Document mBRbYXpkN9b8E0a043VeEEgqd

.\a ? \V ' THE DOW CHDilCAL COMPANY Midland, Michigan MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN UWWA-MANACEMENT BARGAINING COMMITTEES CONCERNING PIPE COVERERS WORKING WITH ASBESTOS PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT --&aw-9 0 Representing: August 19, 1969 UNION COMMITTEE Schroeder (Chairman), Halcomb, Reid, Evan*, Brzeziniki, Prior, Keblbeck, Edgecombe COMPANY COMMITTEE Neering (Chairman), Martini, G. Warren, Todd, Plagens, Collins, Engibous Johnson, Eastman, Reed. Supervision and Departmental Representatives Anderson, DeGesero, Dr. Kramer, Warren, Badley, Kegley. PiscussIon Neering began that they were there to diacusa a problem they were con* cerned with. Jack, why don't you pick yp the bell'and give the explanation? Maybe the beat way to do it would be to run through the whole problem and ehen open it up for questions; or would you like questions as you go? Badley answered no. Lee me just give kind of a short preamble on what we did out in Che plant. We had six groups of people consisting of both Coverera and the production people and the Maintenance Section Manager in charge of the maintenance for that par ticular group. We kicked the meeting off by making the statement as such, chat we do have a presentation that cakes between 30 and 35 minutes to go through and we'd like the questions held until the end. Those questions that aren't answered by the presentation, then we'd give the group a chance to do this. We had cvo*hour meetings. As 1 say, the presentation took 30 to 35 minutes. And most of the time we used up between an hour and an hour and tvency~lve minutes on questions These were generally points on clarification of data and that type of thing. The Section Manager introduced me and X sore of played the role of introducing the panel. I think what I'd like to do-- and Dr. Kramer is going to play Dr. Ducommon's role, who is on the panel, and Dr. Kramer was there to help answer questions afterwards-- I chink we'll go right through these and read precisely what we gave and then open it up for questions.I I scarred out by saying, "Many of you gentlemen have waited some time for this gec-co-gether. I'm sure she following presentations by Dr. Ducommon from our Medical Dept., Roy DeGesero from Environmencal Research, Roy Anderson from Organic Chemicals Maintenance, and Larry Warren now StpL of Construction in CCP, will be of vital interest to you. bIU U U U Jbb t Special Meeting -2- August 19, 1969 There are several reasons for this interest *on your pert - mainly however, a request by the coverers on.MHow Does the Handling of Asbestos Content Insulation Affect Me?" Ocher"interest* certain1y wiil~be~i~,lWhat are"the Solutions?'* and "How Should We Implement the Solutions?1* Solutions to a problem sometimes cause ocher problems a couple in which the production people here have a stake, such as technology and costs. This obviously Is a matter of concern to them. These fellows, that 1 named before, are going to present the problem to you - the solutions, with time for questions. I'm sure you - especially the Coverers -- will be listening carefully. I*a also sure that by the end of these presentations all of your questions will be answered. X would now like to introduce Mr. BeCesero from Environmental Research: "Good day, gentlemen. My name is Roy DeGesero from Environmental Research; Your supervision requested that the Environmental'Research Lab survey and evaluate Pipe Coverers* exposures to dusts from the insulating materials commonly used here at the Midland location of Eb%> Most insulating materials found in use here contain either asbestos or fiberglas. These insulation materials provide the sources of ex posure to asbestos or fiberglas. X would like to discuss at this time the results of a survey conducted from,January through April, 1969, ^ concerned with evaluating Pipe Coverers1 current levels of exposures--< to.asbestos and fiberglas from insulating material# coanonly used, o o The health standards for exposure to esbestos or fiberglas have beer formulated by a group called the American Conference of Governmental*? and Industrial Hygenists. This group has accumulated end reviewed cn sound and current data pertinent to the health problems associated with the use of fiberglas and asbestos, and has defined what is though to be safe levels of exposure for the eight-hour day with asbestos or fiowrglas. The American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygenists expresses these asbestos and fiberglas health standards in terms of eight-hour average concentration numbers. These numbers tell how much of a certain dust a man can tolerate with no adverse affect on his health, assuming he's exposed eight hours a day, day in and day out for his entire working career, to the dust. Now, the health standards are average numbers. Thst means that a man can be exposed for a short period of time to concentration levels above the health standards, provided he is exposed for periods of equally long duration the concentrations below the health standard so we do indeed arrive at an average nuriber. These numbers or heslth standards are called threshhold limit values. They are designed to protect essentially all working men who use asbestos or fifcergl*** For asbestos, the present health standard is 5 million particles per cubic foot. This is the concentration number that the health standard is formulated at the eight-hour concentration number. This data was arrived at some years back and the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygenists, after reviewing research literature end field experience t Special Meeting -3- August 19, 1969 of asbescos, has proposed chat che standard be lowered from five to two million particles per cubic foot for cne eight-hour day. This lower number should provide protection for you fellows using asbestoscontaining insulation materials. By 1971, this new standard of two million particles per cubic foot will be in affect. Now, let's look at the standard for fiberglas. The threshhold limit value or health standard for fiberglas says how such fiberglas dusc a man can tolerate with no adverse affect on his health for his entire working career, assuming he is exposed eight hours a day, day in and day out to dust of fiberglas. The American Conference of Governments! ahd Industrial Hygenists, has placed this health standard number at fifteen million particles per cubic foot In the eight hour day. Asbes tos has a much lower number, two million particles per euble foot, than fiberglas does. That's because che two dusts have a much differ: affect on -health. Since the standards- are drawn up for the eight-hour day, we have to know how you pipe coverers spend the eight-hour day to see if Dow compares with che standards. Pipe covering is quite complicated. Often che pipe coverers work all day with one material and will not use this material for days there after. Therefore, to estimate where the average pipe coverer spends his day in terms of say, a year, we talked to you men, had you fill tn out questionnaires and calked to your supervisors. We then decided ^ on this basis where to sample for che dust. We found out what is in^ each material. First we have to know how long you fellows are exposed to dusc and we have to know what the dusts contain, asbestos or fibs^ glas. Finally, we go out into the field and measure how much dust actually present. We determine che concentration of the dust. Now, ^ the old asbescos health standard says thst a man should be exposed on che average to an eight-hour concentration of five million particles per cubic foot. The proposed new stsndsrd says you should be exposed to two million particles per cubic foot; Ve evaluated your exposures to see how they compared with the present standard of five and how they looked according to the future standard of two. This tilde shows what we found. for the eight-hour day, men working Indoors with insulation materials containing asbestos, were exposed bn an average to 4.9 million particle per cubic foot of asbestos-containing dult. This is just under the present standard of five. As you can see, it's in excess of the pro posed standard of two. Men working outdoors received sn eight-hour average exposure of 4.2 million particles per cubic foot. Again, we're under or within the present standard of five million particles per cubic foot, but are in exeess of the proposed standard of two million particles per cubic foot. For fiterglas now, you*ll remember that the standard is fifteen mil lion particles per cubic foot. Fcr a man working indoors, the Special Minutes -4- August 19, 196? This is within the standard. Fellows working outdoors were exposed to an eight-hour average concentration of 0.4 million particles per cubic foot. Again, this is within the standard. Generally speaking, outdoor exposures were lower then indoor exposures because of the air movement outside generally tends to dilute dust better than air move ment indoors. The concentrations were lower outside and the exposure dropped off accordingly.