Document kmE4no6RBDpavL2RKJpO49BwJ

[ V \y 1965 : i '------- - I I HEREBY ATTEST, Thai the annexed copy, or each of the specified number of copies, of each document listed below is a true copy of a document in the 3off~i"c7 ial custody of the Department of Labor. 1 copy each of: Transcripts from March 14,15,16, and 17 Comments and hearing exhibits of: W.J. Nicholson, American Petroleum Institute, D.A. Holaday, Brand Insulations Inc., L.J. Bibri, B.J. Phillips(Certain-teed), M.W. Borow, J.D. Moran(Flintlcote), F.L. PundsackCJ-M), J.W. Rawlings, W.M. Hancock(Dow), W.K. Hesse(J-M), E.M. Fenner(J-M), E.J. Killian(Nat. Cypsum), Cerne'1*: Asbestos Products Co., M.M. Key, G.E. Best(MCA) SlGN-ATUlRE AND) OFFICIAL 0 TITLE C DIVISION AND BUREAU Docket Office/Technical Data Daniel J.j Marsick Center/Occup. Sfty & Hlth Adm/ Tuchnio7U Information Specialist U.S. Dept, of Labor I HEREBY CERTIFY, That _Daniel J. Marsick .h,, DATE 7 Sep 78 the foregoing attestation, is now and was at the time of signing (title) Technical Information Specialist anA hfl8 lcgal cu8lody of the official records of the United States Department of Labor therein att .sted and that full faith and credit should be given tohis act bb such. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I J. J. Lafranchise duly designated by the Secretary of Labor as Authentic ^i^^ation Officer of the Department of Labor, have here- "Tunio subscribed my name and caused the seal of the it 7k Department of Labor to be affixed this. day of September ^787 Q (^,/j Authentication Officer Department of Labor - M- .......... ................ fi.;'.;' * - *. ,|i - *- -AO .---- . > v*. . 7; >. / UNITED STATES DEPARTI-EHT OP LABOR WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Matter cT *-- STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST, PROPOSED RULE WAKING- PUBLIC HEARING Conference Koor,*. B Interdepartmenta 1 Auditor lur.i 12th & Constitution Avc*., II.Vi Washington, D.C. Thursday, March 16, 1972 The shove-enti tied r.i the r came on for further h1earing. to recess, at 9:00 o 'clod:, a .in. , Thursday, ili3 o j 10 j C 197'?. BEFORE: ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Heaving Examiner APPEARHCES: ( As heretofore noted.) > 170-13 ISrJLMXrEP. GOLDBERG: MI right, air. Ka will tuvrk i < as Erihibit Ho. Z1 Western States f-.sbastcs Health Plan, anc. \ us n:ni*3;ea 2::nibit Nc. 37 is received. V !iii i. | ?-- (The document referred to vas marked 1 I for identification as Exhibit 1 i Ho. 37 and received in (-wi donee.) I i EHAHINER G0LD3Er.G: .Do we have any more second j !! ;t !t I' i' * vi* \-(-L *1< li i3 i; thought:.; before ve call the next witness? j I Mr. Shoe:;lor and Mr. Royer, are you appearing toaethi- K.-'> I MR. DKECRLE?.i Yes, Mr. Examiner. ! I an Clifford L. She older, Chairman of the Sc *'ety | i i and Health Coordttea, National Insulation Manufnoturers Assoc-? o i; ii iof. MI iation. I an appearing before you today, along with Mr Scenes * never, raprssentinc: the National InsulationManufacturers * i ! i Association and the National Insulation Contractors Assoc- i iv.ticn. Th-= m2r.bersr.i0 of both Associations v/ish I express cppociticn to the proposed standard for asbes-co.-: duct as pub- :n !: : :.r-Ci in the federal Register, Wednesday, January 12, 1972. j I : . to express cur opposition to the rcccrtonuatiensj o' ... \tec cv Ccrriitfca on asbestos dust , and the 'intionei j v. : _ fur Osu.'eutic aa.i Safety and Health oritcr:document1. t:`:t 'iTafi'vnui Irioula.tion Manufacturers Ju-sc oration . r a a ra v iv jr a net f ac tv-.ro res of Trsrr.nl Insulation 7.-rcducts in* a the United States. 