Document gxzgEMJ9VkOb7GMnd6LywYeN

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT paa -en\m 1 LAW OFFICES OF STEVENS, DRUMMOND & GIFFORD 2 1910 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 250 WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 3 (510) 944-5550 4 DAVID A. GIFFORD, STATE BAR 85909 ROBERT G. ENGEL, STATE BAR 158115 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY fir '___ CLASS____ FILE "REIVED SEP 0 1 1998 ERA HARLEY CURTg' HAND UvchiilUHT__ MAIL _ i> . 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 IN RE: CASE NO. 828684 11 COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION 12 13 ./ DEFENDANT NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO ALL DEFENDANTS 14 15 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs In Re General Order 129 16 RESPONDING PARTY: 17 Defendant NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY 18 SET NO: 19 Plaintiffs' Standard Interrogatories to Defendants Pursuant to General Order No. 129 20 21 PREFACE 22 These interrogatories are to be answered pursuant to San 23 Francisco Superior court General Order No. 129. 24 Unless otherwise specifically set forth, the time frame for 25 response to these interrogatories is from 1930 until 1985; except 26 where otherwise specifically set forth, each interrogatory and each 27 response are intended and should be construed as including and 28 being limited to such time frame. Where expressly stated with 1 reference to the date and circumstances justifying use of such 2 date, the responding party may limit any such response to dates 3 subsequent to 1930, but which in no event are later than the 4 inception of the responding party, including the inception of any 5 predecessor in interest. 6 Unless otherwise specifically set forth, the geographic scope 7 for response to these interrogatories by domestic corporations is 8 the United States. Hospitals and other health care entity 9 defendants shall provide responses related only to that defendant's 10 physical facilities and shall not be required to disclose any 11 information related to the furnishing of services to patients. 12 DEFINITIONS 13 1. "ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S)" shall mean a product(s) 14 which THIS DEFENDANT knows or believes to have contained any amount 15 of the mineral asbestos at any time. 16 2. "COMPANY" means any private enterprise including 17 corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, and sole 18 proprietorships. 19 3. A. "CONTRACT UNIT" shall mean a branch, division, 20 subsidiary or other affiliated entity of a DEFENDANT which has been 21 or is now engaged in installation, disturbing or handling and/or 22 removal of RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. 23 4. "DOCUMENT(S)" or "WRITING(S)" shall include all writings 24 as defined by Section 250 of the California Evidence Code. 25 5. "GEOGRAPHIC AREA" means the 46 counties of Northern 26 California (Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, 27 Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, 28 2 1 Kings, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, 2 Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San 3 Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, 4 Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, 5 Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba) and military 6 facilities/installations in the State of California, or the 7 following shipyards: Bethlehem Shipbuilding, San Pedro; California 8 Shipbuilding, Terminal Island; Consolidated Steel Shipyard, 9 Wilmington; Los Angeles Shipbuilding and Dry Dock aka L. A. Ship, 10 San Pedro; National Steel and Shipbuilding Corporation, San Diego; 11 Todd Shipyards Corporation, San Pedro; Triple "A" Machine, San 12 Diego; Western Pipe and Steel Company, Los Angeles and San Pedro 13 Divisions; Naval Air Station, North Island; Thirty-Second Street 14 Naval Repair Facility, San Diego; Long Beach Naval Shipyard; and 15 San Diego Destroyer Base. 16 6. A request to "IDENTIFY" a "WRITING" or "DOCUMENT" or 17 study shall mean a request to either attach such an exhibit to your 18 answers to these interrogatories, or to describe such with 19 sufficient particularity that it may be made the subject of a 20 request for production of documents. YOUR description should 21 include an indication of: (a) the author; (b) addressee(s); (c) 22 date of origin; (d) the nature of the writing or document (e.g., 23 letter, telephone memorandum, audio tape recording, photograph, 24 etc.); and (e) its present location, name and present address of 25 custodian thereof. 26 7. A request to "IDENTIFY" an oral communication shall mean 27 a request to describe the communication with particularity, and 28 3 1 shall include the following information: (a) the identity of all i 2 parties to the communication; (b) the identity of the person whom | 3 you contend initiated the communication; (c) the identity of all 4 persons present at the time of the communication; and (d) the time, 5 date and place of the communication. 6 8. A request to "IDENTIFY" or to state the "IDENTITY" of a 7 person or individual means to state his or her name, the place of 8 employment, job title, present business or present or last known 9 home address, years of employment and last known telephone number 10 if not employed by DEFENDANT. 11 9. A request to "IDENTIFY" the product shall mean a request 12 to describe the product, the material or compound by the following 13 means: (1) by nickname or slang name used in your industry and/or 14' occupation; (2) by the name under which it is sold in the 15 marketplace (trade name); (3) by its generic name; and (4) by 16 manufacturer. 17 10. "MARKETING" or "MARKETED" shall mean the mining, supply, 18 sale, labeling, distribution, importing, processing or manufacture 19 of RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT(S). 20 11. A request to describe the "NATURE" of a product means to 21 describe the: (a) color; (b) texture; (c) form (i.e., powder, 22 liquid, paste, solid, board, cloth, blanket, wire insulation, 23 etc.); (d) physical dimensions, if solid (length, width and 24 height); (e) the type of shipping package and shipping package 25 dimensions, if not solid; (f) type of asbestos fiber used in the 26 composition of the product (e.g., chrysotile, amosite, 27 crocidolite); (g) the intended use or function of such product as 28 4 1 recommended by this DEFENDANT as the miner, producer-, supplier, 2 contractor, manufacturer, distributor, owner or seller; and (h) the 3 type of worksite in which it was intended to be used (e.g., 4 shipyard, refinery, commercial building construction, manufacturing 5 plant, home, power generating plant, etc.). 6 12. "PREMISES" includes, but is not limited to, buildings, 7 structures in a refinery, boilers, generators, tract housing, 8 commercial buildings and other such structures. 9 13. "RAW ASBESTOS" means asbestos fiber mined or milled, 10 either packaged or in bulk, not compounded with other substances 11 and essentially pure with the exception of naturally occurring 12 trace amounts of other substances. 13 14. "THIS DEFENDANT" or "DEFENDANT" shall mean the named 14 defendant herein, all of its divisions and subsidiaries in which it 15 holds a controlling interest, and all "alternate entities" as 16 defined and identified by name in any complaint pending against YOU 17 as of the date of your answers. 18 15. "YOU" and "YOUR" refer to the DEFENDANT who is named 19 above as responding party. 20 INTERROGATORIES 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 1 22 IDENTIFY the person verifying these answers on YOUR behalf. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 24 John W. Stratman General Counsel & Secretary 25 North American Refractories Company 500 Halle Building 26 1228 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 27 28 5 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 2 2 State the date of first employment with YOU, and the dates and 3 title of each job position the person verifying these 4 interrogatories has held while employed by YOU. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 6 November 3, 1997 - General Counsel March 26, 1998 - Secretary 7 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 3 9 State whether or not YOU are a corporation, and if so, state: 10 A. YOUR correct corporate name; 11 B. YOUR state of incorporation; 12 C. The date of YOUR incorporation; 13 D. The address of YOUR principal place of business; 14 E. Whether or not YOU have ever held a certificate of 15 authority to do business in the State of California, and 16 if so, the inclusive dates of any certificate. 17 F. If YOU are wholly owned or the majority interest of YOUR 18 company is owned by another business entity, state the 19 entity's name and principal place of business. 20 G. Whether YOU have any business offices in California and, 21 if so, YOUR principal place of business in California. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 23 Yes. 24 A. North American Refractories Company; 25 B. Ohio ,- 26 C. 1928; 27 28 6 1 D. 500 Halle Building 1228 Euclid Avenue 2 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 3 E. Yes. December 27,1990. 4 F. Didier-Werke, A.G. Lessing-Strasse 5 16-18D 6200 Wiesbaden 1 6 West Germany 7 G. Yes. 8 Pico Rivera Sales Indian Hill Plant Office 2201 Michigan Bar Road 9 7831 Paramount Blvd. lone, CA 95640 Pico Rivera, CA 10 90660 lone Plant 8631 State Highway 124 11 Danville Sales Office P. O. Box 785 153 Sun Haven Road lone, CA 95640 12 Danville, CA 94506 13 Defendant's principal place of business is in Cleveland, Ohio 14 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 4 16 Have YOU ever been identified, known, or done business under 17 any other name in the State of California? 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 19 No. 20 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 5 22 If your answer to interrogatory no. 4 is in the affirmative, 23 please state such name or names and the time period during which 24 THIS DEFENDANT was so known or identified. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 26 Not applicable. 27 28 7 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 6 ___ 2 If YOU are not a corporation, what is YOUR business structure 3 (partnership, joint venture, sole proprietorship, etc.). 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 5 Not applicable. 6 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 7 8 If YOU are not a corporation, please IDENTITY all persons or 9 other entities with an ownership interest in YOU. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 11 Not applicable. 12 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 8 14 If you are not a corporation, please state the following: 15 A. The address where the HISTORICAL RECORDS of THIS 16 DEFENDANT are currently located; and 17 B. The name, job title and current address of the Custodian 18 for THIS DEFENDANT'S HISTORICAL RECORDS. 19 As used herein, "HISTORICAL RECORDS" shall include all 20 DOCUMENTS relating to the formation of THIS DEFENDANT, all minutes 21 of partners', general partners' , or other owners' meetings and all 22 DOCUMENTS relating to THIS DEFENDANT'S merger with, acquisition of 23 or purchase, or sale of or by any other COMPANY. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8 25 Not applicable. 26 27 28 8 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 9 2 IDENTIFY YOUR custodian of Business Records. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 4 Judy Henderson Custodian of Sales Records 5 North American Refractories Company 5200 Halle Building 6 1228 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 7 John Stratman is the custodian of various other corporate 8 records. 9 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 10 11 IDENTIFY the person or persons most knowledgeable about: 12 A. YOUR acquisition of RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS 13 CONTAINING PRODUCTS. 14 B. YOUR use of RAW ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 15 PRODUCTS; 16 C. YOUR contracting with others to do work involving use or 17 handling of RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 19 NARCO states that this information is known by past and 20 present employees of NARCO including the following 21 individuals: 22 Richard Landy, (Retired) Former V.P. Technology 23 North American Refractories Company 500 Halle Building 24 1228 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 25 Don Abrino 26 Coordinator of Product Safety & Human Relations North American Refractories Company 27 3127 Research Drive State College, PA 16801 28 9 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 11 2 For DEFENDANTS involved in the MARKETING of ASBESTOS- 3 CONTAINING PRODUCTS, state the IDENTITY of physicians, medical 4 directors and/or industrial hygienists employed by YOU during the 5 time frame or prior to the time YOU discontinued the marketing of 6 such products. All other DEFENDANTS need only respond as to 7 medical directors and/or industrial hygienists or physicians 8 employed in the area of employee health and safety. PREMISES 9 owners and domestic corporations need only respond as to the United 10 States. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 12 Curtis Horton Industrial Hygienist 13 R.O. 3, Box 216 Elizabeth Street 14 Curwensville, PA 16833 15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 12 17 Has any employee of THIS DEFENDANT testified by deposition or 18 at trial on behalf of THIS DEFENDANT in a third-party case, in 19 which THIS DEFENDANT was a party, wherein the plaintiff has alleged 20 an asbestos-related injury? If so, for each such third party case 21 (except that Premises Defendants and Contractor Defendants need 22 answer only with respect to cases relating to sites within the 23 GEOGRAPHIC AREA) please state: 24 A. The caption and case number; 25 B. The court filing including state and county; 26 C. The date of deposition or trial testimony; 27 D. The name and address of plaintiff's counsel of record; 28 10 1 E. The name and address of the court reporter,. 2 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 3 Yes. See attached. 4 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 13 6 For each of the following, please state whether, at any time 7 within the time frame or until such time as any defendant which had 8 been engaged in MARKETING RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 9 PRODUCTS discontinued the MARKETING of such products, THIS 10 DEFENDANT was a member or paid dues for any representative of THIS 11 DEFENDANT (excluding faculty members of educational institutions) 12 to be a member of the following: 13 A. American Conference of Governmental Industrial 14 Hygienists; 15 B. American Industrial Hygiene Association; 16 C. American Petroleum Institute; 17 D. American Railroad Association; 18 E. Asbestos Cement Producers Association; 19 F. Asbestos Information Association (AIA) (please answer 20 through date of your answers); 21 G. Asbestos Information Association/North America (AIA/NA) 22 (please answer through date of your answers); 23 H. Asbestos Tile Institute (ATI); 24 I. Industrial Hygiene Foundation and/or Industrial Health 25 Foundation (IHF); 26 27 28 11 1 J. Industrial Mineral Insulation Manufacturers Institute; 2 K. Magnesia Insulation Manufacturers' Association; 3 L. Magnesia Silica Insulation Manufacturers Association; 4 M. Mineral Wool Institute; 5 N. National Insulation Manufacturers Association (NIMA); 6 O. National Safety Council; 7 P. New York Academy of Sciences; 8 Q. Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA); 9 R. Refractories Institute; 10 S. Safe Building Alliance (please answer through date of 11 your answers),12 T. Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association (TIMA); 13 U. U. S. Maritime commission; 14 V. IDENTIFY any other organizations, associations or groups 15 of manufacturers, miners, distributors, importers, 16 labelers, suppliers, and/or sellers of ASBESTOS17 CONTAINING PRODUCTS of which THIS DEFENDANT was a member; 18 W. IDENTIFY any such representative of THIS DEFENDANT. 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 20 A. No. 21 B. No. 22 C. No. 23 D. No. 24 E. No. 25 F. NO. 26 G. No. 27 H. No. 28 12 1 I. Yes. 1980 - present ____ 2 J. No. 3 K. No. 4 L. No. 5 M. No. 6 N. No. 7 0. No. 8 P. No. 9 Q. No. 10 R. Yes. 1951-present 11 S . No. 12 T. No. 13 U. No. 14 V. Iron and Steel Institute; 1970 - present. 15 Defendant is aware that alleged records of the 16 I.H.F. purportedly show Defendant as a member from 17 1936 to 1953; however, Defendant has no knowledge of any 18 such membership. 19 w. See response to interrogatory 14C. 20 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 14 22 For each organization, association or other entity identified 23 in YOUR response to interrogatory No. 13, please state: 24 A. The dates during which THIS DEFENDANT was a member; 25 B. The name(s) of any publication(s) received by THIS 26 DEFENDANT from such association or organization; 27 C. The name of any committee or subcommittee of which THIS 28 13 1 DEFENDANT was a member, and the dates of such committee 2 or subcommittee membership. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 4 A. See Response to Interrogatory No. 13. 5 B. The Refractories Institute Minutes of Annual 6 Meeting. 7 C. Defendant does not maintain records of committee 8 memberships or representatives, but records of the 9 Refractories Institute indicate that the following 10 individuals have represented defendant at the 11 Refractories Institute: 12 E. W. Valensi Director W. R. Ramsey Director 13 E. A. Williams Director R. A. Griffin Environmental Protection 14 Committee R. F. Whitford Factory Operators Committee 15 N. L. Schuard Gov. Relations Special Committee E. A. Williams Industrial Relations Committee 16 J. B. Poison Chairman of Packaging and Shipping Committee 17 R. F. Whitford Technical Advisory Committee E. A. Williams Executive Committee 18 E. A. Williams Depletion Committee W. R. Ramsey President 19 T. W. Berges Safety and Health Committee and Chairman of Subcommittee on MSHA 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 15 21 Had THIS DEFENDANT prior to 1973 received any DOCUMENTS 22 containing results or conclusions of any studies and/or tests 23 conducted by Bonsib for Standard Oil of New Jersey relating to 24 asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health consequences 25 of exposure of asbestos? If so: 26 A. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 27 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 28 14 1 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 2 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such 3 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 4 made the subject of a request for production of 5 documents. 6 B. State the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received 7 such DOCUMENTS; 8 C. State the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 9 D. This interrogatory does not apply to DOCUMENTS 10 contained in a library maintained by a DEFENDANT hospital 11 or a DEFENDANT'S library providing access to the general 12 public. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 14 Defendant has no knowledge of receiving such documents. 15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 16 17 Had THIS DEFENDANT prior to 1973 received a copy or any 18 portion of any studies and/or tests conducted by any insurance 19 company, including but not limited to Metropolitan Life Insurance 20 Company and Aetna Insurance relating to asbestos exposure in the 21 workplace or the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos? 22 If so: 23 A. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 24 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 25 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 26 disks containing such date, or (3) describe such 27 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 28 15 1 made the subject of a- request for production of 2 documents. 3 B. State the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received 4 such DOCUMENTS; 5 C. State the IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 6 D. This interrogatory does not apply to DOCUMENTS contained 7 in a library maintained by a DEFENDANT hospital or a 8 DEFENDANT'S library providing access to the general 9 public. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16 11 Defendant has no knowledge of receiving such documents. 12 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 17 14 Had this DEFENDANT prior to 1973 received any DOCUMENTS 15 containing results or conclusions of any studies and/or tests 16 conducted by any laboratory, including but not limited to, the 17 Saranac Laboratory relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace 18 or the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos? If so, 19 A. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 20 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 21 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 22 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such 23 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 24 made the subject of a request for production of 25 documents. 26 B. State the date upon which THIS DEFENDANT first received 27 such DOCUMENTS. 28 16 1 C. State the IDENTITY of the- custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 2 D. This interrogatory does not apply to DOCUMENTS contained 3 in a library maintained by a DEFENDANT hospital or a 4 DEFENDANT'S library providing access to the general 5 public. 6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17 7 Defendant has no knowledge of receiving such documents. 8 Defendant did not participate in these studies but has learned that 9 the records of the Trudeau Foundation/Saranac Lake reveal that 10 defendant contributed $25 in 1934. Defendant has no information 11 about any such contribution. 12 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 18 14 Had THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an 15 educational institution) prior to 1973 ever maintained a library 16 (or libraries) which contained books, articles, periodicals, 17 journals, and or reference materials that related to the subjects 18 of asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and/or 19 occupational disease. If so, state: 20 A. The date each such library was established; 21 B. The location of each such library; 22 C. The IDENTITY of each librarian or other person in charge 23 of such library. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 25 A. Defendant has always maintained some form of library or 26 collection of materials which pertained to its refractory- 27 business as a whole. 28 17 1 B. 3127 Research Drive State College, PA 16801 ------ 2 C. There is no librarian for this library. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 19 4 With the exception of OSHA compliance, had THIS DEFENDANT 5 (except for a defendant that is an educational institution) prior 6 to 1980 exchanged DOCUMENTS or communicated with any person or 7 other COMPANY expressly regarding the results of tests and/or 8 studies relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human 9 health consequences of exposure to asbestos? If so, state: 10 A. Each person or COMPANY with whom the information was 11 exchanged or to whom it was communicated. 12 B. The date(s) of any such exchanges or communications; 13 C. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19 15 No. 16 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 20 18 . Has any employee or designee of THIS DEFENDANT testified as a 19 representative of THIS DEFENDANT before the Occupational Safety and 20 Health Administration, the National, Institute of Occupational 21 Safety and Health, or any committee or subcommittee of the United 22 States Congress relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or 23 the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos? If so, 24 please state: 25 A. The entity before whom such testimony was given; 26 B. The date(s) and location(s) of such testimony; 27 C. The IDENTITY of the individual(s) who so testified; 28 18 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 22 2 Has THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an 3 educational institution) conducted, or caused to be conducted, any 4 tests and/or studies on ambient asbestos dust levels at any 5 location or job site where ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS were 6 installed, utilized or removed? If so, for the first five tests 7 and/or studies, state: 8 A. The location, including name and address, at which each 9 such test and/or study was conducted; 10 B. The individual (s) or entity conducting each such test 11 and/or study; 12 C. The date of each such test and/or study,13 D. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has any documents containing the 14 1 results and/or conclusions of each such test and/or 15 study. 16 E. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 18 No. 19 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 23 21 Did THIS DEFENDANT (except for a defendant that is an 22 educational institution) have any laboratory or other similar type 23 of facility anywhere in the United States at which it conducted, or 24 caused to be conducted, any tests and/or studies of ASBESTOS25 CONTAINING PRODUCTS or RAW ASBESTOS relating to the health 26 consequences of asbestos or the dust generated by any use of 27 asbestos or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. If so, state: 28 20 1 A. The location, including name and address, at which each 2 test and/or study was conducted. 3 B. The individual (s) or entity conducting each such test 4 and/or study. 5 C. The date of each such test and/or study. 6 D. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has any DOCUMENTS containing the 7 results and/or conclusions of each such test and/or 8 study. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23 10 NO. 11 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 24 13 Has THIS DEFENDANT made available to its employees a medical 14 examination program to determine the absence or presence of 15 asbestos-related disease? If so, state: 16 A. Whether chest x-rays or pulmonary function tests were 17 part of such program(s). 18 B. Whether participation in any such program was a mandatory 19 condition of employment or was voluntary; 20 C. Whether THIS DEFENDANT has DOCUMENTS of such program(s); 21 D. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 23 Defendant provided a medical examination, but not specifically 24 to determine the presence of or absence of asbestos-related 25 disease. 26 27 28 21 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 25 2 Prior to 1973, did any person file a workers compensation 3 claim for asbestos-related injury against THIS DEFENDANT or against 4 any workers' compensation insurance carrier which provided coverage 5 for THIS DEFENDANT? If so, state the total number of such claims 6 and, for the first 20 such claims state: 7 A. The date of such claim; 8 B. The name of the claimant; 9 C. The case number; 10 D. Thecourt in which the claim was filed; 11 E. The IDENTITY of THIS DEFENDANT'S custodian of DOCUMENTS 12 evidencing such claims. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25 14 NO. 15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 26 17 Does THIS DEFENDANT have insurance available to cover 18 judgment(s) entered against it in asbestos-related injury lawsuits? 19 If so, state: 20 A. The name and principal place of business of any insurance 21 carrier who has issued such policy of insurance; 22 B. The number and effective date of each policy; 23 C. The amount(s) of coverage of each policy; 24 D. The applicable dates of coverage. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 26 Yes. See attached. 27 28 22 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 27 2 State whether YOU have controlled, purchased, or in any way 3 acquired any controlling interest in any corporation or business 4 entity which was mined, manufactured, produced, processed, 5 compounded, sold, supplied, distributed and/or otherwise placed RAW 6 ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS in the stream of commerce. 7 If so, state: 8 A. the name and address of said corporation or business 9 entity. 10 B. The dates YOU controlled, purchased or acquired any 11 interest and; 12 C. The nature of the business as it pertains to asbestos. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27 1.4 NO. 15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 28 17 State whether THIS DEFENDANT, between 1930 and 1985, has ever 18 engaged in the following activities with regard to RAW ASBESTOS, 19 and if so, state the inclusive dates of such activity: 20 A. Mining; 21 B. Milling; 22 C. Supply; 23 D. Importing; 24 E. Processing; 25 F. Distribution; 26 G. Marketing; 27 28 23 1 H. Sale; 2 I. Brokering. Jn> RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28 4 No. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 29 6 If YOUR answer to any of subparts of interrogatory 28 7 regarding RAW ASBESTOS is in the affirmative, state: 8 A. The trade, brand name, and/or generic name of such RAW 9 ASBESTOS milled or marketed in any form or quantity 10 between 1930 AND 1985; 11 B. The date(s) such RAW ASBESTOS was first placed on the 12 market, including the date(s) such RAW ASBESTOS was first 13 marketed; 14 1. On an experimental basis; 15 2. On a test basis; 16 3. For sale. 17 C. The date(s) such RAW ASBESTOS; 18 1. Ceased to be produced; or 19 2. Was recalled from the market, if ever. 20 D. A description of the chemical composition of such RAW 21 ASBESTOS, including the type and/or grade of asbestos; 22 E. A description of the physical appearance and nature of 23 such RAW ASBESTOS, including any color coding, 24 distinctive marking and/or logo on the packaging or 25 container; 26 27 28 24 1 F. A detailed description of the intended use of such RAW 2 ASBESTOS, including any temperature limits for each such 3 use ; 4 G. Whether such RAW ASBESTOS was on the CJ. S. Government's 5 "Qualified Products List," and if so, the inclusive dates 6 it was on such list; 7 H. IDENTIFY to whom such RAW ASBESTOS has, at any time, been 8 sold. As to each such, state: 9 I. Whether any of THIS DEFENDANT'S RAW ASBESTOS has, at any 10 time, been sold, shipped, or otherwise distributed, used 11 or installed to or at any COMPANY (including power 12 company or utility), governmental agency or entity, 13 shipyard, distributor, refinery, contractor, supplier, 14 PREMISE owner or occupant, ship owner, or other PREMISE 15 or site in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA and whether any of THIS 16 DEFENDANT'S RAW ASBESTOS has at any time been sold to any 17 manufacturer, or manufacturing facility, of ASBESTOS- 18 CONTAINING PRODUCTS. If so, state: 19 1. The names of each such COMPANY, governmental agency 20 or entity, shipyard, distributor, supplier, 21 manufacturer or refinery; 22 2. The inclusive dates of each such sale, and the 23 amount (quantity) and the trade brand name of such 24 RAW ASBESTOS sold; 25 3. The manner of shipment (e.g. boat, rail, etc.) 26 4. Whether you have any records indicating any such 27 sale or shipment and, if so, the name, address and 28 25 1 job classification of each person who currently has 2 possession of such records. 3 5. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 4 information sought in this interrogatory and its 5 subparts to your answers to these interrogatories, 6 or (2) attach disks containing such data, or (3) 7 describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient 8 particularity that they may be made the subject of 9 a request for production of documents. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29 11 Not applicable. 12 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 30 14 ' Between 1930 and 1985, did YOU ever engage in any of the 15 activities listed below with regard to ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 16 PRODUCTS? If so, state the inclusive dates of such activity: 17 A. Supply; 18 B. Importing; 19 C. Distribution; 20 D. Marketing; 21 E. Sale; 22 F. Labeling; 23 G. Manufacturing; 24 H. Brokering 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30 26 Yes. 27 A. Defendant is uncertain as to the meaning of the term 28 26 1 "supply", but if "supply", means "distribute" or "sell" 2 then defendant answers: Yes. 3 B. Yes. See Exhibit A re: Kurosaki slide gates. 4 C. Yes. 5 D. Yes. 6 E. Yes. 7 F. Yes. 8 G. Yes. 9 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 31 11 If your answer to any subpart of interrogatory no. 31 12 regarding "ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS" is in the affirmative, 13 state: 14 A. The trade, brand name, and/or generic name of each such 15 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT MARKETED in any form or 16 quantity between 1930 and 1985; 17 B. The date(s) each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT was 18 first placed on the market, including the date(s) each 19 such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT was first MARKETED. 20 1. On an experimental basis; 21 2. On a test basis; or 22 3. For sale. 23 C. The date(s) each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT: 24 1. Ceased to be produced; or 25 2. Was recalled from the market, if ever. 26 D. A detailed description of the chemical composition of 27 each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT, including the type 28 27 1 and/or grade of asbestos and/or asbestos fiber contained 2 in each such product and the quantitative percentage of 3 asbestos or asbestos fiber in each such product, and all 4 non-asbestos components of the ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 5 PRODUCT, and if the chemical composition changed over 6 time, the inclusive dates of each formulation; 7 E. A description of the physical appearance and nature of 8 each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT, including any 9 color coding, distinctive marking and/or logo, either on 10 the product or on the packaging; 11 F. A detailed description of the intended use of each such 12 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT, including any temperature 13 limits for each such use; 14 G. Whether any such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT was on the 15 U. S. Government's "Qualified Products List," and if so, 16 the inclusive dates it was on such list; 17 H. The name and address of the supplier of the RAW ASBESTOS 18 used in each such product and the time period of such 19 supply; 20 I. Whether any of THIS DEFENDANT'S RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS21 CONTAINING PRODUCTS have, at any time, been sold, 22 shipped, or otherwise distributed to any COMPANY 23 (including power company or utility) , governmental agency 24 or entity, shipyard, distributor, refinery, contractor, 25 supplier, manufacturer, PREMISE owner or occupant, ship 26 owner, or other PREMISE or site in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA. 27 If so, state: 28 28 1 1. The names of each suc.h COMPANY, governmental agency 2 or entity, shipyard, distributor, supplier, 3 manufacturer, refinery, contractor, PREMISE owner 4 or occupant, ship owner, PREMISE or site; 5 2. The inclusive dates of each such sale, shipment, 6 distribution, use or installation and the amount 7 (volume) and the trade or brand name of each such 8 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT sold; 9 3. Whether you have any records indicating any such 10 sale, shipment, distribution, use or installation 11 and, if so, the name, address and job 12 classification of each person who currently has 13 possession of such records. 14 J. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 15 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 16 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 17 disks containing such date, or (3) describe such 18 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 19 made the subject of a request for production of 20 documents. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31 22 A-D. See attached Exhibits A and B. 23 E-F. The products were all gunning mixes and castables which 24 were used in high temperature refractory applications 25 with the exception of the 60 DBRC, which was used in 26 certain open-hearth roof applications. A copy of this 27 Defendant's logo is attached as Exhibit C. 28 29 1 Product Temperature Limit 2 NARCOLITE 2000 3 Super 505 HOT GUN C 3000 4 BOF-COTE 3300 5 BOF-PATCH 3300 6 CM-18 GUN MIX 3000 7 NARCOGUN P-340 3300 8 NARCOGUN PD-345 3300 9 STAZON 1800 - 1900 10 Defendant has no records regarding the temperature limits 11 for its other asbestos-containing products. This 12 information comes from defendant's product catalog, with 13 the exception of information for Super 505 Hot Gun C, 14 which comes from a test data sheet for that product. 15 G. To the best of this Defendant's knowledge, no. 16 H. Johns-Manville and Nicolet. Defendant has no records 17 regarding the supply of raw asbestos fiber. 18 I. See attached. 19 J. Records are called "green sheets." See Response to 20 Interrogatory No. 9 regarding the identity of this 21 Defendant's custodian of sales records. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 32 (PREMISES DEFENDANTS only) 23 Did YOU install, remove, or handle or contract to have others 24 install, remove, or handle RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 25 PRODUCTS at any PREMISES in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA which PREMISES is 26 at issue as to YOU in San Francisco Superior Court asbestos 27 28 30 1 litigation as of the date of your answers to these interrogatories? 2 If so: 3 A. IDENTIFY the PREMISES; 4 B. For each of the PREMISES: 5 1. State the nature of your ownership or possessory 6 interest; 7 2. State the inclusive date of that interest; 8 3. IDENTIFY the party from whom that interest was 9 acquired; 10 4. IDENTIFY the party, if any, to whom that interest 11 was transferred. 12 C. IDENTIFY every contract to which YOU were a party or of 13 which you have knowledge wherein the performance of such 14 contract involved the installation, removal, disturbing 15 or handling of any RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 16 PRODUCTS at YOUR PREMISE. For each such contract: 17 1. Identify the parties to the contract; 18 2. Provide a general description and specific location 19 of the work to be performed by each party to the 20 contract ; 21 3. IDENTIFY and describe the NATURE of the RAW 22 ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS installed, 23 removed, disturbed or handled in the performance of 24 the contract; 25 4. State the sates of the contract and the dates of 26 performance; 27 28 31 1 D. Except as provided in response to subpart (c) , has any 2 work other than routine maintenance been done on or to 3 the PREMISES that involved the installation, removal, 4 disturbing or handling of RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS5 CONTAINING PRODUCTS? If so, for each such instance: 6 1. State the inclusive dates of the work; 7 2. Provide a general description and specific location 8 of the work; 9 3. State whether the work was done by YOU and/or YOUR 10 employees; 11 4. IDENTIFY and describe the NATURE of the RAW 12 ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS installed, 13 removed, handled or disturbed; 14 5. IDENTIFY from whom the RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS- 15 CONTAINING PRODUCTS were acquired. 16 E. Has any asbestos abatement effort been made at the 17 PREMISES? If so, for each such effort: 18 1. IDENTIFY who did the work; 19 2. State the inclusive dates thereof; 20 3. State whether samples were taken, and, if the 21 samples still exist, IDENTIFY the custodian of the 22 samples; 23 4. State whether any material was tested, and, if so, 24 what were the results of each test; 25 5. IDENTIFY each test result with sufficient 26 particularity for purposes of a request for 27 production of documents, or, in the alternative. 28 32 1 attach a copy t<? YOUR answers to these 2 interrogatories. 3 F. Except for insurance coverage litigation, have you filed 4 suit against, or otherwise sought to recover from, any 5 person or entity for some or all of the cost of asbestos 6 abatement or for the proper damage allegedly caused by 7 the presence of RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 8 PRODUCTS on the PREMISES identified in response to 9 subpart (A) above? If so: 10 1. IDENTIFY the person or entity against whom YOU have 11 filed suit or otherwise sought to recover; 12 2. IF YOU have filed suit, state the court in which 13 the action was filed, the date on which it was 14 filed, IDENTIFY all plaintiffs and defendants and 15 their counsel of record; 16 3. State whether or not the case has been resolved, 17 and, if so, what was the status or disposition. 18 G. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 19 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 20 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 21 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such 22 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 23 made the subject of a request for production of 24 documents. 25 H. IDENTIFY the person(s) presently most knowledgeable about 26 the information sought in this interrogatory or its 27 subparts. 28 33 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32 2 Not applicable. 3 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 33 (CONTRACTOR DEFENDANTS only) 5 At any time between 1930 and 1985, did YOU hold a contractor's 6 license in the State of California? If so: 7 A. IDENTIFY each license by type, date and number; 8 B. If on the date of your answers YOU are a defendant in 9 four or more asbestos actions in San Francisco Superior 10 Court, IDENTIFY each job or contract that YOU performed 11 (directly or through one or more subcontractors) during 12 this time period for work in any PREMISES which is at 13 issue as to YOU on such date, and in any PREMISES of 14 50,000 square feet or more in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA which 15 job or contract involved installation, removal, 16 disturbing or handling of RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS17 CONTAINING PRODUCTS (Alternatively, at your option, you 18 may IDENTIFY each job or contract YOU performed (directly 19 or through one or more subcontractors) during this time 20 frame for all work, or for all work on PREMISES of 50,000 21 square feet or more, in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA.) As to each 22 job or contract: 23 1. IDENTIFY the location (including name of ship, if 24 applicable) where the job or work was performed. 25 2. State the date of the contract or the inclusive 26 dates of the work; 27 28 34 1 3. IDENTIFY the person or entity with whom you 2 contracted; 3 4. State your job or contract number. 4 C. If on the date of your answers you are not a defendant in 5 four or more asbestos actions in San Francisco Superior 6 Court, IDENTIFY each job or contract that YOU performed 7 (directly or through one or more subcontractors) during 8 this time period for work in any PREMISES which is at 9 issue as to YOU on such date. as to each such job or 10 contract: 11 1. IDENTIFY the location (including name of ship, if 12 applicable) where the job or work was performed; 13 2. State the date of the contract or the inclusive 14. dates of the work; 15 3. IDENTIFY the person or entity with whom you 16 contracted; 17 4. State your job or contract number. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33 19 Not applicable. 20 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 34 22 Did any of the distributors identified in your answer to 23 interrogatory numbers 29 and 31 above have an exclusive 24 distributorship? If so, state the relevant time period. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34 26 Not applicable. 27 28 35 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 35 2 If THIS DEFENDANT entered into any agreements for the 3 rebranding of any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS by THIS DEFENDANT 4 for resale or distribution by another person or entity, describe 5 each agreement's terms and the parties to said agreement, the '6 duration of the agreement, and name of each product(s) and/or 7 material(s) covered by each such agreement. 8 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35 10 This Defendant did not enter into any such agreements. 11 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 36 13 If THIS DEFENDANT entered into any agreements for the 14 rebranding of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS manufactured, sold, 15 supplied distributed by another person or entity for resale or 16 distribution by YOU, describe each of the agreements and the 17 parties to said agreement, the terms, the duration, and the names 18 of each product(s) and/or material(s) covered by each such 19 agreement. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36 21 For a period of time ending in 1971, this Defendant sold 22 Eagle-Picher products Super 66 andOne-Cote Cement under a 23 relabeling agreement as Stazon and Unicote. This Defendant has no 24 records from which it can determine the details of manufacture, 25 design `or composition of these products. The duration of this 26 Defendant's agreement with Eagle-Picher is unknown at this time. 27 28 36 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 37 2 As to RAW ASBESTOS and to each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING 3 PRODUCT listed in YOUR responses to interrogatories number 29 and 4 31 did DEFENDANT warn of the health hazards of asbestos? If so, 5 state for each such warning: 6 A. The content, size, color, and location; whether the 7 warning appeared on the material and/or on the container, 8 and/or was placed on a tag; whether the warning was 9 included in advertising or other promotional materials. 10 B. State whether you have any photographs thereof; 11 C. The inclusive dates on which you used each such warning; 12 D. State all changes you made in such warnings and the dates 13 of such changes; and 14 E. Identify the person most knowledgeable about your 15 warnings and warning policy. 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37 17 Warning labels were provided to this Defendant by Eagle-Picher 18 for its One Cote and Super 66 Cement sold under a relabeling 19 agreement by this Defendant as Unicote and Stazon. These 20 warnings were placed on the packaging for those products. 21 This Defendant has no record regarding the Eagle-Picher 22 product warning; however, this Defendant believes that Eagle23 Picher began placing warnings on the relabeled products in 24 approximately 1964. See attached Exhibit "D". 25 26 27 28 37 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 38 2 With respect to each of YOUR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS, 3 state whether THIS DEFENDANT'S name, a trademark, logos, color 4 coding, or other identifying markings ever appeared on the actual 5 product itself. If so, IDENTIFY each such product, state when the 6 practice to place such identifying markings upon the product was 7 begun and when it ended, if applicable, and describe in detail the 8 pertinent marking(s) and the purpose, if any, of such markings. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38 10 NO. 11 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 39 13 Between the years 1930 and 1985, did THIS DEFENDANT purchase 14 or otherwise acquire any ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT lines from 15 another person or entity? If so, state for each such purchase: 16 A. Date of purchase or acquisition; 17 B. Terms of purchase or acquisition agreement; 18 C. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing said 19 acquisition, or (2) attach disks containing such date, or 20 . (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity 21 that they may be made the subject of a request for 22 production of documents; 23 D. Trade, brand, and/or generic name of each such product 24 line so acquired; 25 E. Name of the person or entity from whom YOU purchased or 26 acquired each such ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT line; and 27 F. Location of any manufacturing facilities so acquired, and 28 38 1 the type of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS manufactured 2 therein. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39 4 NO. 5 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 40 7 Between the years 1930 and 1985, did THIS DEFENDANT sell any 8 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT line to another person or entity? If 9 so, state for each such sale: 10 A. Date of sale; 11 B. Terms of sales agreement; 12 C. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing said sale, or 13 (2) attach disks containing such data, or (3) describe 14 such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 15 may be made the subject of a request for production of 16 documents. 17 D. Trade, brand, and/or generic name of each such product 18 line sold; 19 E. Name of person or entity to whom you sold each such 20 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS line; and 21 F. Location of any manufacturing facilities so sold, and the 22 type of ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS manufactured 23 therein. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40 25 No. 26 27 28 39 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 41 2 IDENTIFY all brochures, pamphlets, catalogs or other 3 advertising relating to ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS and/or RAW 4 ASBESTOS which THIS DEFENDANT manufactured, sold, distributed or 5 supplied from the year 1930 to 1985. For each such document, 6 state: 7 A. A description of the document; 8 B. The year it was printed; 9 C. The period of time in which it was used; 10 D. The purpose of such document; 11 E. Whether the documents or copies of said documents 12 presently exist; 13 F. If said documents or copies still exist, where they are 14 located; and 15 G. The IDENTIFY of the custodian of such documents. 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41 17 A. Defendant's product catalog and other promotional 18 materials. 19 B. Unknown. 20 C. Unknown. 21 D. To describe Defendant's products. 22 E. Yes. 23 F. 500 Halle Bldg. 1228 Euclid Avenue 24 Cleveland, Ohio 25 G. John W. Stratman. See Response to Interrogatory Number 1. 26 27 28 40 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 42 2 State if YOU have or had within YOUR corporate or other 3 business structure any CONTRACT UNITS. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42 5 No. 6 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 43 8 State whether or not any of YOUR CONTRACT UNITS installed 9 and/or removed RAW ASBESTOS AND/OR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS in 10 the GEOGRAPHIC AREA at any time between 1930 and 1985. If so: 11 A. State the business addresses and name of the CONTRACT 12 UNIT; 13 B. State the inclusive periods of time the CONTRACT UNITS 14 were working in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA; 15 C. State the name and address of each job site within the 16 GEOGRAPHIC AREA and the dates the CONTRACT UNIT worked at 17 those job sites, and, IDENTIFY the RAW ASBESTOS and/or 18 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS installed or removed on each 19 occasion; 20 D. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 21 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 22 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 23 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such 24 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 25 made the subject of a request for production of 26 documents. 27 28 41 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43 2 Not applicable. 3 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 44 5 When do YOU contend that THIS DEFENDANT first became aware 6 that there is an association between asbestos exposure and disease 7 in human beings? 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44 9 Defendant does not really make any such contention. 10 Defendant has no information evidencing precisely when the 11 association was first learned. 12 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 45 14 How do YOU contend that THIS DEFENDANT first became aware that 15 there is an association between asbestos exposure and disease in 16 human beings. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 45 18 See Response to Interrogatory Number 44. 19 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 46 21 Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information 22 upon which YOUR contentions in YOUR answers to interrogatories No. 23 44 and 45 are based, or (2) attach disks containing such data, or 24 (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they 25 may be made the subject of a request for production of documents. 26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46 27 Not applicable. 28 42 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 47 2 When did THIS DEFENDANT first warn its employees that exposure 3 to asbestos could be hazardous to human health? State: 4 A. Whether the first such warning was written or oral; 5 B. Whether copies of DOCUMENTS containing such warning 6 exist; 7 C. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS. 8 D. The content of the warning. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 10 Defendant does not know when employees were first warned about 11 the hazards of asbestos. It has been a long-standing policy to 12 warn the employees of the need to use respiratory protection when 13 around dust of any kind. 14 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 48 16 Did THIS DEFENDANT ever issue a written COMPANY policy 17 discontinuing warning its employees that exposure to asbestos could 18 be hazardous to human health? If so, 19 . A. Provide the date; 20 B. Describe the circumstances; and 21 C. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 22 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 23 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 24 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such 25 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 26 made the subject of a request for production of 27 documents. 28 43 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48 2 NO. 3 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 49 5 Did THIS DEFENDANT provide any independent contractor or 6 subcontractor within the GEOGRAPHIC AREA with a written warning 7 that exposure to asbestos could be hazardous to human health. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49 9 See Response to Interrogatory Number 37. 10 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 50 12 Has THIS DEFENDANT been cited for or otherwise charged by as 13 public agency with a violation in the GEOGRAPHIC AREA of any 14 statute, ordinance, safety order, regulation, or law pertaining to 15 asbestos exposure? For each occasion, IDENTIFY: 16 A. The code section, safety order, statute, or regulation 17 for which THIS DEFENDANT had been cited or otherwise 18 charged; 19 B. The date(s) thereof; 20 C. The agency or other governmental unit which issued the 21 citation or otherwise charged YOU. 22 D. All persons known to YOU with information relevant to the 23 incident. 24 E. What was the ultimate resolution. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50 26 No. 27 28 44 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 51 2 If THIS DEFENDANT has ever owned or operated a railroad, 3 state: 4 A. 5 6 7 The IDENTITY of each such railroad, including the name(s) of such railroad during the time period of YOUR ownership and/or operation, the principal place of business of such railroad and the dates of YOUR ownership and/or 8 operation; 9 B. The GEOGRAPHIC AREA of operation of such railroad; 10 C. The name(s) of such railroad prior to YOUR ownership 11 and/or operation; 12 D. The IDENTITY of the person or entity from whom YOU 13 purchased our ownership or operating interest, and the 14 date of such purchase; 15 E. The IDENTITY of the person or entity to whom YOU sold 16 your ownership or operating interest, and the date of 17 such sale; 18 F. Whether copies of DOCUMENTS evidencing your 19 ownership/operation and/or sale exist; 20 G. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 21 H. To the extent that information has not been given in 22 answers to interrogatory Nos. 32 and 33, the information 23 requested in interrogatory Nos. 32 and 33, for each 24 railroad owned or operated by YOU. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51 26 Not applicable. 27 28 45 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 52 2 If DEFENDANT has ever owned or operated a shipyard, state: 3 A. The IDENTITY of each such shipyard, including the name(s) 4 of such shipyard during the time period of YOUR ownership 5 and/or operation, the place of business of such shipyard 6 and the dates of YOUR ownership and/or operation; 7 B. The name(s) of such shipyard prior to YOUR ownership 8 and/or operation; 9 C. The IDENTITY of the person or entity to whom YOU sold 10 your ownership or operating interest, and the date of 11 such sale; 12 D. The Whether copies of DOCUMENTS evidencing your 13 ownership/operation and/or sale exist; 14 E. Whether any representative of THIS DEFENDANT attended the 15 Maritime Commission Conference in December 1942 in 16 Chicago, Illinois? If so, IDENTIFY any such 17 representative of THIS DEFENDANT; 18 F. The IDENTITY of the custodian of such DOCUMENTS; 19 G. To the extent that information has not been given in 20 answers to interrogatory No. 32, the information 21 requested in interrogatory No. 32, for each shipyard 22 owned or operated by YOU. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52 24 Not applicable. 25 26 27 28 46 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 53 2 At any time between 1930 and 1985, did you import, expert, 3 ship, tranship or otherwise transport RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS4 CONTAINING PRODUCTS into, out of or through any port in the 5 GEOGRAPHIC AREA? If so, for each occasion: 6 A. IDENTIFY and describe the NATURE and amount of RAW 7 ASBESTOS and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS. 8 B. IDENTIFY the ship or ships (including the owners and 9 operators thereof) onto or from which the RAW ASBESTOS 10 and/or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS were loaded, unloaded 11 or transshipped; 12 C. State the dates, port and pier involved for each 13 occasion; 14- D. Either (a) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the 15 information sought in this interrogatory and its subparts 16 to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach 17 disks containing such data, or (3) describe such 18 DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may be 19 made the subject of a request for production of 20 documents. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53 22 NO. 23 DATED: August 20, 1998 STEVENS, DRUMMOND & GIFFORD 24 25 26 Defendant NORTH AMERICAN 27 REFRACTORIES COMPANY 28 47 Interrogatory No. 12 NARCO Witness Edmund S. Wright (Pres. & CEO) Richard Wilson (District Sales Manager) George Spahlinger (Manager Account Representative) George Spahlinger (Manager Account Representative) Thomas Robbins (District Manager) Kim Nelson (Manager Health & Safety) Curtis Horton (Former Industrial Hygienist) Donald E. Abrino (Human Relations and Safety Coordinator) Donald A. Abrino (Human Relations and Safety Coordinator) Donald A. Abrino (Human Relations and Safety Coordinator) Richard A. Landy (Director of Research) Richard A. Landy (Director of Research) Jurisdiction Case No. Madison Co., IL 86-L-1827 Allegheny Co., PA 83-18704 Cuyahoga Co., OH 1987-1 Madison Co., IL 86-L-1827 Madison Co., IL 86-L-1230 Madison Co., IL 86-L-1827 Madison Co., IL 86-L-1827 Madison Co., IL 86-L-1872 Dallas Co., TX 94-0940-G Baltimore, M.D. 93-076701 Madison Co., IL Madison Co., IL All Asbestos Litigation 86-L-1827 Date 9/7/89 1/22/85 Plaintiffs' Attorney Randall E. Bono William Caroselli 1/27/88 Robert Jennings 8/30/89 Randall E. Bono 5/24/89 8/30/89 Randall E. Bono Randall E. Bono 8/30/89 Randall E. Bono 8/30/89 Randall E. Bono 9/12/95 Baron & Budd 3/16/94 7/26/88 Law offices of Peter G. Angelos Fred Baron 9/7/88 Fred Baron NARCO Witness Jurisdiction Case No. Richard A. Landy (Director of Research) Richard A. Landy (Director of Research) Jay Ehle (General Counsel) Cambria Co., PA 1987-71 Kanawha, WV 95-8888' Baltimore Co., MD 93076701 Date 4/20/88 Plaintiffs' Attorney Robert Jennings 7/7/95 2/8/94 Bruce Carl Goldberg Bruce Hill Jay Ehle (General Counsel) San Francisco Co., CA 828684 4/26/94 Eric Wagner Sue Speck Dallas Co., TX 94-0940-G 9/12/95 Baron & Budd Mark Rafferty (Sales Manager for Western Region) Mark Rafferty (Sales Manager for Western Region) Dan Boring Robert Norquist Larry Dilly Richard Landy Richard Landy Dallas Co., TX 94-0940-G 9/19/95 Baron & Budd San Francisco Co., CA Orange County, TX San Francisco, CA Cambria County, PA Orange County, TX Cameron Co., Tx 953355 941345 959282 959660 8/31/94 A-920.961-C A-920.967-C A-930-810-C A-930-553-C 5/13/94 A-953-355-C A-941-345-C A-959-282-C A-959-660-C 9/1/94 A920-961-C 11/96 95-02-773-E 5/97 Deborah Schweizer Ness Motley Bayton, Gisvold & Harley Robert Jennings Glen Morgan Lisa Blue TKPPPPTtQGATORY NO. 26 Carrier: Policy Type Policy No.: Limits of Liability: Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General Liability 0525 00 088405 Bodily.Injury 5300.000 each occurrence $300,000 aggregate property Damage $100,000 each occurrence 5100.000 aggregate . 7/1/74-7/1/75 Carrier: Policy TyperPolicy Noil Limits of Liability: Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General Liability 0526 00 -086405 ' Bodily Injury $500,000 each occurrence. $500,000 aggregate Property Pmas $500,000 each occurrence $500,000 aggregate 7/1/75-7/1/76 Carrier: Policy Type Policy No.: Limits of Liability: Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General Liability 0527 00 086405 Bodily Ialury . $500,000 each occurrence $500,000 aggregate Property Damage $500,000 each occurrence $500,000 aggregate 7/1/76-7/1/77 Carrier: Policy Type Policy No.: Limits of. Liability: Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General Liability 0528 00 086405 figdily in lung $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate Property Oamaow $1,000,000 each occurrence 51,000,000 aggregate 7/1/77-7/1/78 Carrier: Policy Type: Policy Ka.: Limits of Liability: Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General Liability QSZ9 03 086405 fleailv Inlurv 51.000.000 each occurrence 51.000.000 aggregate Property Damage ' SI, 000,000 each occurrence 51.000.000 aggregate 7/1/78-7/1/79 .Carrier: Policy Type: Policy Ho.: Limits of Liability: Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General- Liability 0520 00 092911 Bodily Inlurv SI,000,000 each occurrence SI,000,000 aggregate Property Damage 51.000.000 each occurrence . 