- In summary then, the current level* of exposure to 'fibergias are with the proposed standard. The current levels or exposures to asbestos a within the present health standards for aabestos,'but are in excess 0 the proposed new health standard of 2 million, particles per cubic foo according to chla survey, and a potential threat to your health exists Dow must provide a healthy work environment and management recognizes that it has a moral and legal commitment to you men to implement the best known health standards at soon as possible. The Environmental Research laboratory has therefore suggested three possible ways to yo management of lowering Pipe Coverert* exposure Co asbestos so that these exposures would be within the proposed health, standards by 1971 when these new standards take effect. The proposals are: ' The proposals sre: 1) Uae local on-the-job air movers to pull dusts eway from the pipe coverert. 2). Use approved respiratory'protection whenever pipe coverers perform specific operatioha which cause high exposures. This point will be discussed in greieer detail somewhat later. 3) As much as possible, substitute for the present materials which contain asbestos and are causing this to be in excess of the proposed health standards, other materials which are safer to use char the present insulating materials* I'd like to thank you gentlemen fox your attention and at this time turn the meeting over to Dr. Ducommon of the Medical Department, who will discuss tome of the implications tn this survey. Today Dr. Kramer will be speaking. Dr. Kramer began that the lung ^ responds differently to different kinds of dusts. What you spit ooe-; or see on your handkerchief does no harm. What stays behind in the^ lung may or may not cause harm, depending upon what it is. To undeS stand the discussion regarding asbestos, wa would like you to have 0 some understanding of the basic structure of the lung. o <rv Here is a slice of actual normal ling tisaua. Think of it as being 0 similar to a sponge with many cells, except that in the lung there is an air tube going to each and every one of the eells. These cells are called alveoli and it is here where the gaseous exchange cakes place. The air tubes are known as the air-conduction system of the lung. They branch out as they leave the nose and throat becoming smaller in size and larger in number until they finally reach the small cells at the end. In thlt piece of lung tissue you can see cross cuts through the various sizes of air tubas. Special Meeting -5- Auguft 19, 1969 If you spread out all of the alveoli, which are the equivalent to the cells in the sponge, on a flat surface, they would occupy an area somewhat bigger chan a badmitton court and'slightly smaller than a ^ tennis court. You can see then that the lung surface has a greater c= exposure to Che outside air than does the skin, the akin having an <= exposure area of a few square meters at the most. JE The amount of dust you breathe depends in part on the particle size ^ of the dust. The range of size important here is one-tenth micron diameter to ten microns in diameter. The larger particles tend to be trapped in the upper part of the breathing system, while the smallest particles tend to move in and out of the alveoli without becoming crapped. The particles in between these two extreme sizes may become trapped anywhere from the note and throat to Che alveoli. The rate and depth of breaching also influence dust exposure; the faster and deeper you breathe, the more dust you are likely to take into your lungs. In dealing with dusts, the lung has many protective mechanisms. The cough reflex is one of these and is effective in expelling inhaled dusts which irritate the tubes of Che air conduction system. The nose and throat warm and clean the elr of larger particles before it arrive at the first branching of the tubes of*the air conduction system. The large hairs in the nose ace at a filter in stopping the large dust particles. Zf you breathe through your mouth rather chan through the nose, this particular protective mechanism is bypassed, and therefore mouth breathing should be avoided. The air drawn into the lungs is properly humidified in addition to being warmed to protect the tissue from injury.. Another very Important protective mechanism the lung has is a slimy coating called the mucous blanket which contains many hair-like pro jections called ellls. These eilla constantly sweep upward in unison carrying inhaled dust particles to the nose end throat where the parti cles are swallowed, spit out, or blown out-through the nose into your handkerchief. This self cleansing system works twenty-four hours a day and is very efficient. Now some dusts ere considered nuisanee dusts. This maans chat no mat ter what the quantity of dust you breathe, the lung is capable of clearing itself of the dust. Nuisanee dusts do not esuse disease and they are not retained in the lung in significant quantities. Other dusts are retained in the lungs but eause no significant changes and the lungs continue to function ac they normally would, for example, one of these would be iron dust. On the other hand, there are dusts which are harmful to the lung. You Wave all heard of alllcosls. It is interesting chat we do not know why they do injury to the lung except that they do. Different forms of silica produce different degrees of silicosis and some forms do not produce any disease at all. Special Meeting -6- ''August 19, 1969 With chat as a background, let us now talk'about asbestos. Asbestos is a material which is found In nature and is made up of. a group of u fibrous minerals. Zts chemical composition varies. There are many ~ kinds of asbestos, but et least four are useful in industry. These ^ are Blue African Asbestos and Red African Asbestos mined chiefly in c South Africa, and two kinds of White Asbestos, one of which is mined^ mainly in Europe (Anthropholite). ^ Asbestos has been associated with a lung disease Which we call Asbestosis. Asbestosis was first recognized.as an industrial disease at the turn of the century and is scarring condition of the lungs which is progressive and interferes with the effective exchange of gasses across the pulmonary membrane. The asbestos fibers are stiff and the: seem to mechanically irritate the lungs; those that remain in the lung become coated wich protein and iron salts* Our present industrial hygiene standard of five million particles per eubic foot appears to adequately protect against the development of asbestosis. There have been no cases of asbestosis in our pipe -covtrera; * Our pipe coverers are exposed to varing amounts of asbestos during the course of their work and ae- you know, we have recently undertaken io measure their exposure. As Mr. OeCetero has pointed out to yuu, the exposure levels of 4.9 million particles per eubic fooe indoors and 4.2 million particles per eubie foot outdoors are within the present standard established by the American Conference of Governments Industrial Hygienists and up to this point would have been considered a safe standard. In fact, it is still the standard used by most of industry. However, there are many people who feel this level is too high and will have to be lowered to the proposed new standard of 2 million particles per cubic foot scheduled to take effeet in about two years. There are two other lung diseases we are concerned about that appear to be associated with exposure to lower levels of asbestos than chat which causes classical asbestosis. One is a very rare tumor called a mesothelioma which develops from the cells lining the chest ind abdominal cavities. Some research workers feel this disease is associated only wich exposure to the Blue African Asbestos, but this point Is not clear; the other types may cause it also. The other disease Is lung cancer which you know has been associated with heavy smoking. It has been thought that high exposure to all types of asbestos dusts over long periods of time increased the risk of lung cancer. Recently it has been reported that there is an in creased risk of this disease in workers who smoke and may be exposed to somewhat lower levels of asbestos dust. Smoking should be par ticularly discouraged among asbestos workers. Smoking tends to destroy the hair-like cells in the mucous blanket thus defeating one Special Minutes -7- August 19, 196 Even chough the new standard of 2 million particles per cubic foot has not gone into effect, we feel that we should start now to meet this new standard before it becomes official. This will mean some c inconvenience to those of you who work with asbestos and it will re--" quire the use of proper protection at times, as well as much more c careful handling of the material. It may alto require the use of c substitute materials ocher chan asbestos. c c Fiberglas which you have heard mentioned briefly by Mr. DeCesero is ^ one possible substitute for asbestos. Some people have accused it of presenting a pulmonary hazard. Fiberglas does cause itching of the s and prickling. It can cause some nose and throat irritation, but all *the literature reviewed particularly of the impartial investigators i the field, those of Dr. George Wright and Dr. .Paul Grots indicates th there is absolutely no pulmonary hazard whatever, and Dr. Cross Is presently suggesting that fiberglas be classified as an inert dust, one of the nuisance dusts. 