Document ppkrEEQZgXm8O59yr4oBQBJnk

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Midland, Michigan UTMTrrrfPrcC nr SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN UMWA-MANAGEMENT BARGAINING COMMITTEES DEPOSITION EXHIBIT V ~ ~2 IV 0 CONCERNING PIPE COVERERS WORKING WITH ASBESTOS1 Representing: August 19, 1969 UNION COMMITTEE Scnroeder (Chairman), Halcomb, Reid, Evan*, Brreiinski, Prior, Keblbeck, Edgecombe COMPANY COMMITTEE Neering (Chairman), Martini, G. Warren, Todd, Plagen*, Collins, Engibous, Johnson, Eastman, Reed. ST00003SG Supervision and Departmental Representatives Anaerson, DeGesero, Dr. "Cramer, Warren, Badley, Kegley. Discussion Neering began that they were there to discuss a problem they wer.e con cerned with. Jack, why don't you pick yp the ball and give the explanation? Maybe the best way to do it would be to run through the whole problem and then open it up for questions; or would you like questions as you go? 3adley answered no. Let me just give kind of a short preamble on what we did out in the plant. We had six groups of people consisting of both Coverers and the production people and the Maintenance Seccion Manager in charge of the maintenance for that par::cular group. We kicked the meeting off by making the statement as sucn, that-we do have a presentation that takes 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 two-hour meetings. As I say, the presentation cook 30 to 35 minutes. And most of the time we used up between an hour and an hour and twenty-five minutes on questions. These were generally points on clarification of data and that type of cning. The Seccion Manager introduced me and I sort 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 think we'll go right through these and read precisely what we gave and then open it up for questions. I started out by saying, "Many of you gentlemen have waited some time for this get-co-gether. I'm sure the following presentations by Dr. Ducommon from our Medical Dept., Roy DeGesero from Environ* mental Research, Roy Anderson from Organic Chemical* Maintenance, and Larry Warren now Supc. of Construction in CCP, will be of vital interest to you. 376733 ?lf- f*. !LA t^ Special Meeting - .~ August 19, 1969 There are several reasons for this interest on your part - mainly however, a request by the coverers -on "How Does the Handling of Asbestos Content Insulation Affect Me?" Other interests certainly -ill be, '"what are the Solutions?" and "How Should We Implement the Solutions ?" 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, chat I 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'm also sure that by che end of these presentations all of your questions will be answered. I would now like to introduce Mr. DeCesero from Environmental Research: "Good day, gentlemen. My name is Roy DeGesero from Environmental Research. Your supervision requested that the Environmental Research Lab survey and evaluace Pipe Coverers' exposures to dusts from the insulating materials commonly used here at the Midland location of Dow. 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. I would like to discuss at this time the results of a survey conducted from January through April, 1969, ^ concerned with evaluating Pipe Coverers' current levels of exposures--( to asbestos and fiberglas from Insulating materials commonly used. O o The health standards for exposure to asbestos or fiberglas have beer formulated by a group called the American Conference of Governmental^ and Industrial Hygenists. This group has accumulated and reviewed cn snund and current data pertinent to the health problems associated ^ with the use of fiberglas and asbestos, and haa defined what is thought co be safe levels of exposure for the eight-hour day with asbestos or floor glas. 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 cell 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, che health standards are average numbera. That meana 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 nutdber. These numbers or health standards are called threshhold limit values. They are designed to protect essentially all working men who use asbestos or fiberglas. 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, che 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 and field experience 376734 Special Meeting . -3- Auguat 19, 1969 of asoestos, has proposed that the standard be lowered from five to :wo million particles per cubic foot for the eight-hour day. This lower numoer 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 fiber.glas. The threshhold limit value or health standard for fiberglas saya how much fiberglas dust a man can tolerate with no adverse affect on hia health for his entire working career, assuming he is exposed eight hours a day, day in and cay out to dust of fiberglas. The American Conference of Governmental and 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 cubic foot, than fiberglas does. That's because the two dusts have a much different 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 the standards. Pipe covering is quite complicated. Often the 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 calked to you men, had you fill t/> out questionnaires and talked to your supervisors. We then decided 1 on this basis where to sample for the dust. We found out what is in^ each material. First we have to know how long you fellows are exposed to dust and we have to know what the dusts contain, asbestos or fibers = 3 as. Finally, we go out into the field and measure how much dust i^ actually present. We determine the concentration of the dust. Now,^ the oid asbestos health standard says Chat a man should be exposed on the average to an eight-hour concentration of five million particles per cubic foot. The proposed new standard says you should be exposed to two million particles per cubic foot: We 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 slide shows what we found. For the eight-hour day, men working indoors with insulation materials containing asbestos, were exposed on an average to 4.9 million particles per cubic foot of asbestos-containing dust. 