some jobs would require a better part of a day in the ship, but this would not always be so. It would be whatever time was required to get that much done. That's what it would be. Q. During the time you were ihdustrial hygienist at the naval shipyard at Long Beach, were you advised in advance as to when these ripout operations would be conducted aboard ship by the workers? A. I had to work at finding out. Over a course of time, I would get pretty good at finding out and knowing what was going on. Q. But no one was communicating to you? A. They would not -- when a ripout would occur, < Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 64 I would not be notified. Their schedule and my schedule didn't always coincide, so I generally did my sampling work on my own. I would ask around. I could ask a foreman, I could ask different people about what was going on and find out. I generally showed up unannounced. Q. Earlier, we were talking about the measurii of dust in the air, and I'd like to have you explain in more detail the standards that are used with respect to so many million particles per cubic foot of air. A. You're referring to the threshold limit Q. Yes. A. Well, the threshold limit value was a standard that was established -- generally the agency that established a threshold limit value for a particular contaminant was the Threshold Value Committee of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. And they were the people that initially made up this list and set the standards. Q. Was that standard at one time five million particles per cubic foot of air? A. Yes. Q. Do yourememberapproximately in whatyear that standard was lowered, and what it was lowered to? A. To mybestrecollection,the standards remained at five, and then, of course, the standard changed with the change in method, and that would have been somewhere in the area of 197i, I believe. And with the method, the standard changed, and Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 65 I think it initially started out at 12 fibers per cubic centimeter of air, was the threshold limit value. Q. Could you explain to us what a milliliter is and what a centimeter is? A. Well, a milliliter is actually a cubic centimeter of space -- cubic centimeter of water at standard temperature and pressure. This is nitpicking. For all practical purposes, in the area we're talking about, just to be practical, a cc and a milliliter are about the same thing in the context of how accurate we are in the rest of our -- this is nitpicking, but there is a definite diff between a cc and a milliliter, in definition. Q. Have you, as an industrial hygienist, at any time during your work experience ever actually at asbestos fibers through a microscope? A. Yes. Q. What do those look like? A. Well, amosite is rather coarse fibrous material which I didn't see too often. The other type of asbestos was chrysotile fibers that was generally used in most of the asbestos products that I was involved with, and they were black, small fibers of various lengths. Under high magnification, they looked like they had frayed ends. If the material had been used in, say, a fabric, came from a fabric, the fibers were generally in a curled condition, because you could tell the difference, whether it was from a cloth or from preformed material. Preformed material Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 66 had fibers which were straight, and you would see curved fibers that had been stretched out of shape because they were woven. If you want to know how they looked, that's the way they looked. Q. For better understanding for myself as well as the jurors in this case, if you were to view silica dust under a high-powered microscope, and also look at asbestos fibers, what would the differences be, or similarities, as the case may be? A. WWeellll,, like various size ssiilliiccaa dduusstt wwoouulldd spots. llooookk,, uunnddeerr aa mmiicc^JfaMM0f|e( , yJ Asbestos, if you saw it under a microscope, wouldj be like -- look like a line drawn by maybe a very fine, pen. They would be dark, and generally straight. Q. Would the asbestos fibers under a high-powe microscope ever look like bundles, or in bundles? A. The frayed ends would give you a clue to the fact that they are actually bundles of fibrils which are much smaller than the actual fiber itself. It's known that these are made up of bundles of smaller fibrils, which are approximately a hundredth of a micron in diameter. Q. With regard to the various tests that you've mentioned -- and I believe you testified at one time there would be five million parts per cubic -- A. Particles. Q. Particles. Excuse me. In your opinion as an industrial hygienist, is Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67 there a safe level for workers who are working with asbestos and in and around asbestos dust conditions? A. Given the fact that we know that asbestos had been implicated in causing a higher incidence of cancer of various kinds, including bronchogenic carcinoma, it is my feeling that no level of exposure could be acceptable. Q. Would you explain to us why you terminated your employment as an industrial hygienist with the Lonc^ Beach Naval Shipyard on or about February 25th, 1974? A. I found that my workup, medical workup by Dr. Balchum in the prior December, that I had fairly itasaffif** advanced emphysema, complicated by asbestosis, and he advised me to remove myself from the exposure. My exertiign^l | capacity had dropped to about 55 percent of what was normal, and -- Q. What symptoms and problems have you had since then with respect to breathing or being able to physically do things? A. Well, I'm very short of breath. I don't have very much stamina. At least in the past, I've been more susceptible to bronchoinfections. I've had pneumonia, I think, three times -- at least twice since I got out of the shipyard. And if I get any kind of lung congestion, it just seems to be more severe and takes a long time to get over it. It goes with the territory, of course. Q. Do you experience any pain in any particular part of your body, in your opinion, as a result of the asbestosis? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 68 A. Well, there's very little pain, you know, except if you cough or have lung congestion and lung infection. You know, there's that aggravation there, but other than that, as far as I can say, the pain isn't -- I can't exert myself and I cannot do the things I would like to do, and I can't do the things I used to do. It limits -- I'm very limited in my physical capacity. Q. Has it, in your opinion, disabled you fron being able to engage in work for hire? A. Yes. ' Q- Do you experience any problem in trying tof....... walk any distances or go up a flight of stairs? A. Yes. Q. Do you understand that you have pleural thickening in the area of your lungs by reason of asbestos exposure? A. Yes. Q. During the period of time that you were an industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you yourself ever work in the pad shop or work aboard the ships in a ripout operation, aside from your duties as an industrial hygienist? A. No. Q. During the period of time that you were an industrial hygienist, did you have an office? A. Yes. Q. Approximately how farwas it from your office to the pad shop, either by fractions of a mile or number of blocks, for comparison purposes? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013135 A. Oh, maybe 300 yards. Q. Approximately how many yards or fractions of a mile would it have been from your office to the docks where the ships would be located during a ripout operation? A. It would vary with which dock it was. Anywhere from 200 yards to 600 yards, maybe further sometimes. Q. Was your office air conditioned during that period of time? A. For most of that period of time, yes. Q. Were you able, through your efforts, to lower the dust level count in the pad shop at one time? A. I can't take credit for too much of what was done in the pad shop. My studies in the pad shop indicated that the exposure in the pad shop was low, and going on into the period where asbestos was eliminated altogether from the pad shop, it was lower. The improvements that occurred there, I guess, in the pad shop were instigated by maybe Webster Ay and the shop themselves. When I came aboard, there was ventilation in there. At the place where they stuffed the pads, there was a hood. They had the wherewithal to wet down the fabric, which was a great help in lowering exposure. But, anyway, the shop got the idea that they would put some ceiling vents in, and ceiling fans, and they also put a false ceiling in there so that the dust wouldn't collect on the rafters and so forth. I think that was the extent of the improvement. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 70 Q. Do you remember approximately what those dust level counts would have been before ceiling vents and fans were installed in the pad shop and the false ceiling installed? A. Yes. In the area of one particle, and then depending on the operators, were less, if they were using asbestos there, and there apparently was some -- when I took later samples, there were some residual fibers laying around, and somehow or other they intermittently used some asbestos, but I think it dropped in half or less. The exposures in the pad shop were low, as compared to the situations out on the docks. Q. Are you saying the exposures and levels in the pad shop were low, as compared to where ripout operations were being performed aboard the ships? A. By many, many degrees of magnitude. There's no comparison. In the pad shop, it was a very low situation. In the situations aboard ship, the applications were intermediate exposures, and the ripout were the very high, uncontrollable things that people before me and after me found the same thing, and we'll probably always find it if the same thing occurs. It varied widely, depending on how much, how many people, and this sort of thing, and how they did it. Q. When you mentioned a false ceiling in the pad shop, was that just a matter of lowering the ceiling itself to improve working conditions and reduce the hazards? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. My recollection is that initially the building had a peaked roof and had girders across that were exposed, and what they did, they put a ceiling underneath the girders and rafters, much as they do in an office building. They used this kind of material that you see here. Q. How was that pad shop referred to, as far as identification? Was it by number, or did it have another name other than "pad shop"? A. Oh, we referred to it as the laggers shop. That was slang. It had a number -- Q. Was it 56? A. Well, Shop 56 identified -- the pipe coveregpsa and insulators were a part of Shop 56. Q. Would the terminology "lagger" and "pipe fitter" and "insulator" be one and the same? A. Interchangeable. "Lagger" was a nickname for "pipe coverer and insulator." Q. When you first went to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, were you aware of an incident that had happened because of bad air, where people had died or become ill? A. Yes. . Q. How many had died? A. I think we lost two men. My recollection -- it was either two or three men. I think, two. Q. What was the cause of those deaths? A. Well, that happened in December of 1967. It was aboard the USS HORNET, and the men were overcome -- I think three were overcome in addition to the two that died. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 72 They were working as sandblasters, I believe, and in confined spaces, I think probably the double bottoms of this aircraft carrier, blasting off the old paint, and this operation required supplied air. They used air-supplied respirators, plus they covered with canvas suits. And a fire occurred in one of the compressor rooms inside the compressed-air pipes, and combustion occurred and created or caused to form a large concentration of carbon monoxide and, naturally, oxygen depletion, and this was put into the compressed-air system, and these workers were near that particular compressor house Imitinnf and received this kind of contaminated air, and it killed two of them and overcome three. Q. After you started to work at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard as an industrial hygienist, did you have any responsibility to either test or carry out surveillan over the purity of the shipyard compressed-air system? A. Yes. This became a routine thing. Periodically, I was required to test the compressed-air quality. Q. You mentioned wettingfabric in the pad shop, and I'm wondering whether or not they ever attempted to wet or spray down the holds of the ships, various ships in the areas where the ripout operations were being conducted. A. No. Q. Was it not feasible? A. view. It was not feasible from asafety point of : Rendel, B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 73 Q. Why was that? A. During conditions of ripout, there are a lot of temporary electrical equipment installed, rather open connections, and this sort of thing, which could -- with a lot of wetness around -- cause short circuits and possible electrocution. Access to these places is by ladders, and walking around in these places is over steel catwalks of various kinds, which, when slippery, would make it easy to fall down, and it just wasn't feasible to use water in that situation. It may have not helped too much. Additionally, I'll clue you in on something. Most of the insulation, after it is applied, is painted, and that aspect of it is impervious to water, anyway. put a coat of white paint on it. They -**$** Q. With respect to the dust level counts that InssEcssi you would have taken as an industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, approximately how much time would be involved in the taking of a dust level count during a ripout operation aboard ship until you had the results of that particular test? A. In the millipore filter method, you had to get the sample counted within 24 hours. That was for certain. You probably could get the results within -- after you left the space, if it was really necessary, within an hour, hour and a half. But -- if you were dealing with one sample. It would take, oh, I'd say 30, approximately 30, Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 74 45 minutes for each sample. Maybe an hour. You had to go from one sample to another. To do it right, it was a very tedious, time-consuming task, really. Q. Could the dust levels change from one reading considerably, dependent upon the type of intensity was being engaged in in the ripout work? A. Yes. Q. As an industrial hygienist, would it be your opinion that whatever reading you did obtain during a ripout operation, as far as the dust level count concerning asbestos was concerned, that that may not be accurate within the next hour or few hours of that day? A. Yes. Q. It would changeand couldchangedrasticall A. Yes. Q. As anindustrialhygienist during the time that you worked at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you have any means by which you could measure the asbestos exposure of any particular worker who's involved in a ripout operation or working with asbestos products? A. No. Q. Would you have any way ofknowingwhether or not any one individual would be overexposed to asbestos hazards? A. No. Q. As an industrialhygienist, in the work that you have performed and experience that you have had, to your knowledge, is it true that individuals vary RendeX B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 75 with respect to their susceptibility to toxic substances as well as to the hazards of asbestos? A. Yes. Q. Was there any type of protective clothing of any kind whatsoever that was furnished to asbestos workers at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. Yes. Q. What did this consist of? A. At some time in the early seventies, each pipe coverer and insulator was issued a pair of cleanup coveralls at the beginning of each shift, and these cov were turned in at the end of the shift, and then launde Q. In what year would that program have become effective? A. To the best of my knowledge, it was around 1972. Q. Before that time, that practice was not rou carried out or engaged in? A. They werenot givencoveralls, no. Q. Did there come a time in yourexperience at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard when warning signs would be installed aboard the ships, warning personnel to stay out of particular areas that a ripout task was being engaged in? A. Yes. _ Q. What would have been the naval terminology for that? A. Posted it. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 76 Q. That would be to exclude the Navy personnel other than the workers that were actually engaged in the job itself? A. That was the purpose of posting it, yes. Q. I realize that the asbestos workers at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard were not, in fact, given con - 7" * B pay during the time they worked there, but did they atgy^^gg any particular year that you can recall receive extra pay which was designated as hazardous or dirty pay? A. You floored me with that "combat pay." jpses Q. Let's take "combat pay" out of the question|| and ask you whether or not you can remember any year in which asbestos workers were given an increase in their hourly pay by reason of their hazardous duty in working with asbestos products. A. Yes. I forget now what we called it. It was on the tip of my tongue. It was -- it was pay that was. given for -- supposedly to employees that were involved in work that was hazardous, the presumption being that the Navy could not completely control the hazards, so that they were given this extra pay. Q. That would be for asbestos workers or workers working with asbestos products? A. In the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, it was given to asbestos workers. Q. You had testified earlier with respect to some of the locations of asbestos products at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and I believe you mentioned some Rendel B, Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 77 of the asbestos product materials were located on barges. Where else, either in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard or adjacent thereto, would you find asbestos products? A. Well, I stated much of the material to be used was simply in cartons all along the piers. It was rather bulky stuff. I think there was an area where they stored some of this material in the shipyard supply area, not a big area, and as I stated, the supply center was adjacent and there were large warehouses where this matg^i^ was stored. So where you would see it would be on t. piers, mostly. Q. In carrying out your job duties and job- related duties as an industrial hygienist, would you have had an opportunity to have observed the storage of asbestos products throughout the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. Yes. , Q. During the period of time from March of '67 to February of '74, did you see or observe any cartons which contained the name of "Johns-Manville" as an asbestos manufacturer? A. Yes. Q. Based upon your experience and your observations, what would be your best opinion as to the percentage of Johns-Manville asbestos products at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard during the period of time that you were there? , A. Well, what I saw were cartons with the name Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 78 on it, in the piers, going to and from. I guess Johns-Manville -- I believe Johns-Manville would be about 70 percent of what I saw. Q. That would be in comparison to asbestos products of other manufacturers? A. Yes. Q. Did any of the cartons that contained JohnsManville asbestos products during the period of time that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard ever hay any markings or designation or printing as to what the percentage was of asbestos contained in that particular carton? A. No. Q. Would you have any way, during the period of time that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, in looking at a Johns-Manville carton to determine whether or not it contained, for example, a hundred percent asbestos content, as distinguished from a 50 percent or lower content in that particular carton? A. I don't quite understand your question. You mean by looking at the carton, would I know how much was in it? Q. Yes. What percentage of asbestos was contained in that particular product of Johns-Manville. A. There was no marking on the carton that I remember, saying how much asbestos was in the product. However, I know what was in their products. Q. During the period of time that you were at Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard from March of 1967 to February of 1974, did you ever at any time observe any Johns- Manville cartons which contained any warning of any kind? A. I can't remember any warnings. There may have or may have not been, but I don't remember seeing any. Q. I believe earlier you testified as to there being a lot of noise and hearing problems at the shipy. and I can't remember what percentage of your time you testified to that you may have spent during the time you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard working with hearing problems and other problems, as distinguished ^matsm from working with the asbestos hazard problems. A. No. I said it was a guess, and I didn't SggSS# want to do any guessing. It would just be pure guesswork on my part. Q. You had, then, a number of duties other than taking measurements of air in your job as an industrial hygienist? A. Yes, I did. Q. Would you tell us what some of those other duties were? A. Well, as a routine, I did have surveillance of the compressed air. There were mercury problems throughout the yard that needed constant attention. Solvent vapor problems in a lot of locations caused problems intermittently. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 80 Other dust problems, because of the sandblasting that was going on. Men in the shops, for instance, the foundry, needed attention. And from time to time, when things would pop up, like a welding material containing lead had to be looked at. Lots of painting went on, coating work. Throughou-j the shops, there were paint booths and different places] There were solvent dipping tanks. There was the electroplating area that required attention. We had made -- were the manufacturer of plastic products in another area. Had to be some surveillance there. Q. Do you recall during the period of time that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard that a Mr. Reitz/ or Rietze, R-e-i-t-z, who was a representative of Johns-Manville, came to the shipyard to go on a tour? A. He came with a group that was from Dr. Selikoff's organization and made a tour of the shipyard and looked at some of the problems around. Q. Do you remember in which year Mr. Reitze, the Johns-Manville representative, would have come to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? Would it have been after 1970 or before? A. Oh, my recollection is -- it's on the record somewhere, I think. I consulted my log and found it. Q. Could you please do that and insert that Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 81 year, if you can't remember it now, before you read and sign your deposition? A. I think I can find it. MR. HOCH: You've got your notes. THE WITNESS: These are some notes that I made. I think it's in here. The Selikoff group was in March of '69. Q. BY MR. KELLY: Would that have been the same year that Mr. Reitze was there? A. He was with -- accompanied that group. Q. Who was Dr. Selikoff, insofar as his relationship or concern with the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. Dr. Selikoff had no direct connection with the shipyard. Q. What was his purpose of being there, if youiggg.- know? A. At that time, I don't think he himself was there. It was some people from his staff and his office" Q. What was their reason for being there in '69? A. Dr. Selikoff had very good rapport with the pipe coverers and insulators union nationally, and the people that he was examining -- I think he was examining, through his contact with that union, and Webb Ay, of course, was, I think, president at one time of the pipe coverers and insulators, and he had access to union funds, and I think it was through his -- and maybe probably the union paid for the expenses for the trip. I don't Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 82 know this for sure, but this is an assumption. I know the shipyard wouldn't pay for it. Q. During the time Mr. Reitze was there in 1969 as a representative of Johns-Manville, did he conduct any studies, as far as the dust level counts were concerned? A. No. Q. As an industrial hygienist, and before the period of time you went to work for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard in 1967, what, if any, inherently dangerous characteristics were you aware of that related to asbesto and asbestos products? A. Before 1967? Q. Yes. A. Well, my knowledgeprobably atthat time, I was aware that asbestos fibers couldcauseasbestosis,' which is fibrosis of the lungs, land had some knowledge, L fa cursory knowledge, that it could cause cancem Not real extensive knowledge of it. I probably heard the word "mesothelioma" maybe two years prior to that, and was somewhat aware that asbestos could cause specifically this type of cancer^ ' With the Pennsylvania Department of Health, I dealt with a very large gamut of contamination, and had a wide variety of things to look at, and we didn't get'into it as deeply as -- you know, my knowledge increased as I went along. It's very hard, in retrospect, to figure out when I learned what, and, you know, as the thing became more important and there was more published, I Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 nr % i 111 i**' ttJ'S ^ learned more about it. * E J6 dWIi. Q. But you were aware of these thindK *it - ' #s was well published in the literature in your field before you went to work for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard as to the hazards and dangers of asbestos and asbestos products? A. There was material available. Probably more material than I even knew about available. I didn't know about all the material that was available. You know, with my level of interest at that time, I went so far, and working for the state government, you know, if it was over and too much, you had to do something about it. It was very pragmatic in that situation. If it wasn't, you didn't have a good reason to enforce anything. And that was about the extent of it. Q. During the approximate 7-year period of time that you were an industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, do you know whether or not there was any asbestos coordinator between Johns-Manville and the naval shipyard? A. I know of no coordinator, no. Q. For the purpose of my questions and for brevity. I'll just refer to Johns-Manville as "J-M," and I want to ask you whether or not J-M ever provided you, as the industrial hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, with any means of identifying the products contained in its containers so that you'd know which were asbestos . or nonasbestos products. A. No. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 84 Q. Did J-M, at any period of tii^e^cnen: you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, ever provide you with any type of safety respirators or masks? A. Did J-M? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Did J-M, atany time that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, ever provide you with any printed literature, leaflets, pamphlets, or any other type of warnings as to health hazards for the asbestos workers at the shipyard? A. No. Q. DidJ-M everprovide'you with anyliterature, leaflets or pamphlets advising what type of protective clothing or what type of protective measures should be taken or utilized by asbestos workers? A. No. Q. Did J-M ever do or conduct any individual monitoring of any of the asbestos workers at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard while you were there? A. No. Q. Did J-M ever do or conduct any individual monitoring of the asbestos workers who were engaged in the ripouts in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. No. Q. Did J-M ever advise or recommend that periodic physical exams should be conducted of the asbestos workers at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard while you were there? Rendel B. Hutch! "ified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 85 A. No. Q. Did J-Meveradvise orrecommend that periodic X-rays should be taken of asbestos workers at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard while youwere there? A. No. Q. Did J-M at any time ever advise you while you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard as to the fiber release characteristics of any of its asbestos products that were being used at the shipyard? i A. No. 1 ! Q. Did J-M ever advise you at any time while you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard or instruct you how to measure the fiber release characteristics of any of its asbestos products used at the shipyard? A. No. Q. Did J-Meverfurnish you with any written or printed instructions for the control of asbestos dust during the ripout type of work that was done aboard any of the ships at theLongBeach Naval Shipyard? A. No. MR. KELLY: You may examine. MR. HOCH: Mr. Manning, would you like to take a break? MR. KELLY: Surely. (Recess taken from 3:10 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.) (Mr. Michael McCarthy enters the deposition room.) MR. HOCH: Back on the record. i Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 86 EXAMINATION BY MR. HOCH: Q. Mr. Manning, to the best of your recollection,, was there a program of periodic X-rays for insulators established at the shipyard when you arrived? A. Yes. Q. They were supposed to have X-rays how often? A. Once each year. Q. That was pursuant to some rule or regulation of the Navy? A. It was at least shipyard practice, and laid down by the medical department to do that. Q. Is it also correct that to get into the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you have to have some kind of clearance? You can't just walk in off the street; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, in 1969, when Mr. Reitze came, did you know he was a J-M employee? A. Yes. Q. Did he tell you that? A. I had some previous contact with Mr. Reitze somewhere in a conference. He also had attended that conference in New York and had some article in there, I believe. He wrote something in there, as I recall, his viewpoint about the situation. Q. Were you aware at the time he visited the shipyard that he was actually being paid by J-M, but was working for Dr. Selikoff's group out of Mount Sinai Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013153 1) 2^ 3 4^ 5: 6 ),' 7 8' 9 10 r n; 12 l;' 13 i; 14 Id v/ 16 5; 17 S. 18 5( 19 S 20 21 22 23 24 87 in New York? A. I believe I knew that at that time. It was either before or after, but I knew something about the structure, that he was not -- he was still working for J-M and was on loan, was my understanding. Q. That Mount Sinai group was touring facility where asbestos was used, including naval bases? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware of after that visit whether that group of people from Mount Sinai were publishing anything that was disseminated to workers? A. Yes, they published. Q.