2c is our feeling that this is In the best Interest of the health of the pipe covering group, and that the recommendations made by Mr. DeGesero will have to be acted upon. And now back to Jack. Badley then introduced Warren. Warren began that after all of the explanation and .facts concerning t hazards of asbestos, 1 can imagine a lot of you are wondering "where we go from here?" For years and years, asbestos and insulation value have been almost synonymous. The higher the asbestos content, the ea: it was to sell. Most of us were aware of the health problem, covering asbestos, but it seemed rather Insignificant as it didn't teem to be affecting us much. Then there were a couple articles in our local pai concerning the affects of asbestos on the respiratory system. These were brought to my attention and 1 in turn brought it to the attentio: of the Medical Department and Environmental Research. Wa decided thi each of the coverers should have a cheat x*ray and at the same time vc should have an environmental research study to find out exactly what our exposure is. We were very pleased to find that none of our coverers had asbestosis. But when the environmental reaeareh findings were told to us we recog nized that we do have the potential for lung diseaaea. The Doctor anc Roy DeGesro have explained the causes of the problem and the affect or the body. I'm here to tell you what wt expect to do to eliminate the problem. If you will remember Roy gave us three (3) things he thought we could do that would lower the parts per million of asbestos dust to an acceptable level.1 1. local ventilation. You and I know this is not an acceptable method as it would be almost impossible to do this*. Special Minutes 6 August 19, 1969 2. Use Bureau of Hines approved respiratory protection. I have two with me today and these are both available at the Safety Depart ment. One is the number 66 respirator. The other one is made by the American Optical and it also is available at the Safety Department. This is an acceptable method in most eases if we follow the chart 1 w will now show on the screen. If you will notice, the removing of -- Aircell, Kaylo, High Temp, and Hag Oxide have all been checked. ~ All of you men who are in the trade I'm sure have seen the reason c for this. Also checked is the applying of Kaylo.and Aircell. It e was found the applying of either of these insulations eaused the parts per million of dust in the breathing area to go to 5.7 which 7* is above the limit. This was almost 351 of your work day. The mixin) of abestos shorts or plus one is also checked for apparent reasons. You will notice that fiberglas is not checked in any category. The reason for this has been pretty well covered by Roy and 2>r. Ducosnon. I will only say that I've heard many controversial words said about fiberglas, but never had I heard or read anything by a reliable sourci chat said it was detrimental to your health. In fact, I have with me a pamphlet put out by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America from which 1 would like to read you a few excerpts. First of all, the 1HF is a non-profit research association for the advancement of healthful working conditions and human relations in industry and serves che unique function of a focal point for exchange of informacic on health problems allegedly arising from industries1 operations, pro ducts and wastes. One of the excerpts says this: "Results of medica. research, including examinations of hundreds of persons who have work* in fiberglas plants as long as 25 to 30 years gives evidence that fib* glas is inert and not Injurious to individuals overall health." Anoth< paragraph says, "Based on existing medical evidence dating back to 19* through to che present, airborne fibrous glass is not a hazard to gem health. Hundreds of fiberglas workers have been exposed to higher th. average concentrations of airborne glass particles virtually every wo: ing day for as long as 25 to 30 years without exhibiting any pattern c lung disease Chat can be attributed to exposure to fiberglas." I would say thae under some circumstances that it is somewhat uncom fortable. According to most people who have studied its use, a perso: using fiberglas insulation should wear loose fitting clothing, no tigbelts or cuffs and they should keep clean..-Talking about cleanliness brings up another point chat bears -mentioning and chat is that shower time for men using fiberglas is not. and l repeat, not automatic or mandatory for health reasons. A supervisor will grant shower time if he feels the conditions warrant It. 3. Replace our present asbestos-containing insulation with materials that don't cause a health problem. Ve have all of our resources on the lookout for replacements now. ' Roy Anderson will cover this subject further, later on. Special Meeting -9- August 19, 1969 These were Roy's recommendations and starting August the llth here is what we intend to do: a) Substitute as* much as possible with non-asbestos materials, fiberglas,foam glass, ceramic foam, polyurethane, etc. v b) When using insulation containing asbestos, use a bureau of - mines approved respirator as per the ehart. We will pass out c a wallet size copy of the ehart as you leave. c c) Keep on the look-out for more non-asbestos type insulation. ~ c If we do these three things there is no doubt in joy mind that we will** be below the 2 M.P.P.C.F, limit that will go into affect soon. * Gentlemen, we have a problem; it isn't going away by itself. Ue feel we recognize the problem and we have the solution. You have heard the plans. We expeet and insist that we get your full cooperation to implement these plans. I'm sure some of you men are sitting there thinking about possible additional costs, and of the possible corrosic in some instances where a perfect weather barrier is not achieved. U< know we have had some of these problems in the past; we recognize we t have some in the future. By working together we know that all the p: lems can be worked out. Our main objective today is to make the job safe for you men. The economics are important, but not of prime impo at this particular time. s 7"V Thank you for your attention, now here is Roy Anderson to talk about sible substitutes. Remember August llth is the day that we must wear respiratory protection when working with asbestos type insulation. T card is your guide. Thanks again. Here's Roy, Anderson said that he would like to use the transparency showing the "Minimal Respiratory Protection Requirements" to show what we can use .substitutes for some of our present insulating materials. I think yc all know chat there is a very good replacement for Aircell, and that Fiberglas. Aircell.is 60Z asbestos, Fiberglas is 0. Fiberglas is me than twice as effective as Aircel (k factor .29-.61) as an insulating material. Actually, Aircell should never be used on any job except i personnel protection. It was never designed for temperatures over 2C and we all know that it is cosnonly used on lines traced with 1500 st (370)F). In the past, Fiberglas has been condemned because it was supposed to caused corrosion'. It is very true that fiberglas will hold water tt it has been exposed to, whereas Aircell will simply fall off; hoveve: fiberglas, kept dry, is positively not corrosive.' This is especially now chat new inhibitors have been added to the resin that bonds