Document nKan3v3Xqj4y7R15p33Y32w1

FILE NAME: Asbestos Information Association (AIA) DATE: 1972 Mar 15-16 DOC#: AIA044 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Transcript of Dept of Labor Hearing on Proposed Asbestos Standard 1 i Z 3 4 5 t l> c i' UNITED STATUS DEPARTMENT OP LABOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AMD HEALTH ADMINISTRATION HEARINGS ON STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST Conference Room 13 Department of Labor Washir.q ton, D .. C . Monday, March .15, 1972 Th;-: hs.arirr; on oecapationa.l safety and health for o:i->o^v-:e to asbestos- dnt roconvonad at r..rthv:r M. foldfcer, prea.iincr c ;! ;s lM.1! 'S t 2! ^2 i CONTENTS WITNESSES; Alvin 0ro8Q W. Clark Cooper Duncan A. Holaday Stephen Holmes Clifford L. Sheokler J. Spenoer Royer Charles Zumwalt Albert H; Pay Matthew M* Swetonlc Isaac H. Weaver John H Marsh Joseph Leonard John L. Rainey Albert D. Schinner Eddie Story NUMBERS: EXHIBITS " 22 23 24 thru 35 25 thru 35 36-A 36 -B 37 38 and 39 40 IDENTIFIED 106 106 150 170-A 170-A 170-B 178 192 ' PAGE 104 113 128 142 172-B 170-L 170-P 171 178 193 198 202 209 212 216 . RECEIVEO 107 106 155 151. 170-A 170-A 170-B 178 192 178 I (The document above referred to 2 was marked as Exhibit NO. 38 3 for identification) 4 EXAMINER' GOLDBERG: All right. 9 MR. PAYi And t;is second one is the Asbestos Fact 8 Sheet concerning the uses of asbestos and asbestos products. ' * * :, ` 7 EXAMINER GOLDBERG: That will be Exhibit 39. 8 (The documen,t above referred to k< St was marked as Exhib1it No.. 39 ' 10 for identification.) il EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Thank you. 12 Exhibits 38 and 39 are received. 13 (The documents previously identi 14 fied as Exhibits Nbs. 38 and 39 15 . were received in evidence.) 10 v EXAMINER GOLDBERG: Introduce yourself. 17 MR. SWETONIC: My name is Matthew M. Swetonic, and | 13 I am Executive Secretary of the Asbestos Information Associa- 18 fci.on of North America and also manager of special projects 20 in the Public Affairs Section for the Johns-Hanville Corpora 1 tion. 22 Mr. Fay has already described the association, and 23 identified the companies which it represents. We are basically ?4 an information disseminating organization and the facts ox 25 opinionh contained in my presentation are supported An the 179 ! medical literature or constitute the professional opinion of 2 medical and technical experts availaole to the industry as 3 consultants. , The asoestos industry has recognized for many years 4 that there are occupational health hazards associated with 5 the excessive inhalation of asoestos dust. Recognizing its 8 ooligation to protect its workers, the industry has over the 7 years invested many millions of dollars in sophisticated and a highly efficient equipment to reduce asoestos dust levels in 9 10 the work places generally accepted safe limits. Some $100 million has oeen invested for this purpose in the past decade ii 12 alone. I just might point out in reference to some of the i testimony that was given this morning that almost exclusively | 53 this equipment was designed to prevent exposure at the source, 14 dust collection equipment of the type that was descrioed for yc IS in the insulation trade but on a much, much larger scale -- 18 again not protecting the worker, out protecting him from the 17 dust oefore it ever gets to him, 18 Tne general position within the industry is that ' ! IS ?.( would never like to see a man ever have to wear a respirator, for example. The source is the place to stop exposure. Over the years, acceptable safe limits for asoestos exposure has been lowered a number of times uy various oodles, including NCGIH and others. The industry has worked hard to . . .................. U..,-- '-- * 180 1 is being faced with the possibility of yet another decrease 2 In the acceptable Limits for asuestos exposure. In the past, . ' * 3 each new standard was accepted by the industry because the 4 developing medical evidence indicated that new Lower Limits 5 might indeed be necessary. This is certainly not the case s with the two-fiuer standard proposed, uy the National Institute 7 of Occupational Safety and Health. The medical orief pre 3 pared oy NIOSH in support of the two-fiber Limit, in our 9 opinion, falls far short of establishing the necessity of such 10 a standard. 