170-C The National Insulation Contractors Association represents the major Thermal Mechanical Insulation^ I Contractors engaged in both the construction and shipbuilding 1 i:iuv:tr:.e.'5 tnroughout the United States. i Cur comments will be directed specifically to the ^ ! ! i application c asbestos containing insulation products and not' to the manufacturing of such products. Trie construction and shipbuilding work currently underwa** bv our Thermal Mechanical Insulation Industrv is be ini? "| done under both government and private contracts., rederally j i funded contracts involve office buildings, hospitals, schools,j libraries, missile facilities, defense projects, dams, airport' facilities, rapid transit systems, low rent housing, military housing, air and water pollution prjjects, shipbuilding and ship repairing for the U. S. Navy - Coast Guard - Merchant Marine arid .Army,. Private funded contracts include office buildings, i hotels, theatres, refineries, power generating plants, chemical -outs, .;iho:r typer- of industrial plants, housing, University ! ; ro , ho rip i talc , and others. * i I 7. in the thermal mechanical insulation construction. i.t try. i.-xc'Ludiug the manufacturing of insulation' Products , : i c.:; c.-'narco-ring only the installation of this material, directly it .live ..'orci'im.t.nlv 40,000 job ouccrtunitics in the United .. ... i j 111 170-D ; I I ) :i This industry represents an approximate $700 million! grcsr, volume of business annually. i I i Cur industry is comprised of over 1000 contractors. \ l:o.:;t of these ccncrachops_are small businessmen spread throughi out the United States, Mr. Royer, v;ho is here with me today, j i *. i in ono of f'*u small businessmen who will present you with his "\lv7S. rj ' (I n ! i; o |: n f: \: 12 : Our opposition to the asbeetos dust standards era based on the fact that they are neither reasonable, practical,! t l feasible, or economically sound. Much of the information for j '. I establishing the proposed asbestos dust standards, the NJCSH i i criteria package, and the Advisory Committee's rsccrr.mandations | (3 :i: w:*.y gathered from experience in this Thermal Mechanical Ir.suItion Indus try. \ C* Let us review the course of events concerning the tl :..-rho?.(; limit value for asbestos dust ever the past few -re. Jin 197(; the American Conference of Governmental In- .. I've;?onicts Threshold Limit Value for Asbestos Dust J? .. i . published at 3 million particles per cubic foot or air as ; -------1-- -----------' " 1------------------------------------------------ i i...:.;;ured .:ith the iirpinger method. We were able to work with ! .! ::..v '.tarc.. At that time the majority of State Departments 1 I c. nor -.`.ad health maintained the same Asbestos Threshold j \ i L: Value. In 'December, 1970, -the Occupation?.! Safety and j i Act bsciTfis 1 av7. In 1971, the first set of safety and health standards be car.*,a effective. The threshold limit value e. for sobeuton dust then became 12 fibres pr ' mii/wil; ter greater than S microns in length as measured by the membrane filter. Tills industry did not question the reduction of tiis v i thrsahold lir.it value free; 5 million parciclc-ii pur cubic duct ; to 12 fibres par milliliter, and the complete change of the rathod for monitoring asbestos dust, instead, we ire.-edicteiv ! :nt to '.fork bv introducing new methods, equipment, end no ter-' 1. ; ials, to reduce oust levels to within -the 12 fibre limit. i i On December 7, 1971, Emergency Asbestos Dust Stand- : ards were published in the Federal Register again reducing the> Threshold Limit Value for Asbestos Dust from 12 fibres per ! j milliliter greater than 5 microns in length to 5 fibres'per i J milliliter greater than 5 microns in length. On January 12, i ; / j I .'72, the proposed asbestos dust regulations, with e Threshold'- i j'-'...Vnluc of 5 fibres, *was published in the Federal Register!. 'i i. .-v; far. in con junction with those proposed regulations- both; , KVJy~'K a \:>.c Asbsscos Advisory Ccn^nit*i&e have rvnie rsccrir.crnS-.l } f. for further reduction of the Threshold Limit Value for ! ov.j.-artos duet to 2 fibres per milliliter greater then 5 micro nr i.. 'veugth. You now nave a picture of the inconsistency are v..';ertai::i.v involved in the. establishment of an Asbestos Dost ' From 1970 to date, a period of just over tve years, tie v.a.