the : glas together. I have been told many times that because fiberglas h< be wired on, it is more expensive to apply, At this point, we are n< concerned with cost -- we are concerned with doing`a better job whil< the same time preserving your health. It is an interesting fact tha; rh*Mal Company, the Midland Division is the only one  ST0000375 Special Minutes -10- ` -August '19, 1969 At the present time calcium-silicate, with an asbestos content of shot is still the standard insulating material for temperatures up to 100C We are evaluating a material called Careytemp *1500. It is an expand* silicone (perlite) type with about 6% asbestos the same as .calciuo*si Prcliminary tests have shown that It la only about one-half as dusty Kaylo. It does not absorb water and the Philllp-Carey Company is doi sui:.c- work on eliminating all of ehe asbestos. This material has a lc of potential. Hi-Temp is a diatomaceoua earth-type of insulation vh contains about 15% asbestos. There is no non-asbestos substitute for this material on very high temperature applications; however, its use is rather limited and it should not present a real problem. Mai; Oxide is another fairly high asbestos-containing insulation which at present. Is not being used to any great extent here in ehe plant. Mineral wool insulating cement cocnonly known as Webber's Cement con tains about 10% asbestos and is quite dusty when being mixed with vat It has been suggested that the dry material be made up in batches lar enough to last for a week or two. This would eliminate the need for respirator each time the material Is used* The use of Armentite is s enough so chat making up large batches would not be warranted except special cases. Cvery major manufacturer of insulation has been contacted with regard now products available, etc. This practice will be continued and any lime we can find a new product that will be more effective or easier work with, it will be brought, into Che plant for your use. Hadley said, as you can see in the past half-hour presentation, the problems, the solutions affect all of ua, Z want to reiterate the lack chat management has a moral and legal obligation to protect the health. To continue our efforts to give you a safe place to w rk, we are obviously going to eliminate any insulating materials th u.-iin asbestos. Starting August 11, In specific areas, until adequ cutions are acquired, approved respiratory equipment must be wo la .i very brief sumary, 1 would like to reiterate these facts: We h a known health problem. The solutions may not be popular. We have a choice between protecting employee health or occasional discomfort, will go on record that it's no choice' for me to make. I make the one in protecting Che employees' health. We are going to protect the em ployees' health and I would like to have any of your questions, and fcol free if you would like to ask any one of the panel. Edgecombe said he guessed he had one right off the bat. Z'd like to have you show --(machine malfunction--). DeCesero explained that he had brought the sampling equipment or device with him today. We didn' have this with the coverers and 1 regret It. What we have essential! is abubbler which is designed to pick up primarily particles in the range of . 1 to 10 microns. Zn this portion you might be eble to see some fluid. This is very clean distilled veter. We piece this on th Special Meeting STGC00375 -11- August 19, 1969 pump, pass * known volume of air through it and the effect is the same as the* household vacuum sweeper. We trap duat which is in the roan's breathing zone. We located this pump near the area around his nose and mouth that he breathes air from. Then ve take this dust and put i under a microscope and count the number of particles, the number of particles of dust in the sample. This is. a magnification 138 times just about what we see in the microscope (referring to a transparency) of the fluid in the scrubber. I'd like to call your attention to sever highlights on this magnification. It's pretty well in focus. You see a number of these black lines. They could be fibers. -You see some cl here which are dirt, possible. There la a white area up here which is thought to be of a different nature which gives the appearance of havl an overexposed area of the film. I'd like you fellows to reference th rest of the slides to this general area. This is the area that we'd like to show you in enlargements. The next shot again of this area th 1 was referring to is a 400 magnification. Now suddenly ve see many m fibers and particles visable here than ve saw on the last or 100 magni ficacion slide. This is chat white area that ve were referring to. S of these particles could indeed be asbestos fibers.' If you'll remembe this is a sample of Kaylo. In blowing this up 1,000 times, again refe ring to that same white area, you see these clumps of dirt-- these ere very small now-- and what appears here in my mind to be a classical picture of an asbestos fiber. Again you can see these ocher strands which are visable on the last series of slides. So this is basically the nature of the beast 1 guess. Warren asked DeGesero what they had counted there. DeGesero explained that what they do, we count up all Che particles ve can see here visi Warren interjected that they didn't know whether they were asbestos or not. DeGesero explained that the standard had been specifically formu laced in such a manner that you count the total dust in the sample. 1: is true that sometimes you'll be counting particles which are these particles appear to be-- are not fibrous or rather perhaps nuisance di: And this has been done to provide a margin of safety in the standard. Because a lot of these fibers there may or may not be visable under a microscope. When the original standards were formulated, the people v: went out and did this work, using the same techniques that we have cop from them, counted total dust in Che sample and then reviewed the heal: records and the health performance of people exposed to these types of dusts at various levels of exposure. From thia they then judged that five million particles per cubic foot of total dust count in an atmospi chat contains asbestos at chat time was believed to be a safe level fo: eight-hour exposure. Today it is coenonly thought that this five numbt is too high. So now we refer to two million partielea per cubic foot. Engibous reasoned that the test would tend to give you a conservative answer. On the ocher hand, 1 can't believe you draw up all the dust particles in that one bubbler. DeGesero explained that what it does is give a statistical cross section or a statistical sample. Engibous ask . STQ000377 Special Meeting . -12- August 19, 1969 if the five million particles per cubic foot was obtained with the sa: kind of bubbler. DeGesero said that when he was Calking about the fiand two, he was talking about health standards. What ve do with this gadget is to cake it out in the field and sample the dusts. We count' the dusts here--- Engibous interjected that he knew what they did. UeGesero .continued that they then compare. It's all the same, the same procedure. Whenever we sample any kind of dust, asbestos or fib< glas, regardless of the concentration in the scrubber, it's all the s; equipment, all analyzed the same way. And analyzed 1 might mention it the standard technique for analyzing dusta. Engibous said he didn't think he was making himself clear. When the people sent five million particles per cubic foot, they got that particle eount with the same kind of bubbler? DeGesero replied, precisely. Engibous reasoned tha: if they only caught half the particles, DeGesero only caught half the particles. DeGesero explained chat ehe point was Chat it's a referenc point to go from. So we have to be eareful to follow.and duplicate their techniques as much as possible. Brzezinski asked how many cubic feet of air ve normally breathe, say per hour per day. Does anyone happen Co know? Dr. Kramer answered that he thought it was something like SOOcc, depending on how deep yox breathing. If you're running or something,'it'll b*~tmich deeper. If you're resting, it'll be much more shallow.. Brzezinski asked how thev arrived at the fact that there's a health problem -with asbestos if the history of the x-rays of all the pipe coverers at Dow show there is nc problem. Dr. Kramer said, let's go back to the beginning of this. I became concerned with this first when Bob ------ became a patient of mine. He was a pipe coverer. It was suspected that he might have asbestosis. At that time I looked for data to indicate how much asbes los he had