51.000.000 aggregate 7/1/79-7/1/80 Carrier: Policy Type: Policy No.: Limits of Liability; Employers Insurance of Wausau Comprehensive General Liability 0521 00 092911 ByUly.. Injure $1:000,000 each occurrence 51,000,000 aggregate Property Damage .51,000,000 each occurrence ' 51,000,000 aggregate Carrier: Policy Typer Pol icy No.: Limits of Liability: Travelers Indemnity Co. Coraprehanslve Liability TRL-NSL-137T930-5-81 69dnYj.nJurY 51,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage 51.000.000 each occurrence Bodily Iniurv/Prooerty Damage 55.000.000 aggregate products & completed operations Retention 5750,000 any one occurrence 7/1/80-7/1/81 3/1/81-3/1/82 Carrier: Policy Type: Policy No.: Limits of Liability: Travelers Indemnity. Co. Comprehensive Liability TRL-NSL-137TS30-5-82 Bodily Tniurv J1,000,000 each occurrence * Property Dwm $1,000.000 each occurrence Bodily Injury/Property Damage $5,000,000 aggregate products & coapleted operations Retention' $750,000 any one occurrence .3/1/82-3/1/83 Carrier: Policy Type: Policy No-: Limits of tiability: Travelers Indemnity Co. .Comprehensive Liability TRL-NSL-137T930-5-83 Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence Bodily Iniurv/Property Damage $5,000,000 aggregate products & completed operations Retention $750,000 any one occurrence 3/1/83-3/1/84 Carrier: Policy Type: Policy No.: Limits of Liability: Travelers Indemnity Co. Comprehensive Liability TRL-NSL-137T930-5-84 Bodily Initirv $1,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence Bodily Iniurv/Prooerty Damage $5,000,000 aggregate products L completed operations Retention $750,000 any one occurrence 3/1/84-3/1/85 Carrier: Policy Type: Policy No.: Limits of Liability: Travelers Indemnity Co. Comprehensive Liability' TRL-NSL-137TS30-5-85 3/1/85-3/1/86 - Bodily tnJury .$1,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence Bodily Iniorv/Prooertv Damage 57.500.000 aggregate products 5 completed operations J Deductibles l. Pollution Incident Bodily Iniurv/Prooerty Damage $750,000 each occurrence z. PSher.. than_dlMtlpn Bodily Injury 5750,000 each occurrence Eregfirta-P.anrcqg r. 5750.000 each occurrence ^ d\ a.^) i* * " ' (?3 7.r^ Carrier: Policy No: Coverage: Zurich-American Insurance Group 01/31/69-01/31/72 GA 86-32-220 $5,000,000 each occurence including loss and expense. $5,000,000 aggregate for each annual period where applicable, including both loss and expense. PRODUCT AEROGUN GUN MIX AEROGUN GUN MIX AEROGUN INSUL GUN MIX NARCO STAZ ON NARCOCAST E.S. CASTABLE FINE TROWEL NARCOGUN SD | 336NN INTERROGATORY NO. 31(1) DATE 11/10/75 11/10/75 7/3/75 4/28/71 6/15/70 11/4/71 SOLD TO The Babcock & Wilcox Co., Augusta, GA The Babcock & Wilcox Co., Augusta, GA The Babcock & Wilcox Co., Augusta, GA Frazier - Simplex, Inc., Box 493, Washington, PA Foster Wheeler Corp., 110 South Orange Avenue, Livingston, NI Kaiser Steel Corp., P.O. Box 217, Fontana, CA SHIP TO The Babcock & Wilcox Co., 15701 Heron Avenue, La Mirada, CA The Babcock & Wilcox Co., 15701 Heron Avenue, La Mirada, CA Brindle Boiler, c/o Babcock & Wilcox Co., 15701 Heron Avenue, La Mirada, CA Gallo Glass Co., Oregon Drive, Modesto, CA Foster Wheeler Corp., c/o OFCCO Construction Co., Inc., Shell Oil Co., Martinez Refinery, Martinez, CA Kaiser Steel Corp., Masonry Dept., Kaiser, CA QUANTITY 25,000 LBS 12,500 LBS 2,000 LBS 100 LBS 1,700 LBS 3,500 LBS ft. 6. 6. j PRODUCT AEROGUN INSULATING GUN MIX AEROGUN INSULATING GUN MIX AEROGUN INSULATING GUN MIX NARCO STAZ ON AEROGUN GUN MIX NARCO STAZ ON NARCOUTE CASTABLE DATE 1/31/73 9/20/79 INTERROGATORY NO. 31(1) SOLD TO SHIP TO Joy Manufacturing Co., Western Precipitation Div., 1010 W. Ninth Street, Los Angeles, CA PA. Power & Light Co., Sunbury, PA ARCME, Inc., 1905 West Glass Containers Corp., 114 Carlton Place, Santa Ana, CA Penn Avenue, Knox, PA QUANTITY 3,000 LBS 2,600 LBS 9/20/79 ARCME, Inc., 1905 West Glass Containers Corp., 114 Carlton Place, Santa Ana, CA Penn Avenue, Knox, PA 3,500 LBS 8/25/69 9/20/79 9/16/71 5/12/69 Republic Glass Corp., c/o Castle & Cooke, Inc., Agents, One Bush Street, San Francisco, CA ARCME, Inc., 1905 W. Carlton Place, Santa Ana, CA Frazier-Simplex, Inc., box 493, Washington, PA Robert C. Marshall Co., 427 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, CA Export to Manilla (shipped to Baltimore) Glass Containers Corp., Route 101, Dayville, Conn Gallo Glass Co., Oregon Drive, Modesto, CA Atlantic City Electric Co., Missouri Avenue & Thorofare, Atlantic City, NJ 3,000 LBS 4,500 LBS 100 LBS 2,000 LBS EXHIBIT MA tlAOt Cucwcnsvi1l p|nt Himaeu Robert oavidson Farber Charles Walter* Mt. Union Womelsdorf Oonald Oooeh -Ronald Coleman Caledonia Tom Pyke Product name irp< used in Product gxflg. Lft AEROCUK ANTI-ERODE TROWEL NARCOCAST es FINE TROWEL NARCOCRCTE TROWEL HARCOCUN CO. MARCOLITE SUPER SOS HOT CUM C Aug . 1171 - Oct. 2. 1979 1963 - n. 1177- 1961 - Aug. . 1977 1963 - May l. 1977* 1964 -. May 17. 1977- 1961 - Apt ll. 1377 X,S4 _ May 17. 1977- AEROCUN MARCOCAST ES FINE TROWEL MARCOLITE Aug. 1971 - Sep. 7. 1976 H63 - July 11. 1978 1961 - July ll. 1978 dSlKrxtoit ppff-<-ni-))7,r 10* l\ IA 2*4 1-3J\ 2 ,, 10k Ik 2k MARCOCUN SO-136 Nov. 1964 - Jan. 12. 1777 Ik OOF-COTE OOF-PATCH CM CUM MIX CM-18 CUM MIX MC-CUN MIX NARCOCUN CM--343 NARCOCUN CR--346 NARCOCUN CR--346 KM HARCOCUN CRJD-347 NARCOGUN MC--339 NARCOCUK HCD-344 HARCOCUN P-340 HARCOCUN PO-34S NARMAC OK CUB KEX MO-339 MC CUM NARMAC 60 OBRC AEROGUN June 3.. 1966 - 197S** 2k Kov. 30., 196S - 1975** 4k July 3., 1963 - May 8. 1973 July 3., 1963 - Jaa. ll. 1377 , 1963 - 1975** 2k l 1/3 k 2k . 1964 - Jaa. 24, 1977 tk . 1964 - 177S*- Ik Sep. 1 . 196S - MOV. S. 1376 Mot. 11 . 1964 - 197S** . 1964 - 1975** Ik 1.33k Ik . 1964 - 197S- ik Mov. 11. 1964 Mor. 11. 1964 Ape. IS. 1974 Aug. 17. 1964 March. 1976 Jan. 31. 1977 . Mov.. 1976 197S* lk u u u March. 1970 Feb.. 1980 Unknown, however. the encapsulated asbestos mat was 1/37* to 1/8- thick and was a very small k at the total refractory. Jan. IS, 1971 - SeP. 19. 1977 10k These were discontinued on or before May 17, 1977. These were discontinued prior to 1975. The prior designation on the original Exhibit A of "Anti--Erode" as an asbestos-containing product was an incorrect identification. The proper name of the asbestos--containing produce was "Anti-Ecode Trowel*. There wece no sales of this product within a 100 mile radius of Madison County. Illinois. The change of the last date of sale of Aerogun from the Facber plant does not indicate any additional isales of this produce within a loo mile radius o Madison County. Illinois. All of the above listed products were manufactured with chrysotile asbestos. All of the products, except foe KARMAC 60 OBRC. wece gunning mixes or castables. The gunning mires and castables were designed by Fred Kurtans and Robert L. Hess. NARMAC 60 OBRC was designed by Karl D. Scheffer and Fred Shcoeder. Horth American did provide to customers upon their specifications a line of metalclad brick with an encapsulated asbestos expansion mat. which North American designated ax Hacitag 60 OBRC; however, not ail metalclad bcick contained asbestos. Occasionally, certain customers would specifically request asbestos in a metalclad brick other than Harmag 60 OBRC. but this occurred in less than Ik-of metalclad brick sales. Mo' metalclad bcick with asbestos expansion mats were sold wichin 100 miles of Madison County, Illinois. Foe a period of time ending in 1971. this defendant sold Eagle-Picher products Super 66 and One-Cote cement under a relabeling agreement as SCacon and Unicote. This defendant has no records from which it can determine the details of manufacture, design or composition of these products. In June. 1964. Eagle-Picher infocmed this defendant it planned to place asbestos warning labels on Super 66 and One-Cote and proposed to do the same for Staron and Unicote which this defendant agreed. These products were sold very infrequently and in small quantities. In March. 19B4, this defendant was first infocmed by manufacturer Kucosaki Refractories Company of Japan that a Kurosaki slide gate refractory distributed in the United Stares from May. 1982 until April. 1983 by this defendant contained an encapsulated ceramic mat with a 4.5-5* asbestos component. This product was distributed on a trial basis in small quantities to only a few of defendanC * s'customers. Crantic City Steel Company was the only customer within a 100 mile radius of Madison County. Illinois to ccceivc this product. Cranitc City aborted its July. 1982 trial of this product after using only sit or sight of these refractories and returned all of its remaining purchase order (or refund. This defendant docs not know the precise dcLails ol tbe design or manufacture of this product at the time it was sold with asbestos. EXHIBIT EXHIBIT "B NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX INSTRUCTIONS ,, PLANT / BRAND d-&-3t/& fi/d PROCESS $PS- -l-z^<U^3~ PATE > /<?/, s~ MIX NO. 37l3___ BURN ___________________________ ' SHRINKAGE ___________ EXPERIMENTAL MIX 4.S.S. SS<% /o *</% S% /<? _ /an ?D SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS SO , CONTROL SPEC IFI CAT IONS ~>VT---%X SIGNED /Ly-U^jt pi. Research ro a f'-rL.iCr! ^ NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COM PAN -- Mix Instructions NfflffiO CONADENM-fMCIH) Plant WGHELS0ORF - BASIC Date APRIL 5. 1963 Brand Process KARCOGUH CRD-347 pttOSPHATE-BQROCO (DRY) CHROME GOH MIX Mix No. Bum Shrinkage A EXPERIMENTAL MIX - Ct&QME ORE -S+20 MESH CHROME ORE -20t43 KESH CHROME ORE -AS MESH 7KQ5 ASBESTOS HECTOR SEKTOStTE HOHOSGDIUH PHOSPHATE (Ha^PO*) PERICLASS ASF 40.C0X 15.00% 24.67% 1,332 4.00% 3. COX 12.00% 100.00% Special Instructions SHRED ASBESTOS 1HT0 MIX BY KAJ TO BREAK OP CUSPS, ^PURCHASED FROM K08SAHT0 CHZH. CO. AS *H0H0S001UH PHOSPHATE REGULAR GROUKO CODE 1*0." Control Specifications REISSUED FOLLOW IKG RECEIPT Of U. S. STEEL, CHICAGO, SOUTH WORKS ORDER Signed REPLACES EXPT'L HIX KO. 322 (wiTK)RAyM 3-10-67) DATED 11-11-64 ^d-". ROBERT L. KSS RESEARCH NARCO GONEDEHTiAL-RESIRICTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY --- MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT Ulorr*^'-~ PATE brano A/a/Lco&uJ c^/)-3vy MIX NO. 3%X____________________ PROCESS {7/ursf)/^-ZL ~-Ar-o^JL^P g^J ynLjL BURN ______ _ SHRINKAGE______________________ _ EXPERIMENTAL MIX {ZAs^cn-*~ . &SUL. p-o V- </^ /Tw-a^CJ J&* hv^9^_/ 7@A> lo-Z/?4^Zs^ /3u~z~Jz. JxA-er<l^t A* ZZ ^d*J-/-L~PowJ <l.coJ. /S!oo % *<A*7Z A 33 % <$4 <70 % Asr /A CD *7o /<JT2. <TU *7a SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS J*Lk^JL A~X--L-4^7j Acrry^O-'O- - Jo a SL ^?*Vv -t r> . A& ^Lo . A^o A) ei* .-<___ Jl/cs-xA-Aa^ZZ /Zc.^c* A fu\S CH&JLt. /f~Q` , CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS // _ / j.ce SIGNED /fjri^/- c/ Research NARCO CONHDEM.-RESTR1IIM, NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY --- PLANT BRAND (a)Q - 3 MIX INSTRUCTIONS OATE Pu. ^ tv\ r-. MIX NO. -Ln t V q (c 4 (T m *> PROCESS SPS Qsl-SSIua; - CiLccvw^ 6 L'-- BURN SHRINKAGE -- C5U-- CJLv<r~-i. EXPERIMENTAL MIX - 3*/wa ? avv -- -\. f*v - 3- -* X <*\ < H? n^. -- + 'is -- Y, -S a.O -- Ich m. % ^S'r n vCo <* - . t.cdL U- sT" 4.0 aa. o 4.S"' a. -T 3*t O \- o fCC-Q * t SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 1 fj \Aj J /rTAv^ n f -. > (Lu_, 1 /(/ CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS --- ' . ' '*--------- . - ' v . -V:: .':? ' - . SIGNED (x^ (Jy - ; > Research //' i/t / ,- l NARCO CONFIDENTIAL-RESTRICTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY - MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT -/3^- BRAND /dA/ZC6 6-OjJ MC ~3<A/ DATE yUrjL n, MIX' NO. 3f</________________ process )- ~}yiCU!j?+ /*%_ --{UcArt*~t* ^U^~U hu^. BURN SHRINKAGE &S-c_ EXPERIMENTAL MIX --3V-^-h JU -- (f V" <P-<0 ---P-O T*-1/'?' -- tv^tJLf -- -- i7-^- <?t9 yn*4*L~ --3-0 . 7/^5" ... ^ 7ft SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS JJ^A. ) L JJS Z.0 70 u.s% 7.*% <7.0 Vo 23. o% <?.s-Vo 2.3~% 3/.c V /. 0*7. 3. 0*7* !<\t^tj .1 /f *. Jj-\ .&-C^ /ury**. }ytr>v'vt. </2o, /h4yi4Scei7^^_ ^ CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS ' Cjt3j i^7o. . -; -r /; - i 7- (,)4 U- SIGNED c/-. Research FORM 916 MOO COWHDfflnAL-RESIRIGTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY " Mix Instructions .Mant U) - /ft, Brand ) A 34Q Process P- 6*n*JUJL fSPS) PuajIcJ'A-la. ?yu?C. Date Mix No. 34/ A_____________ Bum_______________________________ Shrinkage_______ ftjuS.<U*~u+ftuA-*U+-*^ ftt A + e y/s'OS' EXPERIMENTAL MIX -- /'/</ X -/-' t%^c. ASF s-/ 7* Sc % t ?o /^o^0 Special Instructions SuL. a *dA. 7^ SPS a^-A. Control Specifications ^w 1 -7V |4y * a ^ 1<ZL eg ; 7^ 7 yiSx- y>~. 2 c// Signed RESEARCH fid) fflW/7DjEH7Hl-RESIRIGTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT BRANO A/A-A. Co G-drJ P-3 Vo DATE MIX NO. ,?<// V /?<</ PROCESS BURN CSPS) SHRINKAGE ^t-1- >J \aP a -ft. n_ '7/i'oS EXPERIMENTAL MIX P-^^o & -I4-Jto /MuaA /7% /.T7. - */? 3/"?. ' /7,, /o-a SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS auiAtSZS, ^ +o rr / 1---- ^4*2 yCl^c. ZT *^4rry7ry^C<~. <rw- -^2L_ U CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS yyJXyLt yS_ &jf~ - /3&AJL.JL g-*U lO.o, 3^0 o&tSJL SIGNEO <st. Research **ORM 116 O NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY :> Mix Instructions NARCO CONHDM-nCTED Plant Brand Process a/S . 0- t /U>-> M - Pate ^L/p^c Mix No. Burn 3*31 /> Shrinkage Mix - A. 7 & S~ * - VSC S3j. Special Instructions . C S sty ,,, /X-e-vZj. 7V. y,, /o .c /C.G 3. o x. cf" /.o / .CS ^ -4-C-..4, Control Specifications 7u*3' ^*to~*73/ & J <Jo - /\S 7 P^^..e ^ <?, g^'7 Replaces Sheet Dated v/ v/ ? ^ / a*- Approved Approved Approved Ressarcn Operating jT" Plant HflRCO COWHDEHnflL-BESTiHCIH) NORTH AMER1 CAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY _ MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT PATE // /<?(,</ BRAND AM/ZCOG-UjJ MC~33<? MIX NO. 3<73/t__________ ___ PROCESS CSPj) BURN SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX C&Ul*r~L. ^2/tc ^At/TV4. ^2/XX, P_Zsi**-ca*a-e. . y/^^>5^ LaJ*-t-*~r2- -3l/x ~f & n^ojj '"* ^ V- y>u-a~/J V" try^oJyj -- t-fK <r.% /AS% 7sr<70 c/.o % JLX.OVc - 8 + ZU) fy^MJ I.S0?', D-c2~+'<4ff' /Kt*X^ p.*r% 3*7.0 *7o - -/.oVo /oo. O <j> SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS , k5/^5* ^y\.g-^yryljL. ^tuc^^jrir^4 CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS /Vy*W . fhjuCeLZjLOs // - / J- 8/n/^cJ SIGNED /^L-cc/-c Research FORM 116 Q NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions MU) CONHDEMHflL-fiESIRICTEB Plant '`TZZ* * / Brand tifavr.^ra fti~ /-~,C Ftne C/y'cuJ<s /^ Process Pate 7T Mix No. T 5, Burn Shrinkage Stiff Mix titi^Ts ^O'y) 7/ A/ Slc^t>yti, /YoS~ sx^ A- ti 7 AC c ^ \ <J. /VI.") 70% 30 ( *Z Special Instructions ----7-l / , / /fl'jC^L~C^27 / PftU 1="/. i ^5 /-<> /y*~r+-t ^'yf fus.-r- / SLt 7srZ-*r, ,, k^ H Control Specifications m/? AX* / --{2JpC~ &C YPOsv* ^ ~/&* z^r/ A7A - --/- ..........- 3 0 (jii 3^1 /f C-C4-+t-L4./lrr^Li er-tyf 2^6 AtizsA Replaces Sheet Dated V /3 (c / Signed Approved -P' Approved Approved n v^cx f.JJL*> \c Engineering Researcn Operating PUnl NARCO CONRDEHTMI-RESTR1CIED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY PLANT ' "_ BRANO MIX INSTRUCTIONS + S'oS' Mr* jLu~ . PATE %***-*. C/ MIX NO. A _______ PROCESS________________________ BURN_________________________ ___________________ SHRINKAGE &S`?a 7^o' EXPERIMENTAL MIX r 7S~% \L% / fac-*e. aU-X) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. CONTROL SPEC I FI CAT IONS /6Z) X&s SIGNED *4. Research * foam ii6 e NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions JiRCO CONFIDEKM-RSIRiCIH] Plant Brand Process __________ (7 Mix B^tAAAu^ 77- ^z) >UaP-^' ~&L-XS* Date Mix No. S/ 'If-? 3a I, 27 Burn Shrinkage 7'Lm 4.F. / ?. / 0- T-" v trsrf -c-tt-nJ ft-'V ^jAl^tAjoi^jyLUL' L<z^ 7/fcs- (J~) /ffACKdit^C J-3 /& ?o Special Instructions lJ.c. a./o73 ---- C^lSUjS,--:__________________ 3r. ft A tf Control Specifications 'WtJB cA y'Jo 3p Q ^S/ /*// aJ, O 1/ ________ Replaces Sheet Dated ^ <y-u^ n / 4(, / r > } V"i- * Signed Approved Approved Approved Engineering Researcn Operating Plant Form M67 - I CONFIDENTIAL-RESTRICTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX instructions PLANT BRAND FARBER, MO. NARCOLITE // DATE MIX NO. NOVEMBER 7. lQfil 326 A PROCESS INSULATING CASTABLE BURN SHRINKAGE M IX PERLITE (BROUK 77-37) STIFF MUD BATS Ik M GLEASON CLAY A.F. P1F59 FRIT POWDERED ROLANDS HUETTE CEMENT 7K05 ASBESTOS (J-M) 18.0 % 27.2 10.2 2.3 40.5 1.8% SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS BASED ON W.O. 210 B THE ASBESTOS SHOULD BE SHREDDED BY HAND INTO MIXER.. CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS M/R PRY 230F 200 PS I MIN. C/C DRY 230F 500 PS 1 MIN. Replaces Sheet Dated 5/14/57 APPROVED F. W. SCHROEDER Research APPROVED R. F. V/HITFORD Operatinq APPROVED C. ,,P. WALTERS Plant MEO CONFIDEMUSI-RESIRIOTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT_________ OATE / BRAND __________ MIX NO. Uj. 0. / 7- PROCESS BURN SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX '1aa*>. /2*--<I3>~<z1s ~7 -- za 1Ko5~ f/o. Q'M) J-Z. //2 -t?y // SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 7^ S O-^J 7/CoS' <tiidjC&X2,s Cd^vtJ sO-e. U^SjC^^ CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS fj / r^TS^S2 *r dsM/S&f~ (3o-xooju^ SIGNED / '.f. ~7 Kes<?^rcTr FORM 910 0 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions IBRCO C0MEM.-RESTR1CTED Plant Brand /t/ Date jjMix No. 3 3t, ft 3} ffTp Process Z* - ^Bum . jL^Ja. ^------Shrinkage____________________________________________________ EXPERIMENTAL MIX f*cr{ZZ-LjQ -e?sLLjX q/w /'Ic /Ql*-*?*- ^frSF 7 /So S * So 4o cS%l &LCU-. 2o *7% <P-^ if / 3 /*7> 4.26' cL+i^jL. Special Instructions _A^CJ -----><o, yUu.^ ^ ^ ^t, .dXt^ *LjU.JL 6* * MrouiA^ZT* ^7~ C^SP)j ^ Cy+U, /L/t Control Specifications *a.CA^.6*.j ---------------------------------------------------------- ----.-- ________________________ ^ A-<3 i^o yU-^t*-c^. ~S^jf . ilf* *-**-- A*+.]C ~}b<nJ. J! , / 1 c 4- Signed /ZtrCu^f J-. RESEARCH 1 (MfflMWJCTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY --- MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT birytAcru DATE '~hstrtxjuv~JL^J/`f&A BRANO /jA/LCa&tfJ SI) ~336 MIX NO. 33C PROCESS (duj) BURN AUocL ___________ SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX /3itZZo "J <oi* *. /> 'SsiL+cf AAct^u+AeJ) /Ji. e /gL /3if - /?ss &S~ dock**'r~ AlcAjl OAut^J^Cl AaMjZ^ 00y) t-77~ P^V. ?% s%* tV. 3% /OvVo ` ' SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS '"hn^JL Zt) '^f3 /*U*r>+ji3U , dp CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS At.'/lUuJLJL.^. Z^jL " ^Qy^J folOv^Sa+Ask SuU~- . Op . ",________________ - -- BdUiJL^ *-rJ 60.0. ,?34 ^aJZTJl 7-27-6,3 SIGNED Research wjHrtNj //. . 't-C'/ ICflMDEBTIflLMCTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY ~ PLANT fyjf t> htrA */*/-/- MIX INSTRUCTIONS ______ / DATE L /t/CC BRAND,/? A ^ MIX NO. A VI A PROCESS BURN SHRINKAGE -- R ^ f- YLc^/c/sf __ Y pcf-c./c$ EXPERIMENTAL MIX (-/. ASJj- -JY A/hc. Glass ff Pouxe*^ ?//c/y 70**6- cfY. . 6t A sfiers'ta -S ^ 7Leo S~ : /<o 7W*/ SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AArx-jr 6r*<rL' / /lrtr7<;. / .... _________________ /nb fan A'sLfns/b A<**<./> fd ./... . /.... CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS /'/* (f-e cr \ <jO Af, < ///j o/cS~ 93 SIGNED /****-- Research Ml eSMEKIE-fiBIRiciH) mettt AMERICAN REFRACTORSS 'COMPANY 't* RtX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT U)o JLi Do/Z/T 0ATE /Qyfa*-$- t BRAND g OP, - Pft TC>/ MIX NO. 3^4 PROCESS BURN SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX -p# ^izbm;?:^icL^-sdr ->0- -WSm. ' M ~ r *. u ft-sp U A P' GrU=rfs a \j ~ltCo<T A*? f^^Tas 2.0 4 1& r *2^ D"SreN/e^ - '~pbu/bQ 4 r* ,> SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS too% rr&Tffu '' Be ' Srirl6c>eb ' -rfjfaO(rtf- '5'tyeS$% : &#tch"v7 into H/K v CONTROL SPEcIfIcAtIONS V * ** <u^. `C^. JtU^ 77i^jl SJ^bJT~ / -------------------~r^--:--:---------- ///Zo/ljT ffiRCfl OflNFIDDJTlflL-RESTRlCTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY PLANT BRAND TMJZHELL B, 0, F. MIX INSTRUCTIONS DATE- Mrv - P/^TXaH MIX NO. 5 PROCESS ____ BURN SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX S' --f --o ? c^cL'tSt i-u -/ y, /9-s/=- /9* f~ /r "7 /c. o ,, ., ,,. --.-- ^ /-- /W C ... 7.-T3 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS . ."1 ^ * ^7 6 /o o' /3 /CHihT^rr^ AS^C-C) Y>Usj, ' . CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS ______ // Research FORM 116 8 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions IKOfl MlfflDEMM-RESIElCIED Plant Date /7 /?(> 3 Brand , A? 'KM/ Mix No. 3/o Process Burn Shrinkage <S>" @SlJLt* Mix ~- ZZ ++ -/</- + Vr/i - </-# - /-/*+/ - rz H AA 7 Mo jzs'X* ao yc **7. 3-0 7. /a X 3 X (*-- & 70 (a--ZsC^A.) 3L yer(or+^UL) Special instructions _A.^ Control Specifications * Replaces Sheet Dated ---Mi \t^ Signed Approved ;jhm A ffproved J-O Jr \ Approved ifc-- Engineering Researtn Operating Plant FORM 1)6 e NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions wcfmmmmGm /0-yw JsUd^C^A^f Brand '-- C /<V Process ci~~L^.' ~Ha*4~4-+i ^ C, ---------7------------ ,,u --^ /*' Mix No. 3/0 0 ~ -----------=r- Burn Shrinkage f - * * r i /*-. **-*/v ' ... * * lix -r -/y ^ /r// - /r^/ ff - & -D S*0-cL< 't*+.*.x Special Instructions 7^oS~~ Z. 4- ZLn a.-- y-S'X, JkO % 2- S'Z jzo Yo / o Y0 2 y /O JZ yo ^ex-^*LejL^ Control Specifications ' /1 it*-) s/\ J\ Replaces Sheet Dated ./f&J T---------------- -H---------------------- Signed Approved Approved Approved (J id{ ,nJ1 \T\ Engineering Researcn Operating Plant FORM 116 e NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY '-,. Mix Instructions NARCO CONFlDENIlfiL-RESTRIGTEfl Pfant Brand /-/ c, * J&CLa^<'. Date o' Mix No. 3 /?C, 3 // / J(,c S' Process 1 sd-ooiS Burn Shrinkage Mix - T+ t*A +V /r % - yt h /r 2 /c yc ^--*0"--*^s y - tr -/pt- (/TH - YfH AfT ~7/C^ C S~ Special Instructions ~T^,Lsts CL'Y' ~>~2Ls? 3c juZ ac Yc 3 Ya b ?o (a-jL-ftCL /_) <2 yc ca^ Control Specifications Replaces Sheet Dated /(r f<?63 ~/ i Signed - Approved ApproVecL Approved Engineering Researcn Operating Plant NARCO CONRDEfJM-RESTRICTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTOR!ES COMPANY _ MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT UJotmlo BRANO ~/3a^ <Z/r)-3</3 QATE MIX NO. 3// PROCESS -J*r***J {S/>S) BURN____________________________ SHRINKAG E_______________ CAtovtc. EXPERIMENTAL MIX -3^ +8 Jy^xJj -- $ /-<?0 "Po Z2<x/w*-4Z<t_, /iS/^ 38% /8% //% P-7o 30%' /% /tro % SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS -s(jl*AJL-C*-47s SJiut^L ^vo^>-pZe^ t?w 22.Lc. CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS ~* Jl --Z<-g. a^JLjL_JL 2jf J-Z SIGNED cJ-. /d*. Research NARCO CONflDim-MCIED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY _ MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT iJcn^UaU^ 'H- DATE PV//<76/ BRAND *7) <2/Z-3<& PROCESS SPS- O-tr^JUJL C-h* HIX NO. 3^/ BURN SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX cL Jtu 7 /<^? .S" cU- -- S' 9a -- 9-0 v -- <jr /f/= A-S/= 3s*7o <r % / %. SPECIAL INSTRUCT IONS & CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS /" /<7Z? jr Z/~ SIGNED Research Form M 67 PLANT BRAND PROCESS NARCO C0NHDENT1AL-RESTR1GTED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY jU/K-o MIX INSTRUCTIONS rtf . DATE 3/ / MIX NO. 327 & BURN C~c*j^z,3se. U SHRINKAGE M IX j7/.S 7 ^ 0<UZ, (*y) - fAf 7 ^ 03~ r trs <7 PcLXl -ao (/ ^ ^ f=4jusZ*ic< *7.e ' /e.? /<? j?-/ /(s.Q 7 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS / < /j/^bLuULs CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS s*.<3 /To *-Vt-<u-i^Ljrslfs iL^7~ , A c / Replaces Sheet Dated yWAxJs-/$ itfL?/ APPROVED rT/<^A<Vv^J^T^^c^Research APPROVED ^><uUJ Operating APPROVED /P l//~ Riant PLANT BRAND PROCESS NARCO GONF1DEKT1AL-RESIRICIED NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX INSTRUCTIONS DATE mix no. -gq /f6 / J27 A BURN _____________________. C+<XZjtjLeg-* MIX SHRINKAGE _________ _____ 1 ^CLj^ Wv/ "j&Osfc' - FH 1wu>. a 0^ / K O 5T ~M) A^O. 2 i-f y0 32 Yo // X % //7a SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS //yW/,AV< Replaces Sheet / Li-tc-d j--r, //r/ SIGNED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED >Sj L ") t V /. IjC X,; o-t--tJU. Engineering Research___ Operating PLANT rORH M B NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions NARCO CONHD0IM.-RESIR1CTED Plant LOn7y)/?t.<r Brand A?7>T>- 3^3" Process Os-t-si C >aJ- &-r er -- -*-.*/~ft r= -t\ ZX6V tZ-iJsJ AA./JS Date Mix No. Burn Shrinkage /s'CL Mix />Us*-r& fsS* #3. P&if.) Special Instructions /2-i~r3~S?~C-+ /Za fa ***/*- Control Specifications ______^w. T* ? /> ! -JL> / ^ J - 7*- A*j 3~> -gr ,g<=9 Vf< -- 33 .3% p ^^ "A+. e;a<yZ* ^zT /2u~t-e-J2- c-hS k g-f~* 'leplaces Sheet Dated _____^ /^'l / &" A* S' c. ^ j; yj -7 FORM 310 B NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions NARCO CONRDEHCIED Plant Qg-n*r/4 Brand Process 3<J~ *JZZ, - t*Ll.Sl CPjU^ALt^t ?>tw. Date Mix No. 3 Bum Shrinkage A7 B Pu^U^ju EXPERIMENTAL MIX "4 1* / ^ /H<4^A> 7X&S~ Ul*+Z^ - Mvd Sa -11 . sT/ 9o jf?. 3o ?. /% /*><* 9+ . S' <-S. Special Instructions %So, ^ " h\+~*s**uL+ 2yhS *sm_ ^T Control Specifications /</o . SS^-t-JL ,-w / /f--n-y* -** i T 'i^,~ Au." ,* 7a ZyjJs A4i / I C f * " Signed /2e^t^^J-, RESEARCH >? nCOHDENM-nciQ] NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX INSTRUCTIONS PLANT PATE 7", BRAND A//?/lCor-iJj Pb-3</S~ PROCESS MIX NO. 3<4^BURN_________________________ . (Pityfa.B. _____________ SHRINKAGE ' EXPERIMENTAL MIX =**% /7 % 7 Kos- ** **% i^^r- /n_ A Sf1 A/&. /7o 3% /cm *7 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS ydJU^jL &^2^, jl-JZ ~a~ 3?l/rns3guS^ A-a CrL*CrS6*JLt- O- CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS \&. vy XT <2p . //_< s-t** y .' SIGNED /2^-tuLAjP A. /^-<*-<2-- Research ,, form tie a NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORI^uMPANY Mix Instructions SSSI3} COMOnHi-SEIRlCTED Plant Qy*. ____ Bat* /'r./fj. Brand Process 1/a. *A t<^_____ Mix No. 3 7 7____________________ Burn -irvid Shrinkage Mix 1 MoS ^ * *- <*i- Ajk^U*. )ta. 3 ^, /; /^u- X/? ^.7/o 'S'o /crv> yo ~7Z*. +-*l* Vi / A^/2. Special instructions * i**i '!' Control Specifications 11 ^> Replaces Sheet Dated ______ 2u^.>u^~ Approved Approved Approved /2~u_S~A 'A - - d LJ\j /a^3L//Z^*j Ressarcn Operating Plan! form u a NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORi tS. COMPANY Mix Instructions NARCO CONRDENUiCTED Plant Brand Process \J^^L^U.LZZ - P*. Date ^------*>-y ' 5 7 111 Mix No. *// Burn Shrinkage Mix J- /^Uafcoci +J+2X j fXKk, 3 --i--f, ~*~*tf*- J-A 4o% fO Q~b /&a% J *.**.* g fiT^y-UJZ- f u>.A. Special Instructions Control Specifications -^14, J^-JL C. a_-e /S^4^->e ^<o. -#3 A. Replaces Sheet Dated Xx^j Approved Approved Approved /&*<*-* /?. oj: 4"- /*{-* * * Rcseartn Operating , Planl . FORM M6 8 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Plant Brand O^tL. - /=> Mix NARCOInstructions CONROENTIAL-RESTRIGTED A______ Pate JZ/ /<? ? (hjujju?^ Mix No. Process Burn *L Shrinkage Mix tUJU^JL - S** CLU^XZ^ 7 Special Instructions Control Specifications /^Cvvt^i&,3C,'&-JS~/a 4f 7?.OS'JZ (iz-X*Z7j / % (fcXJeJt) Replaces Sheet Dated ___ st-x. 'ic'iec/r Approved t ; /C tjjfcsr-jff^l /?A'rSc_^J_ Approved Operating Plant NARCO CONHDENM-RESIRIGIED PLANT BRAND b NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY MIX INSTRUCTIONS DATE S3=& ^^3-13 MIX NO. 3>-___________ BURN______________________ ____ SHRINKAGE EXPERIMENTAL MIX (jb^p L-^-w --jsU^^je.tz PaJMtL^c (Px*J.<~h>J ~~9 >**. 3 6 "Tv,. Mf=: SI .o<7a 2 SSr 3.9*7, tS~Ms '/l, M s~.&*?. 2-> ^S. >v/ -4$i. 7 ^ ClJ.JL <2 "7 P^ajS*- SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS S CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS "TTZacoSt." ^ I' (X.&L cJL<~*~ '/-e . __<3__' , SIGNED r/- /da. --A--o_ Research FORM 116 B NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Plant * g. Mix Instructions 1M) COKflDEKM-fiKTRICTO) Pate J 4--/of/9^ Brand Mix No. 3 3 ^ >cr* Process Burn Shrinkage &T& y&errL*o 7/<azr <2L Mix ~^ jt3o avl+AL. O />nxv-^ /&<?* 3t^?0 C, 7. 4<9* 2 <7. /aa% Special Instructions^ /VllsAAtt Control Specifications A) rfrf, ft (~*t TT Jg- /- <t. /&****& A* 0 Replaces Sheet Dated y / ^ /9tir - "*/ / <-./ "/>2 A- j" /-. .-L__ -<U. Approved Apppetfed Approved /tr-L^JT A/- r jyj}j, ' & :; Researoi . Operating -Plant NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions HflRKI raNFIDENHAL-RESIRIETED Plant Date Brand Mix No. 32.0 J> Process ft Burn Shrinkage 4>. rv OUjl. o2o <> Special Instructions ' ^ : r-*rfi Control Specifications /o % /s~ 3/ % / *7. /^r> _ ' -- j ^ P.epiaces Sheet Dated "A- . /4^~ Approved . y- _.Researcn_ fORM 116 e NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions Ml MNflDBM-RSTRICTB Plant Brand d A7- / Jf Process a. s Date Mix No. JJo CL. Burn Shrinkage `~f |1L< -e ^ * C.L </* 7. fc 2% /*3% / <?0 Special Instructions -^- ^ A<- ^K- Control Specifications 7^" Replaces Sheet Dated -SjL^Sj, 3, 3 a-Ao X-o 3 ~S~ 3 -* / /1 <~/s Approved Dr^ J- C v iJJApproved- ^Ac V _ _---- Researcn Operating Plant FORM 116 e NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions Plant - ^ \{ ( r Brand C^ - /& Process Jo? DJ~ RCV. CES c.r r:"" ; i ! i _J l 4 1 ' _ - T-TT. ': j j I \ ! 1. 1 : / - 0* 0.JT 70/os' 3 tX 6--Ty<> J.O 7a Special Instructions />* - <1--, : *jL* <X^Lj(-* a.^yA^&>CU--aJ 0 Control Specifications Replaces Sheet Dated /c /?& 3 nK / Signed Engineering FORM 116 8 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions NARCO CONFIDENMtOTCTH Plant Brand /ja-TM c^<f~ ^^______ /-(**> C/remel) Date /7^ 9 /96& Mix No. . 7 2. 6 A Process Burn Shrinkage Mix /3aX; 7^e-a.yt^a^o^ic^J^Zc ^-vte^cT" fo7- ? stf &****^) 70 % JL^ CZJ'Zc sf~ ff-' fi 7 f<0 S' Cd-TM) s ? /% f ) mauuuuuna___ S /{Z*-lsa-cx^i~t /r/t{ / / / s Za^c,^ ._______________________ t/ Control Specifications m/r. AQ^t _ f 3-J 'Ytra ^ / ni('M ( ____________________________________ (JJe.'t's-czcztLt^'____T<0' ZH~ 3 s &u Jl-a /Z^e<5^_____________________________ ____________ _ ______________________' _______________________ Replaces Sheet Dated wA/_________ Signed'Engineering Approved Approved __________Rese3fcn ^, iJ ^Li.J& Operating Approved '/p. L^. _______P*3nt form lie NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions NARCO CONHOENUCIH) Plant Brand A:r^c-^ ___ <. Process -------"Ti, Date Mix No. ^7 V ^7^ ^ T--------------- _?5f3 A Burn f~yLcu^<: o .--Ciyt. / Shrinkage Mix 7J7<- ' y /sc *r - 3S~s-r~- "[lC Sl./=? 3^3 *7e -JV.d /. / / 6 O- O % Special Instructions Control Specifications ", V' Replaces Sheet Dated ,// ,//< /_________ _/3 aw- . LUl^I Approved Approved Approved . 4 /*6.____-.................Regarcn Operatint - planl form tie e NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY Mix Instructions HflRCfl COKHDEWIfll-BESTRlCIED Plant ______ Date -----c^J// Brand A/tULC-O C.Q, Mix No. 3X3 Process ,-3-^ Burn Shrinkage &e- SHU ,4*^ cjLuj "7 /^" Hi ft i.n Vf<--a-- Mix - 3-c -9^> Srfr 6? 7 *7o 3o. co A33^ /crt) . Special instructions Control Specifications Replaces Sheet Dated /2a.HA cthJ id.O. ~?