( What kind of things? A. Well, Dr. Selikoff from time totime published in various journals the results of his ongoing studies of this asbestos situation and the incidence of cancer and his findings as far as incidence of asbestosis, and they did get in -- some of that got into the trade papers, \ I know, of the asbestos workers. Q. Wasn't that group also publishingliterature on work practice, procedures and safe handling? A. I have no firsthand knowledge of just what they did print in that regard. The material that I saw was pf the incidence of cancer and)the incidence of asbestosis 25 and the material in regard to smoking in connection with ' 26 this. 27 Q. Before Mr. Reitze and the other members of 28 the group from Mount Sinai arrived at Long Beach, did Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 88 you clean up your act in the shipyard? I don't mean you personally. I mean the asbestos workers. A. It was my experience that whenever a group from outside came for any kind of tour, it is my belief that the people out in the field were informed that, "The tour's coming, and have your respirators on and try to put on an outside appearance." It was standard there ajid, I think, other places I worked, the same thing, kind of things occurred. Q. Concerning asbestos-containing thermal insul products which were used at the shipyard, they varied in their percentage of asbestos fiber, did they not? A. Yes. Q. Some had 5, 10 percent asbestos fiber? A. There were some, I think, had 10, 10 to 15 percent. I don't recall anything as low as 5 percent, that I know of. It is possible it could have been. Q. With reference to the J-M boxes that you had seen around the shipyard, were you aware that during your tenure at the shipyard, that J-M made products other than asbestos-containing thermal insulation material which was used at the shipyard? A. Other than thermal insulation material? It didn't come to my notice, I don'tbelieve. Q. They may or may not have? A. May or may not have. Q. At some point in time during your tenure at the shipyard, were you aware at any time that J-M Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 89 produced and sold a nonasbestos-containing thermal insulation product? A. At any time? Q. At any time. A. No, I didn't become aware that they did this. I was able to tell glass fiber from asbestos fiber through inspection, and it's just a matter of recollection. It could have been or could not have been. I don't remember. Johns-Manville is not connected with glass fiber in my mind now. Q. A lot of the asbestos-containing products that were used at the shipyard for insulation, whether they be J-M or otherwise, were a calcium silicate-based product; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Were you aware of any J-M product which was a calcium silicate product that did not contain asbestos and was used at the shipyard? A. No. Q. They may or may not; you just don't know? A. I didn't see it, or if it happened, it happened some period that I didn't immediately become aware of. I just can't remember anything. Q. When did the Navy start posting warning signs on their asbestos operations? A. I would believe in 1973. Q. Concerning protective clothing, you mentioned some coveralls. Was not there some sort of Navy directive f' J fifi im; &" Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 91 says, "I'll make respirators mandatory." And that was the solution, and this was his viewpoint. And so, with that kind of viewpoint, all other things were unnecessary. Q. Did Captain Chapman ever raise any cost problems concerning this coveralls program? A. It was my understanding that it was considered an unnecessary expense from his viewpoint, and they opposed it, and these things came to my knowledge after the fact a considerable time. Q. We've used the term "ripout" during the course of this deposition, and you've described it to us. Ju so it is clear, "ripout," as you used it, is a general term for a specific operation. Correct? A. It is a general term used for removal. Q. It could be a ripout of a 1-foot length of pipe or a 30-foot length of pipe? We'd still call it "ripout"? A. That's correct. Q. And the insulators and laggers who did the ripout wouldn't necessarily always be doing a ripout operation on an enormous quantity of piping? Sometimes it could be little. Correct? A. It could vary from a little to -- Q. An entire -- A. -- a big job down to -- itwas all called "ripout." Depending on the size of the job and the circum stances, the concentration they were exposed to varied. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 90 at some point in time which mandated this procedure? A. Yes. Q. Was that a 1969 requirement that was sent down by the organization in the Navy that controlled the shipyard? I think it was called NAVSHIPS then. A. NAVFACS. Q. NAVFACS. A. The names changed. I think at that time it was called Naval Facilities Command, and that would #**``-""11 be changed to NAVSHIP. Q. Anyway, it was in that time period. A. They sent an instruction down that I became aware of sometime in that period, yes. Q. Was it difficult implementing that instruction? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. The shipyard management, I think, in the person, I think, of the production officer, and possibly the shop superintendent, felt that it was not necessary and was superfluous. The production officer at that time was a Captain Chapman, and he was a naval officer who had strong ideas, and he, in my presence, addressed some comments to a Commander Barboo, who was a member of BUMED in the area of environmental health in Washington and visiting there. We had come down from the shipyard commander's office after discussing the asbestos problem, and he walked up and addressed Commander Barboo, and says, "I have the answer to the asbestos problem." He Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 92 but compared to other things, it was high. Q. Right. I understand. Their environment would change from job to job and hour to hour. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Concerning the hazard pay thatinsulators got, that was a pay differential over and above their standard salary. Correct? A. Yes. It was known as differential pay. Q. Are you aware of any requirement by the Navy that for an individual to get that pay differential, a dust count would have to be done to substantiate th the environment was above the TLV? A. "Requirement," did you say? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Was there any rule or regulation at Long Beach that that had to be done? A. No. Q. Anything alongthat line in terms of an instruc tion or order that a dust count would have to be done to certify that an area was, quote, hazardous, unquote? A. No requirement. ^Therewas some kind of inquiry made by a Mr. Morley, I remember, that maybe this kind of thing would be desirable, and, of course, monitoring 50 or a hundred or 150 employees throughout a shipyard with a staff of one -- this, of course, was a ridiculous thought. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013159 The differential pay was -- I think, the way it turned out, was given if the employee worked with any amount of asbestos, if it was asbestos. And the way it worked out, if it was entirely glass, they didn't get it. And that was the way it worked out. Q. When you took meajurements of dust in the pad shop, would it refresh your recollection if I told you that the measurements before renovation, you found .7 million particles per cubic foot of air, and after, it was .26? A. That would be accurate. Q. And the then existing TLV was five million particles per cubic foot? A. Yes. r""' Q. As an aside, Mr. Manning, your present phy I' 1 condition, your emphysema, was in part based upon your 1 1 own smoking history, correct, as far as you know, and 1l | your exposure to workplace toxins other than asbestos? ! it | MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Off the record. | I S' | Q. (A discussion is held off the record.) .. BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Manning, you do have emphysema. Correct? A. Yes. j Q. Have your doctors told you you have emphysema i j j because of smoking and because of your exposure to other 8 i. ,. i toxic agents during your career as an industrial hygienist 1 and chemist? A. No. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Q. 2oG,. Did they say it was due to smoking? . 94 A. No. Q. What did they say it was due to? A. My smoking stopped in 1961. If anybody wants to put it on the record, I think it is. Q. Several times. A. I don't think, as Iunderstand,medical science understands what causes emphysema entirely. This is my understanding. I'm not a doctor. I do have -- am one of the susceptible people to lung damage because I have a genetic defect -- I think this is on the record an alpha-antitrypsin deficiency that Balchum found in 1973 and '4, that predisposes me to have lung damage. ...... Q. The TLV's that we've been discussing, when the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists sets those, or recommends the setting of those standards, those are based on the best known evidence, scientific and medical, at the time they're made; is that correct? A. They're based on whatever scientific material is available at that time. Dr. Stokinger was the chairman of that committee, and he gathered all the material he could find, I guess, on a particular hazard, and they debated and discussed these things and come up with a number. Q. Did you ever recommend different types of ventilation systems to be used aboard vessels where asbestos operations were going on, to get rid of the fiber in the air? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 95 A. I wrote a report in 1969. I probably -- I think I put in there to use as much ventilation as could be put -- brought to bear under the circumstances, which, in a shipboard condition, is limited because of space problems and just the general condition of the work area. The amount of ventilation that you can use or bring to bear in that situation is just -- there's a limit to it. Q. In terms of protecting the worker, the use of ventilation such as what you recommended would be one method. Is it also correct that the use of respirator, despite it being uncomfortable, is another method of protecting the worker from inhaling asbestos dust? A. Oh, yes. Q. In industrial hygiene, occasionally you hav to make a trade-off between some comfort and safety. Correct? A. Well, that's kind of a leading question, I think. Q. We're reserving our objections. MR. KELLY: He just made one. He's well trained. fasaagSkBS THE WITNESS: I, as an industrial hygienist, can make the recommendation that you apply all the ventilation that you can apply, which, in this case, turns out to be general ventilation. There is no way in that complicated machinery-infested situation, the way it was, to apply what we call local ventilation where you can get down and get right at the source of the contamination and Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 suck it away. This was not possible. 96 And I did recommend that they use the respirators, hoping that they would wear them just as much as possible. This depended on the individual. Sometimes I would observe maybe' the younger people would be more apt to wear respirators, and the old guy at 65 years old, who had been exposed for 35 years, and maybe, "What the hell's a respirator going to do me now? I've had it." I couldn't tell him, "Yeah, that's okay," but he had a point, you know. Q. Nonetheless, you did recommend the use of respirators and respirators were made available to the insulators and the helpers?. A. Yes. MR. HOCH: Thank you. I have no other questions. (Mr. Hoch leaves the deposition room.) EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Mr. Manning, how many periodic X-rays did you have while you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard during that approximate 7-year period? A. I wasn't included in the periodic program. Q. Then I'll eliminate "periodic" from my question, and just ask you: How many X-rays, all together, can you remember having during that approximate 7-year period? A. Oh, I may have had as many as four. At least four. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 97 Q. As an industrial hygienist, and based upon your education, training, and experience, as well as the information and knowledge that you gained while you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard during that approximate 7-year period, other than X-rays, do you know of any other way or ways in which it can be determined that a person has asbestosis? A. There are some other methods that can contribute, observations that can contribute to the diagnosis of asbestosis besides the X-ray, but the X-ray is the principal tool that's used to diagnose -- in the period that I was there, to diagnose asbestosis. There are other symptoms that they bring, like clubbing of the fingers. Of cours the incidence of what they call dyspnea or shortness of breath. And as an auxiliary way of determining the condition of an employee, there were pulmonary function tests performed on these particular individuals. Q. In which year at the Long Beach Naval Shipyar did they first perform pulmonary function tests upon any workers who were working with asbestos products? A. It was prior to my arrival. I don't know how many years prior, but it was maybe one or two years prior. The pulmonary function test program was in effect, I think, probably one year prior to my arrival. They started a program of giving each individual in the pipe coverers and insulators trade a pulmonary function test, arid it was performed at Memorial Hospital. Q. How frequent was that pulmonary function Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 98 test given to each asbestos worker during the period of time that you were at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. It was once each year. Q. Do you know in which year X-rays were given to each and every worker at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard who worked with asbestos? A. No, I don't. It was in effect when I went there, and it had been in effect for some period of time. I just don't know. Q. Did you keep any records in your department as to which workers had or had not had annual X-rays taken at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A. Did I keep records? Q. Yes. A. For several years, when Iinitially went there, and for several years afterwards, I examined X-ray reports from the radiologist, and if there was anything unusual, I recorded it. Q. Do you have any independentrecollection during the time that you were the industrial hygienist with the Long Beach Naval Shipyard of seeing any X-ray reports of any of the workers who worked with asbestos, that they did, in fact, have evidence of asbestosis on their X-rays? A. There was, in fact, I think, to my recollection, one individual who was specifically diagnosed as having asbestosis by the radiologist, who was -- Q. Excuse me. Go ahead. Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. That's the only one. Q. Was that when you first came there, or was that later on? A. There was one individual that I remember. His name was Hathaway, that had asbestosis, according to the person, the doctor, who was reading the X-rays. Q. Do you remember which year you learned this? A. I learned this in 1967. He wasn't any in '68. I know that. Q. Are you aware of what would have been the highest percentage of asbestos content that would have been contained in any of the Johns-Manville products that were used at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard when you were there? A. The products that I came in contact with most -- there's a possibility that I don't know all the products that were used, but the most frequently observed product in use was the preformed -- Q. Blocks? A. -- blocks and pipe covering. Q. What percentage of asbestos wouldthose have? A. It was supposed to have in theorder of 10 to 15 percent asbestos fiber, and the rest was calcium silicate. Q. You had given a figure earlier of 10 to 15 percent. Was that the lowest figure or the highest figure that you observed? Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 100 A. My belief is, as I recall, the figure we generally accepted was 15 percent and 85 percent calcium silicate. It could have varied. Q. With regard to the threshold limit values, you were asked the question as to whether or not those were based upon the best known scientific material that was available at that time, and my question is whethaa^^^k or not those TLV values actually accurately re f lectedtJb^* jrxmJr the number of asbestos fibers as distinguished from a gross contamination count in the air. A. Well, I think the counting method prior to 1972, I think, was the gross count that we mentioned. The impinger method was used back a long time. I don't know when it came into use, but it was the initial method for counting silica dust, and it was just transferred over into counting -- the same method was used to count asbestos. That was an old method. Q. But that old method did not, in fact, actually count the number of asbestos fibers that was in the dust? A. No, it did not. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. MR. MCCARTHY: Let me take a minute to check with Mr. Hoch. MR. KELLY: Sure. . (A discussion is held off the record.) (Mr. Hoch enters the deposition room.) MR. HOCH: I have no other questions. Rendel B. Hutching' Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. KELLY: May we stipulate that the deposition 101 be concluded, and then off the record for housekeeping purposes. (A discussion is held off the record.) MR. HOCH: We've been off the record discussing stipulations to the deposition, and I think we have reached an agreement that this deposition transcript will be expedited. Hopefully, it will be in the hands of Mr. Steinberg by the middle of next week. He will then discuss the deposition as need be with Mr. Manning, and I request that Mr. Manning read over the transcript and make any corrections necessary and that it be signed in front of a notary, and that the original then be sent to you for filing with the court. Or do you want us to do that? pi MR. KELLY: Why don't you have the original sent directly to the Wyoming Clerk of the Court in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and we'll have our copy to work with. MR. HOCH: That's fine. And if, for some reason, the original of the deposition is not so filed with the court by the day of trial, may it be stipulated that a copy can be used in lieu of the original? MR. KELLY: That's agreeable. SHELDON H. MANNING Rendel B. Hutchings Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013168 STATE OP CALIFORNIA ) SS 102 I, , a Notary Public and for the State of California, do hereby certify That on the _____ day of _> 19. before me personally appeared the witness whose deposition appears hereinbefore; That the said witness was by me duly advised of the right to make such changes and corrections in the within transcript as might be necessary in order to render the same true and correct; That the said witness stated to me that the said deposition had been read to or by _______, and , having made such changes and corrections as desired, thereupon subscribed and swore to said deposition in my presence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal of office this day of ;, 19. Notary Public in and for the State of California. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS. Certified Court: Rpnorf.P^ MT-PWHD-013169 STATE OP CALIFORNIA ) SS I, Lucia Moskal, CSR,: a Notary Public in and for the State of California, do hereby' certify: That, prior to being examined, the witness named in the foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That said deposition was taken down by me in shorthand at the time and place therein named and thereafter reduced to typewriting under .my direction. I further certify that It wa-s stipulated by and between counsel that said deposition may be read, corrected and signed by the witness before any notary public. I further certify that I have no interest in the event of the action. WITNESS my hand and seal this December 80 . . day of locxa'moskal, csr 1222 Registered.Professional Reporter Notary Public in and for the State of California. RENDER'B. HUTCHINGS, Certified Court Reporters MT-PWHD-013170 A-V___ "V* ^ v*. : SWmfoaj-...' DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Bureau of Medicine ond Surgery Woshington, D.C. 20390 ...... BUMED 6270.3D BUMED.732.rmo 15 February 1966 BUMED INSTRUCTION 6270.3D 2 From: Chief, Bureou of Medicine ond Surgery To: All Ships and Stotions Sub}: Threshold limit volues for toxic materi 3 als Enel: (1) Threshold limit volues 1. Purpose. To establish as a basic reference the threshold limit values of toxic materials, adopted by the American Conference of Govern' mental Industrial Hygienists, reprinted as en closure (1) with their permission. 2. Concellotion. BUMED Instruction 6270.3C is hereby superseded and canceled. 3. General *1 a. Threshold Limits. The threshold limit values contained in enclosure (1) are based on the best available toxicological information, \ long-term industrial experience, and experimental studies. Inasmuch as these values are constantly being reevaluated, revisions or additions will be 3S* made as further information becomes available. "4 b. Limitations. The enclosed listing of thresh old Until values for vaiious chemicals does not constitute authority for the procurement or use of these items. c. Abbreviations Used. The following abbre viations are used: ,, ppm O mg/m parts per million milligrams per cubic meter m.p.p.c.f. million particles per cubic foot 4. Action. The medical officer or medical depart ment representative of each ship and station con- cerned shall: o. utilize the information contained in en closure (1) to assist in the identification and control of potential industrial health hazards. b. Make recommendations to the commanding officer for specific corrective actions, when re quired. c. Reauest any needed information and advice from the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (Code 73) on chemicals not included in the list. I i 1 i i v.' \ exwbij.* w cy V y ;>J v*} ffzXhih'i 5 O`IV?0 held.oc\ U-Har\aia<A R. B. BRCUN Di stribution: SNDL Ports 1 ond 2 Marine Corps Lists 6/9/53 Copy to: CNO(Op-09B83 per OPNAVINST 5215.9A) Stocked At: Supply & Fiscol .Department Naval Station Code 514.32 Washington, D.C. 20390 /) Urf ' /a . 4 6)p m MT-P\A/w n_nt  5 4 1 A 4 % i Vfl 'W,j v'j:' BUMEDINST 6270.3D 15 February 1966 THRESHOLD LIMIT YALUES The Threshold Limit Values refer to air-bome concentrations of substances and represent con ditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. Because of wide variation in individual susceptibility, exposure of an occasional individual at or even below the threshold limit may not prevent discomfort, ag gravation of a pre-existing condition, or occupa tional illness. Threshold limits should be used as guides in the control of health hazards and should not be regarded as fine lines between safe and dan gerous concentrations. Exceptions are the sub stances given in Appendix A and certain of the substances given a "C" listing. The values not given a "C" listing refer to time-weighted aver age concentrations for a normal workday. The amount by which these concentrations may be exceeded for short periods without injury to health depends upon a number of factors such as the nature of the contaminant, whether very high concentrations even for short periods produce acute poisoning, whether the effects are cumula tive, the frequency with which high concentra tions occur, and the duration of such periods. All must be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision as to whether a hazardous situa tion exists. Enlightened industrial hygiene prac tice inclines toward controlling exposures below the limit rather than maintenance at the limit. Threshold limits are based on the best avail able information from industrial experience, from experimental human and animal studies, and when possible, from a combination of the three. The basis on which the values are established may differ from substance to substance; protec tion against impairment of health may be the guiding factor for some, whereas reasonable free dom from irritation, narcosis, nuisance or other forms of stress may dominate the basis for others. The Committee holds to the opinion that limits based on physical irritation should be considered no less binding than those based on physical impairment; growing bodies of evidence indicate that physical irritation may promote and accelerate physical impairment. Ceiling vs Time-Weighted Average Limits. Although the lime-weighted average concentra tion provides the most satisfactory, practical way of monitoring air-bome agents for compli ance with the limits, there are certain substan ces for which it is inappropriate. In the latter group are substances which are predominantly fast acting and whose threshold limit is more appropriately based on this particular response. Substances with this type of response are best controlled by a ceiling "C" limit that should not be exceeded. It is implicit in these defini tions that the manner of sampling to determine compliance with the limits (or each group must differ, a single brief sample, that is applicable to a **C" limit, is not appropriate to the timeweighted limit; here, a sufficient number of sam ples are needed to permit a tine-weighted average concentration throughout a complete cycle of operations or throughout the work shift. ' Whereas the ceiling limit places a definite boundary which concentrations should not be permitted to exceed, the time-weighted average limit requires an explicit limit to the excursions that are permissible above the listed values. `Skin Notation. Listed substances followed by the designation "Skin" refer to the potential contribution to the over-all exposure by the cu taneous route including mucous membranes and eye, either by air-bome, or more particularly, by direct contact with the substance. Vehicles can alter skin absorption. This attention-calling de signation is intended to suggest appropriate measures for the prevention of cutaneous absorp tion so that the threshold limit is not invalidat ed. Mixtures. Special consideration should be given also to the application of these values in assessing the health hazards which may be as sociated with exposure to mixtures of two or more substances. "Inert" or Nuisance Particulates. A number of dusts or particulates that occur in the working environment ordinarily produce no specific ef fects upon prolonged inhalation. Some insoluble substances are classed as inert (e.g. iron and steel dusts, clment, bentonite, silicon carbide, titanium dioxide,cellulose); others nay be solu ble (starch, soluble oils, calcium carbonate) but are of such a low order of activity that in con centrations ordinarily encountered do not cause physiologic impairment; still others may be ra pidly eliminated or destroyed by the body (veg etable oils, glycerine, sucrose). In the case o( the insoluble substances, tbere may be some ac cumulation in the respiratory passages. In the case of the soluble substances, this accumula tion will ordinarily be temporary but may inter fere to some extent with respiratory processes. Hence, it is desirable to control the concentra tions of such particulates in the air breathed by any individual, in keeping with good industrial hygiene practic. 3 A threshold limit of 15mg/m , or 50 mppcf, whichever is less, is recommended for substan ces in these categories and for which no speci fic threshold limits have been assigned. This limit, for a normal work day, does not apply to briel exposures at higher concentrations. Neither a Enclosure (1) -----'* * IV/IT ni a #i i W does it apply to those substances which may cause physiologic impairment at lower concen trations but for which a threshold limit has not yet been adopted. RECOMMEHDED VALUES (In Alphobeticol Order) Substance ppm* M*/Mw* Simple Asphyxiants-'Mnert'* Cases or Vapors. A number of gases and vapors, when present in high concentrations in air, act primarily as sim ple asphyxiants without other significant phy siologic effects. A TLV may not be recommend ed for each simple asphyxiant because the limit ing factor is the available oxygen. The minimal oxygen content should be 18 percent by volume under normal atmospheric pressure (equivalent to a partial pressure, pOz, of 135 mm Hg). Atmos pheres deficient in Oz do not provide adequate warning and most simple asphyxiants are odor less. Some asphyxiants present an explosion hazard. Account should be taken of this factor Acetaldehyde------------------ --------, 200 Acetic acid-........ ............ .. 10 Acetic anhydiide_________ __ . 5 Acetone.-----------------------------------.1,000 Acetonitrile.................. .. ......... 40 Acetylene letisbtomide .1 Acrolein --.................. ................. 0.1 Acrylonitrile - Skin.................. . 20 Aldtin (1, 2. 3, 4, 10, 10- hexachloto-1, 4, 4a, 5, 8, 8a hexahydio-1, 4, 5, 8-di- methano-napthaleoe) - Skin.... 360 25 20 2, 400 70 14 0.25 45 0.25 in limiting the concentration of the asphyxiant. Allyl alcohol - Skin------- ----- -----. 2 5 Allyl chlotide___ _____________ . 1 3 C Allyl glycidyl ether (AGE).........,. 10 45 These limits are intended for use in the field Allyl ptopyl disulfide---------- ----. 2 12 of industrial hygiene and should be interpreted Ammonia............................. .........., 50 35 and applied only by persons trained in this field. Ammonium sulfamate (Ammate)... - 15 They are not intended for use, or for modifica tion lor use, (1) as a relative index of toxicity, by making a ratio of two limits, (2) in the evalu ates or control of community air pollution or air pollution nuisances, (3) in estimating the toxic potential of continous uninterrupted exposures, (4) as proof or disproof of an existing disease of physical condition, or (5) for adoption by coun tries whose working conditions differ from those in the U.S. n-Amyl acetate............................. . Amyl alcohol (isoamyl alcohol). . Aniline - Skin................................ Antimony & compounds (as Sb)... ANTU (alpha naphthyl thioutea)........................ ........... .. Atsenic & Compounds (as As) .. At sine...... ............................... . Batium (soluble compounds)___. 100 100 5 ~" 0.05 - 525 360 19 0-5. 0.3 0. 5 0.2 0.5 C Benzene (benzol) - Skin....... ......, 25 80 1 Benzidine-Skin............................. - A1 Physical Factors. It is recognized that such physical factors as heat, ultraviolet and ioniz ing radiation, humidity, abnormal pressure and the like may place added stress on the body so that the effects from exposure at a threshold limit may be altered. Most of these stresses act adversely to increase the toxic response of a substance. Although most threshold limits have built-in safety factors to guard against adverse effects of moderate deviations from normal en vironments, the safety factors of most substan ces are not of such a magnitude as to take care of gross deviations. For example, continuous work at temperatures above 90*F of over-time, extending the work-week more than 50-7., might be considered gross deviations. In such instan ces judgement must be exercised in the proper adjustments of the threshold limit values. Benzyl chloride............................ 1 5 Beryllium..................... ................ . - 0.002 Boron oxide ................. ......--.... - 15 C Boron trifluoride............... -........ . 1 3 Bromine.......................................... .. 0.1 0.7 Butadiene (1, 3-butadiene)....... .1,000 2,200 2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)............................ ......... . 200 550 2-Eutojty ethanol (Butyl Cellosolve) - Skin__________ . 50 j- Butyl acetate (n-butyl acetate)... - 240 - Butyl alcohol............................. ... 100 300 teit. Butyl alcohol............... ....... 100 300 C Butylamine-Skin..................... _... 5 15 C teit. Butyl chiomate (as CiOa) - Skin ........................................ . - 0.1 n- Butyl glycidyl ether (BGE).... 50 ..- -270 Butyl mercaptan........................... . 10 "" 35 These values are reviewed annually by the p-tert. Butyltoluene.............._... . 10 60 ! Committee on Threshold Limi's for revision or Cadmtum oxide fume................... . - 0.1 additions, as further information becomes avail Calcium aisenate........................... - 1 "H able. t i Calcium oxice............................... - 5 Enclosure (1) MT-P\A/Hn_rH 71 V*^-rvV J BUMS DIN ST 6270. 3D 15 February 1566 Swbslsncs i ppm* Mp/M*** Substance ppm* Mp/M*** xf3t Camphor ______ _________ ____ - _ Carbon dioxide................---------- 5,000 2 9,000 Dichlorodifluoromethane.............1, 000 1.1-Dichloioethane 100 4,950 400 Carbon disulfide Skin.... .......... 20 60 1.2-Dichloroethane H Cat bon monoxide......................... .. - - (ethylene dichlonde)................ 50 200 Caibon tetrachloride - Skin....... 10 65 1,2-Oichloroethylene--------------- 200 790 Chloidane (1, 2, 4, S, 6, 7, 8, C Dichlcroethyl ether-Skin._........... 15 90 . 8-octachloio-3a, 4, 7, 7a Dichloiomonofluotome thane___ 1, 000 4,200 tetrahydro-4, 7-methanoin- C 1,1-Dichloro-l-nit/oethane-------- 10 60 dane) Skin...................... ....... 