11 The criteria document, in fact, states quite 12 clearly on page D-10 that "the number of studies that have 13 collected both environmental and medical data and with a 14 significant numoer of exposed workers is not sufficient to 15 establish a meaningful standard based upon firm scientific IS data." 17 If this is true, then the question must be asked: 18 upon what data shall a standard ba based? If we are going to 13 base our standard upon what others have done, which is the 20 basic approach that NIOSH had taken, then we are running 21 around in circles, because if specific data is not available 22 to us today, then it could not possiuily have been available 23 to others when they developed their standards in the past. 24 The simple tru.h is that no one, NIOSH included, 25 knows for sure what a safe occupational standard should oe. 181 I There is general agreement among the professionals studying thj 2 problem that it should probably oe lower.than 12 fibers per 3 cc* out how much lower is a question' that has not been 4 answered to everyone's satisfaction. The main reason for this 5 is that the disease we are seeing today is the result of 6 conditions that existed 20. or 30 or 40 years ago, at a time 7 when today's highly sophisticated dust collection equipment 8 was not readily available and when ooth the industry and the y medical profession knew relatively little about the hazards in of asbestos dust. n This point has been made repeatedly by the doctors 12 testifying before this hearing. 13 We simply do not know for sure what the dust levels 14 were in those days, but there is every indication that they IS were enormously higher than they are today. For this reason, 16 as many doctors have pointed out, we must be very careful 17 about looking at today's conditions and today's disease and 19 trying to draw a parallel between the two. Such a parallel IS does not exist, and this can lead to some very erroneous conclusions. Let me give you an example. It lias oeen reported oy some researchers studying the insulation- trades in this country that the dust con ditions that exist today on insulation jou sites and in ship- .. mmmm IB S 1 led to a calculation that the very high death rate found . , * . 2 among these men is directly attributable to levels of around 3 three fibers per cc. The evidence is substantial that this 4 calculation is inaccurate. 8 X am submitting with my testimony a paper which 6 describes the decreasing asbestos content of insulations used 7 in the trades over the past 30 to 40 years. You will recall 8 that this basic question about the levels of exposure in the 8 past among these people was Drought up yesterday by Ui Dr. Nicholson and under question by Mr. Sheckler* The basic 11 document which substantiates the conclusion that the levels 12 are considerably different, although we don't know what they 13 were 40 years ago, but we do know they were much higher, is 14 contained in this paper which X have here entitled, "Changing 15 Concepts of Insulation Material." 16 I will not go into the details of what is contained 17 in this paper, except to submit it. IS For example, I submit this paper not to discredit id any researcher's work. Obviously, I am not in a position to 20 do that, but merely to point out as others have done, the 21 enormous difficulty one encounters in trying to establish 22 meaningful numerical standards. 23 In addition, as Dr. Holmes pointed out in his ?4 testimony, the evidence seems to indicate that more importance 25 should be given to peak exposures in evaluating disease W 163 1 potential than to time weighted averages. 2 For example, in the tearout of old insulations 3 aboard ship, the British have counted levels as high as 4 3&00 fibers per ec, with a mean ranging between 159 fibers 5 per cc and 353 fibers per cc. Today,.of course, men performinj <3 this work are protected by air supply respirators. Thirty ' i 7 years ago, when they received exposures chat led to their 3 present disease, they were not so protected. 3 The doctors are generally agreed that the lung's 30 ability Co cleanse itself of accumulated dust would be 3! seriously reduced at such high levels, yet a tirae-weighted 2?. average for a 40-hour week might show a relatively low level. 113 In the spraying industry, counts as high as 1500 34 fibers per oo have Lesn recorded. Yet, considering the time <3 npeui: on preparation of the equipment and other non-spraying 14 casks, chc time-weighted average for these workers might come 37 out !:o be reasonably moderate. 18 Thus, in the opinion of most experts, time-weighted 99 averages can be very misleading if the men are periodically 20 exposed to fiber levels so high that the lung's cleansing 21 mechanism fails considerably in its ability to rid the lung 22 of accumulated fiber. If, as the experts have told us, the 23 lungs can remove 99% of all inhaled particles, including 24 asbestos fiber, then a reduction in the cleansing function of 25 even a few percent will increase the amount of fiber retained 184 1 by that many magnitude. 