-'.fold Limit Value for asbestos duet has boon changed / firov* 5 ill7-CF uo :.'2 fibres, tV'on to 5 fibres, witr; a current 170-F recommendation fcr a 2 fibre level. .With each of these Threshr \ old Limit Value changes there have been many other related re-1 quiremsnv. changes that add to the total confusion, such as respiratory equipment, dust collection, vacuum cleaning equip-\ ? -- ! ment, and others. Tlie change from 5 HPPCT to 12 fibres has j I o Ii-; been a costly one. Our industry has, with some difficulty, ) -j absorbed this cost. We frankly cannot meet the 5 fibre Ercsr- i gency Asbestos Standard as currently effective, nor can we ab sorb the cost of the Emergency or Proposed Asbestos Standard and its related provisions. It is needless to say, therefore, that to achieve, a 2 fibre standard as recommended by the HIOSH ( Criteria Package and the Asbestos Advisory Committee, is neither > J practical, feasible, or economically possible. Lac's carefully examine the reasoning for the errat v. r - I' '* * ' ii ! ? ii r i: ! *5 !!' 10 ii l! ic revisions of the P.sbectos Threshold Limit Value since 1970. As I have already tcld you, much of the information which ccn-| tributed to these revisions was gathered from cur Thermal i j Insulation construction industry* . At its best, this infcmatic : I is scanty, inconsistent, incomplete and inaccurate. First of ; i all, I tcld you that at the change of Threshold Limit Value i>. !|li 83 !i from 5 /IPPCF ao 5 fibres per milliliter there was also a chang< i in the method for monitoring asbestos dust from'the"'standard or midget impinger to the miembrane filter. There is absolute ly no method for correlation between the asbestos dust counts dstermir.od by monitoring with the impinger as compared to the ", t; 170-G membrane filter... It is. therefore, impossible to compare the 1 exposure levels in terms of numbers of fibres per milliliter creator than 5 microns in length with numbers of particles I ! | of total dust when usinHg. -7t^he impir.ger method. I**t" must be recc; e- !^ I nized that the ir.pinger method included particulate matter other than asbestos fibre. Physical examinations on a part of the work force .1 installing Thermal ins1 ulation materials have been conducted. The disease involvement determined by these physical examin :r\ ations has bean related to the present day asbestos fibre exposure as monitored by the milapore filter method. These factors cannot be compared or related. Also, based on sup position and assumption, it was concluded that the i rponure levels.of man working in construction and shipbuilding before. during, and subsequent to World War II were at the same levels of exposure as is a worker engaged in similar activities tod ay j. -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- :----------------------- ----------------- l This nvoothasis is not true. The types of materials have 1 changed, the percentage of n<=d in thermal insu lation products has been reduced- the method cf installation has changed, and fabrication equipment has changed. Each of the S'? changes since ch early 194 0's has contributed in the j r- dv.st.icn of dust levels. It is, therefore, illogical to com-j p;.ve- disease occurrences which resulted from exposure from v. :.vs aco with oust levels monitored on construction situs -hia the last several years. It is also illogical to -1 170-H compare our American industry with that of foreign countries. 1 2 As I said, we have withstood the change from 5 million j particles per cubic foot of air to 12 fibres based-on insuffic- i ient information gathered. from small segments of the industry.! i Although there was no further input of pertinent information, ! l } acrain, based onsupposition and assumption, the level was than; 1! reduced from 12 fibres to 5 fibres. Nov;, still based on sup- * position and assumption, with no further information availableL both 1TI03M ana the Asbestos Advisory Committee are recommending 'I : a-reduction to 2 fibres. TThile these reductions in cne Threshj- e.\d Limit Value have been readily forthcoming, the proposed 12 regulations, NIOSH Criteria Package, and the Asbestos Advisory Committee recommendations are completely void cf any references i a ; to prohibiting or restricting workers who arc habitual cigarette ?5 smokers from working with products containing asbestos fibre. I ikt: same studies, upon which much of the emphasis has been ; *.) 