0.5 Di chi erotet/a (Ivor oe thane............1, 000 7,000 Chlorinated camphene. (toxaphene)-Skin.............. -- Chloiinated diphenyl oxide....... . -- - 0.5 0.5 Dieldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro -6, 7-epoxy-l, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8aoctahydio-1, 4, 5,8-dimethano- ii i + Chloiine......................................... - -- naphthalene) - Skin____ __ __ - 0.25 - Chlorine dioxide------ ---------------. 0.1 0.3 Diethylamine_________ --....... .. 25 75 C Chlorine Uifluoride....................... C Chloroaceialdehyde..................... . 0.1 1 0.4 3 Difluoiodibtomomelhane_______ 100 C Diglycidyl ether (DGE)...---------- 0.5 860 2.8 j I Chtoiobenzene Diisobutyl ketone__________ _ 50 290 (monochlorobenzene)............ 75 350 Dimethyl acetamide - Skin-------- 10 35 Chlorobromome thane................... . 200 1.050 Dimethylaniline (N-dimethyl- Chlorodiphenyl (42? chlorine) - Skin-- 1 aniline) - Skin ______ ________ 5 25 Chlorodiphenyl (54 chlorine) - Skin- 0.5 f Dimethylfoimamide - Skin........... - - 1 I C Chloroform (trichloromethane)... . SO 240 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine - Skin -- 0.5 1 1-Chloro-l-oitropropane ............. . 20 100 Dimethylsulfate - Skin__ ____ 1 5 Chloropicr in.................................. . 0.1 0.7 Dinitrobenzene I Chloroprene (2-chloro-l, (all isomers) - Skin..... ........ .. - 1 i 3-butadiene) - Skin................. Chromic acid and chromates 25 90 Dinilro-o-cresol - Skin................ Dinitrotoluene - Skia.................... 0.2 i 1.5 (as C(Oj)................................ , - 0.1 Dioxane -r* \ Cobalt............................................ .. - 0.5 (diethylene dioxide) - Skin___ 100 360 Copper Fume......................... ...... . - 0.1 Dipropylene glycol methyl t Dusts and Mists....................... . -- Crag (R) herbicideQodium 2-(2, 4- 1.0 ether - Skin............................... 100 Endrin (1,2.3, 4,10,10-hexa- 600 i dichloiophenoxy) ethanol hydrogen sulfatej ................... - 15 chloi&-6,7-epoxy-l, 4, 43, 5, 6, 7, 8 8a-oclahydro 1, 4-endo-5, Cresol (all isomers) Skin_____ . Cyanide (as CN) * Skin___ _____ . 5 - 22 5 8-dimethanonaphthalene) - Skin - Epichlorhyr in-Skin......................... s 0.1 19 tf Cyclohexane.................................. . - - E.PN (O-ethyl O-p-nitrophenyl Cyclohexanol.____ ____ _______ . 50 200 thionobenzenephosphonate)-Skin - 0.5 tt Cyclohexanone.--.......................... . 50 Cyclohexene.................................. . 200 -- Ethanolamine..... ............ ....... ....... 3 Ethyl acetate................................. 400 6 1,400 2,4-D (2, 4-dichlorophenoxy Ethyl acrylate - Skia.................. 25 100 acetic acid).............................. - 10 Ethyl alcohol (ethanol)............ --.1,000 1,900 DDT Q2, 2-bis (p-chloiophenyl) 1, 1. 1-tiichloroethane^]- Ssin - 1 DDVP (0, O-Dimethyl-2, 2-drchloro- vinyl phosphate) Skin........... .. - 1 Decaborane - Skin-..................... 0.05 0.3 Demeton (systox) (R) Skin____ Diacetone alcohol (4-hydroxy- 4-methyl-2-pentanone)............. Diborane......................................... 1.0 50 0.1 -- 240 ' 0.1 * PjM* of vioor or (<l per million pjrtt of *< bf tolym* it ?VC Jftfl 760 on Ht 0'*l*u't * * AppfOttmite miliijrims of p*MKwiie pet cubc meter of. ' itf A Numoi. See Append** A i + lt 2-Dibromoethane (ethylene dibromide) - Skin...................... - - +1965 A.dditio>\ or delation *C*-f* TontotWe Volvo* i C o-Dichlorobenzene........................ . 50 300 t 196 4 Revision Tentotiw Volvt p-Dichloiobenzene........................ 75 450 tt 1965 Ravi sion .too T.ntotiv. Volu.s i Enclosure (1) MT-PWHn-ni3i7A B&ii&At i t Ikfcrl i i an ( 1 * -4 u< \ i BUKZDINST 6270.3D 15 February 1966 SvbltlAC* p^m* Camphor TM..-......-..............................-- Carbon dioxide--................. .......--5,000 Catbon disulfide - Skin------ -- 20 f| Caibon monoxide................ - Carbon tetrachloride Skin.... ... 10 Chloidane (1, 2. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8-octachloro-3a, 4, 7, 7a tetrahydio-4, 7-methanoin- dane) Skin..... ................. -- Chlorinated camphene, ' (toxaphene) - Skin................... Chlorinated diphenyl oxide.... .. Chlorine................... ....... ...... ----. Chlorine dioxide....... -......... -..... 0.1 C Chlorine tiffluotide....._............... 0.1 C Chloioacetaldehyde...................... 1 Chloiobenzene (monochlorobenzene).............. 75 Chlorobromomethane................--. 200 Chlotodiphenyl (42?. chlorine) - Skin- Chlorodiphenyl (54a chlorine) - Skin-- C Chloroform (trichloromethane)__ 50 1-CMoro-l-nitiopropane.............. 20 Chloropicrin................................... 0.1 Chlorcptene (2-chloro-l, 3-butadiene) - Skin ................... 25 Chromic acid and chromates (as CrOa).............................. - Cobalt..... ............................ -........ - Copper Fume......... ........... --...... - Dusts and Mists........................ - Crag (R) herbicide ^sodium 2-(2,4- dichlotophenoxy) ethanol hydrogen sulfate^ .................. -- Cresol (all isomers) - Skin......... 5 Cyanide (as CN) - Skin--...... -- -- ft Cyclohexane....... ..................... -- - Cyclohexanol________ 50 Cyclohexanone... ........................... 50 ff Cyclohexene................................... - 2,4-D (2, 4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid).............................. -- DDT Q2.2-bis (p<hlorophenyl) 1, 1, l-trichtoroethaneH- S<in DDVP (O, O-Dimethyl-2, 2-dichloto- vinyl phosphate) Skin............ -- Decaborane - Skin......................... 0.05 Demeton (systox) (R) Skin....... 1, o Diacetone alcohol (4-hydroxy- 4-methyl-2-pentanone)............. 50 Diborane......................................... 0.1 + 1,2-Dibiomoethane (ethylene dibromide) Skin...................... -- C o-Dichlorobenzene..... .................. 50 p-Dichlorobenzene........................ 75 2 9,000 60 65 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 3 350 1,050. 1 0.5 240 100 0.7 90 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.0 15 22 5 200 200 10 l l 0.3 " 240 qt 300 <50 . $whtonc ppm* Dichlotodifluoromethane.... :.----- 1, 000 l,l*Dichloroethane...................... 100 1,2-Dichlotoelhane (ethylene dichloiide)............... SO 1,2-Dichloroetnylene..... -- - 200 C Dichloroethyl ethei-Skin........... .. 15 Dichloromonofluoromethane------ 1, 000 C 1,1-Dichloro-l-nit/oe thane-------- 10 Didhlototetialluoioe thane..... ......1, 000 Dieldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro 6,7-epoxy-l, 4, 4a, 5,6,7,8,8a- octahydro-l, 4, 5,8-dimethano- naphthalene) - Skin...... ........... Diethytamine........................ ... Ditluorodibromomethane 25 100 C Diglycidyl ether (DGE).--.......... Diisobutyl ketone------- ------------Dimethyl acetamide Skin..... .... Dimethylaniline (N-dimethyt- 0.5 50 10 aniline) Skin.................. ........ 5 f Dimethyllormamide - Skin..... ...... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine Skin .... Dimethylsulfate - Skin 0.5 1 Dinitrobenzene (all isomers) Skin......... ........ Dinitio-o-ciesol - Skin..........-- Dinitrotoluene - Skin............. ....... - Dioxane (diethylene dioxide) Skin___ 100 Dipropylene glycol methyl ether Skin............................... 100 Endiin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexa- chloto-6,7-epoxy-l, 4,4 a, 5,6,7,8 Ba-octahydio l,<-endo-5, 8-dimethanonaphthalene) Skin m Epichlorhyrin-Skin........................ 5 EPN (O-ethyl O-p-nitrophenyl thionobenzenephosphonate)-Skm ., Ethanolamine......................... ....... 3 Ethyi acetate...................... _... _ 400 Ethyl acrylate - Skin.................... 25 Ethyl alcohol (ethanol)................1 ,000 4,950 4C0 200 790 90 4,200 60 7,000 * 0.25 75 860 2.8 290 35 25 -' 1 5 1 0.2 1.5 360 600 0.1 19 0.5 6 1,400 100 1,900 ________________ Pjrlt t vjpor fas pft mitlo pr!i f if / volume l ?i C jnC 760 mm Me pffstufe * App(om.*te m.lhfrjmt ( pMiCuite per cubic meter I ir. A Humber*. See Apptnflu A + 1965 Addition or delation I Tmteilv* Velwei f 1964 Rerition Tonfotiv Veiuvt Tt 196 5 R.vUion .... Tontotiv# Voluos MT_D\A/un r\A BUMED1NST 6270.3D 15 February 1966 - Jt A . ! $ub*tonc PP"<* Swbttonc* rpfft* H*/M*** , f -f Fthylaminr ........................ 1 -f C F thylhenzen*.... ............................ |T _, 1 Ffhvl hfomide... ___ . . 200 890 | Ethyl chloride .--________--1,000 2,600 F fhvl *the; .............. 400 1,200 i Ethyl formate----------- ---------- 100 300 . He Ethyl meicaptan.___ ___________ -- . Ethyl silicate................................. 100 -- 850 Ethylene chlorohydtin Skin___ 5 16 i Ethvlenediamine......................... 10 25 C Ethylene glycol diniuate Skin 0.2 1.2 Ethylene imine - Skin.................. - -- I Ethylene oxide........... .............._.. SO 90 2-Ethoxyethanol - Skin................. 200 740 2-Ethoxyethylacetate (Cellosolve acetate) Skin ... 100 540 | Feibam (lettic dimethyl 1 dithiocarbamate)............... ...... -- 15 Fettovanadium dust............--... -- 1 i Fluotide (as F) ---------------------- 2.5 Fluotine ...................... ..--............ 0.1 0.2 1 *h2nc.............. -1 ,000 5,500 C Formaldehyde .......................... 5 6 Futfutal - Skin.............................. 5 20 Furfuryl -alcohol................. ........... SO 200 Gasoline...................................... soo 2,000 Glycidol (2, 3-Epoxy-1 - ptopanol).................................. - 50 150 Hafnium................................ ......... -- 0.5 Heptachlor (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8a-heptachloro-3a, A, 7, 7a-tettahydro-4, 7- methanoindane)-Skin.......... 0.5 Heptane (n-heptane)..-................ SOO Hexane (n-hexane)...................... soo 2,000 1,800 Hexanone (methyl butyl ketone) 100 410 sec-Hexyl acetate................... .. 50 295 Hexene (methyr isobutyl ketone) 100 410 Hydrazine - Skin.......................... 1 1.3 Hydrogen bromide............ ........... 3 10 C Hydrogen chloride...................... S 7 Hydrogen cyanide-Skin.............. 10 11 Hydrogen fluoride..................... -- 3 2 Hydrogen peroxide, 90%--........ 1 1.4 Hydrogen selenide................. ....... 0.05 0.2 | Hydrogen sulfide -- Hydroquinone --2 C Iodine................................--.......- 0.1 1 lion oxide fume_______________ - - isopherone............. ........ .............. 25 140 lsopiopylamine.______________ _ 5 12 Isopropyl glycidyl ethet (IGE).-- 50 240 Ketene........................................... 0.5 0.9 Lead............................ .................. - 0.2 Lead aisenate ........ ..................... - 0.15 Lindane (hexachloicyclohexane, gamma tsomei) - Skin.............. 0.5 -- 0.025 Magnesium oxide fume____ _... -- 15 Maiathion (O.O-dimethyl dithiophosphate of diethyl mercaptosuccinate) - Skin -- 15 C Manganese__________ ---------- - -- 5 Metcury - Skin ......... ............... -- 0.1 Metcury (organic compounds) Skin__-......................... .......-- 0.01 Mesityl oxide-------------------------- 25 100 Methoxychlor (2, 2-di-p- methoxy-phenyl-1, 1,1- bichloroethane).................. -- 15 Methyl acetate...........-........ 200 610 Methyl acetylene (propinc)------ ,000 1,650 Methyl acrylate Skin ............... 10 35 Metnylat (dimethoxymethane)..... ' 000 3,100 Methyl alcohol (methanol).......... 200 260 C Methyl bromide - Skin................ .. 20 80 Methyl cellosolve (2-metnoxy- ethanol) - Skin.......................... 25 80 Methyl cellosolve acetate (ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate) - Skin................ 25 120 * C Methyl chloride....................... -- ICO 210 Methyl chloroform (1, 1, l-tri- chloroethane)............................. 350 1,500 Methylcyclohexane...................... 500 2,000 Methylcydohexanol...................... 100 470 o-Methylcyclohexancne Skin .... 100 460 Methyl formate............................. 100 Methyl isobutyl carbinol 250 (methyl amyl alcohol) Skin .. 25 100 f Methyl mercaptan.......................... Methyl methacrylate.................... 100 410 C Q Methyl styrene....... ,................. 100 480 C Methylene bis phenyl isocyanate (MDi)...................... 0.02 0.2 Methylene chloride (dicnloromethane)................ . SOO 1,750 Molybdenum ( soluble compounds) .............................. 5 (insoluble compounds)............ Monomethyl aniline -- Skin.......... -- 2 15 9 Naphtha (coal tar)........................ 200 Naphtha (peuoleum).................... 500 800 2,000 Naphthalene................................... 10 50 p - Naphthylamine........................ - A2 Nickel catbonyl............................. 0.001 0.007 Nicotine Skin............................... - 0.5 f Nitric acid..................................... p-Nitioanitine Skin.................. 6 Nitrobenzene Skin...................... Safe5'S i (fH uuu^ r j f i K m r } W WT ------------------ 1 7 y 5 $ f. :i BUMEDINST 6270.3D 15 February 1966 4 ppm* **/> Swbttenc* ppm* M$/M** Nitroe thane............. ......... .......... 100 310 Quinone..,,............................... 0.1 0.4 il C Nitrogen dioxide___ ___________ C Nitroglycerin .+ EGON Skin.... 5 0.2 S 2 Rotenone (commercial).............. Selenium compounds (as Se) -- -- -- 5-- ? Nitromethane__________________ 100 250 Sodium liuoroacetate (1080) 1 -Nitropropane ....________ ___- 25 2-Nitropropane.......... ............. .... 25 90 90 - Skin..................................... -- Sodium hydroxide..__ __________ - 0.05 2 N Nilrosodimethytamine (Di- Stibine----- -------------- ----------------- 0.1 0.5 methylnitrosamine) * Skin A3 Nitrotoluene Skin......_......... .... 5 30 Stoddard solvent______________ 500 Strychnine____ ________________ - 2,900 0.15 Octane........................ ....... - 500 2,350 , Styrene monomer Oil mist (mineral) _..... .......... ...... -- 5 (pheny lethylene) 100 420 Osmium tetroxide. Ozone.... .............................. ..... Parathion (0, O-diethyl O-p- -- 0.1 0.002 0.2 Sulfur dioxide.-------------------------- 5 Sulfur hexafluoride ...... -- -- 1,000 Sulfuric acid.---------------- ------------ - 13 6. 000 1 nitiophenyl Lhiophosphate) Sulfui monochloride....... .........-- 1 6 - Skin_______________________ -- 0.1 Sulfur pentafluoride.................... 0.025 0.25 Pentaborane___________________ 0.005 0.01 Sulfutyl fluoride...... --..... ........ 5 20 Pentachloronaphthaiene - Skin _ -- 0.5 2, 4, 5T (2, 4, 5 Pentachlorophenol Skin---------- -- 0.5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid). 10 Pentane ------------- --------------------- 1, ,000 2,950 Tantalum........ ................ .............. - 5' Penlanone (methyl propyl ketone)............................. - 200 .700 TEDP (tetraethyl dithionopyrophosphate)-Skir._ _ 0.2 Peichloroethylene (letraChloioethylene)................ ........ 100 670 Teflon (R) decomposition pioducts.............. --................. _ A4 Perchloiomethyl meicaptan ..... .. 0.1 0.8 TEPP (tetraethyl pyro Peichtoryl tluoride ................... . 3 13.5 phosphate) - Skin........ ......... 0.05 Phenol - Skin......................-........ 5 Phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE) -- 50 19 310 Tellurium................................. -- 1, 1, 2, 2-Teuachloroethane --- 0.1 Phenylhydrazine - Skin........ .-- 5 22 - Skin............. ................. ........... 5 35 Phosdrin (Mevinpnos) (R) 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloro- (2 carbcmethoxy -l - 1 2-difluotoethane._............. 500 4,170 methyl vinyl dimethyl Tetraethyl lead phosphate) Skin...................... - 0.1 (as Pb) - Skin....... .................. . 0.075 f Phosgene (carbonyl chloride)__ - - Tetiahydiofuran..... .................. -- 200 590 0.3 0.4 Tetranitrome thane........................ 1 8 Phosphoric acid............................ Phosphorus (yellow).................... -- Phosphorus pentachlotide ......... Phosphorus pentasulfide............ -- -- - 1 0.1 1 1 Tetryl (2, 4, 6-trinitrophenyl- methylnitramine) - Skin........... Thallium (soluble compounas) - Skin............................ .............. --. . l.S 0.1 Phosphorus trichloride................ 0.5 3 Thitam (tetramethyl thiuram Picric acid - Skin ................ ........ Platinum (Soluble Salts)--_____ Polytetiafluoro - ethylene decomposition pioducts-------- -- 0.1 0.002 A4 disulfide).................................. Tin (inoiganic cmpds).................. (organic cmpds).................... . Titanium dioxide.................... ...... - -- 5 2 0.1 IS J3 Propiolaclone.... ............................ - AS Toluene (toluol) ...................... .... 200 7 SO n-Ptopyl acetate .......................... 200 840 Propyl alcohol (isopropyl alcohol)........................ .............. 400 980 Propyl ethei (isopropyl etner).._ 500 2,100 n-Propyl nitrate........................... Propylene dichloride (1, 2 dichloiopiopane)...................... tt Propylene imine - Skin................ 25 75 - 110 350 - * Pj't* of v>por or |)t per million parts of **r by votvmt at 2S#C and 780 mn. H{ priu*e. Approumjte milt|ramt of particulate per cubic meter of air. A Numbers, See Appenon A Propylene oxide............. -.....-...... 100 240 + 1965 Addition or deletion of *C**f#e Tonfotive Votwoe Pyrethrum................................. -- - 5 Jl964 Revision**** Tentotiv* Volv** Pyridine.........................-.............. 5 15 tt65 R*i ion - Tontotiv* Vqlw* PRODUCED JM Iriisure (1) " p^| MT-PW/wn.n'i'3'177 V ` J! BUMEDINST 6270.3D ^15 February 1966 -=4 Swb*to*C PP"<* * o-Toluidine Skin............. S Toluene-2, 4-diisocyanate.......... 0.02 Trichloroethylene.......... ............. 100 Tiichloronaphthalene-Skin____ - 1, 2, 3-Ttichloroptopane..... ... 50 1, 1. 2-Trichtoro 1. 2, 2- trifluotoe thane.............. 1,000 Tiiethylamine................................. 25 I Ti i f luoi omonobr omomethane....... 1,000 Trinitrotoluene-Skin..... --........ -- * Triorthociesyl phosphate......... Triphenyl phosphate............. ....... -- - Turpentine____ ________________ -100 *4 Uranium (soluble compounds)__ - (insoluble compounds)........... - Vanadium (V *0 s dust)....... ........ - (V2O s turn*)................. - Sic Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene).. 500 a i Vinyl toluene .............................. 100 Wartaim (3 -J]]a acetonylbenzyl^}-4" 1 hydtoxycoumarin)...................... Xylene (xylol)............................... -- - Xylidine twin............................... 5 Yttrium........................................... - Zinc oxide fume............................. - Zirconium compounds (as Zr).... -- 22 0.14 520 5 300 7,600 100 6,100 1.5 0.1 3 560 0.05 0. 25 0.5 0.1 1.300 480 0.1 25 5 5 ft*di6actity: For permissible concentrjtiOM of radioisotopes n a*. U S. OeoaMmeM Of Commerce. Nation#! Bureau of Stanearot. Hjncbook 69. ''Waiimum Permissible Boev Bufffnj ane Manmum Pe'miinpie Concentration* of Radi* onuel'des m Air and m water tor Occupational Ctoosure." Juf 5. J9S9 also. see U. S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standard. HandOoo B9. "Permissible Dose I from <trrnai Sources of tom/mg Rao>aiiOn." September 24. 1SS4. and addendum of April IS. 19S4. * PaMi of vapor or gas per million parts Of a>r by volume at J6*C and 760 mm. H| pressure. Appronmatt milligram* of particulate per cubic meter of air. A Numbers. See Appendit A ' :. , 4*1965 Addition of delitien of 'C'ita Tentotiee Volwoo f 1964 Revision Tontetivo Velvet ft 1965 Raviiiofl Tentative Volue* i I I . 1 \ 2 - nclosure (1) RESPIRABLE DUSTS EVALUATED BY COUNT Subitanct m.p.p.c.f. * SILICA Crystalline _ Quartt, Thresholdlimit calculated Ifom the loimula ............. ................... CiislobaMe Amorphous, including natural diatomaceous earth _____________ ;c,q** *-sSiO*+ 5 20 ' SILICATES (less than 1% crystalline silica) Asbestos _____________________ Mica _____________________ Soapstone ...................................... Talc ....................... ........................... ......_ Portland Cement _____________ Graphite ................................................ 2? 5 20 20 50 15 "Inert" or Nuisance Particulates 50 (or 15 mg'm a whichever is the smallei) Conversion factors mppcf x 35.3 million particles per cubic meter = particles per c.c. 4 Millions of panicles per cubic foot of oir. based on imoinger* samples counted by lifM-field technics *47h* percentage of crystalline silica in the formula is the amount determined from air-porn* samples, c>cept m tnose instances in which ether methods have been sno-n :> be applicable. TENTATIVE VALUES The values below will temain in the Tentative List (or at least two yeais to permit piesentation ol tuither scientific evidence to indicate their appropriateness for tiansfei to the Recommended List. Swbftonc* PP">* Mj'M*** M-2-Aminopyiidine............................ ++sec-Amyl acetate........................ .. Anisidine (o, p-isomers) Skin .. 4-+Azinphos*methyl tGuthion)-Skin Benzoyl peioxide........................... ++Bromoform - Skin...................... .... en-Butyl acetate............................. 0.5 125 - -- 2 650 0.5 tr'' 0.2 'in 5 50 150 710 6 MT_D\A/un dSziil&ain^^**.2C' -iT- . **/-* r. *"VV.-# - v-fc L* 1..JI e'k&.l 1 I' ( i i < i * i \t j -4 s Swbitnc ppm' Mb/m*** -sec-Butyl acetate........................ 200 --tert-BctyI acet3te........................ 200 Cadmium ,metal dust and soluble salts)......................... - Catbaiyl 'Se/ini iR)..... ........ - -Carbon black................................. -- -Carbcn monoxide .................... 50 o-Chloibenrylidene malonomttile (OCBM)..... ................. 05 +C Chijiine.................................... 1 +rCoal tat pitcn volatiles (ben zene soluble liaciioni <anth- tacene. BaP, phananthiene, aciidme chrysene. pytene).... -- Cotton dust iiavt)....................... -- - Crotonaldehyde............................ 2 H-Curr.ene Skin.............................-- 50 Cyclohexane.......................... 300 Cyclohexene.............................-- 300 CyclopenUdiene.......................... 75 Oiazor,ethane................................ 0.2 C 1. 2-D:S::-s-e;bone (ethylene dibromide) - Skin.... 25 -Dibutylphoschate.......................... 2 iDibufylphthalate.......... ............ - 1, 3 -Dtchioro -5, 5-dimethyl hydantom.......................... ........ -- -- Drethylamino ethanol - Skin..... 10 Dimemyl 1, 2-dibromo-2, 2- dichloroethyl phosphate, (Dibroml (Ri........................... -- Oimethylamine......... ............... 10 Dimethylformamide Skin..... ...... 10 Di sec. octyl phthalate (Di -2ethylhexyt-phthalate)___ ____ -- Ethyl amine.................. ............... 10 + Ethyl sec amyl ketone (5-Methyl-3-heptanone)............ 25 Ethyl benzene .............................. 100 Ethyl butyl ketone (3-Heptancne)............ ..... .......... 50 Ethylene imme Skin.................. 0.5 C Ethylneicaptan ........................ 10 -rN-Ethylmoipholine *Skin........... 20 Fibrous glass................ .......... . - *+Foimic acid................................... 5 Hesacntoioethane Skin.............. 1 sec-Heiyt acetate........ ................ 50 Hydrogen sulfide.......................... 10 -Iron oxide fume............................. - -tsaamyl acetate............................. 100 --Isobutyl acetate............................ 150 -- isopiopyl acetate........................ 250 L. P. G. (Licuid petroleum gas) 1CC0 Ma'eic anhydride........................... - 950 S50 0.2 5 3.5 55 0.4 3 0.2 1 6 245 1050 1015 200 0.4 190 10 10 0.2 50 3 18 30 5 18 130 <35 230 1 25 94 5 9 10 300 15 10 525 700 950 1EC0 8 BUMEDINST 6270.3D 15 February 1966 $ubvto*c ppm* Mp/Mw* Methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture, (MAPP)............... Methylamine....... ......... 1000 10 1800 12 i-Methyl n-amyl ketone (2-Heptanone)......... ............. --Methyl iodide - Skin................ i-Melhyl isocyanate - Skin.......-- Methyl mercaptan______________ Methyl methacrylate C Methylene bis phenylisoeyanate C Monomethyl hydrazine - Skin___ 100 5 0.02 10 100 0.02 0.2 *65 , 28 0.05 20 410 0.2 0.35 Morpholine Skin.--------------------- 20 Naphthalene....... ........................... 10 70 50 Nickel, metal and soluble compounds ........................... - 1 Nitric acid....... ........... 25 p-Nitrochlorobenzene - Skiru....... Nitrogen trifluoride...................... wOxalic acid..................-................ Oxygen di fluoride.......................p-Phenylene diamine - Skin....... 10 0.05 - 1 29 1 0.1 0.1 -Phenyl ether (vapor).................... 1 7 irPhenyl ether-Biphenyl mixture (vapor)......................-- rPhosgene................. Phthalic anhydride...................... 1 0, 2 7 0.4 12 ++Pival (2-Pivalyl-l,3indandione)----- ------.............. - . Propane......................................- 1,000 0.1 1,800 Propylene imine - Skin................ +-rRhodium, tAetal turne and dusts soluble salts............................. Selenium compounds................... Selenium hexafluoride...... .......... 2 - 0.05 5 0.1 0.001 0.2 0.4 Stlvet, metal and soluble compounds.... ... ...................... . Tellurium hexafluoride................ 0.02 0.01 0.2 1. 1, 1, 2 Tetiachloio-2, 2 -ditluoroethane..................... 500 4170 iTeuameihyl lead(TML) (as lead) Skin........... .......... -- - 0.075 e-Tetramelhyl succinonitrile Skin............... . i'Tremoliie el, 1, 2-Trichloroethane - Skin -Xylene............ ................ -............. Yttiium__ _______ ________ ____ 0.5 5mpocf 10 100 3 45 435 1 i j i l i I i i I I I \ l PaMv ot vipor of |ti per rmU'O* p*'H c* ir pjr vpiymt it ?i*C Jftp 760 m* H| prttwrt ** Opfoumju oi prii(wite pe* tvpit mter pf iif. 1965 Revision i-- 1565 Additions 0 Enclosure (l) IWIT D\A/un ~ BUXEDIN'ST 6270. 3D JL5 February 1966 $ Appendix A Benzidine. Because of high incidence of bladder tumors m run any exposure, including skin, is eitiemely hazardous. .y.Naphthylamine. Because ol the extremely hign incidence ol bladder tumors in workers handling this compound, and the inability to control ei posures. /r-naphihylamme has been prohibited from manufacture, use and other activities that in volve human contact by the State of Pennsylvania NNitrosodimethylamine. Because of extremely high toiicily and presumed carcinogenic potential ol this compound, contact by any route should not be permitted. Pelytetrofluerocthy ten* * decomposition products. At least One identified component of the de composition products is extremely toxic, but in the absence of more complete toxicity in formation and suitable analytic methods, a de 4 finite Thieshold Limit Value is not recom mended at this time; but ait concentrations . should be minimal. /J-Propiolactone. Because ot high acute toxicity and demonstrated skin tumor production in animals. co"!?cf by any rou!* should n* avoided. Trade Names; Atgoflon. Fluon, Halon, Teflon. Tetran 1 i rr* T T*. Enclosure (1) 8 i ? I I fI i i I \ j ii i ! i i ( t j I MT-P\A/Hn_m an k -- * PLAINT 17! f EXHIBIT1 I TP_j_7 IC/A DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR SHORE ACTIVITIES mdi NAVSO P-2133 APRIL 1963 Reviewed and Approved: R. L. MOOR!',, JR. Chief of Industrial Relations I'd bale by the i intri'il. mi of 1 >o< uiueii' (In' **i imiumh Print in^ ('dice \Vrv^iiia"{f>t'., D.(.\, 'JUi'ii - l'ni.e r MT-PWHD-013181 Hazardous M:ui_tinl> V , a/...iu in t! iC clr -.ming of loaded gn.-j- tops, floor'-, etc. Such thru hazardous mer e *'Uir.;ac l.mL- (-ce -- 0_`0.3). i. \li-ri *i. Ah-orplion of comparatively r amount- of mercury or it' co:i pounds ngCslion or inhalation nn result in acute cury vapor i once nir.u tons may develop if the sprue is confined nr.d ventil.ation is inade quate. Fee article !T')c'.-2a for appropriate precautions anti decor'.aaanation |irat edures. zoning (kidney dan-age) which rnn.y be fa- 6. Zine. Although zinc fumes are not Chior.ic poi-oning resu 11;ng fro:n long highly to vie and do r.ot appear to product: ,murc is usually manifested in damage to chronic symptoms or cumulative effects, the nervous system or by mental disturb- common occurrences of the annoying and rs. One of tlic principal hazards in Nav y sometimes disabling transient effects is j?tria! activities with respect, to mercury worthy of mention. The welding or torch cut nvulved in the filling ot' mercury r.anome- ting of galvanised -reels and casting of brass i connunnly used in measuring pros-ures an:! bronze occasionally result in the occur ! fluid flow in various equipments and rence' of metal-furr.e Tever (fever and drills) cesses. The careless hand lie." of mer- and any such operations should he performed v in this operation many times results in with adequate ventilation or suiLablc respira mind aliens of spilled mercury on table tory protection. DISTS ill. Mt N Id ft \L DUSTS Certain mineral dusts are pneumoconiosis 'ntlrologicni lung condition produced by oral or metallic du-t inhalation) produc- ' e most prev al enl .anti insidious forms .osis and asb'.'stosis cau-ed by pro ved inhalation of du-ts (or mists) cont.ba sil ion and asbestos. 1. Silicosis. Silicosis has long been reci/.ed ns an occupational disease in such ii-lrics as mining and quarrying. The damdone is permanent and progressive vvith limit'd exposure. In its mere advanced rg-s, it is evidenced by shortness of nth, derreaved chest expansion, lessened unity for woi!;, and increased si:-cep! ihilly tul.ere; 1 o'-'is and oilier lung diseases, reforc, auv op'-rations which create ap.izblo quantities of cilica (quartz, princilv) '-ueli as in sand bln-ting should be 1 ventilated and, if neces-ary, personnel aid wear .appropriate respiratory proroc- i. 2. A-best o si s. The effects of a^bestosis ate similar to and just as disabling as those of silicosis. There is evidence, however, Lhat'the handling oT asbestos products in tl-.cP Navy are not so vvgi! controlled, if the preva lence or cases of asbestosis is any indica tion. Exposure to a-be^tot djsl is usually encountered in the installation, repair, and removal of insulating pipe covering used principally .aboard ship. The follow ing pre cautions xlo'ihi be taken in any duct making operations involving asbestos products: ' a. Provide p^r.-nan'-nt general ventila tion in areas where dust producing operations are u sun.lly perfotmed. b. Install exhaust hoods over saws and other dust raking machine tools. c. Hequire workers to wear tlu-L res pirator- where dusty operations cannot be adequately \ e n t i 1 nied. d. Esc industrial vacuum cloaners in 1 i 'ci of drv avvi-cpirg of floor-, and other *=ur- . faces. ( l iT\mo\cii\i; m\ii;r.iAi.s T HUM ill M . rh" prrcnm io". npnl icnMi' to the u o and '.go of ha,..iidou- rad io.a li'n atonal- arc .ir! t,:ai<- Ix v ov'-red iiy manual- ant! in- strur ; inn , issued i>v the bureau- and oftuc'S of the Navy uc,.,,,- rot * f|0Dr>;b i 3--- Ji-S  DEPARTMENT OR THE NAVY SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR SHORE ACTIVITIES 1 -i ,-j Reviewed and Approved: 15 Mny 19; I*. AY C1SVOU) Acting Dli'cctor Cililir.n Kn rip over Mr.nc\?< This Lin mini nay \>c reviewed on request. L. r. HACRU'.R, Safety Office Norfolk.Naval Shipyard * v v-, 7'l"ie" ' UriLc: " , - /C] l.nc 1' r.c'r f* MT-PWHn-ninift^ llar.irdiuv M.ifei i.tlv l.cnlih li:i; nr d in tf *.* cT n;is:i:* of leaded pa*- ops, r.c. such tl.nt lui/.e.rd :rs r.-rt- r oil nc Slornpc tanks (` Cl' -O j(h' l). i my \ npor t ,;>cen!r;ii ions roy do* '.dop it" the spin o is t (.iifined n~d ventilation i~ it.: d r. Mercury. A11 -r (*t pt J on of comparatively large amounts of nr-iemy or its co:i*pei f|unto. Sec article Jrbf>.2;t for npproprim l*y insertion or iuh; *nt ion can result in acute prcc nutionr; a.id (her ontmriination pt*( rdu poist'nin;; (kidney w I>i~! ni:u he fa (>. `/.iitr. All bough r.inc ftmiOS r.ro tun tal. Chronic poi'onih;: icvsiil'.ini- from Ion" hiv.ldy toxic: arul do no'. appear lo proderi. tv|i'j>i;rc is usM1!y m;t11iToIil in d :::i ige to cbroriic symptoms or cumulative died-*, the nervous system or by mental d:il'/:h- common on lifrenors of the annoying inti r.nce.*. 0. io of the pri:ici[).:I Imcnrdi in Nr.iy sometimes disabling transient effects is industri.il activities with respect to mercury worthy of mention. The welding or tore?) is involved in I'm fill in;; c<f mercury milome tin,; of galvanized stools and casting of 1 ters commonly used in measuring pressures and bronze occasionally result- in tbe oec nnd fluid f!o.-- in various crpiipiurmts and renee of metal-fume fever (freer and rhil processes. J'I:c cureless handling of nicr- and any sue It operations should b? perfcji; cure in this operation many time;; results in will: ndecp.iate ventilation or suitable te.^ r.ccum.uln.lions of spilled mercury on table lory protection. liLisrs 205V.. \ll.