2 n addition to these reasons, there are excellent S technological and economic reasons for not promulgating too 4 strict a time-weighted average, and instead placing more 5 attention on eliminating the high peak exposures. The industr 6 is in the process of trying to develop accurate data with re 7 gard to economic impact. 8 Mr. Fay referred to thJ.s in his presentation. 9 -e aire working hard on this problem with OSHA, 10 Bureau of Standards, and with Arthur D. Little. While it 51 will he sonic weeks before final figures will be available, ?2 early estimates indicate that the cost to the industry of 13 meeting a two-fiber standard,in those sections of the industry 14 where such a standard is feasible, would be in the vicinity '5 of $200 million. * . . :* 10 Xn recommending a standard of two fibers per cc, 17 the erroneous assumption has been made that today's tech 18 nology is c .pablo of lowering the levels in each and every 19 asbestos operation to two fibers. Past experience would 20 indicate that in a asable number of operations it will oe 11 .impossible to reduce the levels to two fibers, no matter how 2 much money is spent. 3 Xn these cases, the operations obviously would have 24 to be shut down and the men thrown out of work. Wc have only 15 a very rough idea at this time how large a segment of the 185 I manufacturing industry would be affected in this manner ut 2 an estimate of perhaps 15' to 20% seems reasonable..^ ' 3 Applied to the sales of a billion dollars, this 4 would obviously work out in the range of $150 to $200 million. 6 In addition there wi?1 no doubt be cases where the 6 technology is available to reduce levels to too fibers, but V where the cost involved would make a particular product line S either no longer profitable or no longer competitive on the 0 open market against non-asbestos containing products of the 10 same type. . 1! In these cases, the plant or manufacturing operation 12 would also be shut down. This particular type of situation 13 would also exist at a five-fiber level hopefully in not as U many cases. . 13 Trying to put a handle on Che potential number of 1G lost jobs ia extremely difficult. Many small manufacturing 17 operations will undoubtedly go under, but it is nearly 1G impossible to determine the total number of men we are ty talking about. ?orbaps 15 to 30 thousand is about as close 20 <?.?, we can come at this time. This would not bo just in 21 manufacturing but would be a consideration of the insulation 22 trades and other groups as well. 23 The figures I have just mentioned may not seem large ?4 when compared to what the steel or automobile industries would 25 have to pay in similar circumstances, but the asbestos industry 186 1 in this country is much smaller, and $200 million in equip ( i 2 raent, another $200 million ox more in eliminating product .line: 3 duo to an Inability to meet the two-fiber standard, and 20 4 or 25 thousand lost jobs is an enormous chunfc^ of this Industri 9 For this reason, it is vital that OSHA give considerable 6 thought before promulgating a standard that even the experts 7 agree is not based on solid scientific evidence. 3 Of additional enormous potential financial impact on !J the industry is the labeling requirement an contained in the 1ft final recommendations of the OSHA Advisory Committee. It 1I would require the placing of a warning label on each and every . VI product containing more than 5% asbestos by weight. This 13 label which contains the words: ,sDo not breath dust -- may 14 cause aslestoois and cancer. ' 5 1 Such a label would surely spell the demise of a 10 nuaber of major: v-roduct lines of the industry, including viynl 17 asbestos floor tile, asbestos-pipe, and any other product 13 that is rold dirertly to the consumer market. In addition, 13 there in no doubt that our competitors will attempt to take W advantage of the situation by encouraging the public to avoid 21 asbestos-containing products becau3o of the potential health 2 hazards implied in the warning label, even though to the 23 customer no such hazard exists. ?4 . X would question whether such a label is, in fact, 25 necessary or called for in the majority of asbestos-containing 187 products. Everyone in the industry and in the medical and scientific profession who has dealt with the asbestos health problem over the years is familiar with the concept of lockedin and non-locked-in products. A loefced-in product is one in which the asbestos is bound into the product with cement, asphalt, plastic or some other binder which prevents the escape of free fiber in use. Examples of locked in products would be asbestos cement products and floor tile. Non-locfced-in products would be those in which the fiber is loosely bound and which release fiber during handling or application. Most asbestos-confcaininj; insulations woiud fall into this category.