/^/L</ & jfjLt, ,t jcb CJ,S SHU' /aj.J!c-*- 4^ CUll. Cu-tU jbUcJL<--^ J Approved Approved 6?. (JlJi Approved 'Q.UA U ^ Researcn Operating Plant EXHIBIT "C" NAflCO; (Logo EXHIBIT "D" *' EXHIBIT D imcto- criteria for a recommended standard h ~ -EXHIBIT " OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH , EDUCATION , AND WELFARE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE HEALTH SERVICES AHO MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH OTHEB1T criteria for a recommended standard . .. . OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Health Services and Mental Health Administration National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heotth 19 7 2 For solo by tho Superintendent ol Documents. U.S. Coventmeett E'rbiltnc OOtcc. Wojltlnclon, D.C. W07 HSM 72-10267 Second Printing PREFACE The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 emphasizes the need for standards to protect the health of workers exposed to an ever increasing number of potential hazards at their workplace. To provide relevant data from which valid criteria and effective standards can be deduced, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has projected a formal system of research, with priorities determined on the basis of specified indices. It is intended to present successive reports as research and epidemiologic studies are completed and sampling and analytic methods are developed. Criteria and standards will be reviewed periodically to ensure continuing protection of the worker. I am pleased to acknowledge the contributions to this first report on asbestos by members of my staff, and the valuable constructive comments by the Review Consultants on Asbestos. A list of these contri butors and reviewers appears on pages iii and iv. The contributions of others are also acknowledged: Dohrman H. Byers* Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio Andrew D. Hosey* Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio Bobby J. Cunter, Ph.D." Bureau of Occupational SafeCy and Health ** Cincinnati, Ohio Glen W. Sutton* Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio Richard E. Kinser Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health ** Cincinnati, Ohio John L. Holtz Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health ** Cincinnati, Ohio Roger A. Nelson*** Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio Eduard J. Baier Occupational Health Program Pennsylvania Department of Health Paul Gross, M.D. Graduate School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh John C. Lumsden North Carolina State Board of Health Morris Kleinfeld, M.D. New York State Department of Health Irving J. Selikoff, M.D. Mount Sinai School of Medicine City University of New York Douglas H. K. Lee, M.D. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Marcus M. Key, M.D. Director, National ^stitute for Occupational Safety and Health *former staff **now National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 11 REVIEW COMMITTEE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH Howard E. Ayer Assistant Director, Division of Field Studies and Clinical Investigations John V. Crable Acting Chief, Laboratory of Physical and Chemical Analysis Bobby F. Craft, Ph.D. Acting Director, Division of Technical Services Lewis J. Cralley, Ph.D. Office of the Associate Director, Cincinnati Operations Lorice Ede, J.D. Office of Research & Standards Development Edward J. Fairchild, Ph.D. Acting Associate Director, NIOSH Cincinnati Operations William M. Johnson, M.D. Associate Director, Division of Field Studies and Clinical Investigations Jeremiah R- Lynch Acting Deputy Director, Division of Laboratories and Criteria Development Raymond T. Moore, M.D. Associate Director, NIOSH Washington Operations Charles H. Powell, Sc.D. Assistant Director, NIOSH for Research and Standards Development Warren L. Smith, M.D. Division of Field Studies and Clinical Investigations Herbert E. Stoklnger, Ph.D. Division of Laboratories and Criteria Development Joseph K. Wagoner, S.D. Hyg. Director, Division of Field Studies and Clinical Inves tigations Hi NI0S11 REVIEW CONSULTANTS ON ASBESTOS W. Clark Cooper, M.D. Professor In Residence Occupational Health Division of Environmental Health Sciences University of California School of Public Health Berkeley, California Duncan A. Holaday Research Professor Mount Sinai School of Medicine City University of New York New York, New York George W. Wright, M-D. Head, Department of Medical Research St. Lukes Hospital Cleveland, Ohio iv CRITERIA DOCUMENT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE STANDARD FOR ASBESTOS Table of Contents PREFACE REVIEW COMMITTEES I RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ASBESTOS STANDARD Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Environmental Medical Labeling Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Apprlsal of Employees of Hazards from Asbestos Work Practices Monitoring & Recordkeeping Requirements II INTRODUCTION [II BIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE Extent of Exposure Early Historical Reports Epidemiological Studies Animal Toxicity Correlation of Exposure and Effect IV ENVIRONMENTAL DATA V DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD Basis for Previous Standards U. S. Emergency Standard Basis for Recommended Standard Summary VI COMPATIBILITY WITH EMISSION STANDARDS VII REFERENCES VIII IX X APPENDIX I - Air Sampling Method APPENDIX II - Numerical Hazard Rating System APPENDIX III - Material Safety Data Sheet I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ASBESTOS STANDARD The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-(NIOSH) recommends chat worker exposure to asbestos dust in the workplace be controlled by requiring compliance with the following sections. Control of worker exposure to the limits stated will prevent asbestosls and more adequately guard against asbestos-induced neoplasms. The standard 16 amenable to techniques that are valid, reproducible, and available to Industry and governmental agencies. It will be subject to review and will be revised as necessary. Section 1 - Environmental (work place air) (a) Concentration Occupational exposure to airborne asbestos dust shall be controlled so that no worker shall be exposed to more than 2.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter (cc) of air based on a count of fibers greater than 5 micrometers (>5 jim) in length ((determined by the mem brane filter method at 400-450X magnification (4 millimeter objective) phase contrast illumination, as described in Appendix I)), determined as a time-weighted average (TWA) exposure for an 8-hour work day, and no peak concentration of asbestos to which workers are exposed shall exceed 10.0 fibers/cc^S j.lm as determined by a minimum sampling time of fifteen minutes. (b) Sampling Procedures for sampling, calibration of equipment, and analysis of asbestos samples 6hall be as provided in Appendix I. (c) It is recommended that thi6 Section I become effective two years after promulgation as a standard, and that until the date of 1-1 publication, the present emergency standard for exposure to asbestos dust (29 CFR 1910.93a) shall be in effect. This period is believed necessary to permit installation of necessary engineering controls. 1-2 Section 2 - Medleal Medical surveillance is required, except where a variance from the medical requirements of this proposed standard have been granted, for all workers who are exposed to asbestos as part of their work environment. For purposes of this requirement the term "exposed to asbestos" will be Interpreted as referring to time-weighted average exposures above 1 fiber/ cc or peak exposures above 5 fibers/cc. The major objective of 6uch surveillance will be to ensure proper medical management of individuals who 6how evidence of reaction to past dust exposures, either due to excessive exposures or unusual susceptibility. Medical management may range from recommendations as to job placement, improved work practices,- cessation of smoking, to specific therapy for asbestos-related disease or its com plications. Medical surveillance cannot be a guide to adequacy of current controls when environmental data and medical examinations only cover >:ecent work experience because of the prolonged latent period required for the development of asbestosls and neoplasms. Required components of a medical surveillance program include periodic measurements of pulmonary function (forced vital capacity (FVC)), and forced expiratory volume for one second (FEV^), and periodic chest roentgenograms (postero-anterior 14 x 17 inches). Additional medical requirement components include a history to describe smoking habits and details on past exposures to asbestos and other dusts and to determine presence or absence of pulmonary, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal symptoms, and a physical examination, with special attention to pulmonary rales, clubbing of fingers, and other signs related to cardiopulmonary systems. 1-3 Chest roentgenograms and pulmonary function tests will be performed at the employer's expense, at least every 2 years on all employees exposed to asbestos. These tests will be made annually to Individuals, (1) who have a history of 10 or more years of employment involving exposure to asbestos or, (2) who show roentgenographic findings (such as small opacities, pleural plaques, pleural chickening, pleural cal cification) which suggest or indicate pneumoconiosis or other reactions to asbestos, or (3) who have changes in pulmonary function which indicate restrictive or obstructive lung disease. Preplacement medical examinations and medical examinations on Che termination of employment of asbestos exposed workers are also required. 1-4 Section 3 - Labeling (a) A warning label for asbestos as shown in Figure 1 shall be used. (b) Numerical designations indicate the following: (i) 4= Health Hazard (color code, blue). Inhalation may cause asbestosls,' pleural or peritoneal metothelloma, or lung cancer. (1) 0= Fire Hazard (color code, red). Asbestos is non-flammable and has negligible vapor pressure, volatility, flash point, and explosive limits. (c) The details of the numerical hazard rating system are found in Appendix II. 1-5 ASBESTOS HARMFUL: May Cause Delayed Lung Injury (Asbestosis, Lung Cancer). DO NOT BREATHE DUST Use only with adequate ventilation and approved respiratory protective devices. 1-6 Section A - Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing ------- This section shall apply whenever a variance from the standard 6et In Section I is granted under provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.* Use of respirators can be decided on the basl6 of time- weighted average or peak concentration. When the limits of exposure to asbestos dust prescribed in paragraph (a) of Section 1 cannot be met by limiting the concentration of asbestos dust in the work environment, an employer must utilize as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section a program of respiratory protection and furnishing of protective clothing to effect the required protection of every worker exposed. (a) Respiratory Protection (i) For the purpose of determining the class of respirator to be used, the employer shall measure the atmospheric concentration of airborne asbestos in the workplace when the initial application for variance i6 made and thereafter whenever process, worksite, climate or control changes occur which are likely to affect the asbestos concentration. The employer shall test for respirator fit and/or make asbestos measurements within the respiratory inlet covering to Insure that no worker is being exposed to asbestos in excess of the standard either because, of improper respirator selection or fit. (ii) As noted above, the use of respirators and protective clothing can be decided on the basis of either time-weighted average or peak concentrations. For determining usage or compliance, the peak concentration of 10 fibers/cc 16 preferable. *Varlance procedures will not be required for emergency and occasional short-cerm exposures in excess of the environmental standard. However, the use of respirator equipment as indicated in this Section (A) will be required under conditions In excess of the standard. 1-7 (lit) For an atmosphere containing not more than 10 fiber9/cc greater than 5 pm in length over an 8-hour average or more than 50 fibers/cc over any 15 minute period, a reusable or single use filter-type air-purifying respirator, operating with a negative pressure during the Inhalation phase of breathing, approved under the provisions of 30 CFR 14 (Bureau of Hines Schedule 2IB) or valveless respirators providing equivalent protection shall be used. (lv) For an atmosphere containing not more than 100 fibers/cc greater than 5 pm in length over an 8-hour average or more than 500 fibers/cc over any 15 minute period, a powered air-purifying positive-pressure res pirator approved under the provisions of 30 CFR 14 (Bureau of Hines Schedule 21B) shall be used. (v) For an atmosphere containing more than 100 fibers/cc greater than 5 pm in length over an 8-hour average or over 500 fibers/cc for any period In excess of 15 minutes, a type C positive-pressure supplied air respirator approved under the provisions of 30 CFR 12 (Bureau of Hines Schedule 19B) shall be used. (vi) The employer shall establish a respirator program in accordance with the requirements of the American National Standard for Respiratory Protection Z88.2--1969. (b) Protective Clothing (i) The employer shall provide each employee subject to exposure in a variance area with coveralls or similar full bedy pro tective clothing and hat, which 6hall be worn during the working hours in areas where there is exposure to asbestos dust. 1-8 (tl) The employer shall provide for maintenance and laundering of the soiled protective clothing, which shall be stored, transported and disposed o: in sealed non-reusable containers marked "Asbestos-Con taminated Clothing" in easy-to-read letters. (ill) Protective 'clothing shall be vacuumed before removal. Clothes shall not be cleaned by blowing dust from Che clothing or shaking. (lv) If laundering Is to be done by a private contractor, the employer shall Inform the contractor of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to asbestos dust and of safe practices required In the laundering of the asbestos-soiled work clothes. (v) Re3In-Impregnated paper or similar protective clothing can be substituted for fabric type of clothing. (vi) It Is recommended that In highly contaminated operations (such as Insulation and textiles) provisions be made for separate change . rooms. 1-9 Seccion 5 - Apprlsal of Employees of Hazards from Asbestos Each employee exposed co asbestos shall be apprised of all hazards, relevant symptoms, and proper conditions and precautions concerning use or exposure. Each exposed worker 6hall be informed of the -information which is applicable to a specific product or material containing 5% or more asbestos (Gee Appendix III for details of Information required). The information 6hall be kept on file and readily accessible to the worker at all places of employment where asbestos materials are manu factured or used in unit processes and operations. It 16 recommended, but not required, that this information be provided for asbestos pro cesses and operations where the asbestos content is less than 5Z. Information as specified in Appendix III shall be recorded on U. S. Department of Labor Form 0SHA-20, "Material Safety Data Sheet", (see page X-3 and X-4) , or a similar form approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor. 1-10 Section 6 - Work Practices (a) Asbestos cement, mortar, coatings, grcut, and plaster shall be mixed in closed bags or ocher containers. (b) Asbestos waste and scrap shall be collected and disposed of in sealed bags or other containers. (c) All cleanup of asbestos dust shall be performed by vacuum cleaners or wet cleaning methods. No dry sweeping shall be performed. I-1L Section 7 - Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements Employers will be required* to maintain records of environmental exposure to asbestos based upon the following environmental sampling and recordkeeping schedule. Personal exposure samples will be collected at least annually by specific maximum-risk work operations from a number of employees. The first sampling period will be completed within 180 days of the date of this standard. These selected samples will be collected and evaluated as both time-weighted and peak concentration values. The personal sampling regime shall be on a quarterly basis for maximum-risk work areas under the following conditions: (a) The environmental levels are in excess of the standard. (b) There are other conditions existing that necessitate the requesting of a variance from the Department of Labor. Records of the type of respiratory protection in use during the quarterly sampling schedule must also be maintained. Quarterly sampling, monitoring and recordkeeping will be required only until environmental levels comply with the standard. *Except where a variance for monitoring and recordkeeping has been granted. 1-12 II. INTRODUCTION This report presents the criteria and the standard based thereon which were prepared to meet the need for preventing occupational diseases arising from exposure to asbestos dust. The necessary relevant data are made available for use by the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in accordance with the provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requiring the development of criteria by "The Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare...on the basis of such research, demonstrations, and experiments and any other information available to him...to effectuate the purposes of this'Act., by providing medical criteria which will assure Insofar as practicable chat no employee will suffer diminished health, functional capacity, or life expeccancy as a result of his work experience"... The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), after a review of data and consultations with others, formalized a system for the development of criteria upon which standards can be established to protect the health of workers from exposure to hazardous chemical and physical agents. It should be pointed out that.any recommended criteria for a standard should enable management and labor to develop better engineering controls and more healthful work practices and should not be used as a final goal. These criteria for a standard for asbestos dust are the first of the criteria developed by NIOSH. The criteria and standard speak only to the processing, manufacture, and use of asbestos products as applicable under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. II-l The occupational safety and health aspects of the mining and milling of asbestos ores are covered by provisions of the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act (30 US.C. 725 et seq.) under which provisions the Bureau of Mines has promulgated applicable regulations. Relevant data, however, bearing on the safety and health hazards from exposure to asbestos dust in the mining and milling of ores were considered in this document. These criteria were developed to assure that the standard based thereon would, (1) protect against asbestosis and asbestos-induced neoplasms, (2) be amenable to techniques that are valid, reproducible, and available to industry and official agencies, and (3) be attainable with existing technology. The recommended standard is designed primarily to prevent asbestosis. For other diseases associated with asbestos, there is insufficient information to establish a standard to prevent such diseases Including asbestos-induced neoplasms by any all-inclusive limit other than one of zero. Nevertheless, a safety factor has been included in arriving at the concentration level that will reduce the total body burden and should more adequately guard against neoplasms. Asbestos has been mined, milled, processed, and used for many years, and as a result, a number of workers have experienced significant accumulative exposure to asbestos dust over a working lifetime. It has been recognized that biological monitoring (by periodic chest roentgenograms) and removal from further exposure after Initiation of fibrosis, calcification or neoplasia will not absolutely prevent II -2 further progression of asbestos is or the clinical development of neoplasms. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that a low level of concentration be 6et to preclude the initiation of diseases resulting from exposure to asbestos. And of necessity, any prolonged delay in the establishment of the standard may require a more stringent standard in the future to assure the reduced total body burden of employees which is necessary to protect their safety and health. II-3 III. BIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS Asbestos Is a generic term Chat applies to a number of naturally occurring, hydrated mineral silicates incombustible in air and separable into filaments. The most widely used in industry in the United States is chrysotile (3MgQ.2Si02*2H20), a fibrous form of serpentine. Other types include amosite (FeMg)Si03); crocidolite (NaFe^iOj^.FeSiOj-^O) ; tremolite (Ca2Mg5Si8022(0H)2) anthophyllite (MgFe)ySig022(H)2^ and actinolite (Ca0.3(MgFe)0.4Si02)- Extent of Exposure Almost one million tons per year of asbestos are used in the United States. In 1965, approximately 74 percent of the asbestos produced was used in the construction industry (532,300 tons) while 26 percent was used in non-construction industries (187,400 tons). Approximately 92 percent of the half million tons used in the construction industry is firmly bonded, i.e., the asbestos is "locked in" in such products as floor tiles, asbestos cements, and roofing felts and shingles; while the remaining 8 percent is friable or in powder form present in insula- 1 tion materials, asbestos cement powders, and acoustical products. As expected, these latter materials generate more airborne fibers than the firmly bonded products. The 187,400 tons of asbestos used in non construction industries in 1965 were utilized in such products as textiles, friction material including brake linings, and clutch facings, paper, paints, plastics, roof coatings, floor tiles, and miscellaneous other products. Mining and milling of asbestos in the United States is a small industry, employing fewer than a thousand workers. The health and safety III-l aspects of mining and milling operations are not covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The construction industry has, in recent years, applied asbestos insulation materials by spraying, a method of application that generates more airborne asbestos fibers than older conventional methods. This technique at present utilizes only a small percentage of the total asbestos produced and its use is decreasing. There are approximately 40,000 field insulation workers in the United States who are exposed to asbestos dust. The activities of these workers cause secondary exposures to an estimated three to five 2 million other building construction and shipyard workers. Since the dust exposure to the individual worker is extremely variable and the number of asbestos workers at any one location is small, the primary and secondary asbestos dust exposures to all workers have never been satisfactorily estimated. An estimated 50,000 workers are involved in the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. This figure does not include secondary manufacture of produces which contain asbestos, such as electrical or thermal insulation, or products which Include previously manufactured components containing asbestos.^ The -following information, furnished by the Pennsylvania Division of Occupational Health, shows the number and variety of plants using asbestos in which potential exposures can occur. These figures are based on a survey of a total of 18,439 manufacturing plants in that I1I-2 State as ot August 22, 1969, and represents about 1.4 percent of all manufacturing operations in Pennsylvania. Service facilities such as garages are not included. No. of Plants Insulation, including cutting, drilling, and tape manufacture Manufacturing and processing Brakes and friction Cement, clay Miscellaneous* 75 16 10 18 146 *Gaskets Signs Safety equipment Laminated material Paint and roofing materials Shipbuilding and shipbreaking Impregnating resin and urethane Textile Undercoating material Ironing board covers Flooring TOTAL 265 III-3 Early Historical Reports The widespread use of asbestos fibers did not begin until the 2 last quarter of the nineteenth century. Uith the increasing use of asbestos materials and increasing reports of asbestos related disease there developed concern over the role of these minerals as factors in human disease. Differentiation of the type of asbestos fiber was not made in most studies related to occupational exposure. In the United States the exposures of greatest concern usually involve more than one type of fiber, although chrysotile predominates. To refine our knowledge of the biological actions of asbestos, it is imperative that the character of the exposure as to concentration, size, and type of fiber be known. At present, data of this complexity are scanty or often non-existent with respect to human exposure. The first record of a case of asbestosls was reported in England by Montague Murray in 1906.^ The first complete description of asbestosis and of the "curious bodies" seen in lung tissue appeared in 1927 when Cooke^ reported on a case of asbestosis and McDonald^ reported on the same and another case. Each author gave reasons for believing that these "curious bodies" originate from asbestos fibers that reach the lungs. Many of the people exposed to asbestos dust develop the disease "asbestosis" if the dust concentration is high or the duration of their exposure is long. This has been documented by the following studies: Merewether and Price, 1930; Fulton e al.. , 1935; and Dreessen et al. , 1938. In 1918, Hoffman^ reported that it was the practice of ItI-4 American and Canadian insurance companies not to insure asbestos uorkers due to the assumed health-injurious conditions of that industry. g In 1917, Pancoast, Hiller and Landis reported on X-ray appearances of pneumoconiosis in 15 individuals exposed to asbestos. 9 Hills' publication in 1930 was the first report on a case of asbestosls published in the United States, and in chat same year. Lynch and Smith reported on "asbestosis" bodies* found in the sputum of asbestos workers. In Herewether's review of asbestosisemphasis was placed on the relation of asbestosis to dusty working conditions. 12 The clinical aspects of asbestosis are well documented. Gloyne discussed the pathology of asbestosis and methods for diagnosing asbestos.bodies and asbestosis. Selikoff and Hammond^ analyzed 1,975 autopsies In three large New York City hospitals and found asbestos bodies in 942 (47.77.). Broadly considered, 40 percent of housewives, 50 percent of "white collar" males, and 50 percent of "blue collar" males showed asbestos bodies; but males who had a history of shipyard or construction work had higher incidence of asbestos bodies, i.e., 90 of 129 cases or 70 percent. Selikoff's observations also suggest that asbestos bodies were as frequently present 38 years ago as now. Although a large percentage of the lungs of adult urban dwellers may be found to contain ferruginous bodies (depending on the mechod of examination) , the significance of this is as yet unknown. *"Ferruginous bodies" is a more descriptive teem. This and other aspects of the biologic effects of asbestos are well documented in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science. III-5 The core fibers have noc been systematically identified to indicate how many r.re asbestos bodies, and there are little data bearing on possible health effects associated with the low concentrations of fibers found in ambient air. An abnormality, occurring with unusually greater frequency in populations exposed to inhalation of asbestos fiber, is that of localized thickening, or plaques, of the pleura with or without calcification of the plaques. The role of the asbestos fiber in this manifestation is not clear. The medical aspects of exposure to asbestos and the development of the occupational disease, asbestosis, are characterized by: Cl) A pattern of roentgenographlc changes consistent with diffuse interstitial fibrosis of variable degree and, at times, pleural changes of fibrosis and calcification. (2) Clinical changes including fine rales and finger clubbing. These may be present or absent in any individual case. (3) Physiological changes consistent with a lung disorder. (4) A known history of occupational exposure to airborne asbestos dust. In general, a considerable time lapse between inhalation of the dust and appearance of changes as determined by X-ray. The several clinical abnormalities listed above appear to occur with unusual frequency in those environments where airborne asbestos fibers, often in association with other substances, exist. One of these abnormalities, a diffuse chronic inflammation and scarring III-6 of Che lung. Is Che one recognized early In chls century and referred to as "asbestosis." Epidemiological Studies Harries^ in 1968 suggested that first impressions would lead one toonlywcrrkets continuously exposed to asbestos are at risk of developing asbestosls, however, a number of trades experiencing incense Intermittent exposures are also suspect. These other trades Involve work with asbestos Insulation in confined spaces onboard ship. Work in these trades has been accepted by the Pneumoconiosis Panel of the United Kingdom as associated with asbesto3is. Selikoff,^ however, in a study of 232 former insulation plant employees reported positive X-ray findings among individuals having had known exposures to asbestos as short as one day (Table XXVII). In the late 1940's a frequency of bronchogenic cancer greater than that expected on the basis of the general male population was manifest among persons who worked in the manufacture of asbestos products.^ This excess of bronchogenic cancer was also demonstrated among a group of workers in the United States exposed to airborne asbestos fibers in 17 18 the installation of insulation. ' Among 632 asbestos insulation installers observed from 1943 to 1967 there were 99 excess deaths (above that expected on the basis of the U. S. white male population) for three types of malignancies-- bronchogenic (63), gastrointestinal (26) and all other sites combined (10). Elmes and Simpson^ recently reported findings of similar magnitude among men employed as Insulators and pipe coverers in Belfast. Newhouse found an excess of lung cancer III-7 in a study of over 4,500 male workers employed at an asbestos factory making both textile and insulation materials. This excess of lung cancer was demonstrated among those workers with Jobs which entailed heavy exposure irrespective of the duration of employment. More recent observations by Selikoff in the United States indicate a lung cancer risk for workers exposed to amosite asbestos in the production of insulation material.