been exposed to and found that ve did not have sufficient dec3 available and had to base our data on tome studies done at Dow Corning to estimate vhat he had been exposed to. At this time I askec Mr. Hoyle to see if he would get into the business of checking on what the exposure of our people was. About this same time, I started gecti things frooi Larry Warren and other people regarding the hazards of asbestos. These appeared in the newspapers and I got into the whole topic of just how hazardous is asbestos. I have used many sources in concluding chat It is hazardous at thase levels. Now our group repre sents a fairly small group and as such ve cannot work with them static tically. Remember, we're not here producing a classical disease, asbestosls. We talked about that as one of the diseases that is prodi Another disease, very rare,- ArnesotheHome, which might never occur in our people. It's very rare even in asbestos workers. The third diseas is cancer of the lung. How cancer of the lung Is caused by many different things. It has bee associated with smoking. Nobody really knows all of the causes of cancer of the lung. But there Is data In larger groups than ours uher they have enough people which indicates that when you study a large gr . J I y w w w v / iJ Special Minutes -13- August 19, 1969 of these people, that you- do find a much higher incidence of cancer of the lung than the people that have been exposed Co asbestos at these 1 1 calked to Dr. Silikoff on the phone and Ralph Sherwood has a letter him regarding fiberglas. But I discussed asbestos which him also and asked him what he felt the safe level for asbestos exposure was. He takes the extreme view that the level should be tocae twenty-five times lower than it presently is. In ocher words, he would lower it much lower than it has been lowered. I have a statement made before the Congress of the United States by Dr. Silikoff in which he presented to the Congress all the statistics on which be makes his conclusions chat asbestos is a hazard. I have daca that indicates the levels that have bern considered to be safe are actually not safe. Now, another thing is, how about our group. I have reviewed the healt of our group. I cannot prove that their health is worse insofar as th lungs are .concerned, but there is sufficient evidence there chat sugge to me that they do look worse than the regular .plant population. We'r nut a statistically big enough group Chat I can prove ay point. The B .... case, Bob-- I have his permission to talk about this. I asked fur it before I even mentioned his name in any of these meetings. He developed some thiekening of the covering of the lung. This is seen i people who work with asbestos. And as a result he was studied in Ann Arbor. They came up with some conclusions Chat were rather indefinite And I personally have recommended that ve should aeeept this case as being an occupational disease to the insurance carrier. They however claim that because of the nature of the report from Ann Arbor, that they cannot voluntarily accept the cate. Scbroeder remarked chat that case wasn't conclusive as of right now. It's still in progress. Dr. Kramer agreed. I have personally asked them not to put me on the scan to testify against Bob ------ because I feel in ay own mind that the Bob ...... case does have aome relationship to his exposures. Scbroeder said, if you found out that five million parts is detriments to health, why do you wait to put these into effect? I mean, it seems *ort of silly that if X know this is true, that Che five is detriments why should I wait until 1971 if we're so worried about people's health Dr. Kramer replied that there were two answers to this. One is that t Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists sets the standard Whenever they change a standard they give a period of time during whic people who have data available which might contradict the standard may present evidence to the contrary. In other words, this gives people v may think that five is a good figure or that ten is a good figure, or should be one or it should be less, time to get in their data and do wh ever studies are necessary so that when you finally finalize on it, ch a proposed standard to an actual standard, there has been as much oppo tunicy given as possible for this to be done. Schroeder reasoned cha it wouldn't necessarily cake affect in 1971. There could be enough opposition*- Dr. Kramer stated that this was possible. We think the data that Dr. Silikoff has is so strong that this will turn out that v t ;$10000379 Special Meeting -14- August 19, 1969 An interesting thing happened in the meantime. We were talking about a proposed standard here of the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, which has been a voluntary standard, which industries have -voluntarily used to protect the health of the worker has not been a legal requirement that they be protected. Mow big industries do follow these standards, but many Industries do not fol low these standards. They don't pay any attention necessarily to the: figures. Since this all began, the Walsh-Healey regulations have com< into affect and this is aparc.of the Walsh-Healey Act. There are some regulations issued under that act which in effect state these things apply in every plant, factory, building or surroundings, or working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of employees engaged in the performance of said contracts. It applies to people involved in contracts entered into b} any plant with the United States Government. It's unclear just how wide the application is. Schroeder asked If this was in effect now. Ur. Kramer agreed. DeGesero agreed. Or. Kramer continued that the legal people did not know whether-- We: we asked them specifically whether our pipe coverers would be under the Walsh-Healey Act. And they tell us that they think they would be but that this would not be known until a few cases have come up in court to cry the regulation, to sae if they stick. Schroeder asked when this took effect. What's the date on this? DeGesero replied, January 1, 1969, X believe. Schroeder aske4 if this had been propose* or if it had actually been put into effeet. Hat it been passed? DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer explained that it had been passed as far as he knew. Now the Walsh-Healey Act will stake it a requirement in other words under circumstances to follow these standards. And they have in here not to set the standard of five, but they have sec the standard of two as the legal standard. In other words, they're noc waiting until 1971. They've got it into the law now. Schroeder askec Ur. Kramer by what reason he would say that Dow people wouldn't come under Che Walsh-Healey Act as pipe coverers. What stretch of the imagination-- Neering explained that they meant are they all working on jobs with Government eontraets involved. Thet's the question. We have a Government contract for certain products maybe, certain items. BuC not all of the fellows work in that area. Schroeder added ehac they were all subject to that area. Neering reiterated that whac he had explained was the question. Sure, they're ell subjeccto assign ment to working in that area. X guess I'd agree to Chat. But vheche or not that means we're under the Walsh-Healey Act or not, our Legal Department told you that they thought they were'. But that some cases might have to be tried in court. Dr. Kramer explained that DeGesero had the opinion from the Legal Department. Neering thought maybe the had better read the opinion. That question hasn't come up before in ocher areas. t : $10000380 Special Minutes -15- August 19, 1969 Dr. Kramer explained that if they couldn't find it he could remember that the essence of it was that they teat cases to determine who was going to be covered where. This is true of all of industry, all across the country right now. Everybody is crying to figure out whether it applies or not. Sehroeder reasoned Chat if Dow people were under a contract, all the people were subject to most any and every place in the plant. I guess if we do have some government contracts, 1 don't see how thcrc'd be doubt in anybody's mind as to whetherwe come under the Walsh Hvaley Act. 1 guess this sort of surprises me. Warren pointed out that the Legal Department was agreeing with.Sehroeder. Neerlng notied that they didn't give the conform of being able to say, "Yes, you are." Halcomb asked if they were saying then that it just covered part of them Nearing answered that he wasn't saying that. I'm only quoting what the Legal Department has to say. Englbous reasoned that until there are some test cases, they won't take a black and white position on anything. 