^ as would fire proofing sprays and insulating cements. 7. should mention that while there is. no labeling requirement unecr any federal statute for insulation products at Cue present Ci-r.c, :c believe the majority of the companies rn the industry voluntarily have a warning label on most insulations which they consider potentially hazardous in use. fhe CmBic applies to a lot of bag asbestos cement products and fiber shipments. This was a voluntary action on the part of many of the companies.in the industry. The fact of the matter is that the* percent*of content of fiber in a product has absolutely nothing to do witi its ability to create a health problem. An insulation con taining 7% asbesiros fiber requires very careful handlin3? 188 ahile an asbestos cement sheet with 15% asbestos requires ossontidily nouQ* For this reason, it is only logical that the Advisory Committee recoemended labeling system 'be discarded in favor of a svstem which only requires labeling, on those produces which readily release asbestos fiber in a quantity during handling or application. With regard to the monitoring requirements of the proposed regulations, I would only like to point out that there are probably no more than three dozen trained industrial hygienists in the entire country available to industry to sample and analya, oebeetoo dust concentrations, o m should appreciate this problem because of ite own difficulties in finding qualified industrial hygienists, lien can be to do this job, but it is going to take much more tfe- than is psmiirted under the law. . 1 might also point out that cho dust mnr.< ^ < n;. system as required in the regulations will cost the manu facturing industry aloae between $3 and $5 million per year, not an ezhorbitant sum when viewed by itself, but one that adds to an already heavy financial burden on the industry. Aa my final point, I would like to discuss for a minute the medical aspects of the Advisory 'committee recom mendations. She recommendations state that the medical surveillance program shall be carried out by physicians 189 selected by the employee^ and that the medical records will be available only to HE# and DOL physicians and '`medical consultants and physicians designated and authorised by the employee." You will note this employer is by omission pro hibited from seeing an employee^ medical record, even though the employer is responsible under the law for the medical condition of his employees. Under Section (c)(7) of the Advisory Committee recommendations, an employer is rociuircd to make sure that no employee 'Vnould be assigned to tasks requiring use of respirators if his most recent medical examination indicates" and then the section goes on to the certain medical criteria* How can an employer obey the section of the regulations if he is prohibited from seeing an employee*s medical records by another section of the regulation? This is completely illogical and is obviously reflective of the haste with which the advisory committee was required to perform its duty. In addition, how could an employer conduct a pre ventive medicine program in his plant if he cannot perform examinations, note changes in medical conditions, and counsel employees? These programs are in existence in essentially all manufacturing companies in the asbestos industry. And Z might point out that not only are employees counseled on 190 t possible occupational health problems, but on the general 2 overall health condition as ell. 3 We have heard the arguments from certain unions, 4 not necessarily here, but from others, that it should be solel} 3 up to the employee to decide whether or not he is willing to 3 wcrlc under the existing conditions, whatever they may be. 7 This simply does not make good sense, because, it is still the 0 responsibility c f. the employer to safeguard the health of i) his employees. Where the responsibility lies is where the 13 implementation of the medical surveillance program should be 11 centered, and no place else. 73 If: should also be pointed out that a system of the 73 type proposed in the recommendations would effectively present 14 future ctideiniological studies of the asbestos industry, 15 except on a very limited or local scale. The medical records 10 vital to such studies would be distributed among thousands of 7 7 doctors all across the country, and retrieval would be virtu 73 ally impossible. l:J In conclusion, I would like to summarize very briefly 20 the various points I have attempted to bring out in my pre 21 sentation. 