^ The possibility chat the carcinogenic role of asbestos is solely 7 that of a cocarcinogen has been suggested by Wright. This suggestion stems from the observation by Selikoff and associates^ that among 370 asbestos insulators, exposure to asbestos.dust does not greatly increase the risk of bronchogenic cancer in the absence of regular cigarette smoking. More recent observations among this same group of workers,^2 however, demonstrate that this interpretation is largely a function of sample size as one lung cancer death vs. 0.02 expected was observed among non-smokers as contrasted with 27 vs. 2.83 expected among cigarette smokers. Moreover, Decoufle^ demonstrated that the excess of lung cancer mortality among several subgroups of retired asbestos workers could not be explained by cigarette smoking alone. Concerning mesothelioma, 80 percent of the cases studied in South Africa and the United Kingdom have been shown to have an occupational or para-occupational association with asbestos fibers. In the United States, Selikoff and co-workers have reported the occurrence of 14 deaths from mesotheliomas among 532 asbestos insulation workers studied in retrospect from 1943 to 1968 compared to no deaths which III-8 would be expected in the same number of similar individuals in the 17 1 fi general population. ' Information is insufficient at this time to set an exposure standard (other than zero) which would assure prevention of mesothelioma in all workers, as the disease may occur following a very limited exposure 20-30 years earlier. An increased rate of occurrence of mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum was reported in some populations in 1959 and in subsequent years. The possibility that asbestos may play a role in this dis tribution has been raised. Investigations of the distribution of- mesothelioma in populations occupationally exposed to asbestos indicate a strong relationship between exposure to asbestos fiber and the presence of mesothelioma.18.20,24,25 Neoplasms, such as mesothelioma, may occur without radiological evidence of asbestosis at exposure levels lower than those required for prevention of radiologically evident asbestosis. This may be of particular importance when consideration is given to short-term, high levels of exposure, and may result in the development of meso thelioma before or after completion of a normal span of work either in or out of the asbestos industry. This is illustrated by several case studies, including two cases of malignant mesothelioma, one a "family" and the other a "neighborhood" 26 case. In another "family" case, a woman washed the overalls of her three daughters at home; all three daughters worked for an asbestos company with possible heavy exposures to asbestos. III-9 The time lapse between onset of exposure and mesothelioma in 344 deaths among asbestos insulation workers was studied. Meso thelioma developed after a longer lapse of time from onset of exposure to asbestos than was the case in the development of asbestosis (Table XXVIII). Knox^ reported 4 cases of mesothelioma in men and women with less than 10 years exposure, one with only seven months exposure, with the latent time for the development of the mesothelioma from 23 to 53 years. 28 D. L. Cran indicated that mesothelioma did occur in cases of asbestosis, but that in most cases of mesothelioma that he had seen, the occurrence of asbestosis was not found. He postulated that the difference being the long periods of exposure required to produce asbestosis, while mesothelioma could occur long after a short intensive exposure. The 27 cases of mesothelioma in children under 19 years of age indicates the latent time period for development of mesothelioma may be shorter than first estimated.^ Fifteen cases^ of pleural mesothelioma associated with occupational exposure were reported in Australia. The relationship, between the mesothelioma development and asbestos was based upon occupational histories and finding of asbestos bodies in the tissue. In some of these cases, the relationship to occupational exposure could not be developed with any degree of certainty, but included patients whose exposure was as short as six months. No patient was regarded clinically or radiologically as suffering from asbestosis; one person had pleural plaques that were radiologically visible. III-10 Scumphiusbetween 1962 and 1968, found 25 cases of mesothelioma on Walcheren Island. Of these cases, 22 had been employed in the shipyard trades. Stumphius noted that the shipyard employed about 3000 men. This would result in a rate of mesothelioma of approximately 100 per 100,000 males per year. He also noted that the rate for Dutch provinces with heavy industry is 1.0 -per 100,000 per year.^ In the same study, examination of sputum from 277 shipyard workers showed that 60Z had asbestos bodies. The frequency varied from 392 of those with no obvious exposure to 100Z among those with slight but definite asbestos exposure. 32 McEwen found that the incidence of mesothelioma in Scotland was similar to that found in other parts of the United Kingdom and confirmed the association between the development of the tumor and occupational exposure to asbestos. In 1968 Stumphius and Meyer^ concluded that asbestos exposure may lead to asbestosis, to carcinoma of the lungs and digestive tract, and to mesothelioma. They further stated that there may be no indication of definite exposure to asbestos. It must be pointed out that a clear picture of the relationship between the type of asbestos and the production of asbestosis, neoplasms, and mesotheliomas is not defined in the exposures reported. In many cases mixed exposures have occurred; e.g., the cases from the Naval dockyards in Great Britain where exposures have occurred in unknown amounts to crocidolite and amosite. III-ll Animal Toxicity Experimental Animal Studies. Experimental exposure of animals to asbestos has been in progress for more than 40 years. During this time, a precise experimental animal model, from which could be derived dose-response relationships that could be used in estimating the appropriate value for a work place air standard has not. yet been reported. The race of development of asbestotic pulmonary fibrosis and of induction of pleural mesotheliomas is so slow chat the animals die before onset of the condition. Accordingly, to develop either condition, experimenters have had to use inordinately high exposure levels or abnormal modes of administration or both, thus nullifying the animal model. The classical demonstrations of diffuse pulmonary fibrosis in guinea pigs with accompanying asbestos bodies by Gardner and Cummings^*1 and by Vorvald et al.^5 became possible only by using fiber levels of from 1,400 to 5,000/cc (39 million to 138 million fibers/cubic foot); and the uniform production of mesotheliomas in rats by Wagner and Berry-*0 was attained only after administering the asbestos by intra pleural injection at the extraordinarily high dose of 20 mg. 37 Stanton et^ al. were unable, even when aided by chemical means, to induce neoplasms of any type in a tumor-susceptible strain of rats at low dosages of asbestos (type unspecified); but Gross et al. 38 did produce in rats malignant pulmonary tumors of several types from exposure at very high doses (ca. 22,000 fibers/cc 86 mg/m^) of chrysotlle asbestos chat had been hammermilled to an increase in cobalt of 145%; nickel, 82%; and chromium, 34%. III-12 Di-Cferences in animal responses to "harsh" and "soft" chrysotile asbestos were seen by Smith eC a_l. ^ : granulomatous -lnd fibrous pleural adhesions were thicker, and pleural mesotheliomas appeared more rapidly in response to harsh chrysotile. (Harsh chrysotile was characterized as appearing in thicker bundles and was hydrophobic whereas the soft chrysotile was hydrophilic). There are no experimental animal dose-response data that can be used in estimating a work place air standard for asbestos. Contributions to Occupational Exposure Standards from Animal Studies. Of possible value in estimating occupational exposure limits are data regarding the relative disease-producing potency of the various forms and types of asbestos. Wagner^ found in the three species exposed (guinea pigs, rabbits, and monkeys) that amosite produced more marked interstitial fibrosis chan chrysotile and the lesions occurred earlier. Ho statement on relative potency of crocidolite could be made because of che impure nature of the test specimen. On the other hand, amosite was found by the same investigator^ to be about one-half as potent in the production of mesotheliomas in rats as chrysotile and crocidolite, if numbers and rate of production are used as indicators. An incidental finding was no evidence for difference in effect between natural and oil-extracted forms of crocidolite, a subject considered as a possible factor in the Induction of asbestos cancers.^ Naturally Occurring Effects in Lower Animals. No evidence appears to exist that domestic or wild animals can provide criteria for standards, 111-13 or for controlling asbestos emissions, although a few confirmatory reports have been made rnat asbescosis can occur in such animals. A0 Webster has demonstrated fibrosis with associated asbestos bodies and fibers in wild rodents in So ith Africa, in one of a troop of baboons, and in two donkeys that had either worked in, or lived around, crocidolite mines or mills. And Schuster^ reported pulmonary asbestosis, without asbestos bodies, in a dog that had lived for about 10 years in a London asbestos factory as a rat catcher. The magnitude or the type of exposure was not reported in any instance. Factors Influencing Pathogenesis-- Experimental Animal. Experimental animal studies have been informative in elucidating the factors that modify or explain the biologic action of asbestos. At least six factors have been investigated: (1) fiber length and bundle size; (2) cytotoxicity (3) red cell hemolytic activity; (4) asbestos hydrocarbons; (5) morphologic changes; and (6) trace metals in asbestos. (1) Fiber length and bundle size. The relation between length of fibers and of fibers to motes (nonfibrous particles) and asbestos induced disease has been one of continuing experimental inquiryGardner and Cummings ^ and Gardner^ found that longer fibers appeared to have a greater fibrogenic effect, although fibrosis developed in animals exposed to dusts which were composed of but one to 1.5 percent fibers. The high exposure concentration of 100 mppcf (ca. 3,600 fibers/cc) makes any decision on the relative potency of fibers vs. motes virtually impossible; however, when animals were exposed to short-fiber asbestos dust, although the type and rate of tissue reaction Iir-14 were essentially the same, the extent of involvement was very much less than that of longer fibers. Inasmuch as exposure concentrations in these comparable studies were about the same, the conclusion can reasonably be made chat longer fibers are more fibrogenic, but Chat the motes are not without fibrogenic potential. In experiments with rabbits. King, Clegg, and Rae^ using Rhodesian chrysotile fibers averaging 2.5 pm and 15 pm in length, concluded that the shorter fibers produced generalized interstitial fibrosis, whereas the longer fibers produced nodular lesions. This finding was not confirmed by one of the investigators (King) in another animal species.Later repetition of the investigations, with "fine" chrysotile and amosite (85Z and 82.62 respectively, less than 1 pm in length) by Wagner^ yielded definite fibrosis with both dusts, thus confirming the original work of Gardner that short fibers or motes have fibrogenic potential. This experimental work has significance for industrial air standards in indicating the need to support additional research on the "greater than 5 pm in length" specific requirement and the more general relation of fiber length to cancer induction, which has never been determined experimentally. (2) Cytotoxicity. Both chrysotile and crocidolite were found to be markedly toxic to guinea pig macrophages in vitro.^7 The fibrous fraction showed a high, and the particulate, a moderate toxicity, chus providing evidence in conformity with the relative biologic potencies of fibrous and nonfibrous forms found n In vivo studies. HI-15 (3) UcmolyLie Activity. In a similar effort ro discover the initial stages of biologic activicy of asbestos, and in particular to account for the iron-staining character of asbestos bodies, the hemolytic action of four asbestos types was determined. Whereas chrysotile proved to be potently hemolytic, crocidolite, amosite and anthophyllite were either completely inactive or only weakly.^ No attempt was made, however, to correlate the greater hemolytic activity of chrysotile' with the ironstaining intensity of its asbestos bodies relative to chose from other asbestos forms. (4) Asbestos Hydrocarbons. As chrysotile proved to b*e most adsorptive of iron, so was ic most adsorptive of benzpyrene; compared with 100Z adsorption for chrysotile, crocidolite and amosite absorbed from solution 40Z and 10Z respectively.^ this basis, chrysotile should prove the most potent cocarcinogen of the three forms if its action is mediated through exogenous benzpyrene. This has not been demonstrated as yet. in humans. A 10Z desorption from chrysotile by serum in three days was demonstrated,^ a condition considered an essential first step in hydrocarbon carcinogenesis. (5) Morphologic Changes. Electron microscopy of animal tissues has greatly enlarged understanding of the processes that occur following contact of pulmonary cells with asbestos. Examination by light, phase, and electron microscopy by Suzuki and Churg^ of subcellular tissue of hamsters lncratracheally exposed to chrysotile revealed the successive seeps that occurred la the cytoplasm of certain pulmonary cells. Particularly informative for the mode of chrysotile action was the description of the formation and the ultrastructure of the asbestos III-L6 'ody, and the indication chat instilled Cibecs tend to split longitudinally with time. The suggestion chat chrysotile breaks up into short fragments on the evidence that the majority of the fibers found in the alveoli were less chan one-sixth the injected length, one and two years later, is open to the alternative interpretation that, inasmuch as longer particles are more readily phagocytosed, what is actually observed is the residual, smaller, nonphagocytosed chrysotile.Thus, despite the detailed, in-depth, information furnished by electron microscopy, no body of knowledge yet exists that permits the assigning of relative risk factors to fibers of differing lengths. In respect to asbestos bodies, it should be noted chat "ferruginous bodies" produced in guinea pigs in response to other fibrous material, fine fibrous glass and ceramic aluminum silicate were identical in ine structure to that of asbestos bodies,^ thus rendering firm diagnostic decisions difficult in cases of multiexposures to different fibrogenic fibers in the electron and light microscopic range. (6) Trace Metals. Harington and Roe^*1 and later Cralley et al.^ reported large amounts of nickel, chromium, manganese, and iron are . intimately associated with certain forms of chrysotile. On the possibility that trace metals may be associated with the induction of asbestos, cancer studies in animals were performed-^ which supported the hypothesis that, In the induction of asbestos cancers, trace metals play an active cocarcinogenic role along with the exogenously derived carcinogen benzpyrene, while asbestos plays a passive role as a metal carrier. Correlation of Exposure and Effect Available information on the relationship of asbestos exposure and the risk of asbestosis and/or bronchogenic carcinoma is somewhat ItI-17 sunpores evidence of ocher studies rnac evn Heavy j.|,ysui>i *-o asoescus in mining and milling carries only modest risk of concraccing lung cancer and less still of contracting malignant mesochelioma. McDonald et al. suggest that any increased risk of respiracory cancer or pneumoconiosis at a dust-index below 200 would noc ue detectable and would still be in doubt below 400. At a dust index of 200 an employee could work for 40 years at a dust concentration of 5 mppcf- The author assumes that the fiber content of the dust is about 102 and he states chat this is equivalent to about 12 fibers/cc. Wright-^ pointed out that others have noted the striking differences in the health experiences of workers in mines and mills as compared co ocner workers, specifically in comparison to insulation operations, but that he felt the question was still unresolved. In contrast co populations exposed to mixed environments, chose engaged in the mining and milling of asbestos fibers showed no augmented frequency of 2 bronchogenic cancer. Selikoff,^"* however, indicated that McDonald's "heavily exposed" group had 5 times as much lung cancer as the "lightly exposed" workers. Furthermore, lung cancer among insulation workers was found co be about 7 times greater than expected compared to the general non-exposed population.^ A non-exposed group was not reported by McDonald.^ Although it has been suggested that the risks associated with asbestos exposure may be less in mining chan In industrial operations, additional study will be necessary to confirm if such is true, based upon che comparison made by Selikoff.^ 111-19 extensive, indicating a strong association between the diseases and such exposure under a variety of conditions^^and evidence of dose-response relationship. Enterline and associates^ have recently demonstrated convincing evidence for an exposure-response relationship between asbestos as measured in terms of million parts per cubic foot years (mppcfyr), and the risk of malignant and non-malignant respiratory disease. Specifically, the risk of respiratory cancer increases from 166.7 (standardized mortality ratio) at minimal exposures to 555.6, at accumulative exposures in excess of 750 mppcfyr (Table XXX). 27 Knox et_ al. 7 suggested that in one asbestos plant where environmental levels varied between 1 and 8 particles/cc> 5 jm in length, the risk to bronchial carcinoma may have been largely eliminated, but that insufficient data were available to estimate the extent of the risk that may remain. The different textile operations were fiberizing, carding, spinning, weaving, and plastering. When environmental samples collected by operation in 1961 and 1966 were summed, the averages were between A to 6 fibers/cc. Operational averages were from a low of 2.5 fibers/cc in weaving to a high of 6.5 fibers/cc in carding. In 1968, Balzer and Cooper^ reported asbestosis among insulation workers exposed at levels not exceeding the time--weighted average of 5 mppef. McDonald et al.~*^ reported in May 1971, on 129 primary thoracic neoplasms in the workers employed in Quebec chrysotile asbestos mines and mills out of a total of 930A former employees; five of these cases were mesothelioma. The authors concluded that the additional data HI-18 Consideration must be given to McDonald's analysis of levels of exposure of 12 fibers/cc. At this level, he assumes that some degree of asbestosis may occur. The mathematical assumption made to arrive at this environmental level leaves a great deal to question, even without attempting to relate this information to the asbestos industry in general. Two primary considerations lack the' evidence necessary to make general comparisons of these data with ocher reported work: the assumption as stated by McDonald^ chat Che fiber content of the dust is 10Z, and the method used to convert from mppcf to fibers/cc is not explained in the paper. 58 Murphy et. al. found that asbestosis was' 11 cimes more common among pipe coverers in new ship construction than among a control group. The asbestosis was first found after 13 years of exposure or about 60 mppcf years. The prevalence was 38Z after 20 years. The asbestosis was defined by the presence of at least three of the following signs: (1) basular rales in two or more sites, (2) clubbing of the fingers, (3) a vital capacity of less than 80% of the predicted, and (4) roentgenography consistent with moderately advanced, or advanced asbestosis, and (5) dyspnea on climbing one flight of stairs. The environmental level was based upon samples collected in an impinger and all the results were time-weighted average exposures and these were averaged over several different operations. The highest average concentration was with hand-saw cutting at 10.0 mppcf and the lowest average was 0-. 8 mppcf when mixing mud. The average of all operations was 5.2 mppcf. One-hundred and one workers were HI-20 in the exposed group with 94 used ns controls matched Cor age, duration of employment and smoking habits. Both amosite and chrysotile were used in these operations while crocidolite was not. Murphy states that in his study no asbestosis was found for men exposed to 60 mppcf--years while 20% of those exposed for 75 to 100 mppef-years were considered to have asbestosis. Consideration must be given to averaging the timeweighted average values of the environmental samples over what seem to be several different sampling locations or operations. Were workers who were classified as suffering from asbestosis exposed in the hand-saw cutting, or mixing mud, or both, and for what time interval? Answer to this question would have a major effect upon the relationship between the development of asbestosis and environmental levels, and the relation of these impinger counts to fibers/cc. In a recent unpublished paper, Williams, Baier, and Thomas compiled data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health 'files on exposure levels at various textile processing operations In two plants. The data included dust concentrations'from 1930 through 1967 in one plant and from 1948 through 1968 in the second plant. Even though controlled exposures were for the most part below 5 mppcf and in many cases below the 1968 ACGIH Notice of Intended Change to 2 mppcf, 64 cases of asbestosis were reported from these two asbestos textile plants. The authors conclude that: "If asbestosis is to be prevented, airborne asbestos dust must be stringently controlled in the working environment. From these data a TLV of 3 mppcf would provide Inadequate protection and the proposed 2 mppcf may not be substantiated." III-21 Thus, considerable evidence exists indicating that the prevention or reduction of the occurrence of asbestosis among workers requires chat the concentration of asbestos fibers to which they are exposed be reduced. There is at this time, however, only scant correlation of epidemiological data with environmental exposure data upon which a definitive standard can be established. Champion reported two cases of malignant mesothelioma in two men, 31 and 32 years old, following exposure to asbestos. In the first case, the only documented exposure of the patienc was from his father, wno at 68 years of age, had severe asbestosis following employment as a pipe lagger in Scotland. In this case, no special precautions were taken to protect the children from contact with the father's work clothing, which was washed at home. The man smoked about 20 cigaretces per day for sixteen years and had a brief history of breathlessness and other sigus which could have been related to asbestos exposure. The second case involved a patient who had moved to Asbestos, Quebec, where he lived for the next 23 years. This patient had worked for 10 years as an asbestos prospector and had worked for a short period in open-pit mining. Seven years before his death in 1968, he moved away from the area and became a salesman in a department store. The patient smoked 20 to 30 cigarettes per day for 1A years. In this case, it was believed that he was exposed only to chrysotile and primarily in mining operations. Champion's two cases seem to support earlier data of tauily cases^ with reasonably short and/or low levels of exposure. III-22 Murphy e_t al. ^ presented data concerning two cases of workers exposed to asbestos. One case on biopsy confirmed mesothelioma and the other case had extensive pleural calcification. Both workers had frequently sanded asphalt and vinyl tile floors prior to installation of new floor covering. A technique to simulate normal work practice was developed and levels of 1.2 and 1.3 fibers/cc^-5 in length , resulted. The authors noted that under other work conditions these values may be higher. In the case Involving mesothelioma, the worker was 44 years old and had no other history of occupational exposure to asbestos, although he had worked in a shipyard in a "non-dusty" gyroscope repair area from 1945-1947. The repair area would practically have to be considered a clean room operation in view of the precision involved in gyroscopic instrument repairs. He had smoked one package of cigarettes a day between the ages of 17 and 30 and had worked from 1948-1967 as a floor tile installer. The second case involved a 61-year-old worker who had been a floor tile installer for the last 30 years and had smoked one pack of cigarettes per day for the last 45 years. This second patient had no history of other asbestos exposure different from the first; however, some question may be raised of a possible neighborhood exposure even if it only concerned going to work. The possibility of such exposure must be considered in view of the neighborhood case noted by Selikoff,^ Table XXIX. The possibility of the development of asbestos-related diseases in floor tile installation must be considered, and special attention muse be given to this operation when considering the low levels of LII-23 exposure that may be related to these two cases. If even in actual practice, levels were found to be 10 times chose found by the investigators, ic would substantiate the low levels of exposure recommended in this standard. The cime interval for sanding as compared to tile installation must be small, and, if this is true, then, in fact, any level found would be very low if based on a time-weighted average exposure. This increases the weight of consideration chat must be given to this possibly exposed occupational group and the relationship of these low exposures to asbestos to the development of disease. Consideration must also be given related to the effect that may have resulted from exposure to other material in the floor tile. The level of, and effect of such material as asphalt and any decomposition products from sanding must be considered. Isolated clinical case reports are difficult to interpret in terms of dose-time response relationship and can only be used to indicate other possible problem areas and to highlight what may prove to be practicable areas for further study. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA The use of o6bestos has changed with the addition of oc<- produceand with changes in the Industrial processes. These changes and a growing awareness of the health effects from exposure of the worker asbestos have resulted In a changing work environment within Che asbestos industry. The lack of environmental data for previous years and the changes in technology used to collect samples, now and In the past, have resulted in the availability of comparable environmental data for only the last few years. Thus, the scant data and the long latenc period for the development of bronchogenic cancer and mesothelioma do not permit the establishment of the dose-response relationship at this time. However, as has been Indicated, che development of the diseases has been proven in workers exposed to asbestos and environmental data does exist for the last several years. Table XIV shows the average concentration of asbestos fibers to which a number of insulation workers were exposed in 1969- The results shown are not time-weighted averages, but are averages of concentrations found for individual exposures during the time samples were collected (usually 15, 30, or 60 minutes). Although the average concentrations are reasonably low, with the exception of spraying, individual exposures varied from 0 to 10Q fibers/cc. The latter occurred during a 60-minute period while a workman sprayed asbestos fiber on a turbine. McClure** summarized results of a preliminary survey conducted by the U. S. Department of Labor during the period July, 1969, to January, 1970, at nine private shipyards as follows: 37 of 74 samples IV-1 collected during various operations of preparing ana applying insulation were above 2 fibcrc/cc (302) and 19 of 74 were sbouc 12 flbers/cc (262). These were not time-weighted average exposures, hue represented average fiber concentrations during Che sampling period. Furthermore, none of these samples represented workers' exposures while tearing out old insulation and lagging--an operadon chat has been previously found to produce more dusc chan Che application of che insulation. A summary of 6ome of che environmental daca collected by NIOSH is presented in Table I through XII. The environmental data presented in this document represent only that collected in the last few years and reported in fibers/cc35 jim as counted by phase contrast light microscopy. As pointed out by Ayer et al.^, "It is obviously impossible to give any single ratio that would accurately represent all processes at all times in each plant." As a result, little correlation, if any, can be made between early daca (collected with an lmpinger where settled particles were counted) with current data (collected with a personal sampler and counted under a microscope equipped with a 16 mm 10X objective) . These daca represent only the levels found during the time the samples were actually being taken. The sampling times were usually between 15 minutes to one hour, and should not be considered as timeweighted average exposures even chough credence could be given to this approach due to the large number of samples collected. Levels of exposure in the manufacture of asbestos are given in Table I through XII. In a total of 7 asbestos cement pipe plants, a range of Individual aamplea vao from 13.4 in coupling finishing, to levels too low to count in pipe forming, curing, pipe finishing. IV-2 coupling finishing, packing and miscellaneous operaclons (Table I). It should also be noted In Table I chat when consideration 16 given to feasibility of engineering control, in coupling finishing, the individual highest sample was 13.4 and the lowest and second lowest samples were zero. Warehousing and mixing (6.3 fibers/cc>5 jsa) and packing (6.1 fibers/cc>5 jtim) were the highest means by operation (Table II) , and the lows were both 0.4 fiber6/cc>5 jm. These data indicate the possibility of coatrolling these operations to below the proposed standards. These wide ranges of individual samples and means by operations were also shown in asbestos friction plants (Tables III and IV) , cement shingle, millboard, and gasket operations (Tables V and VI), insulation (Tables IX and X) , and from asbestos paper, packing and asphalt products (Tables VII and VIII). In textile operations, while the individual low and second lowest concentrations were, in all cases, below 1.0 fiber/cc (except fiber preparation, 1.4 fibers/cc), the means by operations exceeded 2.0 fibers/cc in fiber preparation (7.4 fibers/cc) , carding (6.1 fibers/cc) , spinning (3.7 fibers/cc), and twisting (3.2 fibers/cc). In the second lowest group, all operations except finishing exceeded 2.0 fibers/cc. These values, when considered with the highest means and highest individual samples (143.9 fibers/cc in carding and 123.2 in weaving), indicate that present methods of control practiced in the textile industry are not adequate for the standard proposed. This is probably true in insulation operations as well. Even chough levels were below the level of 2.0 fibers/cc>5 jum, the individual samples and operational means were high. IV-3 V. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD Various criteria have been used for categorizing the dustiness of the environment. Recent developments have made it clear that a method utilizing the capture and direct estimation of fibers of asbestos should be utilized for environmental measurement of exposure to asbestos. In the past, in the United States, asbestos fibers were measured by the impinger method which included counting particles as well as asbestos fibers. The question still exists as to whether or not different varieties of asbestos fibers may have varying biological effects. This will not be answered until more definitive information is available on the specific etiological agent(s) and mechanisms of injury involved. The consumption of asbestos in this country is overwhelmingly in the form of chrysotile. Where other forms of asbestos are used, such as crocldolite and amosite, they are often mixed with chrysotile and are encountered alone, mainly in research and specialty situations. It would be extremely difficult on the basis of current Information on biological effects and industrial practices to establish and administer separate standards for different types of asbestos. The question also arises on the validity of basing standards on the number of respirable fibers in the air greater than 5 micrometers in length. It Is fully realized that the fiber-size spectrum of respirable asbestos fibers In any particular industrial environment will range from that of bundles of fibrils in the upper respirable size to those of the individual fibrils in the sub-micron size. The type and grade of fibers, nature of processing, and controls in existence will greatly V-l influence the fiber-size spectrum (fiber Length and di**eivr) ;illv Riven environn.ent. The problem is further complicated by the Wk of definitive information on the biologic response to fibers of dmt.IVlU sizes. It is known, however, chat the longer fibers show.. relation to asbestosis. and may have a different behavior and a,,,,,. ot response than the shorter size fibers which may. in the lower ..d sub micron range, tend to resemble more the physical behavior of .. ................. respirable particul,ates. Since iirt uwoouulido not be feasible to have a standard on the total respirable fibers which would necessitate Hu- routine use of expensive and time-consuming techniques including electron microscopy, an index of exposure must be selected which, as nearly as possible, relates to the predominant biologic activity and dose-response of the size spoon-urn of fibers most commonly encountered. It is assumed for the present that the factor of safety associated with the standard will allow for dtYforences in the size spectrum of respirable fibers that may be encountered. The British, in evaluating respirable chrysotile fiber exposures in relation to the ongoing epidemiologic studies in the textile industry and for the basis of a standard for chrysotile. established as an index of 62 exposure, fibers greater than 5 micrometers in length: A substantial amount of information on the biologic effects of asbestos has. and Is. being obtained using this parameter of exposure measurement. A review of the research in Britain, with concurrence on the rationale involved, made it prudent that we use the same definition of index-of-exposure on vhWU to base criteria for standards. These criteria should be re-ev*l.,t od when (1) more definitive information on Che biologic response of asbestos Uwlud the agent(s) and dose-response data on different lengths of fiber is V.-2 available, (2) che spectrum of fiber lengths encountered in industry by types of asbestos and operations is ascertained, and (3) more precise epidemiologic data are developed. To prevent fibrosis and excessive rates of neoplasia, such as jr.esothelloma, respiratory cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer, a standard for asbestos dust should be based on a concept of dose-response that includes not only the factor of fiber count times years of exposure but also Chat for total asbestos dust fibers retained over a number of years. Thus, the effect afcer several decades of a one-time acute dose of limited duration which overwhelms Che clearing mechanism, and is retained in the lungs, may be as harmful as the cumulative effect of lower daily doses of exposure over many years of work. V-3 iVasis Cor Previous Scar.dards The first standard for controlling exposure to asbestos dust was recommended by Dreessen et al. in 1938 following a study of 541 employees in four asbestos textile plants where massive exposures occurred. A tentative limit for asbestos dust in the textile industry of 5 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf), determined by the impinger technique, was recommended. They found numerous well-marked cases of pneumoconiosis where concentrations exceeded 5 mppcf, but only three doubtful cases where concentrations were under 5 mppcf. However, only five persons had been exposed for more than 10 years to concentrations from O.Q to 4.9 mppcf. None of the 39 persons exposed to concentrations below 2.5 mppcf showed evidence of asbestosis; but only six of these had been employed more than five years. The study by Dreessen al. had unavoidable limitations such as the fact that 333 of the 541 employees studied had worked less than five years in these textile mills, only 66 were employed as long as 10 years, and only 2 for more than 20 years. Furthermore, the average age of these asbestos textile workers was 32.1 years and only one- of the four plants studied had been in operation for more than 15 years. Thus, the first standard established was based upon limited data. The authors recognized the limitations and stated that . . . "5 mppcf may be regarded tentatively as the threshold value for asbestos-dust exposure until better data are available." The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygientists' (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for asbestos dust was 5 mppcf from 1946 Co 1970. This limit was based on the study by Drccssen et_ _al_. ^ and subsequent Investigations by others. In 1968 and 1969, ACGIH published notices of Intended changes to lower the TLV to 12 fibers/ml >5 ^im in length or 2 mppcf and they published in 1970 and 1971 a still lower limit of 5 f ibers/ml >-5 ^ur in length as a notice of proposed intended change. The conversion of data from mppcf to fibers/ml in all asbestos operations can only be done with considerable risk to the validity 64 of the results. Lynch et al. pointed out in 1970 Che need for such conversion data and that che data reported in 1965^ of the 12 fiber/ml equivalent to 2 mppcf relationship was obtained in textile mills and should not be applied to other product areas. Estimates of risk of disease in other product areas should be based on fiber counts since this method yields a more direct estimate of airborne asbestos concentration. In 1968, the Committee on Hygienic Standards of the British Occupa tional Hygiene Society (BOHS) after reviewing medical evidence, results of studies made by the asbestos industry in the United Kingdom, and epidemiological data from the United States, published Hygienic Standards 62 for Chrysotile Asbestos Dust. It stated: "1. As long as there is any airborne chrysotile dust in the work environment there may be some small risk to health. Nevertheless, it should be realized that exposure up to certain limits can be tolerated for a lifetime without Incurring undue risks. "2. The committee believes that a proper and reasonable objective would be to reduce the risk of contracting asbestosis to 1 percent of those who have a lifetime's exposure to the dust. By 'asbestosis' V-5 this committee means the earliest demonstrable effects on the lungs due to asbestos "It is probable chat che risk of being affected to the extenc of having such early clinical signs will be less than 1 percent for an accumulated exposure of 100 fiber years per cm^ or 2 fibers/cm^ 33 for 50 years, A fibers per cm for 25 years or 10 fibers per cm for 10 years. "3. It is recommended that exposures which lie in certain ranges of dustiness be designated by categories according to the following scheme: DUST CATEGORY CONCENTRATION AVERAGED OVER 3 MONTHS (FIBERS/cia ) Negligible Low Medium High 0-0. A 0.5-1.9 2.0-10.0 Over 10.0 "A. The levels are expressed in terms of the number of fibers per cd^ greater than 5 /um in length as determined with Che standard membrane filter method. Any other method can be used provided it is accompanied by appropriate evidence relating its results to those which would have been obtained with the standard membrane filter method. "5. When it is necessary to work intermittently in a 'high dust' area an approved mask should be worn, provided that the concentration 3 Is no more than 50 fibers per cm a higher standard of respiratory protection should be provided such as a pressure-fed breathing apparatus "Additional Recommendations "1. It Is recommended that where practicable an up-to-date employ ment record.card be kept of every person which Indicates, every calendar quarter, the category or categories in which he or she has been employed and in which he or she is recommended Co work. "2. All employees exposed to risk should be medically examined before employment. Periodic examinations should be made thereafter, annually. "Notes: "These hygienic standards are subject to review in the lighc of new evidence and improved methods of measurement. "The standards are, in our opinion, the best.that can be drawn from the existing data. These data are scanty and based on factory experience of continuous exposure during working hours. Due caution should be exercised In applying these standards to other patterns of exposure. As far as possible the dust exposures have been estimated conservatively and, in particular, in the period 1933-1950 the average hours of work were substantially greater than AO per week. "It is hoped to supplement the existing data In due course, when the standards will, if necessary, be modified. These standards will be formally reviewed in three years."* In an unpublished paper, Williams, Baler, and Thomas compiled data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health files on exposure levels at *As of 1/6/72 their standards as effective in May 1970 had not been revised. Per telephone conversation with Dr. S. Holmes, Secretary to the Asbestosis Research Council. V- 7 various textile processing operations in two plants. Their data Included dust concentrations from 1930 through 1967 in one plant and from 1948 through 1968 in the second plant. Even though controlled exposures were, for the most part, below 5 mppcf and in many cases below the 1968 ACGIH Notice of Intended Change to 2 mppcf, 64 cases of asbestosls were reported from these two asbestos textile plants. The authors conclude that: "If asbestosls is to be prevented, airborne asbestos dust must be stringently controlled in the working environment. From these data a TLV of 3 mppcf would provide inadequate protection and the proposed 2 mppcf may not be substantiated." Gee- and Bouhuys,^ in December, 1971, pointed out that on the basis of "reasonable probability," decisions must be made to concrol exposure to asbestos rather than from a precise definition of dose-response relation ship, and "the present threshold limit value for asbestos should be lowerec far below some recent proposal." v-8 1). S. EmerRer.cv Standir.' The present emergency standard for exposure to asbestos dusc (29 CFR 1910.93a) published in the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 234 page 23207, December 7, 1971) Is as follows: "The 8-hour time-weighted average airborne concentration of asbestos dusc to which employees are exposed shall not exceed 5 fibers per milliliter greater than 5 microns in length, as determined by Che membrane filter method at 400-450X magnification (4 millimeter objective) phase contrast illumination. Concentrations above 5 fibers per milliliter but, not to exceed 10 fibers per milliliter, may be permitted up to a total of 15 minutes in an hour for up to 5hours in an 8-hour day." The 1971 ACGIH tentative threshold limit value is 5 fibers/ml ) 5 ^im in length. Boch arc higher chan the British standard of 2 fibers/cc by at least a factor of 1.5 times. v-9 Basis for Recommended Standard The number of studies that have collected both environmental and medical data and with a significant number of exposed workers is not sufficient to establish a meaningful standard based upon firm scientific data. The requirement to protect the worker exposed to asbestos is defined in a number of studies outlined in this document. The general recognition of the increasing number of cases of asbestosis, bronchogenic cancer, and mesothelioma indicates the urgent need to develop a standard at the present time. NZOSH recognizes that these data are fragmentary and, as a result, a safety factor must be included in any standard considered. On this basis the research that did include both environmental and medical data, or where a standard or limit had been proposed, was given a careful and detailed study to determine its particular contribution to the developmen of a national standard. 66 The development of a standard for asbestos dust in Great Britain and the evaluation made by the British Occupational Hygiene Society 62,66 (BOHS) Sub-committee on Hygiene Standards for Asbestos, which considered data to reduce the risk of asbestosis, was given great weight in the development of this asbestos standard. The BOHS fitted the data available to a dose-response curve and the conclusion was drawn that an accumulated exposure of 100 fiber-years/cm"* would reduce early clinical signs to less than 1Z. Tills would be 2 fibers/cm^ for 50 years of 3 exposure or A fibers/cm for 25 years. 67 .. According to Roach, "The British Occupational Hygiene Society Standards Sub-committee on Asbeeco: expressed the view that a proper and reasonable objective would be to reduce expooure6 to below thi6 level and thereby reduce the risk of V-10 contracting asbescosis Co less Chan 1% of chose who have a lifetime exposure co Che dusc. For such workers, who may possibly work for 50 years, che long-cerm average concencraclon co which chey are exposed would need co be less Chan 2 fibers/cm^. For others, who will be exposed co asbestos dusc In air for shorcer periods, che long-cerm average concencraclon need noc be so low, as long as their 3 exposure will amount to less Chan 100 fiber-years/cm Ic is recognized chat che Brlcish standard is based upon data noc as precise as desired, buC it does offer a mechanism for com parison with che ACCIH TLV and afcer Chree years of use no change has been recommended. The British standard was primarily based upon a study of 290 men employed for 10 years or longer beCween 1933-1966 In an asbesCos textile mill. The environmental dust concentrations to which different workers had been exposed were estimated to have varied from 1 to 27 fibers/cm^. The risk-exposure relationships were developed based upon basal rales and X-ray changes. In this study, basal rales were considered the key symptom since all workers exhibiting X-ray changes also exhibited basal rales. 3 In reviewing the values on the basis of the 100 fiber-year6/cm proposed by the British Hygiene Standards Committee, the following comparisons can be made between the British Standard and the Emergency U. S. Scandard. Each standard is normalized to 100 fiber-years to account for differences in the working lifetime of che average asbestos worker. The Emergency U. S. Standard is based upon the ACGIH TLV which, in turn, 68 is based upon an exposure time of 30 years to 5 fibers/mO 5 ura in length , v-11 and cIjc British, 50 years of exposure at 2 fibcrs/cm > 5 u,n iengC^ In summary: British U. S. Emergency ACCIH Flberyrs/cc 2 fibers/cc 100 5 fibers/ml 150 The validity of this type of comparison has already been questioned in this document, i.e., the "K" factor used to change ACCIH impinger , 61,64 data to fiber counts. However, on this basis, data suggest that the ACCIH value is higher than the British value. In addition to consideration of the British data, the comparison of British and ACGIH data suggests that the 30-year exposure value for a U. S. Standard should be about 3 fibers/cc 5 pm in length in order to assure that less than 1Z of the workers exposed are at risk of developing the earliest clinical signs of asbestosis. However, additional consideration must be given to the concepts of carcinogenesis as they relate to the determination of a standard for asbestos exposure. Any carcinogen (initiator) must be assumed, until otherwise proven, to have discrete, dose-dependent, irreversible and additive effects to cells that are transmissible to the cell progeny. Thus, initiation of malignancy following single small exposures to asbestos is possible, but of a low probability. With frequent or chronic exposure and a low dose-rate, the probability of initiation of malignancy is increased. Yet, even under optimal conditions of cell proliferation (in the presence of promotors) these malignant V-12 transformations do not lead to Instantaneous cancer, but remain insidious for a number of years (latenc)- in protracted exposure, some of the total accumulated exposure Is "wasted" (or Irrelevant) as far as the Initiator of cancer is con cerned. Exposures in excess of the minimal initiation dose con ceivably may shorten the latent period to some extent by substituting for other contributing factors that would have eventually been effectual in converting tile latent tumor into a frank malignancy. Analytic methods used in the epidemiology of asbesto6-lnduced cancers are unable to discriminate between the initiating dose and subsequent (wasted) exposure. Consideration must also be given to the concept that an inverse relationship exists between dose-rate and the latent period. As the dose-rate becomes progressively lower, the latent period may approach or exceed the life span of exposed individuals. Adherence to these concepts would argue toward reducing asbestos exposure substantially below those levels currently demonstrated to be associated with the disease. Such a course of action is consistent with the Surgeon General's ad hoc Committee on Evaluation of Low Levels of Environmental Chemical Carcinogens statement that, "for carcinogenic agents, a safe level for man cannot be established by application of our present knowledge." Work practices in industries should be encouraged to develop work practice standards by the consensus method so that the lowest feasible environmental levels can be obtained. The following work practice standards are Included in the emergency standard for asbestos and are included in the recommended standard: V-13 (a) Asbestos cement, mortar, coatings, grout, and plaster shall be mixed in dosed bags or ocher containers. (b) Asbestos waste and scrap shall be collected and disposed of in sealed bags or other containers. (c) All cleanup of asbestos dust shall be performed by vacuum cleaners or by vet cleaning methods. Mo dry sweeping shall be performed. The need In Industry for a proper precautionary label for asbestos and for other hazardous materials associated with the mining, production, and use of chemical compounds has existed for a number of years. The development of a labeling system for use as an occupational hazard warning system overlaps into so many other labeling areas., e.g., transportation of chemicals, fire fighting, use by the military, etc.., that it would be necessary either to develop a separate system for use In relation to occupational exposures only, or to combine all the present systems into one. The addition of one more labeling system compounds the multllabeling requirement presently Imposed on industry and creates one more labeling system the worker must recognize. Combining all systems into one requires the coordination of many governmental, professional, trade, manufacturing, and international and local organizations. Time required to accomplish this task Is prohibitive in relation to the requirement for the Immediate development of an occupational health standard for asbestos. As a result, NIOSH recommends as an interim system the adoption, with modification, of the system for the Identi fication of the Fire Hazards of Materials of the National Fire Pro tection Association and the Guide to Precautionary Labeling of V-14 Hazardous Chemicals of Che Kanufsecuring Chemises Association. 1C is recognized chat chis syscem may noc be che most appropriate system and may require additional development Co permit Che worker, himself, to use it to identify the hazards to which he is exposed and to learn che necessary precautions to assure him 6afe working conditions. (See Appendix II for Che details and modification of the labeling aystem). V-15 Summary of che Basis for the Recommended Standard The recommendation for an environmental standard for asbestos is based upon health considerations and limited engineering feasibility data. The overriding considerations are the health effects. Evidence indicates Chat past and current standards for fiber concentrations in the working places where asbestos fibers occur, though undoubtedly contributing to reduction of the severity and frequency of asbestosls, have not provided complete protection from exposure to asbestos, necessitating development of a new standard. Consideration was given to previous reports and studies, recent data, and the present "state-of-the-art." It is recognized that additional data would be desirable to support an asbestos standard, but because of immediate need for worker protection, it is necessary to make a recommendation based on available studies and data. The following constraints in applicability of research data were considered in the development of the recommendations: (a) Few epidemiological studies or clinical reports with supporting environmental data are available in the exposure range that must be considered. (b) Environmental data on practically all studies were collected only over the last few years and/or they were collected by other techniques and expressed in terms other than fibers/cc. (c) The environmental samples were expressly collected in many cases for control purposes rather than for research and, as a result, meaningful evaluations cannot be made. V-16 (d) There is a lack of data to define with any degree of precision Che threshold of development of neoplasms resulting from exposure to asbestos and the relationship of the latent period beeween exposure and development of neoplasms. The standard recommended in this document is similar Co the standard adopted by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate in 1969**** (still in effect as of December 29, 1971), and more stringent than the recent U. S. Emergency Standard. It is felt to be feasible technologically for the control of the exposure to the worker and effective biologically for protection of the worker against asbestos-induced diseases. Considerations of carcinogenesis indicated the need for a measure of prudence. As a result of this rationale, a factor was added to reduce Che time-weighted average exposure to 2.0 fibers/cc> 5 um. A ceiling value of 10.0 fibers/cc> 5 um that was not to be exceeded was included to reduce the possibility of the short-term heavy exposures to asbestos that have been reported -to cause mesothelioma. In addition, this should reduce the likelihood of diseases (malignant and non-malignant) resulting from exposures in excess of 30 years or with very long latent periods. V-17 VI. COMPATIBILITY UITH EMISSION STANDARDS The proposed national emission scandard for asbescos was published in the Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 235, pages 2342--2343 (40 CFR 61.2061.24) by the Environmental Protection Agency. The emission standard will be applicable to asbestos mines, mills; building structures, or facilities within which manufacturing or fabricating operations involving the use of commercial asbescos; buildings or structures which have been or will be constructed or modified using asbestos insulation products; roadway facilities which would be surfaced or resurfaced using asbestos tailings. The standards are based upon information derived from many sources, including health effect levels, meteorology, technical'analysis of concrol capability, and consideration of economic Impact. The overriding considerations are health effects. These standards are based upon specific operations and physical conditions and are limited in general to emissions to the atmosphere. 1. Emissions shall not exceed those which would be emitted from operations if proper engineering control had been Installed (i.e. fabric filter, cyclone gas cleaning devices). 2. Visible emissions of particulate 3. Spraying of asbestos 4. Use of asbestos for surfacing or resurfacing of roads. The use of procedural standards and visible emissions as the basis for evaluation for compliance with the standard are designed co minimize emission to the atmosphere. EPA determined chat there VI-1 lc no saleable technique for sampling and analysis of asbestos In ambient air or emission gases. Tills determination was made as only limited Information had been developed from measuring fibers In community air. The use of high volume samplers for collection of samples and counting by light microscopic techniques similar to Industrial hygiene methods has 6hown only small numbers of fibers in urban areas.^ It was felt that these values were low when compared to occupational health experience and values to few too use with confidence.^ As a result there is no direct comparison possible between the proposed national emission standards for asbestos and the recommended criteria for occupational exposure except to say that the levels of exposure to the general public on a 24-hour day, 7 days a week, basis would be lower, as would be expected, than occupational standards based on an 8-hour day, 40--hour work week. The Illinois Pollution Control Board on November 30, 1971^ published a notice of proposed final draft of emission standards for asbestos that can be more easily related to the recommended occupational standard than those proposed by EPA. Illinois Includes a provision that, "After June 30, 1972, a factory, plant or enterprise which engages in the processing or manufacturing of any asbestos-containing product shall discharge no visible emission of particulate matter from such manufacturing or processing into the ambient air and shall emit no concentrations of asbestos fiber in excess of 2 fibers per cubic centlmccer of air." VI-2 The method of counting the asbestos fibers is that proposed by Edwards ct ail.^^ aud similar to the technique proposed in Appendix L 3f this report. ThiG proposed Illinois scandard places a ceiling value of 2 fibers/cc on emissions from processing on manufacturing of asbestos containing products. In the explanation of the revision of the proposed Illinois regulation they state: "IV. Part V, controlling manufacturing sources, is changed to require an emission standard of 2 fibers per cubic centimeter and no visible emissions. While some testimony indicated the difficulty in measuring compliance with a numerical emission standard, overall the evidence establishes both the need (protection against the great proportion of Invisible fiber) and the ease of measurement of such a criterion. A "no visible emission" standard has been added to the numerical standard to simplify enforcement against exceptionally dirty emission sources. A grace period, until June 30, 1972, has been added to permit acquisition of the necessary control equipment to attain the emission standard." This air quality standard Is, as it should be, more restrictive that an occupational standard due to differences in exposure time. This proposed occupational standard would seem to be compatible with the proposed emission standard and each should complement the other in the control of asbestos exposure. VX-3 VII. REFERENCES L. Hendry, N. W. The ecology. Occurrences, and Major Uses of Asbestos. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., Vol. 132, Art. 1, pp. 1-766-1965. 2- Wright, C. D. Asbestos and Health in 1969. Vol. 11, pp. 467-479, 1969. Am. Rev. Reap. Dls., 3. Asbestos position paper,- DHEW, USPHS, BOSH 1969. 4. . Report of the Departmental Committee on Compensation for Industrial Diseases. C. D. 3495. 3496. HHSO. 1970. 5. Cooke, W. E. Pulmonary Asbescosts. Brit. Med., Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1025, 1927. 6. McDonald, S. Histology of Pulmonary Asbestosis. Brit. Med. J., Vol. 2, pp. 1025-1026, 1927. 7. Hoffman, F. L. Mortality from Respiratory Diseases in Dusty Trades s..(Inorganic Dust). Bull. u. Bur. Labor Statistics, No. 231, pp. 176-180, 1918. 8. Pan coast, H. K., T. C. Miller, and H. R. M. Landis. A Roentgenologic Study of the Effects of Dust Inhalation Upon the Lungs. Trans. Assoc. Am. Physic., Vol. 32, pp. 97-108, 1917. 9. Mills, R. G. Pulmonary Asbestosis; Report of a Case. Minnesota Med., Vol. 13, pp. 495-499, 1930. 10. Lynch, K.. M., and W. A. Smith. Asbestosis Bodies in Sputum and Lung. J. Am. Med. Assoc., Vol. 95, pp. 659-661, 1930. 11. Merewether, E. R. A. A Memorandum on Asbestosis. pp. 69-81, 109-118, 152-159; 1933-34. Tubercle, Vol. 15, 12. Gloyne, S. R. The Morbid Anatomy and Histology of Asbestosis. Tubercle, Vol. 14, pp. 445-451, 493-497, 550-558; 1932-33. 13. Sellkoff, I. J., and C. E. Hammond. Asbestos Bodies in the New York City Population in Two Periods of Time. Internet. Conf. of Pneumoconiosis, Johannesburg, pp. 47-53 (April-May), 1969. 14. Harries, H. M. Asbestos Hazards in Naval Dockyards. Vol. 11, pp. 135-145, 1968. Ann. Occup. Hyg. , 15. Sellkoff, I. J. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, City University of New York, personal communication, 1971. 16. Doll, R. Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers. lad. Med., Vol. 12, p. 81. 1955. Brit. J. Vtl-l 17. Selikoff, I. J., E. C. Hammond, and J- Churg. Asbestos Exposure, Smoking and Neoplasia. J. Am. Med. Assoc. , Vol. 204, p. 106, 1968. 18. Selikoff, I. J., J- Churg, and E. C. Hammond. Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia. J. Am. Med. Assoc. , Vol. 188, p- 22, 1964. 19. Elmes, P. C. , and J. J. C. Simpson. Insulacion Workers in Belfast 3. Mortality 1940-66. Brit. J. Ind. Med., Vol 28, pp. 226-236, 1971. 20. Newhouse, M. L. A Study of the Mortality of Workers in Asbestos Factory. Brit. J. Ind. Med., Vol. 26, pp. 294-301, 1969. 21. Selikoff, I. J. Mortality Experience of Amosite Asbescos Factory Workers. Presented at IV International Conference on Pneumoconiosis (ILO), Bucharest. 1971. 22. Selikoff, I. J. , E. C. Hammond, and J. Churg. Mortality Experience of Asbestos Insulation Workers. Pro. Internac. Conf. Pneumoconiosis, Department of Mines, Republic of South Africa, pp- 97-103, 1969. 23. Decoufle, P. Mortality Patterns of a Group of Retired Asbestos Workers. Doctoral Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1970. '24. Knox, J. F., R. S. Doll, and I. D. Hill. Cohort Analysis of Changes in Incidence of Bronchial Carcinoma in a Textile Asbestos Factory. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. , Vol. 132, Art. 1, pp. 526-535, 1965. 25. Mancuso, T. F. , and A. E. El-Attar. Carcinogenic Risk and Duration of Employment Among Asbestos Workers. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Biological Effects of Asbestos, 1968. 26. Champion, P. to Asbestos. Two Cases of Malignant Mesothelioma after Exposure Amer. Rev. Resp. Dis., Vol. 103, pp. 821-826, 1971. 27. Knox, J. F., S. Homes, R. Doll, and I. D. Hill. Mortality from Lung Cancer and Other Causes Among Workers in an Asbestos Textile Factory. Brit. J. Ind. Med., Vol. 25, pp. 293-303, 1968. 28. Cran, D. L. Discussion of Paper, "Asbestos Hazards In Naval Dockyards" Harries, H. M. Ann. Occup. Hyg. , Vol. 11, p. 144, 1968. 