\r.H \L 111/51$ Certain mineral dusts are pneumoconiosis (a pathological lung condition produced by mineral or metallic dust inhalation) produc ing. Tbe most prevalent and insidious forms arc silicosis and asbestosir- caused by pro longed inhalation of dust'.; (or mists) containin" silica and asbestos. ). Silicosis. Silicosis has long been rec ognized ns an occupational disease in such industries as ruining and cpjnrrying. Tbe damrgc doac is permanent and progressive with continued exposure. In its more advanced stapes, it is evidenced by shortness of breath, decreased chest expansion,lessened capacity for work, and increased susceptibil ity Lo tuberculosis and other lung diseases. Therefore, any operations which create ap preciable rj;.,aa'.itics of silica (rpie.rtz, princi pally) such as in sand blastin'; should l>e veil ventilated and, if necessary, personnel should wear appropriate tespii atory protec tion. 2. Asbestosis. The effects of ncheytJ arc similar to and just as disabling a* tl ol of silicosis. There is evidenrr, however,! tint the handlin'; of asbestos products in Navy arc not so well controlled, if the pro; lencc of cases of asbestosis is any indie.* lion. Kvposurc to asbestos dust is usuali encountered in the installation, repair, an; removal of insulating pipe covering uccd principally alioarif ship. The follow in:: prcautions should be taken in any dust rnakij operations involvin'; asbestos products: n. l'rovide permanent general vent:! tion in areas where dust producing operati. are usually ('urformed. b. Install exhaust hoods over saws! nnd oilier dust making machine tools. c. Perjuire workers to wear dust res pirators where dusty operations cannot be adcrju ately ventilated. il. Use industrial vacuum clea'iier;- : lieu of dry sweeping of floors mu! other s. faces. . ?* HAimiAC.I |\ i; M \ I r.lUALS 205T UK.M'.lt \1. The piceauti'si' applicable to tl." uCl Storage of haznidour, radioactive matnri: Mid ate pdern.atcly covered by manuals ant! :n stmetioas issued by the bureaus and office of the Navy Department, for reference pur 20-22 MT-PWHD-013184 B t ( i I I I OFFICE OF CIVILIAN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20390 r ui CII-1 i * r/ /'/ ' ju;jl * i 3. /ud --d MT-PWHD-013185 1. Safely Pre;:anlions for Shore Activities nrc loaij alloy pourin':, spraying and s andir.q of lead pigmented paint.';, and flame cull in:: painted steel. Teiraei hvl lend,being volatile nt ordinary temperatures, poses a serious health har.ard in the cleaning of leaded gas oline storage tanks (sec 2020.d). 5. Mercury. Absorption of comparatively largo amounts of mercury or its compounds liv ingestion or inhalation can result in acute poisoning (kidney damage) which may be fa tal. Chronic poisoning resulting from long exposure is usually manifested in o'.image to the nervous system or by mental disturb ances. One of the principal hazards in Navy industrial activities with respect to mercury is involved in the filling of mercury manome ters commonly used in measuring pressures and fluid flow in various equipments arvd processes. The careless handling of mer cury in this operation many times results in ;k I'unmlaliens of spilled mercury on t;ibl ^ lops, floors, etc. such that hazardous .m-rcury vapor concentrations may develop if M space is confined and ventilation is inade quate. See article 17DR.2a for appropriate precautions and decontamination procedure-' 6. Zinc. Although zinc fumes are not highly toxic and do not appear to produce chronic symptoms or cumulative effects, th-. common occurrence's of the annoying and sometimes disabling transient effects is worthy of mention. The welding or torch eu ting of galvanized steels and casting of b: and bronze occasionally result in the occur rence of metal-fume fever (revor and dull.-) and any such operations should he perforce with adequate ventilation or suitable rc-pir: lory protection. DUSTS 20a:i. MiM'.HAL DUSTS ' Certain mineral dusts arc pneumoconiosis (a pathological lung condition produced bv mineral or metallic dust inhalation) produc ing. The most prevalent and insidious forms nrc silicosis and asbesiosis caused by pro longed inhalation of dusts (cr mists) contain ing silica and asbestos. 1. Silicosis. .Silicosis has long been rec ognized as an occupational disease in such industries as mining and quarrying. The d.om- nge done is permanent and progressive with continued exposure. In its more advanced stages, it is evidenced by shortness of breath, decreased chest expansion, lessened capacity for work, anil increased susceptibil ity to tuborcwlo'-'is and oilier lung disea.ses. Therefore, any operation -, which create ap preciable qu.mlitp-'- of silica (quart-.'.. princi pally) -util a:- in ant) bl.:.,ling should be well ventilated and, if nm-o ,s,nty, per -onnel should wear appropriate respiratory protec tion. 2. Ashestosis. The effect? of asbe-to-are similar to anti just as disabling as those of silicosis. There is evidence, however, that the handling of asbestos products in tV Navy are not so well controlled, if the pro,.; loncc of cases of asboslosis is anv indica tion. C xpo =urc to asbestos dust is usu: encountered in the installation, repair, and tcrnoval of insulating pipe covering used principally aboard ship. The following pre cautions should be taken in any dust making operations involving asbestos products: a. Provide permanent general ventila tion in areas where dust producing operation are usually performed. b. Install exhaust hoods over saws and other dust making machine tools. c. Fvequirc workers to wear dust res pirators where dustv operations cannot he adcquatelv ventihited. d. Use industrial vacuum cleaners in lieu of dry sweeping of floors and other :,trfaces. r.-MiioAcrr.i: mait.imals COu'T Ur.MillAI. The precautions applicable to the c-e and store.i;v of hazardous radioactive materials nre adequately cove manuals and in.-tr tions is? ui'd bv lhe commands, I :\ y ^, fives of the Navy Department. For ref'-rcr.c Change* 1 June I'.MiT 20-22 qd'i ($>' MT-PWHD-013186 MEMORANDUM Code 725 30 June 1970 To: Commander Jose C. Smith, MC, USN , From: Sheldon 11. Manning, Industrial Hygienist, LBNSY . Subject: The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvement Enclosures: (1) (2) (3) Department of the Navy. Position Classification Standard for Managers of Industrial Hygiene Programs GS-690. Excerpt from Federal Personnel Manual Part 1, Chapter 335, Sub chapter 4, Paragraph 3-b. , Position or Job Description for Industrial Hygienists at Long Beach Naval Shipyard GS 11 and 12 grade. A. Background: The Industrial Hygiene program at the Long Beach Naval Ship yard since the second opening in 1951 has been nonexistent,- or marked by weakness whenever the billet was filled. The program has always been run by one nan with no secretarial help, often with little or no equipment, status, or chance for advancement. The last three Medical ' Officers covering a span of more than fifteen years were alike in their lack of understanding of what a Industrial Hygiene Program should be. . They were alike in their indifference to the program and followed a policy of giving ttw^irogram little encouragement or backing. J Dan Bessmer was the first man to fill the billet when he came aboard soon after V..' II, but left when the Shipyard shut down, and went to Puget Sound 11SY where he has developed one of the most effective and most re spected Industrial Hygiene programs in the Navy. His total staff is twelve with a quarterly budget of about ?11C,000.00 dollars. The labora tory that he set up here went to Pt. Magu. The shutdown was a graat tragedy for the Shipyard resulting in the loss of many of its most quali fied employees. Mr. J.R. Sheehan filled the billet for a tine during the early fifties, after the Shipyard reopened. He was reported to be ineffective, unpopular, and eccentric. He got nowlicra and left to go into a different field. Ke left behind a feeling of disrespect toward Industrial Hygienists and noth ing else. The billet was not filled for some time, but in 195S Bill Harr was rer cmited from the Naval Cun Factory in Washington, D.C. end served until, the end of 1964. His program lacked support, with little equipment and no secretarial help. He did manage to alert supervisors and PC6I employees to the hazards associated with the inhalation of asbestos dust. Control measures were put in effect that for years were the cost effective,! in the Navy. He completed an extensive survey on asbestos end wrote a s paper on the subjpet. Ke was one of the first men in the field to recog nize the seriousness of the hazard. The lack of appreciation of his contribution in this field by management can be judged by the fact that when a great conference of experts from all over the world reported' their findings on the effects of asbestos at the American Academy of Science in NYC in 1964, the Safety Director attended and the Shipyard expert . stayed home. A., 792 11t > It ,n . ; 6.;*-. 6. MT-PWHD-013187 Subject: Code 725 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvement Background (continued): . '. Bill Harr left the Shipyard soon after this and transferred to the Canal, Zone Government where at long last he was promoted to the GS-12 rating ` in the Federal Civil Service. Before he left for Panama, Hr. llarr gave " an interview to a reporter on the hazards of asbestos exposure which re-,, fleeted a'dversly on the Shipyard. This bad publicity incurred the wrath of the Shipyard Co-m.pnder and soon afterward the Industrial Hygiene bil let was abolished. After a lapse of over two years the billet was re instated. The incumbent Industrial Hygienist was selected off the Federal Register compiled by the Interagency Board of Civil Service Examiners, ' in Washington, D.C. where he was listed as a qualified Industrial Hygi enist grade GS-11. As a result of a routine submission to the Board of Examiners of a form 57 for updating of qualifications, the incumbent was notified about 15 February 1967 that he qualified for grade GS-12 and was placed on the Federal Register as such. The billet was at the GS-12 level at the Shipyard. When the Shipyard Employment Superintendent was infon.ied about the above developments he indicated that the papers were in process for bringing fhc incumbent aboard as a GS-11 and that he would be elevated to the next grade later - much later it appears. The present Industrial Hygienist reported aboard 6 Harch 1967 to be confronted by an empty desk, filing cabinet, booh case, and storage space. There were no collection of bach, issues of technical journals, no col lection of reference boohs, and nothing in the files to indicate past Industrial Hygiene activity. The Dispensary had passed through the , ; traunatic experience of going from a military to a civilian basis and'; everything vas taken or thrown out. After all the billet was abolished. Some equipnent was in storage at the Quality Control Laboratory, but proved to be broken, obsolete or otherwise of no value to the progran;and later cost of it was returned. Reference books and subscriptions'to journals were acquired through the library, and after some delay, the most necessary equipnent was slowly acquired over a period of two years. No secretarial help was supplied on a regular basis and none would be needed. It was the Kedical Officers' wish that all reports be delivered' verbally. All actions were to be cleared by him. \ The most valuable service that an Industrial Hygiene Fiogram. can render is the recognition, evaluation and control of health hazards at the work site. This to be reported to cognizant supervision in a clear concise written report that may be of a teclinical nature with enclosed data. The written report allows the recipient to refer to it later and offers less chance for misunderstanding. The program was effectively suppressed by this and other tactics. It vas the feeling of the incumbent that the Kedical Officer did not really want an Industrial Hygienist except for window dressing, had no respect cr.1 Interest in the program and would summarily dismiss the Industrial' Hygienist at the slightest provocation. " 793 2 MT-PWHD-013188 Subject: ' ' Code 725 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Prograin at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvement Background (continued): During the early part of the incumbent's tenure because he had nothing much to dobras assigned the trivial tasks of fitting ear plugs and running urine porj.'hyrin screening tests. When the lledical Officers' Secretary- died, the preparation of all the Didpensary Quarterly Reports was assigned to the Industrial Hygienist. During the periods of tine that the Shipyard was without an Industrial Hygienist and since the lledical Officers showed., no interest, an attenptrhad to be made by someone to solve problems of an - Industrial Hygiene nature.' This duty was in most cases assigned to the Safety Department or the Q&BA Laboratory. Since these people could and did write instructions all of the Industrial Hygiene local instructions as well as liedical Department instructions, are in the Safety or Radio graphy Manual or in Production Department instructions. Medical Officers have some aversion to writing because the incunbent has not found any Long Beach Naval Shipyard Instructions originating from the Medical Dep artment. This tends to weaken the Medical Department's effectiveness. Recent Status: During the past year, survey reports have been typed for the Industrial Hygienist by the Medical Officer's Secre- ' - tary and go out under his signature. This has brought a big improvement in the program. At last there is a tangible product from the program.- ' People still write things that affect the program without the courtesy of consulting the Industrial Hygienist. All kinds of pseudo experts and laymen expound and act on Industrial Hygiene technical matters. All occupational medical cases are not referred to this office promptly, and the incunbent is still a GS-11. Probably the only manager of an I.H. program in the. Navy at this level. The present program consists of duties that have been specifically assigned; work carried out in response to requests and complaints; and work started on the incunbent's initiative. Examples of assigned duties are: Compiling data and writing the entire Quarterly Report; fitting and dispensing ear defenders; typing photo dosimetry records and reports; running urine porphyrin screening tests; quarterly testing the yard compressed air for quality. Exanples of work initiated by requests or complaints have been picked from the log from 1 April to 1 September 1969. Throe large surveys conducted during this period are: The asbestos dust survey involving collecting over seventy-five samples and counting them. The Shipyard noise survey and the Naval Supply Center survey. 3 . 794 produced JI-S3 MT-PWHD-013189 Code 725 30 June 1970 Subject: The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvement Recent Status (continued): . ' Following are some smaller activities performed during the above time period: Made radiation level check near hull of USS LONG BEAD! in DD ffl. Took fume samples in foundry several tines. Determined chromic acid levels in plating shop. Took ventilation measurements in buffing room. Investigated Vibra Clean hand cleaner situation and attended meeting called to rectify dermf.tit/ptoblcn. Checked CO monitors in compressor rooms several tines. Checked sewer pump room located 90' below ground level for air contamination. Measured ventilation rate in the plating room, paint booths at the melting pots, and at the heating and stripping tanks. Investigated berylliun hazard in electronics repair shop. Re sponded to numerous requests for noise surveys. Measured air lead levels at babbit and lead pots. Investigated the use of asbestos dust for hot topping in foundry. Made determinations at site of organic vapor inhalation case. Determined caustic mist concentrations at caustic tanks. Determined hydrogen sulphide levels aboard BROOK. Took heat measurements in tanks. Determined organic vapor levels in NSC office after pest control spraye'd insecticide. Conducted survey of paint vapor exposures in and around tanks USS KLONDIKE. In addition to the above, telephone inquiries were answered concerning Industrial hygiene matters. Patients in the category of occupational medical cases were interviewed. The weekly report was typed for the Medical Officer. Action on Beneficial Suggestions were carried out when they were routed to this desk.. Had numerous conferences with supervision at various levels on I. K. matters. Typed up correspondence, helped conduct various VIP's around the Shipyard. Attended Industrial hygiene and Safety Conferences and meetings. Filed my own papers. Read numerous professional and technical journals, bulletins and instructions in an attempt to keep current in the field. Often the literature had to be researched to cone up with the answer to problems. Inspections are carried out in work areas as time permits on the Industrial hygienist's initiative. 