22 One. The medical evidence for establishing a 23 meaningful time-weighted average is unavailable at this time. 24 Two. Most experts agree that the brief, massive 29 doses of asbestos fiber are probably more important in the 191 I causation of the disease than continuing, long*'term, low or 2 moderate exposure This is not to preclude that low exposure a over an enormous period, of time are not to be considered at t . i 4 all, but that the one is more important than the other. 3 Three If QSHA promulgates a time-freighted average S lower than five, the economic impact on the industry will be 7 enormous. In addition, many asbestos-ccataining products will a probably disappear from the marketplace and thousands of jobs 3 will' be eliminated. 10 Four, A labeling requirement of the type recommended SI by the OSEA Advisory Committee will result in the unnecessary 32 loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in sales each year. 13 Entire segments of the industry will be destroyed, with 34 resultant large-scale unemployment. `)3 Five. The dust monitoring program recommended by <3 OSBu is- impractical at this time because of the lack of ;-7 i! trained personnel. 13 i.5ix, The medical surveillance recommendation of sa the Advisory Coraitfcee is illogical and unworkable. 20 There are, of course, other sections of the proposed 21 regulations that will create difficulties in addition to those 22 that I have discussed and these will be mentioned by separate 23 testifiers. However, I believe that the points that I have 24 covered are the most important, at least to the manufacturing 2S side of the industry. M A Y 1963 U S ' ! __________________________ U.S DEPAMMSilT OF LABOR Vr'othington RECORDS AUTHENTICATION CERTIFICATE 3/3 I HEREBY ATTEST, That the annexed copy, or each of the specified number of copies, of eaeh doenmen listed belo is a true copy of a document in the official custody of the Department of Labor. 1 copy each o f: T ran scrip ts from March 16,15,16, and 17 Comments and hearing e x h ib its o f: W .J. N icholson, American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e , D.A. Holaday, Brand In su latio n I n c ., L . J . B ib r i, B . J . P h illip s (C e r ta in - te e d ), M.W. Borov, J.D . H oran(Flint'* k o to ), F .L . Pundsaclc(J-M), J.W. Raw lings, U.H. Kancock(Dov), W.K. H esse(J-H) E.M. Fenner(J-M), E .J . K illia n (N a t. Cypsum), Cemurt a sb e sto s Products C o., H.M. Key, G.E. Best(MCA) SIGNATURE ft NOlOFFICIAL t it l e DIVISION ANO BUREAU OATS J Daniel i?7 H a r s i c k ^ ^ ^ Technics.2 Informacin S o e c ia lise Docket O ffiee/T eeh n ieal Data Cencer/Oecup. S fty & Hlth Adm/ U.S. Depc. o f Labor 7 Sep 78 I HEREBY CERTIFY, That Daniel J. HarsicR___who .5gned the foregoing attestation, is nov and was at the time of signing (title) Technical Information Specialist h,, legftiCl|#to<iy of the official records o f`the United States Department of t therein an ated and that fall faith and credit should be given tohia act aa aueb. IN FITNESS THEREOF, 1 _____J. J. Lafranchlse_________ duly designated by the Seeretaty of Labor as Authentic y ^ ^ atio n Officer of the Department of Labor, bare here ^unto subscribed my name and caused tbe seal of the Department of Labor to be affixed this _2lL day of September ^ 78*7 . y . / Authentication Officer r Ar Department of Labor '.i(r.WmmIiUAllj >\|W. | In the Matter c*i ?/&!> 70R E::?C5t:rE TO ASrESTCS OUST, FiiOrOSSa RULE ii'.KIWG ?ur.LIC in.;r;Zi-'3 Conference Koor, 3 Intcrdopsrtiaer.tai Auditor: 12th - Constitution Ave-., "rsiiniton, 2.0. Thursday, March io, 972 TI'.o nievo-nfcitiod cisttcr carva on for fursher hserln. pursuant to reessc, rt 9:00 o'eiecl;, e .a., Thursday, March 1: 1972. E2T022: AirTiTJH M C0X33IS, Keaz*ins RnanvLner APrEARRCIS: { As heretoforo noted.) 15 or ,id'iscry C; on ASOSStOS A?TF?j;oo:j s e s s i o n (2:00 p.ia.) EXAMIMHil G0LD3EP.S: On the record. Mr. Fay and Mr. Swetcr.ic -- excuse me, is Doctor 7etrick in the roca? All right, Mr. Fay and Mr. Suetonic. / : Id. FAY: My noas is Aloerr Ii. Fay. I am Vice 2 it President of the Gold Bond building Products Division the Nnticr.r.1 Gypsum Company in Buffalo, Ket; York. I am aopsaric I* 't : here today in my capacity as president of the Asuestos Information Association of North America, located in New Yor City. The Ascestos Information Association is comprised of :s 1 ii Vi i twelve ox the nation's largest miners, manufacturers and importers of asuestos and asoestos-containing products. The memuor companies of the association are listed on a fact sheet, which I will suuxit with ray testimony. As arn introduction to industry testimony that will follow, I would like to uriefly sketch for you a general picture of the site and scope of the asosstos industry in the United States, the types of products produced, the numoe^ of people employed, and other factors that will help position tl ascetics manufacturing industry in the economic and social structure of this country: . . I4 I should mentioned uefore proceeding thac the *.