29. Grundy, G. W. National Cancer Institute, Washington, D.C., personal communication. 30. Milne, J. Fifteen Cases of Pleural Mesothelioma Associated with Occupational Exposure to Asbestos in Victoria. Med. J. Aust., Vol. 2, pp. 669-673, 1969. VII-2 1- Scuuipliius , J. Epidemiology of Mesochelioma on Walcheron Island. Brit. J. Ind. Med.. Vol. 28. pp- 59-66, 1971. 2. HcEuen, J., A. Finlayson, A. Mair, and A. A. M. Cibson. Mesothelioma in Scotland. Brit. Med. J., Vol. 4, pp. 575-578, 1970. 13. Stumphius, J., and P. B. Meyer. Asbestos Bodies and Mesochelioma. Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 11, pp. 283-293, 1968.. >4. Gardner, L. U., and D. E. Cummings. Studies on Experimental Pneumokoniosis VI Inhalation of Asbestos Dust. J. Ind. Hyg., Vol. 13, pp. 65-81, 97-114, 1931. 5. Vorwald, A. J., T. M. Durkan, and P. C. Pratt. Experimental Studies of Asbestos. A. M. A. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med., Vol. 3, pp. 1-43, 1951. >6. Wagner, J. C., and G. Berry. Mesotheliomas in Rats Following Inoculation with Asbestos. Brit. J. Cancer, Vol. 23, pp. 567-581, 1969. 7. Stanton, M. F., R. Blackwell, and E. Miller. Experimental Pulmonary Carcinogenesis with Asbestos. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., Vol. 30, pp. 236-244, 1969. 18. Gross, P., R. T. P. deTreville, and M. N. Haller. Experimental Asbestosis-- The Development of Lung Cancer in Rats with Pulmonary Deposits of Chrysotile Asbestos Dust. Arch. Envir. Hlth., Vol. 15, pp. 343-355, 1967. 19. Smith, W. E. et al. Comparison of Biologic Responses to Harsh and Soft Chrysotile Asbestos. Submitted to Arch. Envir. Hlth. for publication. >0. Wagner, J. C. Asbestosis in Experimental Animals. Brit. J: Ind. Med., Vol. 20, pp. 1-12, 1963. *1. Harington, J. S., and F. J. C. Roe. Studies of Carcinogenesis of Asbestos Fibers and Their Natural Oils. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., Vol. 132, Art. 1, pp. 439-450, 1965. i2. Webster, I. Asbestosis in Non-experimeatal Animals in S. Africa. Nature, Vol. 197, p. 506, 1963. 43. Schuster, N. H. Pulmonary Asbestosis in a Dog. Vol. 34, pp. 751-757, 1931. J. Path. Bact. 44. Cardner, L. U. Chrysotile Asbestos as an Indicator of Subtile Differences in Animal Tissues. 1941. Am. Rev. Tuberc., Vol. 45, pp 762-766, vil-3 45. King. E. J., J. W. Clegg, and V. M. Rae. The Effect of Asbestos, and of Asbestos and Aluminum on Che Lungs of Rabbits. Thorax, Vol. 1, pp. 188-197, 1945. 46. Smith, J. M., I. D. P. Wooton, and E. J. King. Experimental Asbescosis in Rats. The Effect of Particle Size and of Added Alumina. Thorax, Vol. 6, pp. 122-136, 1951. 47. Parrazi, E. , B. Pernis, C. C. Secchi, and E. C. Vigliani. Studies on "in vitro" Cytotoxicity of Asbestos Dusts. Hed. Lav., Vol. 59, pp. 561-576. 1968. 48. Secchi, C. S., and A. Rezzonico. Hemolytic Activity of Asbestos Dusts. Med. Lav., Vol. 59, pp. 1-5, 1968. 49. Suzuki, Y. and J. Churg. Structure and Development of the Asbestos Body. Arch. Path., Vol. 55, pp. 79-91, 1969. 50. Stokinger, H. E. Lobar Deposition and Retention of Inhaled Insoluble Particulates. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med., Vol. 4, pp. 346-353, 1951. 51. Davis, J. M. G., P. Cross, and R. T. P. deTreville. "Ferruginous Bodies" in Guinea Pigs. Arch. Path., Vol. 89, pp. 364-373, 1970. 52. Cralley, L. J., R. G. Keenan, and J. R. Lynch. Exposures to Metals in the Manufacture of Asbestos Textile Products. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., Vol. 28, pp. 452-461, 1967. 53. Dixon, J. R. , D. B. Lowe, D. E. Richards, L. J. Cralley, and H. E. Stokinger. Role of Trace Metals in Chemical Carcinogenesis: Asbestos Cancers. Cancer Res., Vol. 30, pp. 1068-1074, 1970. 54. Enterline, P., P. Decoufle, and V. Henderson. A Study of the Dose-Response Relationship Between Asbestos Dust and Lung Cancer. Unpublished Manuscript. 55. Balzer, J. L. , and W. C. Cooper. The Work Environment of Insulating Workers.Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. , Vol. 29, pp. 22-227, 1968. 56. McDonald, J. C., C. E. Rossiter, G. Eyssen, and A. D. McDonald. Mortality in the Chrysotile Producing Industry of Quebec: A Progress Report Presented at IV International Conference on Pneumoconiosis (ILO), Bucharest, 1971. 57. Wright, G. W. Saint Luke's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, personal communication, 1970. 58. Murphy, R. L. H., C. C. Ferris, Jr., W. A. Burgess, J. Worcester, and E. A. Gaensler. Effects of Lou Concentrations of Asbestos, N. Eng. J. Med., Vol. 285, pp. 1271-L278, 1971. VI1-4 59. Murphy, R. L. , W. A. Burgess. Exposure. Am. n. W. Levine, F. J. AlBazzaz, J. j. Lynch, and Floor Tile Installation as a Source of Asbestos Rev. Resp. Dis., Vol. 104, pp. 576-580, 1971. 60. McClure, Bureau of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor, personal communication, 1970. 61. Ayer, H. E. , J. R- Lynch, and J. H. Fanney. A Comparison of Impinger and Membrane Filter Techniques for Evaluating Air Samples in Asbestos Plants. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., Vol. 132, pp. 274-287, 1965. 62. Lane, R. E. et al. Hygiene Standard for Chrysotile Asbestos Dust. Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 11, pp. 47-49, 1968. 63. Dreessen, W. C. , J. M. Dallavalle, J. I. Edwards, J. W. Miller, and R. R. Sayers. A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbescos Textile Industry. Public Health Bulletin No. 241, 193S. 64. Lynch, J. R. , H. E. Ayer, and D. L. Johnson. The Interrelationship of Selected Asbestos Exposure Indices. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., Vol. 12, pp. 598-604, 1970. 65. Gee, B., and A. Bouhuys. Action on Asbestos-- Editorial. England J. Med., Vol. 285, pp. 1317-1318, 1971. Hew 66. ____________- Standard for Asbestos Dust Concentration for Use with the Asbestos Regulations, 1969. Department of Employment and Productivity Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate. Technical Note 13, 1970. 67. Roach, S. A. Hygiene Standards for Asbestos. Vol. 13, pp. 7-15, 1970. Ann. Occup. Hyg., 68. ____________. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances in the Work Room Air, ACGIH, 3rd Edition, 1971. 691 ____________. Asbestos-- The Need for and Feasibility of Air Pollution Controls. Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, D. C., 1971. 70. ____________. Notice of Proposed Final Draft: Illinois Pollution Control Board, 1971. Asbestos Regulations. 71. Edwards, G. H., and J. R. Lynch. The Method Used by the Public Health Service for Enumeration of Asbestos Dust on Membrane' Filters. Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 11, pp. 1-6, 1968. 72. Lynch, J. R., H. E. Ayer, and D. L. Johnson. The Measurement of Exposure to Airborne Mineral Fibers. Presented at the Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. Conf., Denver, 1969. VII-5 73. Ayer, H. E., and J- R. Lynch. Mores and Fibers in Che Air of Asbescos Processing Planes and Hygienic Criteria for Airborne Asbestos. Proceedings of an International Symposium Organized by Che British Occupational Hygiene Society, pp. 511-522, 1965. 74. Lynch, J. R., and H. E. Ayer. Measurement of Asbestos Exposure. J. Occup. Med., Vol. 10, pp. 21-24, 1968. 75. Lynch, J. R. and H. E. Ayer. Measurement of Dust Exposure in the Asbestos Textile Industry. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., Vol. 27, pp. 431-437, 1966. 76. Keenan, R. G., and J. R. Lynch. Techniques for the Detection, Identification and Analysis of Fibers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., Vol. 31, pp. 587-597, 1970. VII-6 VIII. APPENDIX I Air Sampling Methods 63 In Che study of asbestosls conducted by Dceessen t al. mldgec implnger count data were used as an estimate of dust exposure. All of the dust particles seen, both grains and fibers, were counted since coo few fibers were seen to give an accurate measurement. The resulting count concentration was a measure of overall dust levels rather than a specific measurement of the asbestos concentration. This method was satisfactory at chat time since exposures were massive and the control measures Installed to reduce overall dust levels also reduced the asbestos dust levels. As dust levels were reduced. It became necessary to measure the biologically appropriate attribute of the dust cloud. At equal levels of overall dustiness, the concentration of asbestos could vary considerably from textile manufacture (75-85Z) to insulation (5-15Z). Furthermore, if the limit were lowered below the 5 mppcf used previously and dust counts taken by the implnger technique, it would be necessary to consider the effect of background dust, which could be as high as 1 mppcf. A number of methods for measurement of asbestos dust concentrations have been used in the NIOSH epidemiological study of the asbestos product 73,74,75,76 ,, . L ... industry. Based on these data, the preferred index of asbestos exposure 16 the concentration of fibers longer than 5 ^im counted on 71 72 membrane filters at 430X with phase contrast Illumination. ' This Index Is utilized in the method adopted as the standard field sampling method by the Public Health Service. VIII-1 Fibers longer chan 5 pm in length are counted In preference to counting all fibers seen In order to minimize observer/microscope resolving power variability. Furthermore, the British define a "fibre" as a particle, "of length between 5 jim and 100 jim and having a length-to-breadth ratio of at least 3:1, observed by transmitted light by means of a microscope 62 at a magnification of approximately 500X."' Although the British have refrained from standardizing on a single method of measurement, recent measurements have been performed by a method essentially identical to the fiber-count method described in detail below, and the British hygiene standards for use with their 62 asbestos regulations are staced in these terms. Principles of Sampling A dust sampling procedure must be designed so that samples of actual dust concentrations are collected accurately and consistently. The results of the analysis of these samples will reflect, realistically , the concentrations of dust at the place and time of sampling. In order to collect a sample representative of airborne du6t, which is likely to enter the subject's respiratory system, it is necessary to position a collection apparatus near the nose and mouth of the subject or in his "breathing zone"- The concentration of dust in the air to which a worker is exposed, will vary, depending upon the nature of the operation and upon the type of work performed by the operator and the position of the operator relative to the source of the dust. The amount of dust inhaled by a uorker can vary daily, seasonally, and with the weather. In order to obtain representative samples of workers' exposures. It le necessary to collect samples under varying conditions of weather, on different VIII-2 days, and at different tiroes during a shift. The percentage of uorking time spent on different tasks will affect the concentration of dust the'worker inhales since the different task6 usually result in exposure to different concentrations. The percentage can be determined from work schedules and by observation of work routines. The dally average weighted exposure can be determined by using the following formula: (Hours X cone, task A) + (Hours X cone, task B) 8 Hdvl'&e (or actual hour6 worked) + etc. The concentration of any air contaminant resulting from an industrial I operation also varies with time. Therefore, a longer sampling time will better approximate the actual average. With the following recommended sampling procedure, it is possible to collect samples at the workers' breaching zones for periods from 4 to 8 hours, thus permitting the evaluation of average exposures for a half or full 8-hour shift--a desirable and recommended procedure. Furthermore, dust exposures of a more normal work pattern result from the use of personal samplers. In evaluating daily exposures, samples should be collected as near as possible to workers' breathing zones. Collecting Sample The method recommended in this report for taking samples and counting fibers is based on a modification of the membrane filter method described by Eduards and Lynch. ^ VIII-3 The sample should be collected on a 37--millimeter Milllporc type AA* filcer mounced In an open-face filter holder. The holder should be fastened to the worker's lapel and air drawn through the filter by means of a battery-powered personal sampler pump similar to those approved by NIOSH under the provisions of 30 CFR 74. The filters are contained in plastic filter holders and are supported on pads which also aid in controlling the distribution of air through the filter. To yield a more uniform sample deposit, the filter-holder face-caps should be removed. Sampling flow rates from 1.0 liter per minute (1pm) up to the maximum flow rate of the personal sampler pump (usually not over 2.5 1pm) and sampling time from 15 minutes to eight hours are acceptable provided the following restraints are considered: (a) In order to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of fibers the statistical error resulting from the random distribution of the fibers must be kept to an acceptably low level. Since fiber counts follow a Poisson distribu tion, a count of 100 fibers in a sample would have a standard deviation of TOO' or 10 fibers or + 10%. Thus the 95% confidence limits would be approximately 2 standard deviations or + 20%. Since the 37 mm filter has an effec- 2 tive collecting area of 855 mm and the projected field 2 area of the Porton reticle Is 0.005 mm , each field rep resents 1/171000 of the sample. Based on this ratio the following number of fields must be counted to measure the various limits in various sampling times: ^Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. VlII-4 mpllng Time Minutes 10 15 30 90 90 240 240 480 Flow Rate 1pm 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 Number of Fields for 100 Fibers 0.2 flbers/ml 2.0 flbers/ml 10 flbers/ml 4350 2860 1430 1000 500 260 180 180 435 286 143 100 50 26 18 18 91 58 29 20- 10 7 4 4 (b) Qo noC count a field containing over 20 fibers because In addition to the fibers being counted, there are also present a number of grains, which Interfere with the accuracy of the count. Based on these restraints, i.e., number of fields to be counted and maximum number of fibers per field, acceptable sampling parameters for the various limits are underlined, in the above table. The following conclusions may be drawn from this analysis: (1) The short-term limit should be for a period of at least 15 minutes and preferably 30 minutes. (2) The 2.0 flber/cc limit may be evaluated over periods of from 90 to 480 minutes. As many fields as required to yield at least 100 fibers should be counted. In general the minimum number of fields should be 20 and Che maximum 100. Mounting Sample The mounting medium used In this method Is prepared by dissolving 0.05 g of membrane filter per ml of 1:1 solution of dimethyl phthalate VIII-5 and diethyl oxalate. The index of refraction of the medium thus prepared is ND - 1.47. To prepare a sample for microscopic examination, a drop of the mounting medium is placed on a freshly cleaned, standard (25 mm X- 75 mm), microscopic slide. A wedge-shaped piece with arc length of about 1 cm is excised from the filter with a scalpel and forceps and placed dust-side-up on Che drop of mounting solution. A Mo. 1-1/2 coverslip, carefully cleaned with lens tissue. Is placed over the filter wedge. Slight pressure on the coverslip achieves contact between it and the mounting medium. The sample may be examined as soon as the mount is transparent. The optical homogeneity of the resulting mount is nearly perfect, with only a slight background granularity under phase contrast, which disappears within one day. The sample should be counted within two days after mounting. Evaluation The filter samples mounted in the manner previously described are evaluated in terms of the concentration of asbestos fibers greater than 5 pm in length. A microscope equipped with phase--contrast optics and a 4-mm "high-dry" achromatic objective is suitable for this deter mination. 10X eyepieces, one of which contains a Porton or other suitable reticle at the level of the field-limiting diaphragm, should be used. The left half of the Porton reticle field serves to define the counting area of the field. Twenty fields located at random on the sample are counted and total asbestos fibers longer than 5 pm are recorded. Any particle having an aspect ratio of three or greater is considered a fiber. VIH-6 The following formulae are used Co determine the number of fibers/ml: (1) 2 Filter area (mm ) Field area (mn/j =K (2) Average net count X K = fibers/ml Air volume sampled (ml) For example, assume Che following: area of the filter used was 855 min councing area of one field under Che Porcon reticle was 0.005 mra ; average nec count per field of 20 fields was 10 fibers; and sample was collected at 2 liters per minute for 90 minutes: Then: 855mm2 = 171,000 (K) 0.005 mm2 10 fibers x 171,000 =9.5 fibers/ml 2,000 ml/min x 90 min Calibration of Personal Sampler The accuracy of an analysis can be no greater chan the accuracy of the volume of air which is measured. Therefore, Che accurate calibration of a sampling device is essential to the correct interpretation of an instru ment's indication. The frequency of calibration is somewhat dependent on the use, care, and handling to which the pump is subjected. Pumps should be calibrated if they have been subjected to misuse or if they have jus.t been repaired or received from a manufacturer. If hard usage is given the instrument, more frequent calibration may be necessary. Ordinarily, pumps should be calibrated in the laboratory both before they are used in the field and after they have been used to collect a large number of field samples. The accuracy of calibration is dependent on Che type of instrument used as a reference. The choice of calibra tion instrument will depend largely upon where the calibration is tc be performed. For laboratory testing, a 1-liter burette or wet-test meter should be used. In che field, a rotameter is the most convenient VIII-7 instrument used. The actual set-up will be the same tor all of these instruments. The calibration Instrument will be connected in sequence to the filter unit which will be followed by the personal sampler pump. In this way, the calibration instrument will be at atmospheric pressure. Connections between units can be made using the same type of tubing used in the personal sampling unit. Each pump must be calibrated separately for each type of filter used. If, for example. It has been decided to use a filter with a different pore size. The burette should be set up so that the flow is toward the narrow end of the unit. Care must be exercised in the assembly procedure to Insure adequate seals at the joints and that the length of connecting tubing be kept at a minimum. Calibration should be done under the same conditions of pressure, temperature and density as will be encountered. The rotameter should be used only in the field as a check if the diaphragm or piston pumps are not equipped with pulsation dampeners. The pulsating flow resulting from these type pumps causes the rotameter to give results which are not as accurate as that obtained with a burette or wet-test meter. Calibration can be accomplished with any of the other standard calibrating instruments, such as spirometer, Marriott's bottle, or drygas meter. The burette and wet-test meter were selected because of their accuracy, availability, and ease of operation. vitl-8 IX. APPENDIX II NUMERICAL HAZARD RATING SYSTEM The numerical hazard ratines given to products for each category of hazard shall be in accordance with the following criteria. Figure 2 graphically illustrates the hazard identification system. Health hazards shall be rated as follows: The health hazard rating of a material shall be determined by evaluating the potential for exposure and the relative toxicity of the most toxic Ingredient of a compound or mixture. For this evaluation, the following relative toxicity criteria* for absorbed or exposure dose will be used: Commonly Used Term LD^q Simple Oral Dose Rats mg/kg Inhalation 4-hr. Vapor Exposure, Rats Mortality of 2/6 to 4/6 ppm LD^q - Skin Rabbits mg/kg Extremely toxic Highly toxic Moderately toxic 1 1.1 to 50 50.1 to 500 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 15 5.1 to 43 44 to 340 Slightly toxic or practically non-toxic Relatively harmless 501 to 15,000 15,000 1,001 to 100,000 100,000 350 to 22,600 22,600 Degree 4: Extremely Hazardous. Materials, which on very short exposure, can cause death or major permanent injury, even though prompt medical treatment were given, including those which are too dangerous to be approached without specialized *(Reerence: A.I.H.A. Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 1954. "Safe Handling Procedures for Compounds Developed by the Petro Chemical Industry," p. 141.) IX- 1 protective equipment, such as self-contained breaching apparatus or a hose mask, with blower, and impervious clothing. This rating includes: (a) Carcinogens (b) Materials capable of producing sensitization (c) Extremely toxic materials which can penetrate ordinary protective clothing. (d) Extremely hazardous materials, when under normal conditions give off gases that are extremely toxic or corrosive through inhalation or by contact with or absorption through any body surface. Degree 3 : Highly Hazardous. Materials which on short exposure can cause serious temporary or residual injury, even though prompt medical treatment were given, including those requiring protection from all bodily contact. This rating includes: (a) Materials giving off highly toxic combustion products (b) Materials giving off highly toxic gases or vapors, under normal conditions (c) Materials corrosive to living tissue or highly toxic by skin absorption Degree 2: Hazardous. Materials which on continued exposure can cause temporary incapa citation or possible residual injury unless prompt medical treatment is given. This rating includes: (a) Materials giving off moderately toxic combustion products (b) Materials which either under normal conditions or under fire conditions give off moderately toxic vapors lacking warning properties. Degree 1: Slightly hazardous. Materials, which on exposure at normal conditions, would cause irritaclon but only minor residual injury even if no treatment la given. 1X-2 This racing includes: (a) Materials which under fire conditions give cff slightly toxic or irritacing combustion products (b) Materials which on the skin could cause irtication without destruction of tissue Degree 0: Harmless. Materials which on exposure by skin contact. Inhalation, or ingestion are relatively harmless or which under fire conditions offer no hazard beyond that of ordinary combustible materials. Flammability hazards shall be rated as follows: Degree 4. Materials which will rapidly or completely vaporize at atmospheric pressure and normal ambient temperature or which are readily dispersed in air, and which will burn readily. This degree should include: Gaseous materials: Cryogenic materials; any liquid or gaseous material which is a liquid while under pressure and having a flash point below 73F (22.8C) and having a boiling point below 100F (37.8C). (Class 1A flammable liquids.) Materials which on account of their physical form or environmental conditions can form explosive mixtures with air and which are readily dispersed in air, such as du6ts of combustible solids and ml6ts of flammable or combustible liquid droplets. Degree 3. Liquids and solids that can be ignited under almost all ambient temperature conditions. Materials in thi6 degree produce hazardous IX-3 acraosphercs wich air under almosc all ambienc cemperacures, are readily ignited under almost all conditions. This degree should include: Liquids having a flash point below 73"F (22.8*C) and having a boiling point at or above 10Q#F (37.8*C) and those liquids having a flash point at or above 73*F (22.8*C) and below 100*F (37.8*C). (Class LB and Class 1C flammable liquids); Solid materials In the form of coarse dusts which may burn rapidly but which generally do not form explosive atmosphere with air; Solid materials in a fibrous or shredded form which may burn rapidly and create flash fire hazards, such as cotton, sisal and hemp; Solids which burn with extreme rapidity usually by reason of self-contained oxygen (e.g., dry nitrocellulose)'; Materials which ignite spontaneously when exposed to air. Degree 2; Materials that must be moderately heated or exposed to relatively high ambient temperatures before ignition can occur. Materials in this degree would not under normal conditions form hazardous atmospheres with air, but under high ambient temperatures or under moderate, heating may release vapor in sufficient quantities to produce hazardous atmospheres with air. This degree should include: Liquids having a flash point about 100F, but not exceeding 200F; solids and semisolids which readily give off flammable vapors. Degree i. Materials that must be preheated before ignition can occur. Materials in this degree require considerable preheating, under all ambienc temperature conditions, before ignition and combustion can occur. IX-4 This degree should include: Hacerials which vill burn in air when exposed to a temperature of 1500F for a period of five minutes or less; Liquids, solids and scmisolidG having a flash point above 200F; this degree Includes most ordinary combustible materials. Degree 0. Materials that will not bum. This degree should include any material which will not burn in air when exposed to a temperature of 1500F for a period of five minutes. Reactivity hazards shall be rated a6 follows: Degree 4. Materials which are readily capable of detonation or of explosive decomposition or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. This degree should include materials which are sentitive to mechanical or localized thermal 6hock at normal temperatures and pressures. Degree 3 Materials which are capable of detonation or of explosive decomposition or explosive reaction but which require a strong initiating source or which must be heated under confinement before initiation. This degree should Include materials which are sensitive to thermal or mechanical shock at elevated temperatures and pressures or which react explosively with water without requiring heat or confinement. Degree 2. Materials which are normally unstable and readily undergo violent chemical change but do not detonate. This degree should Include materials which can undergo chemical change with rapid release of energy et normal IX-5 tcrmpcracures and pressures or which can undergo violent chemical change ac elevated cemperacures and pressures. It should also include chose materials which may react violently with wacer or which may form poten tially explosive mixtures with water. Degree 1. Materials which are normally stable, but which may react with wacer with some release of energy bur not violently. Degree 0. Materials which are normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and which are not reactive with wacer. Specific hazards: Oxidizing Material. A substance as chlorate, permanganate, peroxide, or a nitrate that yields oxygen to support combustion or which reacts readily to oxidize fuels or other combustible materials. Corrosive Material. Acids, alkali or other material that will' cause severe damage to living tissue or to ocher material it contacts. Water Reactivity Hazard (Use No Water). Any material that may be a hazard because of its specific reactivity with water. r.x.