1 think the answer that probably all of our workers are covered is as good as you could get. Neering added that there was no solution, only their opinion. Badley pointed out that It didn't mean or imply that the Company wasn't concerned whether they fell under the Walsh-Bealey Act or not; but I think we're concerned with the fact that we have some fairly supportive evidence. We should be getting our asbestos exposure down to the reconmended exposure. Sehroeder interjected that this one doctor thinks it should be lower chan that. So you get it down to two. If we have a guy with asbestosis, I want to know whether that guy comes under that v&ish-Healey Act or not. So you can get some guy in here chit does accidently get silicosis. I guess we should know whether we're going to be under Che Act or not. 1 mean that's part of it too. Dr. Kramer com mented chat he would, regardless of the level of exposure. If the Compensation Conmlssioner decided that as a result of the exposure they would be protected by the compensation law, regardless of what level of exposure it was. Reid stated that they could calk about what Che moral and legal obligati: was under che Walsh-Healey Act. Of course you've got your State Comp. Laws. For years they've been drametieally wishy-washy on airborne diseas ' Because a guy could work down here and go home and work on his farm and breath dust and wind up with silicosis. But who is to say whether it's Dow Chemical's air or air outside the plant. They never took much of a stand on it. Of course the Comp laws are getting stiffer now. But what's their interpretation of something like this now? Are they finally starting to firm up a stand on whether they'll pay compensation for a man? Sehroeder answered no. They won't pay anything. Neering remarked that that wasn't true. Reid explained that he was trying to feel the doctor out on that one. Sehroeder noted that Dr. Kramer had even . ST0C00.381 SpL-cial Mi-fting -16- August 19,. 1969 ri'Ctiiuniumltrd' it and they wouldn't pay It. Dr. Kramer reminded that it was because of Ann Arbor. 1 was very dissatisfied with Ann Arbor* 1 dldn*t like the way they wrote their letter. I talked to one of the doctors down there and he feels the same way I do. But the lette they wrote to us which is being used as the basis for this thing, jus doesn't give the insurance company enough support. I have gotten the to agree at least not to make a big issue over the thing, but merely present the data to the Commissioner and let him make up his mind. Schrweder added that this was a big thing and there was no doubt abou it. They're afraid to be put on the line. Remember, people could be exposed nation-wide and not just Dow Chemical. It could snow-ball ioo. 1 imagine they'll play it eool. Edgecombe stated that he had another question.. On this parts per million, would you put chat char up there like you did over there for showing? The difference of the asbestos and fiberglas, the percentage like you did over there? DeCesero explained that this was a summary table that was in the orig report. On this cable, what we've done was the essential portion of our function as Industrial Hygienists is to find out as to what a man does with his day, what materials he works with. Ve go through and find out which of these materials contain asbestos or tome other ehem agent or minerals in this ease whieh could cause a stress on the work In other words, a potential threat to his health. Ve find out how mu Lime on the average he spends working with these materials and then take this little serubber that I showed you gentlemen out in the fiel and ascertain what the aetual concentrations by operation here are. We also like to express a range of concentration. Vhat we do is the following: In order to estimate a man's eight-hour average exposure, vi* have to look at Che contribution contributed to this exposure by ouch of the materials in each of the operations which contains asbest iSet* page 16A for chart) in this case. Air Cell, Kaylo, and Mag Oxide, are all asbestos concai Wc lake the amount of time that a man spends working with the materia ami multiply It by the amount of material there to gee the fractional or partial contribution to the total exposure. You'll notice we've done this for all of the materials which contain (and I might mention ihat these are the most cosnonly used materials in the Midland locati asbestos. Ve wind up with a series of columns of fractions which are then totaled. It Is then this timber that we compare with the health standard. Hera la the exposure for the fellows working indoors with asbestos. It's 4.9 million particles per cubic foot. This number then as I say is compared with the health standard to see how the health of the man compares with what we know is the best information available on Che effects of eight-hour exposure to these particles t special Meeting . $10000382, -ISA- .August 19, 1969 Table 1. TIME-WEIGHTED EXPOSURES OF- PIPE. CCVERERS TO DUSTS FROM ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS * - Concentrations Tiae-veight Ooc-rations Materials * V (appcf) I Day Mean Ranee Factor: Asbestos Remove Air cell Kaylo Mag oxide Fiberglas Mix No. 1 Plus Armentite Superpower Cut Air cell Kaylo Fiberglas Others Apply Air cell Kaylo Fiberglas Others No. 1 Plus Armentite/ Superpower Clean up removed covers Stocking; get new covers Move to job, set up Breaks, lavatory 1.2 1.6 0.2 2.0 1.6 0.1 0.8 5.9 8.8 2.2 0.6 15.8 19.9 4.5 2.6 4.8 2.4 3.0 2.0 5.0 15.0 11.4 11.2 2.8 13.7 0.3-24.9 3.7-20.5 1.8-4.6 1.2-33.7 13.4 2.2-30.5 9.6 2.7*13.5 , 34.9 19.6-6.14 3.0 11.7 1.7 0.6-6.2 4.9-23.1 0.8-2.6 ^:7 5.7 2.4 9.6 2,\1 8.5 1.0 2.0 ' V4 0.2-16.4 0.4-22.3 1.2-3.8 1.1-39.5 d.9-3.9 2.4-24.6 0.1-2.3 1.4-2.9 0.1-3.9 0.137 0.179 0.006 -- 0.219 0.010 * 0.177 1.030 ... 0.901 1.123 -- 0.461 0.050 0.255 0.020 0.100 0.200 Time-weighted exposure to asbestos containing dusts (indoor) la appcf 4.9 Special Meeting .ST0000383 -17- August 19, 1969 of dust. There are quite a bit of numbers on It but to us It's quite meaningful and 1*11 be glad to answer any questions. Edgecombe asked PeGesero if he could put on the blackboard on the charts applying to each operation of the cutting and so forth. Schroeder remarked chat it was quite high then in certain parts. DeCesero agreed. If we were to compare it on a typical operation which could cause a high degree of exposure, we could look at removing, cutting and applying. Mow the health standard, as I told you on the threshhold, the present is five for the eight-hour day. Nov these numbers are not representative of an eight-hour day, but when totaled up, as Z explained on Che viewgraph, they do. (At this point, the reporter's machine malfunction and conversation by DeGesero was lost. Coming back in on Degesero--) -- this is the present and I'd like to put in the proposed standard of two. And this is asbestos. Let's look at Air Cell and Kaylo. Removing'Air Cell Indoors is 11.4. Removing Kaylo indoors is 11.2. Cutting Air Cell indoors is 3.0. Cutting Kaylo indoors is 11.7. Applying Air Cell indoors Is 5.7 and applying Kaylo Indoors is 5.7. So you see that we have high levels of dust during operations here such as removing and applying. If you'll notice here in the cutting, during the cutting operation, Kaylo is about four times dustier. There's four times a greater concentration during the cutting of Kaylo on the average than there is for Air Cell. If you'll notice on these cards on the respirator chart that we were-looking at before, in attempting to track down- the areas where e man does receive the major exposure, we've gone through and considered these different facts from the survey. There's no X there for cutting Air Cell because on cutting Air Cell, when it's cut, it does not produce the amount of dust that the Kaylo does. On other operations, they're wry comparable. So we applied this protection. I might mention that this chart and the card have been labeled appropriately, "Minimum Respiratory Protection Requirement." And it's done on this basis. We search through this table and find the areas where the biggest contribution to the exposure coses and it's at these points that we selectively apply thlr respiratory protection, so that we don't drive a tack with a sledge banner so to say, but try to put the protection where it's going to do the most good for the least amount of time. PJagens said that he had a questions on that. One of your recontnendati is to use respirators where you have an X under those conditions, or . use fiberglas. DcGcsero explained that these findings were for.the average pipe covere The average pipe coverer very seldom uses Therapbestos and very seldom uses High Temp or Mag Oxide. Now when a fellow os the other hand is using these materials, these totalled exotic materials rather exclusiv as being opposed to let's say up to eight hours a day, you could then go through the data that we obtained and look at his exposures to see ST0C00384 Special Meeting -18- ' " August 19, 1969 if they would be over the proposed or present health standards. 