^ v ^1*^' I 172 nanafsecuring side of the industry, and doss not include detailed information on industry using finished asuestos products, such as the construction industry or the insulatic. application and removal trades. -Asbestos is the generic name given to a group of inorganic hydrated silicate minerals that have one eosmon attribute, namely, the ability to be separated into relative 2. soft, silky fibers. The three cost cocconly used varieties of asboctos are chrysotile, crocidoiite, or blue fiber and etassits. 'I It is important to note that chrysotile accounts ft more than 987. of the total annual United States consumption of asbestos. In the past, crocidoiite and acosite were used far core extensively in the United States than they are todav The leading producers of chrysotile finer are Canada and tha Soviet Union, with scalier deposits being found in South Africa, P.hodcsia, China, the United States and Italy. Crocidoiite and amosice are mined almost exclusive1 in South Africa. The total annual world production of asbestos is U around 4 million tons, with Canadian production accounting fo 4 about 3DZ of the total, and the United States ebout 3%. The properties-of asbestos that give it commercial value are its fibrous structure, the great tensile strength <| of the fibers and its resistance to high teaperaturcs and to 4 175 jusgfi the total economic value of the asbestos industry to tl\s nation. V;c finely believe, however, chat the Arthur D. kittle Company eccnoaic study now under ay, will show it tc _ i* 0 . be substantial. Tor exaaple, it has been esticated that the insulation trades alone involve AO,000 can who spend at leas a quarter of their tine working with asbestos-containing t !. products, ether employees whose livelihood depends at least to sons extent on the use of asbestos-containing products include other types of construction workers; siding, roofinz and. tile installers, pipe layers, salesmen, distributors and ~s ' declcrs in asbestos products. It is impossible to calculate the total income derived by these workers from the use or sale of asbestos-containing products, but it is certainly in the hundreds of si.llioas of dollars. ;s If one adds in the value of services, machinery, rat: materials and other commodities purchased by the asbesto cenuractaring industry each year for use in the production o: shipment of finished asbestos products, the total economic contribution of tho-inoustry to the nation's economy would *1S >t: i*c`"ck purnaps, $3 billion, and would involve, to come degree ths livelihood of at least half a million wage earners and tiieir families, lie believe the economic and social contribu 13 II tion of the asbestos industry to the nation is substantial. In addition to the many and varied lifesaving 175 technological society. For chose raaseni, the establishment of reasonable and feasible occupational health standards for asbestos is a natter of great importance, not only to tha me: whose health we are trying to protect, but also to tha Indus-, and to the county* as a whole. Our industry is cooperating fully with Che Arthur I Little Company in the economic study they have bean retained to make by OSKA. lie are all working hard to develop precise figures as to tha potential economic efface of the proposed regulations on our industry. To date, we have been able to cake only rough estimates. In general, they show a cost to the industry of approximately 200 million in new equipment to comply with the proposed standard of two fibers per cubic centimeter in those sections of the industry where we believe a two-fiber standard is technologically feasible. The proposed regulations would also produce a loss in sales of at least *400 million because of the labeling requirements and the shut down of operations whore two fibers is techno logically unfeasible. A number of companies have already indicated that they do not believe a two-fiber standard is feasible in many operations, and that if such a standard is pscsmlgated, they will close down those operations immediate! rather than spend billions of dollars in a vain attempt to achieve the unachievable. The loss of jobs will be sub stantial.