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 excess of the proposed standard of two million particles per cubic foot. 376735 For fiberglas now, you'll remember that the standard 1* fifteen mil lion particles per cubic foot. Fcr a man working indoors, the- -- j ^ i -- ....i .*,Ki r fnnr Special Minutes -4- August 19, 1969 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 than 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 exposures dropped off accordingly. In summary then, the current levels of exposure to fibtglas are within the proposed standard. The current levels or exposures to asbestos are within the present health standards for asbestos,1 but are in excess of the proposed new health standard of 2 million.particles per cubic foot according to this 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 as soon as possible. The Environmental Research Laboratory has therefore suggested three possible ways to your management of lowering Pipe Coverers' exposure to asbestos so that these exposures would be within the proposed health, standards by 1971 when these new standards take affect. The proposals t are: The proposals are: 1) Use local on-the-job air movers to pull dusts away from the pipe coverers. 2). Use approved respiratory protection whenever pipe coverers perform specific operations which cause high exposures. This point will be discussed in greater 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 than the present insulating materials. I'd like to thank you gentlemen for your attention and at this time turn the meeting over to Dr. Ducommon of the Medical Department, who will discuss some of the implications in this survey. Today Dr. Kramer will be speaking. Dr. Kramer began that the lung ^ responds differently to different kinds of dusts. Vhat you spit oue-i or see on your handkerchief does no harm. What stays behind in thd^ lung may or may not cause harm, depending upon vhat it is. To unde stand the discussion regarding asbestos, we would like you to have 0 some understanding of the basic structure of the lung. co ' cr Here is a slice of actual normal king tissue. Think of it as being VaD 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 cells. 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 this piece of lung tissue you can see cross cuts through the various sizes of air tubes. 376736 Ipecial Meeting -P- Auguac 19, 1969 If you spread out ail of Che alveoli, which are Che equivalent to the ceils in che sponge, on a flat surface, chey would occupy an area iomewnac bigger chan a badmitton court and alighcly amaller than a _( :ennis court. You can see then that the lung surface has a greater o exposure co che outside air than does the akin, the akin having an 1=3 exoosure area of a few square meters at the most. CD CD The amount ox dust you breathe depends in part on the particle size -j of the dust. The range of size important here is one-tenth micron i^ ciamecer co ten microns in diameter. The larger particles tend to be trapped in the upper part of che breathing system, while che smallest particles tend to move in and out of Che alveoli without becoming trapped. The particles in between these two extreme sizes may become .rapped anywhere from the nose and throat to the alveoli. The race ana depth of breathing also influence dust exposure; che faster and ceeper you breathe, che more dust you are likely to cake into your lungs. In dealing with ousts, the lung haa many protective mechanisma. The cough reflex is one of these and ia effective in expelling inhaled dusts which irritate che cubes of the air conduction ayacem. The nose and throat warm and clean che eir of larger particles before it arrives ac the first branching of the tubes of"the air conduction system. The large hairs in the nose act as a filter in stopping che large dust particles. If 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 che lungs is ^rooerly 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 cilia. These cilia constantly sweep upward in unison carrying inhaled dust particles to the nose and 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. 