-<5 Figure ]. Il:i7.:n <l Idcid ifiion System COLOR AND DIMENSION Color-format for NDPA No. 704M designations arc Known above.' The colors indicated shall p.cco.pLably match in shade the applicable color of FED-STD-5fi5 as follows.: Color Blacic Red White Yellow Blue Class 17 0.1ft 11105 17675 jr.snr, 1510M Dimensions of the symbol and LAPS warning combination shr.ll be optional but of such sr/.c and location as to be readily visible and legible. Th.c symbol and warnin;-. shall be. applied by stencil in,-;, painting, printing, liliiop.rnphin?;, with fade-rosis-.tinl materials. rx-7 X. APPENDIX III MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET The following items of information which are applicable to a specific product or material containing 5Z or more of asbestos 6hall be provided in the appropriate section of the Material Safety Data Sheet or approved form. If a specific item of information is inapplicable (i.e. flash point) Initials "n.a." not applicable should be inserted. (i) The product designation in the upper left hand corner of both front and back to facilitate filing and retrieval. Print in upper case letters in as large print possible. (ii) Section I. Name and Source (A) The name, address and telephone number of the manufacturer or supplier of the product. (B) The trade name and synonyms for a mixture of chemicals, a basic structural material, or for a process material; and the trade name and synonyms, chemical name and synonyms, chemical family, and formula for a single chemical. (iii) Section II. Hazardous Ingredients. (A) Chemical or widely recognized common name of all hazardous ingredients. (B) The approximate percentage by weight or volume (indicate basis) which each hazardous ingredient of the mixture bears to the whole mixture. This may be indicated a6 a range of maximum amount, i.e., 10-20Z V; 10Z max. W. X-l (C) Basis for coxlcity for each hazardous material such as established OSHA standard (TLV), in appropriate units and/or LD^q. showing amount and mode of exposure and species or LCjq showing concentration and species. (iv) Section III. Physical Data (A) Physical properties of Che total product including boiling point and melting point in degrees Fahrenheit; vapor pressure, in millimeters of mercury, vapor density of gas or vapor (air 1), solubility in water, in parts per hundred parts of water by weight; specific gravity (water = 1); percent volatile, indicate if by weight or volume, at 70* Fahrenheit; evap oration rate for liquids (indicate whether butyl acetate or ether = 1) ; and appearance and odor. (v) Section IV. Fire and Explosion Hazard Data. (A) Fire and explosion hazard data about a single chemical or a mixture of chemicals. Including flash point. In degrees Fahrenheit; flammable limits, in percent by volume In air; suitable extinguishing media or agents; special fire fighting procedures; and unusual fire and explosion hazard information. (vi) Section V. Health Hazard Data. (A) Toxic level for total compound or mixture, relevant' symptoms of exposure, skin and eye irritation properties, principle routes of absorption, effects of chronic (long-term) exposure and emergency and first aid procedures. (vit) Section VI-. Reactivity Data. (A) Chemical stability, incompatibility, hazardous decomposition products, and hazardous polymerization. (viii) Section VII. Spill or Leak Procedures. (A) Detailed procedures to be followed with emphasis on precautions to be taken in cleaning up and safe disposal of materials leaked or spilled. This includes proper labeling and disposal of containers containing residues. X-2 Tntaminaccd absorbancs, etc. (lx) Section VIII. Special Protection Information. (A) Requirements for personal protective equipment, such as respirators, eye protection and protective clothing, and ventilation such as local ex haust (at site of product use or application), general, or other special types. (x) Section IX. Special Precautions. (A) Any other general precautionary information such as personal protective equipment for exposure to the thermal decomposition products listed in Section VI, and to particulates formed by abrading a dry coating, such as by a power sanding disc. (xi) The signature of the responsible person filling' out the data sheet, his address, and the date on which it is filled out. (xii) The NFPA 70AM numerical hazard ratings as defined in section (c) (5) following. The entry shall be made immediately to the right of the heading "Material Safety Data Sheet" at the top of the page and within a diamond symbol preprinted on the forms. X-3 >DUCT DESIGNATION ( MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Form Approved Budget Bureau No. Approval Expires Form No. OSILA SECTION I UFACTURER'S NAME SOURCE ANO NOMENCLATURE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NO. RESS (Number, Street, City, State, ZIP Code) IE NAME AND SYNONYMS CHEMICAL FAMILY 4ICAL NAME AND SYNONYMS FORMULA C MATERIAL SECTION II HAZARDOUS INGREOIENTS APPROXIMATE OR MAXIMUM % WT. OR VOL. ESTABLISHED OSHA STANDARD "50 ORAL PERCUT. K50 SPECIES CONC. INC POINT SECTION III PHYSICAL DATA F. VAPOR PRESSURE mm Hg. ING POINT F. VAPOR DENSITY (Air=l) CFIC GRAVITY (^0=1) EVAPORATION RATE ( =1) 3ILITY IN WATER Pts/100 pts H20 VOLATILE % Vol. \RANCE )DOR I POINT )D USED SECTION IV FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD OATA FLAMMABLE (EXPLOSIVE) LIMITS % Wt. UPPER LOWER !0"ISHING OURES AJL FIRE AND SION HAZARDS IPRODUCT 1 DESIGNATION TOXIC LEVEL PRINCIPLE ROUTES OF ABSORBTION RELEVANT SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE EFFECTS OF CHRONIC EXPOSURE EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES SECTION V HEALTH HAZARD DATA CARCINOGENIC SKIN AND EYE IRRITATION -- SECTION VI CONDITIONS CONTRIBUTING TO INSTABILITY__________________ CONDITIONS CONTRIBUTING TO HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION INCOMPATABILITY (Materials to Avoid) HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION I PRODUCTS_________________ REACTIVITY DATA SECTION VII STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES SECTION VIII SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS LOCAL EXHAUST PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (Specify Typ EYE MECHANICAL (General) GLOVES SPECIAL RESPIRATOR OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT SECTION IX SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE________________________________________________________________________ OTHER PRECAUTIONS I________________________________________ _________________________________ S i p,nature_____________________________________________ Address Date OPERATION Vnrehoualng 4 Mixing Pipe Pornlog 7urlog ' 1 pe Flnlahlng Coupling Flnlahlng >0x7 acking lnccllaneoua HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE 7.0 3.7 7.6 4.6 13.4 4.7 6.1 1.7 SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN 7 6 3 10 7 1 1 9 TABLE I CEMENT PIPE PUNTS NUMBER OF PLANTS - ? INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE PLANT SECOND HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE Sample size FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT SECOND LOWEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE 0 3.6 0 3.4 0 7.1 Z 4.0 Z' 10.3 N 7.1 q 7.3 Z 1.4 7 0 0.2 3 N 0.1 15 BB 0.1 3 Q 0.0 7 z 0.0 6 BB 0.3 7 Z 0.1 9 P 0.1 SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH .. ..... INDIVIDUAL T SAMPLE DRAWN LOWEST . INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE SAMPLE SUE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT 3 P 0.2 4 q 6 0 0.0 6 AA 4 Z 0.0 6 P 6 N 0.0 10 Z 16 P 0.0 21 AA 3 Z 0.2 6 BB 13 AA 0.0 13 AA 9 P 0.0 9 Z 1 - All eomplea ex preased aa flbcra >$u/ec counted by the atandard method recommended In thla document. (Latent Avnlla ble NIOSII Data Collected during the Yeara 1969 through 1970). OPERATION Warehousing & Mixing 'ipe Forming uring ipe Finishing oupling Finishing poxy i eking Lscellaneous TABLE- II ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE PLANTS NUMBER OF PLANTS - 7 MEANS BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE ( ) HIGHEST PLANT SECOND HIGHEST 6.3 (2) 2.2 (3) 2.0 (3) 1.7 (10) 5.3 (7) 4.7 (1) 6.1 (1) 0.5 (9) 0 2.7 (4) N 1.8 (4) 0 0.9 (15) Z 1.3 (5) Z 3.8 (4) N 1.1 (6) Q 1.1 (7) z . 0.5 (6) PLANT SECOND LOWEST PLANT LOWEST PLA N 0.7 (5) AA Z 0.5 (6) AA BB 0.4 (4) Z Q 0.6 (9) AA 0 0.6 (21) AA BB ` 0.6 (6) P Z 0.7 (6) BB BB 0.4 (9) P 0.4 (3) 0.3 (4) 0.3 (6) 0.5 (6) 0.5 (16) 0.3 (1) 0.4 (13) 0.2 (3) P P P N P AA AA Q 1 - All samples expressed as fibers ;>5u/cc counted by the standard method recommended in this document. (Latest Available NIOSH Data Collected during the years 1969 through 1970). OPERATION HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE TABLE III ASBESTOS FRICTION HUMBER OF PLANTS - 5 INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT SECOND HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT SECOND LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT LOWEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT xlng, Coatlog 1 Extruding 32.4 ralng 16.2 c Pressing 7.3 king 7.4 tndlng 1 Sanding 20.5 ting 4 Drilling 14.4 ding 4 Riveting 0.7 pecUjOn-l Packing 11.1 cellsneoua 6.4 16 S 10.4 3 u 9.2 J s 6.0 5 s 7.3 0 T 16.6 22 s 14.4 4 H 1.5 4 S 9.9 9 H 6.4 16 4 5 5 16 22 4 13 9 S 0.1 S 0.3 S 0.2 S 0.5 S 0.1 S 0.4 K 0.2 H 0.1 H 0.1 7 6 7 2 10 12 1 13 3 M 0. 1 H 0.1 K 0.1 M 0.1 H 0.1 H 0.1 T 0.1 H 0.1 T 0.1 7M 6H 7H 2H 10 H 7M 1N 13 H 9H 1 - All aamplea expreaaed aa flbera >$u/ec counted by the atandard nethod recommended In thla document. (Latest available NIOSH Data collected during tha years I960 through 1971). OPERATION TABLE IV ASBESTOS FRICTION PLANTS NUMBER OF PLANTS => 5 MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE ( ) HIGHEST PLANT 2nd HIGHEST PLANT 2nd LOWEST PLANT LOWEST PLANT Mixing, Coaclng & Extruding Forming Hoc Pressing Baking Grinding & Sanding Cutting & Drilling Bonding & Riveting Inspection & Packing Miscellaneous 11.0 (16) S 6.0 (3) U 4.9 (5) S 5.4 (5) S 6.3 (4) 14.4 (1) U U 2.8 (4) H 5.1 (4) 2.2 (9) S ' .11 5.3 (2) 3.6 (4) 1.5 (2) 3.7 (1) 5.2 (16) 7.7 (22) H S U U S S 3.7 (3) 1.4 (1) U M 4.3 (2) 0.5 (2) 1.4 (4) 0.6 (2) 2.7 (7) 0.9 (7) 0.2 (1) 1.0 (4) 0.0 (3) U T M M M T T M U 1.9 (7) 0.5 (6) 0.7 (7) 0.4 (2) 1.1 (10) 0.6 (7) 0.1 (1) 0.9 (7) 0.5 (5) M H H H H M H T T 1 - All samples expressed as fibers >5/j/cc counted by the standard method recommended in this document. (Latest available NIOSH data collected during the years 1968 through 1971). OPERATION HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE TABLE V ASBESTOS CEMENT SHINCLE, KILL BOARD AMD CASKET NUMBER OF PLANTS - 3 INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE PLANT DRAWN SECOND HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE .SAMPLE SIZE FROH WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT SECOND LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE $AMPLE SIZE FROH WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN Warehousing Mixing forming Curing finishing Packing -Hscellaneous 1.6 16.6 6.6 2.5 5.6 3.8 1.6 3 R 0. 6 15 R 9.5 18 R 3.7 2 R 1.6 17 R 6.6 6 R 1.1 2 W 1.2 3 R 0.2 3 6 W 0.5 6 3 W 0.1 18 2 V 0.6 1 17 R 0.1 7 2 W 0.2 2 4 R 0.9 2 PLANT R w R w V u w LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE TROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN f LA.N 0.1 1 0. 3 15 0.0 18 0.2 2 0.1 7 0.1 4 0.6 4 V a R f u R R 1 - All aamplea eicpresaed aa flbera^Ju/ce counted by the atandard method recommended In thla document. (Lateat available NIOSH data collected during the yeara 1964 through 1970). OPERATION Warehousing Mixing Forming Curing Finishing Packing Miscellaneous TABLE VI ' ASBESTOS CEMENT SHINGLE, MILLBOARD AND GASKET NUMBER OF PLANTS > 3 MEANS BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE ( ) -HIGHEST 2nd -PLANT HIGHEST PLANT `2nd LOWEST PLANT LOWEST PLANT 0.7 (3) 4.4 (6) 2.6 (3) 1.5 (2) 1.9 (17) 1.2 (4) 1.2 (2) R W 3.8 (15) W 1.3 (18) V 1.4 (2) R 1.5 (2) R 0. 7 (2) W 1.0 (A) R R R W W R 0.1 (1) 1.8 (1) 0.9 (6) 0.4 (1) 1.0 (7) 0.5 (2) 0.9 (1) V V V w V V V 1 - All samples expressed as f ibers > 5^/cc counted by the standard method recommended in thia document. (Latest available NIOSH data collected during the years 1966 through 1970). PRODUCT AREA Asbestos Paper Asbestos Packing TABLE VII ASBESTOS PAPER, PACKING, AND ASPHALT PRODUCTS INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY OPERATIONS AND SAMPLE SIZE* INDIVIDUAL HIGH OPERATION INDIVIDUAL LOW 10.9 Asbestos Mixing 0.0 18.9 Weaving 0.1 Asbestos Asphalt Products 16.3 Dry Mixing 0.0 * IN THESE THREE ASBESTOS PRODUCT AREAS, INSUFFICIENT DATA PREVENTS TABULATING ENVIRONMENTAL LEVELS INTO HIGHEST AND LOWEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE CATEGORIES BY OPERATION. BASED ON A SMALL NUMBER OF PLANTS FOR EACH PRODUCT AREA, ONLY THE HIGH, LOW FOR INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES WERE DETERMINED. 1 - All samples expressed as flbers y- 5jj/cc counted by the standard method recommended in this document. (Latest available NIOSH data collected during the years 1966 through 1970). OPERATION Wood Mixing Paper Making Braiding Mixing & Calender Forming Cutting & Trimming Dry Mixing Wet Mixing Forming Finishing Inspection & Packing PRODUCT AREA Asbestos Paper Asbestos Packing Asbestos Asphalt Products TABLE VIII ASBESTOS PAPER, PACKING AND ASPHALT PRODUCTS MEANS BY OPERATIONS AND SAMPLE SIZE* HIGH MEAN OPERATION LOW MEAN 3.4 13.6 2.4 Asbestos Mixing Weaving Dry Mixing 0.7 0.2 0.2 OPERATION Miscellaneous Mixing & Calender Forming Finishing *IN THESE THREE ASBESTOS PRODUCT AREAS, INSUFFICIENT DATA PREVENTS TABULATING ENVIRONMENTAL LEVELS INTO HIGHESTS, LOWEST MEAN CATEGORIES BY OPERATION. BASED ON A SMALL NUMBER OF PLANTS FOR EACH PRODUCT AREA, ONLY THE HICH MEAN AND LOW MEAN WERE DETERMINED. 1 - All samples expressed as fibers > 5/j/cc counted by the standard method recommended' In this document. (Latest available NIOSH data collected during the years 1966 through 1970). OPERATION fixing oralng urlng tnlahlng upectlon & Packing acellaneoua TABLE IX ASBESTOS INSULATION PLANTS NUMBER OF PLANTS - 5 INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE .SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT SECOND HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE PLANT DRAWN SECOND LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE SAMPLE SIZE FROH WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT ' 188.9 13A.< 23.5 208. < 92.3 <2.3 11 39 5 26 15 2< X 169.7 X 111.2 X 19.9 X 97.3 X 73.6 X 37.5 11 X o.< 3 DD 0.2 7 39 X 0.0 10 R 0.0 . 10 5 X 1.5 1 DD 0.1 l 26 X 0.1 < CC 0.1 11 15 X 0.1 11 R 0.0 11 2< X 0.1 < CC 0.1 < A R CC R CC CC 1 - All aamplea expreaaed aa f lbara >5>i/cc counted by the acandard method recommended In thla document. (Lateat available NIOSH data collected during the yeara 1966 through 1971). TABLE X ASBESTOS INSULATION PLANTS NUMBER OF PLANTS - 5 MEANS BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE ( ) OPERATION HIGHEST PLANT 2nd HIGHEST PLANT 2nd LOWEST PLANT Mixing Forming Curing Finishing Inspection 6 Packing Miscel laneous 74.4 (11) 50.6 (39) 14.4 (5) 39.5 (26) 22.8 (15) 16.6 (24) X X X X X X 46.3 (7) 25.2 (32) Y Y 15.0 (17) 11.0 (19) 2.7 (5) Y Y Y 4.1 (7) 0.7 (10) 1.5 (1) 1.0 (11) (7.5 (1) 2.6 (4) R R DD R R DD LOWEST PLANT 1.7 (2) 0.2 (7) 0.1 (1) 0.9 (4) 0.3 (11) 0.2 (4) CC CC CC CC CC CC 1 - All samples expressed as fibers >5/ju/cc counted by the standard method recommended in this document. (Latest available 1NIOSH data collected during the years 1966 through 1971). i OPERATION Fiber Preparation Carding Spinning Tvlacing Winding Weaving Rope, Wick, Braid & Cord Flnlahlog Mlacellaneoue TABLE XI LATEST SURVEY RESULTS ASBESTOS TEXTILE NUMBER OF PLANTS - 8 INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY OPERATION AND THE SAMPLE SIZE INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE WAS TAKEN FROM FIBERS/cc Ju HICHEST INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE 120.1 143.9 40.9 31.1 18.4 SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PUNT SECOND HICHEST INDIVID. SAMPLE 12 8 40.9 30 B 72.2 36 K 28.7 7 A 25.3 24 B 17.9 SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PLANT 4A 30 B 43 B 8K 40 K SECOND LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE 1.4 SAMPLE SIZE FROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAWN PUNT LOWEST INDIVID. SAMPLE 9 K 0.4 SAMPLE SIZE TROM WHICH INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DRAW - 9 0.7 22 K 0.4 40 1.0 36 K 0.4 43 0.5 8 K 0.2 8 0.1 40 K 0.0 40 123.2 57 B 38.5 25 A 0.1 50 K 0.1 50 11.0 3 D 10.3 3 D 0.1 4 K 0.1 3 5.6 3 C 3.8 28 B 0.2 28 B 0.1 28 37.0 2 A 22.7 2 A 0.1 45 K 0.1 45 PLAN' K J a c K K D B K OPERATION Fiber Preparation Carding Spinning Twisting Winding Weaving Rope, Wick, Braid & Cord ,4150611306003 Finishing TABLE XII LATEST SURVEY RESULTS ASBESTOS TEXTILE PLANTS NUMBER OF PLANTS = 8 MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE ( ) FIBERS/CC >5u HIGHEST PLANT SECOND HIGHEST PLANT SECOND LOWEST PLANT 22.3 (4) A 20.3 (12) B 27.3 (10) A 26.4 (30) B 12.5 (36) K 10.9 (11) A 14.5 (7) A 10.7 (19) B 9.7 (12) A 5.9 (24) B 12.4 (25) A 10.0 (16) J 7.1 (3) D 3.5 (2) J 29.9 (2) A 9.7 (2) G 2.5 (3) G 1.8 (2) C 7.6 (9) 7.1 (22) 5.8 (11) 4.8 (4) 2.8 (10) 2.5 (11) 2.6 (4) 2.5 (4) 1.3 (28) K K C C J C A J B LOWEST PLAN 7.4 (5) 6.1 (14) 3.7 (2) 3.2 (8) 2.0 (5) 1.1 (3) 1.3 (4) 0.2 02) 0.1 (5) J G J G G E K. E E TABLE XIII ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION* BY OPERATION FOR INSULATION WORKERS irine Con struction lepair No. of Samples refabrication r 'ation i- 6 neral r Out inishing 7 25 19 18 14 19 ight and Heavy nduscrial onscruction refabrication pplication ixing eneral ear Out inishing 23 36 17 19 10 16 Actual Arithemetic Means Recalculated Mean*** Previous Time-Weighted Average*** Recalculated Time-Weighted Average*** 30.4 6.2 21.2 0.6 31.5 0.3 8.7 2.6 6.4 0.6 8.3 0.3 ) ) ) ) ) 9.2 ) ) ) ) ) ) 1.8 10.1 3.1 4.7 1.6 12.8 0.9 6.6 2.4 2.9 1.1 7.1 0.9 ) ) ) ) ) ) 4.2 ) ) ) ) ) ) Fibers/ml>5p in length * Summarized from data ** Personal communication, March 1970 from Balzer & Cooper TABLE XIV ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION BY OPERATION*, 1969 Average asbestos fiber levels Work practice 01 Asbestos cement 02 Asbestos cement 03 Asbestos cement 04 Asbestos cement Cutting calcium sillcate, block, pipe 01 Cutting calpiun sill- cate, block & pipe 02 Environmental conditions Personal Samples Fibers/ml Fibers/ml Area Samples Distance from Source High ceiling room. Louvre venting 2.4 .45 2' Low ceiling room. Poor ventilation 2.6 Access tunnel 6.1 __ Power house. Low Celling, poor ventilation Table and hand saws, in power house -- open . 3.9 1.2 Same - in industrial building. Good ventilation. 4.1 2.5 3-5' --_ _ __ Cutting calcium sili cate block & pipe Apartment house boiler room. No ventilation. Work 3"--18" from breathing zone. 11-5 - Cutting calcium sili cate block & pipe 04 Limited ventilation 9.4 1.6 3-4' Spraying insulation Turbines in power plant very high celling, good ventilation. Fibers/ml > 5p in length 47.7 19.5 3' 28.0 6' Notes: 1. Conditions usually variable: Cement mixed dry -- applied wet; rapid changes in local ventilation; composition of material may vary; number of men on job may vary. 2. Average of counts (excluding spray insulation):>5 fibers/ml = 64.5%; 5-12 fibers/ml = 25.5%; 712 fibers/ml = 10.0%. (5) 3. Information prepared by Reicze, Nicholson, and Holaday. TABLE XV ASBESTOS PLANT Z - CEMENT PIPE PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS MEANS BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE OPERATION MEAN 1967 No. OF SAMPLES MEAN 1971 NO. OF SAMPLES Warehousing & Mixing Pipe Forming Curing Pipe Finishing Coupling Finishing Epoxy Packing Miscellaneous 6.2 2.1 1.3 5.0 12.8 2.6 1. 7 4 15 8 6 9 2 .6 2.3 1.8 0.4 1.7 5.3 0.9 1.1' 0.5 2 4 4 10 7 5 7 9 1 - All samples expressed as fibers ^ 5/i/cc by Che standard method recommended in this document. 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. TABLE XVI ASBESTOS PLANT S - FRICTION PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE OPERATION 1966 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 1969 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES Mixing, Coating & Extruding 7.5 24 8.0 6 Forming 5.7 7 0.5 3 Hot Pressing Baking 13.1 9.1 15 1 1.8 3 2.6 4 Grinding & Sanding 10.8 34 4.7 10 Cutting & Drilling 11.0 31 2.8 8 Bonding & Riveting Inspection & Packing 9.6 21 1.9 5 Miscellaneous Friction 6; 7 6 1.8 10 1971 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 11.0 16 3.6 4 4.9 5 5.4 5 5.2 16 7.7 22 5.1 U 1 - All saraple9 expressed as fibers >5>^cc by the Standard Method reconraended in this document. 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. OPERATION Warehousing Mixing Forming Curing Finishing Packing Miscellaneous TABLE XVII ASBESTOS CEMENT SHINGLE, MILLBOARD AND GASKET PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS MEANS BY OPERATION AND SAMPLE SIZE PLANT W 1967 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 19 70 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 8.9 4 8.3 14 4.4 6 1.8 36 2.6 3 0.4 1 4.3 35 2.5 22 2.3 13 1.5 7 0.7 2 1.2 2 1 - All samples expressed aa fibers ^5/t/cc by the Standard Method recommended in this document. 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. OPERATION Mixing Forming Curing Finishing Inspection & Packing Miscellaneous Office Worker TABLE XVIII ASBESTOS, INSULATION PLANT X PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS THERMAL PIPE MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE 1967 MEAN NO. OF SAMPLES 163.0 33.3 5 18 2.5 1 44.6 3 16.7 7 1970 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 36.2 25.7 3 3 31.0 1 34.8 4 17.9 13.8 3 2 1971 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 74.4 50.6 11 39 14.4 5 39.5 26 22.8 15 16.6 24 1 - All samples expressed as fibers 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. by the Standard Method recommended in this document. OPERATION Mixing Forming Curing Finishing Inspection & Packing Miscellaneous TABLE XIX ASBESTOS, INSULATION PLANT Y PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS THERMAL PIPE MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE 1967 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 1970 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 107.0 3 27.7 2 98.9 12 24.1 13 32.2 13.3 4 2 16.8 13.0 21.0 2 8 14 1971 NO. OF . MEAN SAMPLES 46.3 7 25.2 32 15.0 11.0 2.7 17 19 5 1 - All samples expressed as fibers >5ja/cc by the Standard Method recommended in this document. 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. OPERATION Fiber preparation Carding Spinning Twisting Winding Weaving Rope, Wick, Braid & Cord Finishing Miscellaneous TABLE XX ASBESTOS TEXTILE PLANT A PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE 1964 NO.. OF MEAN SAMPLES 1966 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 13.6 6 9.6 4 14.5 4 52.2 7 11.8 2 15.3 9 5.4 7 9.2 8 9.5 5 13.8 4 5.6 11 17.7 15 0.2 6 6.9' 2 5.7 2 7.5 1 1970 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 22.3 4 27.3 10 10.9 11 14.5 7 9.7 12 12.4 2.6 25 4 29.9 2 1 - All samples expressed as fibers ?5 /u/cc by the Standard Method recommended in this document. 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. OPERATION Fiber preparation Carding Spinning Twisting Winding Weaving Rope, Wick, Braid & Cord Miscellaneous TABLE XXI ASBESTOS TEXTILE PLANT J PERSONAL SAMPLES - SECULAR TRENDS MEANS BY OPERATION WITH SAMPLE SIZE 1965 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 1967 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 6.4 7 15.7 5 8.1 17 12.6 11 7.9 14 27.4 11 7.3 20 17.7 9 3.4 3 5.6 47 6.8 12 1971 NO. OF MEAN SAMPLES 7.4 5 7.8 40 3.7 2 6.9 35 2.8 10.0 10 16, 3.5 2 2.5 4 1 - All samples expressed as fibers >5 /dec. by the Standard Method recommended in this document. 2 - Information prepared from NIOSH data. TABLE XXII ASBESTOS aHZNT PIPE PERCENT OR SAMPLES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO J PI8ERS/CC, 5 EIBERS/CC AND .10 JTBERS/CC LONCER THAN Ju IN LENGTH, BY. PLANT AND OPERATION ( ) - NO. 0? SAHPLES REPRESENTS RISERS LONCER THAN Ju O H o OPERATION PLANT N :_i I_5 X_10 PLANT I_2 :_5 PLANT p I_2 X_S J_10 PLANT Q 2_2 1_5 2_10 PLANT l I_2 *_J IJ0 urehouslng i Mixing lpe Forslng o r 1 ng lpe Finishing nupllng Finishing oxy chlng seel laneous Not Applicable 25 100 100 ) 31 100 100 (3) 100 100 100 (3) 100 100 100 (6) 100 100 100 (<) 0 100 100 (1) 100 100 100 (*) - -- 0 0 100 (2) 33 100 100 (6) 6? 100 100 (3) 100 100 100 <t) 25 50 100 (0 100 100 100 (1) 100 100 100 (1) --- 100 100 100 (3) 100 100 100 () 100 100 100 (6) 100 100 100 (6) 100 100 100 06) 100 100 100 (6) --- 100 100 100 (9) 100 100 100 ) 100 100 100 (2) 100 100 100 (1) 80 100 100 (J) 80 100 100 (5) --- 0 0 100 (1) 100 100 100 (3) 50 100 100 (2) 25 100 100 (<) 100 t 100 <`> 100 70 100 100 (10) <3 57 (7) 71 100 100 100 (5) 86 100 100 (?) 100 100 100 (9) plant aa XJ J_5 1_10 PI.ANI 88 1_2 XJ 1_10 100 100 100 (J) 100 100 100 (6) 100 100 100 (5) 100 100 100 (9) 100 100 100 (21) 100 100 100 (1) 100 100 100 (13) 100 100 *100 (*) 80 100 100 (5) 100 100 100 (10) 93 10Q too (15) 100 100 100 (9) 90 100 100 (10) 83 100 100 (E) 100 100 100 (M 100 100 100 (6) OPERATION PLANT H X<5 *110 Mixing, Coating A Extruding 0 50 (2) 100 Forming 100 100 (6) 100 Hot Pressing 100 100 (7) 100 Baking 100 100 (2) 100 Grinding & Sanding 90 100 100 (10) Cutting A Drilling 50 75 (12) 83 Bonding A Riveting 75 75 100 (6) Inspecting A Packing 5A 69 100 (13) Miscellaneous 67 76 (9) 100 - Not applicable TABLE XXIII ASBESTOS FRICTION PLANTS PERCENT OF SAMPLES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2 FIBERS/CC, 5 FIBERS/CC, AND 10 FIBERS/CC LONCER THAN Su BY PLANT AND OPERATION 1 ( ) " NUMBER OF SAMPLES PLANT M X<2 *15 1<10 71 86 (7) 100 - 50 100 (A) 100 100 (2) 5/ 86 (7) 100 100 (7) 100 100 (1) 100 100 (A) 100 100 (1) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 PLANT S *2 *10 13 19 (16) AA 75 75 (6) 100 0 A0 (5) 100 0 /.o (5) 100 13 56 (16) 9A 5 32 (22) -- 6A - 50 50 (A) -- 75 _ PLANT T X<2 X<5 2cL0 - -- 100 100 100 (2) --- 100 100 100 (2) 88 88 (8) 88 86 100 100 (7) 100 100 100 (1) 86 100 100 (7) 100 100 100 (5) PLANT li X<;2 X<5 *^10 0 50 (2) 100 67 67 67 (3) 100 100 100 (2) 0 100 100 (1) 0 25 100 (A) 00 (1) 0 0 67 (3) 100 100 (3) 100 100 TABLE XXIV ASBESTOS CEMENT SHINGLE, MILLBOARD AND GASKET PERCENT OF SAMPLES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2 FIBERS/CC, 5 FIBERS/CC, AND 10 FIBERS/CC LONGER THAN 5li BY PLANT AND OPERATION ( ) - NUMBER OF SAMPLES OPERATION Warehousing Mixing Forming Curing Finishing Packing PLANT R X<2 X<5 2<10 100 100 100 (3) 53 67 93 (15) 83 94 100 (18) 50 100 100 (2) 71 94 100 (17) 75 100 '-v }->^ oO Miscellaneous 100 - Noc Applicable 100 100 (4) PLANT u %<2 *<5 Z<L0 100 100 100 (1) 67 100 100 (3) 100 100 100 (6) 100 100 100 (2). 86 100 100 (7) 100 100 100 (2) 100 100 100 (1) PLANT W X<2 *<L0 --- 50 67 100 (6) 33 100 100 (3) 100 100 100 (1) 71 100 100 (7) 100 100 . 100 (2) 100 100 100 (2) OPERATION Mixing Foraing Curing Finishing Inspection 4 Packing liecellnneoua Noc applicable TABLE XXV ASBESTOS INSULATION PLANTS PERCENT OF SAMPLES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2 FIBERS/CC, 5 FIBERS/CC, AND 10 FIBERS/CC LONGER THAN $u BY PLANT AND OPERATION ( ) - NUMBER OF SAMPLES PLANT R *12 X<5 x<io PUNT X X<2 2<5 *<1 PLANT Y *1* *3 U10 PUNT CC X<2 xao 57 71 (7) 86 90 90 100 (10) -- - 82 100 100 (11) 100 100 (1) -- 100 - 00 (11) 00 (39) 00 (5) 8 12 (26) 18 15 40 15 13 27 (15) 21 46 (24) 40 54 00 (7) 0 0 9 13 (32) -- - 6 6 29 (17) 0 16 63 (19) 40 100 (5) 100 100 100 (2) 100 100 (7) 100 100 (1) 100 100 (4) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 (ID 100 100 (4) 100 PUNT DD X<2 7. <5 7._<10 67 67 (3) 100 100 (5) 100 100 (1) 40 100 (5) 67 100 100 100 63 100 (8) 50 100 (4) 100 100 TABLE XXVI ASBESTOS TEXTILE PLANTS PERCENT OF SAMPLES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2 FIBERS/CC, J riBERS/CC, AND 10 PIBERS/CC LONCER THAN Ju BY PUNT AND OPERATION ( ) - NUMBER OF SAMPLES OPERATION PLANT A X_2 Z_5 Jt_10 Fiber Prepiritlon 00 (4) 25 Ci:d1ng 00 (10) 10 PLANT B I_2 X_5 X_10 0 17 (12) 58 07 (30) 40 $ p 1 r\n 1 n g Twisting Winding W<iv lng 0e (U) 36 5 26 (63) 7? 0 0 29 0 11 58 (7) (19) S 33 50 25 54 83 (12) (24) 4 16 46 16 58 86 (25) (57) Rope. Vick. Brild i Cord 50 75 () Mtnccllincou* 00 (2) flnlihlog -. 100 40 100 100 (5) 0 33 67 100 (3) - 82 100 100 (28) - Not Applicable PLANT C 2_2 XJ X_10 0 0 33 (3) 0 0 75 (4) 0 36 91 (11) 0 75 100 (4) 0 60 100 (5) 36 100 100 (11) -- - -- - 50 loo (2) 100 PLANT D xj XJ 2_10 0 0 33 (3) 20 40 60 (10) 0 13 44 (16) 13 50 75 (8) 43 71 86 (7) PLANT l XJ 2_5 X_10 .. -.- .. _. _ 8 33 88 67 100 100 (24) (3) 33 33 33 * (3) - - 0 50 83 100 100 100 (6) (2) -- - 100 100 ;oo (5) PLANT 0 2_2 X_5 X_10 00 (2) 50 14 57 (14) 71 0 33 (6) 100 38 75 (8) 100 80 100 (5) 100 8 50 100 (12) - 0 50 (3) 67 67 (2) so 100 PLANT J 2_2 2_5 X_10 20 40 (5) 80 13 38 (40) 80 0 100 (2) 100 6 26 (35) 89 40 90 100 (10) 0 25 (18) 56 0 100 (2) 50 100 (4) -- 100 100 - PUNT r. 2_2 XJ 2_10 22 6 4 (9) 67 23 36 (2?) 7? 3 16 (36) 42 25 38 (8) 50 60 5 3 (40) 78 26 76 (50) 96 75 100 (`) 100 80 91 100 (43) 63 too (0) 94 TABLE XXVII Duration of employment and known exposure to Asbestos and the development of X-ray findings of Asbestosis in 232 employees of an Asbestos Insulation Factory, employed sometime in 1941- 1945 and examined in 1969-1970- X-RAY ASBESTOSIS DURATION OF MPLOYMENT TOTAL 0 + 1+ 2+ DAY OR LESS 7 3 0 40 - 7 DAYS VKS - - MOS - 6 MOS - 12 MOS - 2 YRS - 5 YRS - 14 YRS 13 15 35 35 31 48 36 12 232 4 5 6 8 5 7 3 1 3 51 3 61 5 23 1 3 19 5 3 15 5 5 25 8 8 16 6 0 54 ALL EMPLOYEES INCLUDED. EXPOSURES VARIED FROM "NONE" (OFFICE) THROUGH THAT OF MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING AND SHIPPING, TO THAT OF PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES. - Personal Communication Dr. Irving SeLikoff, January, 1971. 3+ 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 TABLE XXVIII Lapsed period from onset, of exposure in 344 deaths among employees of an asbestos insulation factory, employed at some time in 1941- 1945 and followed to 1970. Cause of Death Lung cancer Mesothelioma G. I. cancer Asbestosis All other cancer All other causes TOTAL 0-4 0 0 1 0 1 26 28 5-9 3 0 1 2 3 28 37 10-14 8 0 6 1 9 30 54 Years from Onset 15-19 20-24 14 16 02 34 88 76 52 42 84 78 25+ TOTAL 18 = 2= 59 4 3= 5= 18 24 5= 31 30 = 208 63 55 344 1 Personal communication Dr Irving Selikoff, January, 1971. TABLE XXIX SUMMARY OF 4 CASE HISTORIES OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF MESOTHELIOMA ace ex U VU M FM W F ccupational Hlscory Before asbestos exposure Asbestos exposure Duration of exposure None Unknown Type of Work Engineer Student 6 weeks Pipe Insulation After asbestos exposure Unknown Housewife Type of asbestos Chrysotileamositecrocidolite Chrysotilearaosite None None 3 years Neighborhood exposure Unknown - at least several v Family exposure Bookkeeper-f looij manager Housewife Chrysocileamosite Amosite Respirator protection :sothelioma History / at death stological diagnosis Lapsed period since exposure Duration of illness Concurrent asbestosIs None None NA NA 74 41 30 Peritoneal & Pleural Biphasic Right Pleural (Biphasic) epi thelial & fibrous Pleural Biphasic Pleomorphic 52 Left Pleural 25 years 21 years 13 weeks 5 weeks Pleural Calcifica tion Grade I by X-Ray 19 years 1 year None Unknown 2- years tfone by X-Ray Smoking history Duration of smoking history (years) 0 40 20 NA 24 5 years Stopped in 1965 - Personal communication! Dr. Irving SeRikoff - January, 11971. TABLE XXX Observed and Expected Deaths Through December 31, 1969 by Cause and Dust Exposure Score, for 291 Hales who Worked Primarily in Non-Asbestos Production and Maintenance Service Jobs and for 1464 Males who Worked Primarily in Asbestos Production and Maintenance-Service Jobe and Retired During 1941-1967, Showing Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR's) Cause of Death and Internationa. Limited Exposure Oba. Exp. SMR Obs. parts per cubic foot years (mppcfyr) < 125 Exp. SMR 125-250 Obs. Exp. SMR 250-500 Obs. S*p. SMR All Causes All Cancer (140-205) Digestive System (150-159) Lung, Bronchus, Trachea 6 Pleura (162-163) 114 129.9 87.8 365 344.8 105.8 162 139.8 115.9 184 156.7 117.4* 22 9 22.3 98.6 74 56.3 131.4* 23 23.6 97.4 52 26.4 197.1* 8.2 109.8 27 21,9 123.3 5 8.9 56.2 19 10.0 190.0* 8 4.8 166.7 18 10.7 168.2 11 4.9 224.5* 16 5.4 296.3* All Other Cancer 5 9.3 53.8 29 23.7 122.4 7 9.8 71.4 17 11.0 90.9 Cerebral Vascular Lesions (330-334) All Hearc Disease (400-443) Coronary Heart Disease (420) All Ocher Heart Disease Diseases of the Respiratory System (470-527) Pneumoconiosis 6 Pulmo nary Fibrosis (523-525) All Other Causes 15 14.8 101.4 31 41.4 74.3 14 16.2 86.4 15 18.2 82.4 46 60.8 75.6 168 161.2 104.2 72 65.5 109.9 75 73.3 102.3 39 48.9 80.1 129 124.8 103.4 59 52.2 113.0 55 57.8 95.2 7 12.1 57.8 39 36.4 107.1 13 13.3 97.7 20 15.5 129.0 10 7.7 129.9 26 19.0 162.5* 11 80 137.5 17 8.9 191.0* 5 - - 8- - 3 ** 8 22 24.5 89.8 66 66.6 99.1 42 26.5 158.5* 25 29.9 83.6 ~ y 1 A * SHR SlB?1ctud!!Cof che Dose-Response Relationship Between Asbestos Dust and Lung Cancer by Philip Enterline, Pierre UrCe DeCoufle and Vivian Henderson (Unpublished Manuscript) -- _L TABLE XXX (continued) Cause of Death and International 5UO-/5U Obs. Exp. SMR Obs . Exp. SMR Obs. All Causes All Cancer (1^0-205) Digestive System (150-159) Lung, Bronchus, Trachea & Pleura (162-163) All Other Cancer Cerebral Vascular Lesions (330-336) All Hearc Disease (600-663) Coronary Heart Disease (620) All Other Heart Disease Diseases of the Respiratory System (670-527) Pneumoconiosis 6 Pulmo nary Fibrosis (523,525) All Other Causes 77 50.2 153.6* 36 18 8.7 206.9* 9 6 3.3 181.8 2 9 1.8 500.0* 5 3 3.6 83.3 2 5 5.6 89.3 3 26.2 6.5 1.7 0.9 1.9 3.0 129.8 200.0 117.6 555.6 105.3 100.0 36 23.5 153.2* 11 26 13.8 127.6 8 12 6.7 255.3* 3 11 2.8 392.8* 0 8c 12.3 9.9 2.6 1.5 89.6 80.8 125.0 600.0* 7 9.6 72.9 2 6.9 60.8 Exp. SMR Obs. Exp. SMR *SHR significantly different from 100 at 57. level In Re: Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC 929684 VERIFICATION I, JOHN W. STRATMAN, have read the foregoing Responses to Plaintiffs' Standard Interrogatories to All Defendants. I am General Counsel of North American Refractories Company and am authorized to make this Verification for that reason. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief based upon reliable information made known to me and documents reviewed by me or at my direction. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: JOHN W. STRATMAN General Counsel NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1910 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 250, Walnut Creek, California 94596. I am readily familiar with the business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the date set forth below, I served the following: DEFENDANT NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO ALL DEFENDANTS in said action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, in the United States mail at Walnut Creek, California, addressed as follows: Clarence Mamaril, Esq. Brayton Harley Curtis P. O. Box 2109 Novato, CA 94948 Harry F. Wartnick, Esq. Wartnick, Chaber, Harowitz, Smith & Tigerman 101 California Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Christopher E. Grell, Esq. The Monadnock Building 685 Market Street, Suite 540 San Francisco, CA 94105