1 didn't do this with High Temp or Mag Oxide because these materials are very difficult to find in common use out in the field. And let's just assume that a man worked his entire day with Kaylo and had no exposure to Air Cell or any of these other materials listed here, including even the cements. Now this is an eight-hour exposure. He'd be exposed to about 5.1 million particles per cubic foot. Remember the standard is five and the proposed is two. Okay, he's in trouble here. If he was using nothing but .Air Cell all day long, around 3.5. He's within the present standard but in excess of the proposed standard. And this experimental material we're calking About, Careytemp, this does at the present contain about 6% asbestos. In ocher'words it has about the same asbestos content as Kaylo, but because of the peculiar properties to it, it's not quite as dusty as the Kaylo, in an eight-hour day that exposure would be 3.2. - Now, let's take a look at all this data and then go back and put in flberg Plagens asked, how about Theraobestos. Put .it on your list now. DeCesero explained that as he had said, he hadn't done that. Buc I can possibly obtain some sort of an eyeball estimate for it. (At chi point, due to a further malfunction of the reporter's equipment, some conversation was lost) Let me explain it this way. Vhen we drew up these cards, we realized that we were frying to reach the greatest number of men possible. At meetings where Che issue was brought up, wc said chat for Instance if the man Is using High Temp all day long If a man is using Mag Oxide all day long, which is improbable, or Thermobestos, Chat he should consider (in light of such findings as these) wearing that respirator all the time. Or else if he's working all day long in and day out with the material as is the case with some of these materials here, that for us to go through and put an X down every time a man encounters the atterlal, we eould potentially be putting a man in a respirator for three-quarters of the day. This is a good solution to the problem that we now face. I chink manageme-. has a better solution and that is to replace the source of the troubl Plagens noted that the chert said thae if you're removing Kaylo you should wear a respirator 1001 of the time. Suppose he was removing Kaylo for four hours. Then, for the last five minutes he removed Thermobestos. Are you saying it's all right to take off the respirat to remove the Thermobestos for Che five minutes? (Due to malfunction of equipment, conversation was lost at this point) --in terms of minimum respiratory protection. Minimum now. If it's dusty to them, they put the respirators on. Thermosbestos does contain asbestos. And as I mentioned before, for the sake of providing as broad a scope as possible on these cards, we did not go through and X these cards because it would have no meaning to a man. 1 Special Meeting ST00Q0385 / 19- August 19, 1969 i Now it's interesting to note chat a pipe coverer working out in the field, and pipe coverets vhohave used asbestos, have eome to me and said that they could cell me just by looking at the stuff that this is much dustier than either Che Kayio or Air Cell. What they are seeing ! is dusts which are vlsable to the eye. Fiberglas is so constructed by the nature of the material that it does not fracture easily, le comes off rather in large chunks. This is what a man complains about 1 when he gets some of this on hia. There are these large chunks that are beyond or greater chan the particle flee which a man can normally respire into the lungs. That particle size la 0.1 to 10 microns. I This is essentially what this serubber or this little vacuus sweeper that we have craps. Stuff bigger than this will be stopped according to the doctors in ehe nose and in the throat to be spit out, etc. This suggests chat fiberglas in this particular application is pretty dusty. In cutting and applying chough, it falri much better than the asbestos containing materials. Now if we were to go over to this same eight hours of exposure, given the levels that we found during this report, an elghe hour exposure to fiberglas, a man would be exposed to 2.0 million particles per cuble foot. Even given the fact that during one specific operation he's exposed Co relatively dusty concen trations. Z might remind you that if a man did nothing but remove fiberglas all day long, according to the numbers that we found in the survey, cm the average, he would still be within the acceptable standards for fiberglas. Now, as Dr. Kramer mentioned, there has been considerable work done on fiberglas and the affects of exposure to fiberglas. Right now the grape vine has It chat this TLV of fifteen is going to be dropped and raised to fifty million particles per cubic fcoi. In this room it looks pretty clean right now. You'd probably have something like 0.5 million particles per cubic foot. So if you can imagine a dust situation 100 times dustier chan this room, it's a real dust storm. But even at these concentration levels, there is still no hazard to health according tothe recent research done by such people as Dr. Paul Close. He did one very interesting experiment in which he took some rats and put them into concentrations of 100,000 l and they survived with no effects of health. jgk Engibous asked, 100,00 what? DeGesero replied, no chronic affects. Or It's just about like dropping them Into a bucket of the stuff. Engibous reiterated, 100,000 what? DeGesero replied, million particles per cubic foot. The same units. What they're essentially saying is that this scuff Is inerp. So if this new number,.this fifty, becomes the new T1.V and by the same process this five is going down to two, then that thirteen becomes insignificant as far as the hazard or that would cause chronic lung problems. The other mashers assume a much greater significance because they are numbers of materials which contain asbestc This again reflects this value of Che American Congress of Governmental t * JIUUUUJ-UO Special Meeting v -20- ` " ' August 19 f 1969 ** and Industrial Hygienists. They're continually reviewing'and revisln( their standards like this. And every year*they put out a booklet vitk these changes in then and we expect momentarily a shipment of booklets Nobody is going to be particularly `surprised to see this fifty number in there for fiberglas. (At this point Che-equipment malfunctioned again and conversation was lost)' Dr* Kramer advised Chet elnce cotnple their final presentation to the pipe coverers, they had reconsidered their position on the wearing of Che reepiracor when removing fibergla as follows: Ic it reconsnended that whan removing fiberglas insulation chat may be contaminated with toxic chemicals, that Che pipe coverers are to wear respirators in addition to any other .protective devices that may be deemed necessary. Xcft not beeauae of any pulmonary haaar from exposure to fiberglas but because of possible injury due to the contaminating eheaical that may be present. Xt occurred to us that some of that fiberglas might become contaminated with materials themse far more toxic Chan fiberglas. Xf this is suspected, they should proc themselves. Edgecombe said that he had another question. It's going to be a repea but I've heard it about Che percentage of people that'll lose a class!; cation on account of the product that they're using, fiberglas. Dr. K: pointed out that these were estimates. aX haven't been able to get rea: good figures that X can use. They vary between five and ten percent of the people who will not adapt to fiberglas. At first when they vorl with fiberglas they itch. After a while it's vary ouch like the sun. When you first go out you burn. The skin thickens up enough so that the fiberglas becomes less irritaelng and thera art people who adapt to ic and have no trouble getting into fiberglas after that. The quest is, how many people do not adapt to fiberglas. X've found estimates oi five percent and I've found estimates of ten percent. X don't know if we'll have one man, ten men or twenty men that'll be unable to adapt