376737 Now some dusts are considered nuisance dusts. This means that nomat ter what che quantity of dust you breathe, the lung is capable of clearing itself of the dust. Nuisance dusta do not cause disease and chey are not retained in the lung in significant quantities. Other dusts are retained in che lungs but cause no significant changes and the lungs continue to function as they normally would. For example, one of these would be iron dust. On the other hand, there ere dusts'" which are harmful to che lung. You have all heard of silicosis. It is interesting that we do not know why chey do injury to che lung except that they do. Different forma of silica produce different degrees of silicosis and some forms do not produce any disease at all. Jouciai Meeting -6- ' August 19, 1969 -ith that as a background, let us now calk abouc asbestos. Asbescos is a material which is found in nature and is made up of a group of fibrous minerals. Its chemical composition varies. There are many ^ :<incs of asbestos, but at least four are useful in industry. These a are Blue African Asbescos and Red African Asbescos mined chiefly in o South Africa, and two kinds of White Asbestos, one of which is mined0 mainly in Europe (Anthrophoiite). ^ 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 a 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 they seem to mechanically irritate the lungs; those that remain in the lungs cecome coated with protein and iron salts. Our present industrial hygiene standard of five million particles per cubic foot appears to adequately protect against the development of asbestosis. There have - been no cases of asbestosis in our pipe -coverera. v_ Our pipe coverers are exposed to vcrir.g amounts of asbestos during the course of their work and as you know, we have recently undertaken to measure their exposure. As Mr. DeGesero has pointed out to you, the exposure levels of 4.9 million particles per cubic foot indoors and 4.2 million particles per cubic foot outdoors are within the present standard established by the American Conference of Governmental 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 arid will have to be lowered to the proposed new standard of 2 million particles per cubic foot scheduled to tike effect in abouc two years. There are two ocher lung diseases we ere concerned abouc that appear to be associated with exposure to lower levels of asbestos chan that which causes classical asbestosis. One is a very rare tumor called a mesothelioma which develops from the cells lining the chest and abdominal cavities. Some research workers feel this disease is associated only with exposure to the Blue African Asbestos, but this point is not clear; the ocher 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 expoaure to all types of asbescos 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 hsir-like cells in the m- ucous blan.ket #t_h_u_s dTe/feating one 376738 Special Minutes - 7- Auguat 19, 1969 Even chough Che new standard of 2 million particles per cubic fooc has not gone into effect, we feel that we should stare now to meet this new standard before it becomes official. This will mean some 1/5 inconvenience to chose of you who work with asbestos and it will re-"^ quire the use of proper protection at times, as well as much more q careful handling of che material. It may also require the use of o substitute materials ocher than asbestos. o CJ Fiberglas which you have heard mentioned briefly by Mr. DeGesero is one possible substitute for asbestos. Some people have accused it of presenting a pulmonary hazard. Fiberglas does cause itching of the skin and prickling. It can cause some nose and throat irritation, but all che literature reviewed particularly of the impartial investigators in the field, chose of Dr. George Wright and Dr. Paul Gross indicates chat there is absolutely no pulmonary hazard whatever, and Dr. Gross is presently suggesting that fiberglas be classified as an inert dust, one of the nuisance dusts. It is our feeling that this is in che 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 ts Jack. Badley then introduced Warren. Warren began chat after all of the explanation and .facts concerning the hazards of asbestos, I can imagine a lot of you are wondering "where do we go from here?" For years snd years, asbestos and insulation value have been almost synonymous. The higher the asbestos content, the easier it was to sell. Most of us were aware of the health problem, covering asbestos, but it seemed rather inaignifleant as it didn't seem to be affecting us much. Then there were a couple articles in our local paper, concerning che affects of asbestos on the respiratory system. These were brought to my attention and I in turn brought it to che attention of the Medical Department and Environmental Research. We decided that each of the coverers should have a chest x-ray and at the same time we should have an environmental research study to find out exactly what our exposure is. Ue were very pleased to find that none of our coverers had asbestosis. But when the environmental research findings were told to us we recog nized chat we do have the potential for lung diseases. The Doctor and Roy DeGesro have explained the causes of the problem and the affect on the body. I'm here to tell you vhat we 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. 376739 1. Local ventilation. You and I know this is not an acceptable method as it would be almost impossible to do this. -- pedal Minutes -3- Augusc 19, 1969 2. Jse Bureau of Mines approved respiratory protection. I have two with me coday and these are both available at the Safety Depart ment. One is the number 66 respirator. The ocher one is made by the American Optical and it also is available at Che Safety Department. This is an acceptable method in most cases if we follow the chart 1 to will now show on the screen. If you will notice, the removing of Aircell, Xaylo, High Temp, and Mag Oxide have all been checked. All of you men who are in Che trade I'm sure have seen the reason for this. Also checked is the applying of Kaylo and Aircell. It -H O o o o was found the applying of either of these insulations caused the CO parts per million of dust in Che breaching area to go to 5.7 which ^ is above the limit. This was almost 35X of your work day. The mixing of abestos shorts or plus one is also checked for apparanc reasons. You will notice that fiberglas is not checked in any category. The reason for this nas been pretty well covered by Roy and Dr. Duconmon. 