17 p! need concerning the reduction of the Threshold Limit Value,, #r. aloo demonstrate drastic effects of cigarette smoking when j I :. j OLoiatad with the pulmonary disease, Asbestos is. i i 5 jAs j'. told you, v.'a have not achieved the la /el of .. are making a decide effort to do this. Ke have ...._______ .-.v.:::; unique to the construction industry' in attempting to \ j 1 i | ply with .the prepesad asbestos standards. X am not at this I ti-..i_- going to review all. of the minute problems involved in the C-J application of those standards; instead, I am going to speak =9 170-1 to the economics of achieving this propound standard of 5 j fibres par milliliter 5 microns and greater in length, as j f published in the Federal Register January 12, 1972. "-7e feel, ! with the economic impact that this regulation will have on the' *~ i Federal Office of Budget Management, other Federal agencies, ! i including the Armed Services, and on private enterprise, it is! i; worthy cf vary careful consideration by the Federal Department': .. of .tacor. *' i We brought together a number of the foremost contractIt or3 in tho Thermal Mechanical Insulation Industry, and together we evaluated the coat of complying with the proposed asbestos *v a-~ regulation, This v;as accomplished by breaking down the regu- , .. I lation into each cf its requirements and computing them indiv-j idually. The requirements were computed individually, include monitoring, based on purchasing the monitoring equipment and having the s a-moles analysed at a nrivate laboratorv? reap: m- j ': * 'I v.-:crc o:: the disposable type; physical examinations; dust I su ..ice non ana, vacuum c-leaning equipmen. t: warni. ng signs: pro- *, tri:e clothing; and wor;: pl&corer.t. ?.s a base we used e an cont.rac ting unit with 'if" of chtj unit working with ) hoi;-containing products, v:-e ccr.out :d off-job i im.e and 1_ i; ;.i w.o productivity at an average construct: on worker's m.ft, .The total`-cost for implementing a program to comply v.h the proposed hsbeihot Dust Regulations as published in uaf Jimnuary 1.'?-, 1972 Federal Reglabor for a l(J0-nan construct- ft fV 170-J j 1 ; ft ion unit, 255 of which worked with asbestos-containing mater- ! ii i; inis, is $755,375.00 direct expenses per year - - $27,740.on > J i administrative expenses per year and $16,700.00 ofcapital j ) expenses; therefore, a total for the 100-man unit, with 255 i 1 ? -- !I * * engaged in v;ork with asbestos-containing products, amounts to | il ` <1 8 I! J $335,315.00 increased construction expense for the purpose of i i! complying v;:Lth -the proposed Asbestos DustRegulation. This j I represents an increased labor cost of 1635 that must be passed' on to the customer in order for a contractor to survive. The 10 customer, in nany instances, is the Federal Government and the n Office of Budget Management. Considering the inadequacy,of 12 medical and scientific research information concerning safe ) 13 exposure levels of asbestos dust, and also considering the 14 ; supposition and assumption on which the proposed Threshold 1? 15 ! 37 j. U * *> 1J 19 ;j 20 Limit Value is based, it is difficult to imagine a justifies.- > ! tion for the economic stress this regulation will place upon I the construction industry. Federal Government, and private l enterprise. Me respectfully urge the Secretary of Labor to: [ i j i 1. Reinstate the Threshold Limit Value for. Asbertosj Duct at. 12 fibres per milliliter 5 microns or gres or an I D 22 length., for an interim period. 23 i! i! j, i 2. To initiate a comprehensive epidemiological study of the entire asbestos industry as it exists in the Doited States; and to determine net only the effects of asbestos but t 170--1C also asbustas associated with other airborne contaminants and cigarette smoking. 3. Tc provide adequate lead time prior to the ef- j i J fective data of reduction of any Threshold Limit Value in order a-- i that the construction industry, operating on fired contracts, 1 O r . rl , I! < !; ;i I) 5 IS II Si ^ 'i! Hn io 1; J! '' i! can cope economically with the increased costs that such a re-j duction will create. 