to the fiberglas as far as skin Irritation goat. We did have a fair question relative to that. That is that the Medical Department's attitude would be that we would not ordinarily take a man off his job unless he complained of the itching and wanted to be off the job becaus of it, or if unless we first convinced him that it was to bis benefit to be taken off the job. But there Is a possibility that some men-- we may have to recommend that they do not work with fiberglas. Halcomb asked Dr* Kramer if he was saying five or ten percent of the crew can't work with fiberglas. Dr. Kramer explainad that this was a figure. We don't have exactly. X've never been able to pick up a real good figure from anybody on how many people do and don't. I've had estimates given to me by people working with fiberglas materials, that five to ten percent. X don't know exactly what the figures are. S T 0 D 0 0,3 8 7 Special Meeting *21- August 19, 1969 Halcomb said that he thought that was what Edgecombe's question was to the doctor-, that ten percent lose their job. Warren explained that he had been, talking to a Mr. Graham who has an insulating company over in Bay City. He has twenty three guys over there. They use fiberglas full time. They have no trouble at all. Meeting asked how many Dow had. Warren replied thae they had eightyone and maybe a few more one way..or the other. Edgecombe comented that he had heard ninety. Warren explained thae they had had 41 for a long time. Uc almost doubled it. If fiberglas completely took the plaee of Air Cell, about 40Z or 45Z of the total would be of this nature. It'll only go up to 400*. It can't be used on^-let's aay it isn't being use on 150 pound ateaa as such, on the line itself. It is put over tracin As far as putting it on a two inch, 150 pound steam line, you'd use Kaylo or Careytemp. We're not in the business of trying to put Air Cell out of stock. -We're in the business of trying to put asbestos containing material out of our stock. It seems like what is happening all the time is the guys are saying you're trying to get rid of Air Cell. This isn't the case. We're trying to get rid of asbestos conta insulation material. Plagens asked Warren if he was saying that he was expecting perhaps 50X of the insulation would be fiberglas. Uarre agreed. Plagens added that the rest would still be Careytemp** Uarre-. explained chat it would be Kaylo, Careytemp-- I'm jure that in the pa we've always been able to work things out. I'm sure in this psrticula case it can be worked out, assuming that 99X of them or 501 don't come along and say that they can't work with It. 5X Is limited. Schroeder reasoned that there really wasn't any fear of anybody losing their job if they swlteh to fiberglas. Warren replied, if this 5% figure is true, no. If it comes out that way. Brzezinski said that he guessed that he had been hearing that fiberglas was nothing but a discomfort problem. Supposing some guy in the middle of Che afternoon is all sweated up and he talked to his supervisor and says he icehes and wants to go and cake a shower. What would the response be in a case like this? Warren answered that he kn< if he saw a guy that was removing covering (and I've teen this happen before) , removing covering that's up over a guy's head and he's in chi: for two or three hours, he deserves a shower. I'm sure that most forer that are aware of this are going to give It to him. Todd questlones whether over a period of time a man would build up a resistance to asbestos so that he could cake more than If he had no resistance. Dr. Kramer answered no* Schroeder reasoned that it was the ocher way around. The longer he works with It, the better chance he'd have of developing a disease. Martini asked what industry in general was doing about this problem. Are we leading the pack or are we falling behind the rest of industry. Dr* Kramer answered that he couldn't give them i real hard feeling for it right nw. 1 do know from what I've heard ST 0 0 0 0 3 88 Special Meeting -22-. August 19, 1969 V from these fellows that we're the only one in Michigan using Air Cell, Warren agreed. Edgecombe added, and three in the United States. Warren explained that there were only three companies in the United States that even make Air Cell. And we're the only industrial plant in the State of Michigan that use it. Nearing related that he had been at a meeting with about twenty chemiea companies. This subject came up and they're all struggling with the problem as wc are. So we may be somewhat of a leader now, X believe. This was my impression, (machine malfunction and some conversation was lost) Prior questioned whether there was any problem with the clothing you wear working with flberglas. Will the fibers become embedded in your clothing and will you not be able to get them out? Warren replied that supervision recognised this problem. It's a proble: we've had for many years. What we will be doing,, undoubtedly, each field service unit will have to have a supply of coveralls. They wear light-loose coveralls. We'll have them available. If a pipe eoverer needs a replacement, we'll have them available. That's about the way it'll happen. Edgecombe connented that he hoped that It worked better than it had in the past, (machine malfunction and some conversation was lost) Warren remarked that it was surprising bow many coverers are already wearing their masks. This is quite gratifying-really. And mos' uf them do have the masks around their necks right now. As of the seco: we'd like to follow through on this whole program. Martini added that Lhls was the date that Wittbrodc had asked for. He asked for this meeting and that we hold up until the first of September. Halcomb asked if he had heard someone say that they bad .startad the research on this as of the first of this year. Was it January 1 that you had these fellows, start getting this together? Neering questioned whether they had first become aware of the problem January 1st. Dr. Kramer answered that he would say it was about then. 1 can't remember .the date. I'd have to look back In toy records. It was about the tine that X first startad with Bob ----. Schroeder remarked that that was s good year ago. Halcomb asked If they had vorkt with Dow coverers and if they had gona into their area. DeGesero replied, absolutely. Halcomb asked DeGesero if the men knew what they were doing at that time. DeGesero agreed. Warren added, all the way through. In fact, we had questlonaires sent out to the coverers. We talked to the steward and everybody. Neering added that in fact, the men had done some resesreh of their own during that tine. Edgecombe said that he would like to say for the record chat there had been a broad discussion on the way that the operation was performed out there, the way the samples were taken. Thera were several discussions on this chat I heard. They weren't satisfied with the way you took them. Special Meeting ST0000389 -23- August 19, 1969 Stbrueder stated that they had had discussions with Dr. Kramer. This has been at'least a couple of years ago at least. And of course there Bob ------- case where Dr. Kramer got Involved. UNION RECESSED ' Ncvring asked if the Union had any more questions. Schroeder answered no. Neering explained that the Company was going to put the program into effect as of September 2nd as agreed to. It's for the employees' betterment for their health. That's two weeks from today. If there are any problems that arise, we'll Just have to handle them as they tome up. That's going to be it. DeGesero asked if Edgecombe had been at the meeting where the fact was brought up that some guys had called up and somebody had refused to do the sampling or aoaething like chat. Edgecombe* answered yes. DeGesero continued that he had started thlnkir about that. X think there was a call from the fellows over in the Powi Department to come out and survey while they were ripping off the bottc of a boiler or something like that. And as 1 recall the entire incider at' this time, what it amounted to was that they wanted me to come out and Z had already made a previous comitaent end could not make it. So 1 said I'd come out at another time and X did come out and measure while they--I think It was-* Edgecombe stated that it hadn't been DeGesero. This happened at Building- The guy eaae while they wot* cutting this. He said it vat too dirty and he wouldn't take it. Do you remember this? Jim Martin was the fallow that brought this up. Neering stated that if they had a problem they could work it out. ADJOURNED Secretary Bargaining Committee an Keg^yC^ Secretary Management Bargaining Commie t