1. Provide secretarial help for the Industrial hygiene Program on sr'.. regular basis. If the program is to be expanded to included those services that it should. See enclosure (1) - page9 3,4,5,6 this help should be on a full tine basis. ; Justification: The Industrial hygienist now types by the hunt and peck 1 method, correspondence, records and reports and finds that the better he does his job, the more this load Increases. At the cost to the Bovemnent of over eight dollars an hour, with benefits, it is ha.dly good econony to have an Industrial Hygienist typing and filing when he could be free to practice the activities he is trained for and qualified in. ~ - . ... . 795 i I v MT-PWHD-013190 Subject: Code 725 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Inprovement C. Recommendations (continued) ' Justification (continued): The incumbent knows of no other Navy facility that hires an I. H. man that does not provide this help. 2. Pronote the Industrial Hygienist from GS-11 to GS-12. Justification: a. The Industrial Hygienist was examined by the Interagency Boa'd of Civil Service Examiners in Washington, D.C.; was qualified, and placed on the Federal Register with a score of 78 before he re ported aboard. b. The Industrial Hygienist resubmitted a form 171 for examination and is on the Federal^Register and is qualified for a CS-12 position ' with a score of 83 since September 1969. c. From the Department of the Navy Position Classification Standards for Managers of Industrial Hygiene Programs in the evaluation plan on pages 6 to 10 - ^ee enclosure (1)3 a fair score under this evaluation plan would range, minimum to maximum, from 19 to 25 points. This is based on the program having a substantial range and depth of functions; that conditions in the Shipyard and satel lite facilities served are in the medium to high health hazard category; and that employee population served is over 7,500. The grade conversion table is as follows: Total Points Up to 9 15 to 21 27 to 33 Grade CS-11 CS-12 GS-13 The score qualifies the Industrial Hygienist for a GS-12 or 13. d. After submitting to a two day written examination, the incumbent Industrial Hygienist was certified in the comprehensive practice of Industrial Hygiene by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene. There arc about 200 Industrial Hygienists that have achieved certi fication by examination and this number is increasing at the rate of 25 a year. About 363 certifications were issued prior to July 1, 1962 to those that met requirements including 18 years experience in the field. Many employers include certification as a requirement for employment. The passage of the Federal Occupa tional Health and Safety Act is pending. . 796 MT-PWHD-013191 ' . Code 725 30 June 1970 Subject: The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvenent C. Recommendations (continued):, t . .* Justification (continued): One of the developments expected from this Act is that Companies in viola tion will be required to conduct surveys supervised by a certified Indus trial Hygienist. A certified Industrial Hygienist is worth more. e. Promotion would improve the status of the program which it sorely needs and it would improve the morale of the incumbent. f. The incumbent can and should be promoted under Federal Personnel Jianual Part 1, Chapter 335, Sub-chapter A, Paragraph 3 - quota: *'Promotion to positions upgraded without significant change in duties and responsibilities. An agency must provide for an ex ception to competitive pronotions procedures to allow for promo tions of an incumbent of a position which has been upgraded with out significant change of duties and responsibilities on the basis of either the issuance of a new classification standard or the cor rection of a classification error. If the incumbent meets the legal and qualification requirements for higher grade, he must be promoted nonconpetitively unless removed from the position by appropriate personnel actions (See FT11 Supplement 752-1)". See enclosure (2), Chapter 4, paragraph 2-4, which provides for promotion on the basis of accretion of additional duties is irre levant. This is the argument used by the administrative officer against promotion in the meeting in the Kedical Officers' office !!ay 21, 1970. The position description for CS-12 and 11 are enclosed (enclosure 3) and it chows that in actuality Ill-Controls described in CS-12 PD are in effect rather them III-Controls in the GS-11 PD , which is the only difference in the two Position Descriptions. 3. Provide the Industrial Hygiene Program, with additional staff ,. a. There should be a trained replacement available if the present Industrial Hygienist should die, become disabled or be lured away by an offer of better working conditions and higher pay. b. This man should be hired in advance cf the above need to insure some uninterrupted competent service in the Shipyard. This would avoid long interruptions that have occured while recruitment was attempted in an occupation with e short sbpply. The membership roles of the two major professional societies in the field totals 2,460 in the USA. Host Industrial Hygienists belong to one or both of these societies. 6 MT-PWHD-013192 " Code 725 30 June 1970 Subject: The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvement C. Recommendations (continued) Justification (continued): c. If the program is to be expanded to include most of the functions listed in enclosure (1) more staff will be needed. d. The management of the Long Beach Navel Shipyard prides Itself on be-?,, ing a forward looking, modem, efficient Shipyard, Good morale among employees is synonymous with good management. When good-, health services are provided, employee morale tends to be better - all other things being equal; the opposite is the case when sub standard services are rendered. In conversations with many Ship yard workers, this observer has gained the impression that the - - majority of them are not satisfied with the health services pro- vlded by the Shipyard. Any management of any industrial facility that in this day_and age is not aware of the increased emphcsls'by this society on improvement of the environment including the work environment and does not do anything about it, is open to criticism. Following is a list of the number of environmental health people hired by other shipyards in the Navy from the menhership roles of the Navy Industrial Hygiene Association: "" SHIPYARD NUMBER OF MEMBERS Pearl Harbor Puget Sound Portsmouth, N.1I. Mare Island Charlestown Norwalk Boston Hunter's Point Philadelphia 7 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 It is suggested that the Long Peach Naval Shipyard employees deserve better service.than indicated above. At least Philadel phia has a secretary. . Conment: The suggestion that the pharmacist be trained in some of the fundamental aspects of Industrial Hygiene brought up in a meeting in the Medical Officer'c office May 31, 1970, is well taken. However, nothing has been heard about this 6lnce then and the pharmacist has not been approached about this matter. It must be pointed out that Civil Service Regulations provide . that above GS-5 a degree granted by a four year college or University is required. 7 MT-PWHD-013193 Subject: Code 725 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Post and Present with Proposals for Improvement C. Recommendation (continued): Justification (continued): . Comment (continued): It would be a cruel hoax to Imply to this individual that he can advance In the Industrial Hygiene ranks. Sods other arrangement can probably be made. 4. Relieve the Industrial Hygienist of three duties assigned to him dur ing the time whei^Tfad little to do and less to do it with. These are: issuing ear plugs, running urine porphyrin screening tests and writing the entire Quarterly Report for BUMED, Justification: a. This would free time for the Industrial Hygienist to perform more skilled activities for which he is trained and qualified. b. Ear plugs were formerly issued in the plysical exam room where it would be easier to issue to all new employees ear plugs at the time of hiring. c. The Industrial Hygienist objects to fitting ear plugs personally be cause BUMED INST 6260.6B of 5 March 1970, "Hearing Conservation Program" is not being followed. Paragraph 5. c. in part 6tates: "The auditory canal should be visually inspected by a qualified mem ber of the Medical Department and the canal studied for size, confi guration, foreign material and evidence of pathology. The canals should be prepared - by the removal of cerumen and any foreign materials". The Industrial Hygienist is not. qualified to act in a physician's capacity. d. The fitting of ear plugs causes constant distracting interruptions in this office. e. The simple, but time consuming task of running urine porphyrins was formerly done in the pharmacy. This work takes time that could be better spent on more complicated Industrial Hygiene activities, f. Except for the Industrial Hygiene sections of the Quarterly Report, the Report has nothing in common with Industrial Hygiene and this duty is nowhere mentioned in the job description. This job was formerly done by the Medical Officer's secretary. 8 799 MT-PWHD-013194 Subject: Code 725 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Froposald for Improvement Recommendations (continued): ' Justification (continued) : f. (continued): When she died, the Administrative Officer wrote it for one quarter and then gave It to this office. The better part of the first ten days of the quarter spent on this activity, could better be used in strengthening the Industrial Hygiene program 5, Provide such amenities and necessities as a private telephone with outside privileges and autovon services. Be put on the list of ,' people privileged to pass outsiders through the gate. Have a list- lng In the Base -telephone book with his proper title. The need for the above changes Illustrates the Indifferent attitude toward the program In the quarters that decide on the above matters. ' ' Justification: a. It is demeaning to have to make outside calls in sotte other office without privacy when an outside phone is, for Instance, installed In the physical exam room for the use of a GS-5. An outside phone is essential, for Instance, to call local manufacturers about the compo sition of hazardous substances used In the Shipyard or call other I. H. offices to get information and for numerous other purposes. b. Sonetimes salesmen or other I. H. men call at the gate end the Industrial Hygienist would like to see them. He cannot pass then, and the Medical Officer and the Administrative Officer who have this privilege are not always here; c. The Industrial Hygienist should be listed in the telephone as such not Hygienist as listed. This mistake indicates some ignorance on the part of the person who submitted tljis listing or an attempt to embarrass the office with irrelevant telephone calls and if this is the case, it was a smashing success. 6. The Industrial Hygiene program be given a budget and have control of it. Justification: a. The Industrial Hygienist should be in the position to plan his program including the purchases of equipment, supplies, travel, and training. Others are not in a position to decide on the needs of the program. As it is, there is no set amount of money budgeted for this purpose or if there is, this office has no knowledge of it. 9 800 MT-PWHD-013195 Subject: Code 735 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposal* for Improvement 7. It is recoranended that the Industrial Hygienist be sent to the annual American Industrial Hygiene Conference every year. This is sponsored by the two major professional organizations In the field and is pre- ceedcd by The Naval Industrial Hygiene Association meeting. The TAD for this meeting was cancelled this year after a memorandum from Washington came out Instructing Navy facilities to cut travel by one third. The Industrial Hygienist felt so strongly about the va^ue of this work related meeting that he went at his own expense - an ex pense that he could ill afford on his salary. Also, the Western Industrial Health Conference should be attended. This is a two day meeting held in some Western City each Fall. Next year it will be held at the Century Plaza in Los Angeles. Justification: The Industrial Hygiene Billet at this Shipyard is an isolated one. The profession is a small but active one, where change and improve ment are a vay of life. If one becomes isolated and out of touch with colleagues, he soon becomas obsolete. Often much information and opinion can be had by face to face contact that would be other wise unavailable. 8. The Industrial Hygienist should be sent to training courses such as those offered by the USPHS, NAVY, Universities, and State agencies. This would be most important if staff is increased with personnel that have not attended any of these short courses. The need for continued education and polishing of skills should be self evident in this broad ever shifting field. 9. There should be better communication among staff members end the staff should be let in on what is goipg on in the.Shipyard. This would provide a sense of belonging that is desirable. A periodic staff meeting is recommended. As things stand, the staff is in the dark and feels left out. Meeting* are good places to resolve grievances Discussion: Examination of the enclosure (1) would Indicate many more discrepencies between what the NAVY expects from an Industrial Hygiene program,, and what can be provided with the limited resources at hand. Implementation of the above nine recommendations would be a solid start toward organizaing an effective Industrial Hygiene program for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. It is realized that there are many obstacles in the way of improving the Industrial Hygiene program - lack of spacer lack of money. However, the greatest obstacle in the way of upgrading the program is lack of backing from key people in the power structure of this Shipyard, who apparently have little understanding of the need for environmental control and consequently, could care less about upgrading the program. 801 10 MT-PWHD-013196 Subject: Code 725 30 June 1970 The Industrial Hygiene Program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard Past and Present with Proposals for Improvement Discussion (continued): ' It is requested that the Medical Officer read this memorandum and it is re questing that he discuss its content in detail with the Industrial Hygienist as soon as possible. From past experience, the occupant of the I. H. billet is not optimistic that this memorandum will result in anything tangible, but he is certain that verbal recommendations die in the breeze. Recent events such as the latest picayune and unrealistic response put forward by the Administrative Officer for not acting on a promotion to GS-12 despite the fact that the incumbent was told by Mr. Huston, Employment Manager, that after reporting aboard, he would be so elevated and was so qualified by Civil Service exam ination. The cancellation of the TAD for the conference in Detroit, and the realization of the who and why of the decision has deepened the frustra tion felt by this writer and it is believed these frustrations contributed to his recent illness. The incumbent has come to the conclusion that this Shipyard never was and never will be interested in a strong Industrial Hygiene program. If the incumbent is not the man to fill the billet, he would like to know that also. Perhaps his services can be used to better advantage elsewhere. Sheldon Manning Industrial Hygienist Long Beach Naval Shipyard 802 n MT-PWHD-013197