1 4. To provide definitive information concerning the specific requirements of the regulations. 5. Provide our trade associations with represents- i tion on future Study and Advisory Committees. We, representing the construction industry, have beer, r, . / % moving forward to provide safety and health information and iv.yolemsnl safer working cGnditior.3. We intend to continue and! accelerate this program. It is cur desire to provide every v-:; s sib la protection for our people. 17 h ;0 s' ' i, ii ;.o ii :i y.....* r;-j Thank you for the opportunity of appearing- at this public hearing today. I might add that tha two trace associations I am reore 'I seating hare today mads two requests for represent a Lien cn -the! A'ivisory Committee, both of which were rejected. We, repre senting the construction industry, agree with Dr. Cooper's statement that there is a serious problem there. We have besni rr.sving foivnrd to provide- and enact voluntary safety and / . i: r._.i.lt:> uco dura I staiidards and implement safer verting con- XI 170-L ditions. We have produced manuals. V7e have produced recent lv" __. - i -- i a Letter of Compliance and racc^uuended procedures for compli ance with the Emergency Standards. We have held meetings of all thermal mechanical association contractors throughout the *-- country for two consecutive years solely on this point. We intend to continue and to accelerate this program. 1 It is our ac3ire, as it is your desire, to provide I I ! i I J every possible protection for our people; but let us net do it; t the e.'menss of the jcb opportunities of small businessmen r'.d the economic impact on this industry. j j ; I Again f I viuh to thank you very rvuch for the opr.-or- unity of appearing harebefore you today. i j EUAMT.ITER GCLD2ERG: Mr.Boyer? i j MR, I-101rER: Hr. Goldberg and members of the Advisory! t t C-o-rir.ittee c-n Asbestos Standards, my name is J. Spencer Royer, ; I end I am here to represent the National Insulation Contractors: i Association and approximately 1,000 small insulation contract-: o-s ar.d fabricators around the country. I am President cf the- Is trig Sales Corporation v?ith headquarters in St. Louis, Mis- \ L..;.ri, My ccmpar.y engages in the fabrication and application . ' thermal insulation and other materials which con rain as. to.- fiber. This includes hot ar.d cold piping, s-uipmeut j : i:. duel: work iui.ccmziurcial ar.d industrial buildings, power v.l . -;n. '.hctr.icnl pianos, oil refineries, ship a and a wide / e of projeotrj funded by the- federal Government. I:m i t Ii : A 170-M \' no neophyte in this business, having been in it for 27. years. ! 2 . I air. close to my employees. I know most of then by their first names. I am definitely interested in their health and velfara'. j The statement has been made here that all risk in *-- : handling asbestcs-containing material should be removed and r. the tolerance of air-laid fibers reduced to oero. The Advisory i "! Committee has recommended a maximum'of 2 fibers per milliliter* mi *0 f M :i i' 12 r. := i'. of air. I am net sure I know exactly what that means as a j i contractor, but from the description I doubt seriously that it- can be reached. * In fact, I say to you that to accomplish these goals cn a construction job is impossible, and if this becomes the lav; either we will be out of business as contractors, or soma M ;i !! i; 6 :i ;f t.7 ,i ':S :-l other substitute materials must be found by the manufacturers j . to take the place of the asbestos. !I ! j Let me present a picture to you gentlemen which I'm j sura you haven't considered. Insulation contracting in the United States is at-- i ii j p.roxim.atcly a $700,000,000 per year business; however, the j i a --`rage contractor is a small businessman with annual sales of; "*.<.:ately '$700,000. net profit after .taxor; averages 21 o'.l ihr sales, or $14,000 per contractor 'per year. i ' i j |T- Using figures developed by a number of other contrac i or.-: from various parts ox the country and myself, we computed j i that the additional cost resulting from the proposed asbestos I ;j ;i -A 170-N I dust standards will amount to $134,000 per average-sized con tractor per year, or more than 10 times his net earnings. It is obvious to me that unless the proposed Standard l is modifies ir. a major jjay or * customer which, in many cases the cost is passed on is a Federally funded to the project, i ii it "ill be .impossible for the small insulation contractor to'cur-! 1 You must be made aware, also, that every contractor has a backlog of uncompleted work at a fined price vrith specifjic material ar.d specifications. It will be impossible, in mo sc instances, to pass this added cost on to the customer, since j triese contracts were consummated prior tc publication of the proposed regulation. I had intended to go into the breakdown of the differ | cat items, but just briefly we broke down, item by item your proposed regulation: 1. Meaitaring 2. Physical examinations 3. Wcrkor placement A. i';.?. o p 1r atar s 5. Dust collactore, 6. `vacuum cleaning 7. Warning signs 8. Fret-active clothing 3y using these, item by item, v;e computed what it 170-0 would cost the average contractor. As best we can find out, he employes scmevrhere between sixteen and twenty men. So'you ! can see that each contractor has a small contingent of the overall business. ?-- Gne item in particular is the monitoring. We based I t our projected cost on approximately one sampling unit for each i three man employed. We estimated labor a tor1/ expense on the basis of two samples per day per employee. In addition, we | i j included administration expense to perform the monitorincrtahel samples to the laboratory and handle the respirator program. This may sound ridiculous, but because of the mobility and the geography involved in the construction job - - it. isn't liJ:e a plant where you can monitor locations day after day without any problems and establish what the limits are chore. You have to follow this man around, because he is moving all ever the project. i In addition- we included administration expense to curterm the monitoranc. i S I I ij i By the way, at the moment we !;now of only two private labs in the United States that are equipped and competent to J Perform the analysis of the camples. The time that will be lost on the job, both in exe cuting the tests and in trying to carry cut. the stipulations cthe regulation as proposed is staggering. We estimate our labor cost for materials will ba increased 170-P I The'main issue, so far as the cortractor is concerned, I is how he will bo able to pay these additional costs and still: i remain in business. In my opinion, many of them won't ba able to absorb it. ! i tI r We urge you to reconsider the proposed Asbestos Dust| ! Standard as published in the Federal Register on January' 12, [ 1S72. We, as contractors, are just as interested as you in; 3 seeing that our employees work under safe conditions, but we 1 c<) request that further investigation and evaluation be made to ; initiate more practical standards that v/ill provide protection! to our people but that will not put us out of business. Thank you. I ! I (Discussion off the record.) E2S.MZK2R G07;D 2RG: Mr. Zumvalt? Mr. SUMVJALT: Mr. 3::aminar, my name is Charles Sumvalfc, and I am the Secretary-Treasurer of the Industrial Safety Equipment Association. This is the trade association of i the principle manufacturers of all forms of persona), protective > equipment except shoes. Included among cur members are the man ufacturers of protective devises on whose behalf 1 meal: to you i i today. VTa have previously submitted our comments in' v;riting j pertaining to the proposal containing the Federal Register i i or: January 12 . Frosumably they will be entered in to the record / and 1' he.'Vw 5-Vvan copies to the ctenotype recorder fer her use. !1 (t 3 70-n A 173-3 /' daalii.o vridh r*r.; o'.?:sn.o:?;.* cxovicoi? in g^riCiiCj. or ::nec- j :":.c rrex!e:-:ci:os cr'-iirl i:riT. ibo r-r, .it: c>: sidco:nc:.e orpsrrbi^o c:: tnc- s&nuoi;?.:.*-C.. <1^: - l. '-.w1i .'o' iMuOit vOUf i'.lT . iVVi/.*n.'.o , w.. ..: ib vjcuIc n:vo-j&r c'viro r-iii bo cnj.y * . . i'r.vcsrdinrrj.'-c'.vio.'s nrro fcbc-r-n :v.re- uch.-duiw'i (_ J