1 will oniy say that I've neard many controversial words said about fiberglas, but never had I heard or read anything by a reliable source, that 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 I would like to read you a few excerpts. First of all, the IHF is a non-profit research association for the advancement of healthful working conditions and human relations in industry and serves the unique function of a focal point for exchange of information on health problems allegedly arising from industries' operations, pro ducts and wastes. One of the excerpts says this: "Results of medical research, including examinations of hundreds of persons who have worked in fiberglas plants as long as 25 to 30 years gives evidence that fiber glas is inert and noc injurious to individuals overall health." Anocner paragraph says, "Based on existing medical evidence dating back to 1940 through to the present, airborne fibrous glass is not a hazard to gener health. Hundreds of fiberglas workers have been exposed to higher than average concentrations of airborne glass particles virtually every work ing day for as long as 25 to 30 years without exhibiting any pattern of lung disease chat can be attributed to exposure to fiberglas." I would say that under some circumstances that it is somewhat uncom fortable. According to most people who have studied its use, a person using fiberglas insulation should wear loose fitting clothing, no tight belts or cuffs and they should keep clean. Talking about cleanliness brings up another point that bears mentioning and that is that shower time tor men using fibergias is noc. and I 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 chat 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. 376740 Ipccial Peering -9- August 19, 1969 . htritr were Roy's reconanendatioris and starting August the 11th here is -nai we intend to do: ij Substitute as much as possible with non-asbestos materials, fiberglas,foam glass , ceramic foam, polyurethane, etc. b) When using insulation containing asbestos, use a bureau of cn mines approved respirator as per the chart. We will pass out a wallet size copy of the chart as you leave. c) Keep on che look-out for more non-asbestos type insulation. o o o o CO If we do these three things there is no doubt in my mind that we wilt-J oe below che 2 M.P.P.C.F. limit that will go into affect soon. j=~ Gentlemen, we have a problem; it isn't going away by itself. We feel we recognize che problem and we have che solution. You have heard the plans. We expect 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 Che possible corrosion in some instances where a perfect weather barrier is not achieved. We know we have had some of these problems in the past; we recognize we wil have some in the future. By working together we know that ail che prob lems can be worked out. Our main objective today is to make Che job safe for you men. The economics are important, but not of prime imports at this particular time. ^ /\J Thank you for your attention, now here is Roy Anderson to talk about pos sible substitutes. Remember August 11th is che day chat we must wear respiratory protection when working with asbestos cype insulation. The card is your guide. Thanks again. Here's Roy, Anderson said chat he would like to use the transparency showing che "Minimal Respiratory Protection Requirements" to show what we can U6e a: substitutes for some of our present insulating materials. I think you all know chat there is a very good replacement for Aircell, and that is Fiberglas. Aircell, is 60Z asbestos, Fiberglas is 0. Fiberglas is more than twice as effective as Aircel (k factor .29-.61) as an insulating material. Actually, Aircell should never be used on any job except for personnel protection. It was never designed for temperatures over 200. and we all know chat it is conmonly used on lines traced with 150# stea (370)F). 376741 In che past, Fiberglas has been condemned because it was supposed to ha caused corrosion. It is very true that fiberglas will hold water chat it has been exposed to, whereas Aircell will simply fall off; however, fiberglas, kept dry, is positively not corrosive. This is especially c now chat new inhibitors have been added to Che resin Chat bonds che fit glas together. I have been told many times that because fiberglas has be wired on, it is more expensive to apply. At this point, we ere not concerned with cost -- we are concerned with doing better job while < the seme time preserving your health. It is an interesting fact that i ~ rh^mical Company, the Midland Division is the only one u STOO00375 Special Minut.es -10- -August 19, 1969 Ac trie present time calcium-silicate, with an asbestos content of about 6 is still the standard insulating material for temperatures up to 1000*F. We are evaluating a material called Careytemp 1500. It is an expanded silicone (perlite) type with about 6Z asbestos Che same as .calcium-silic Preliminary tests have shown that it is only about one-half as dusty as Kay Jo. It does not absorb water and the Phillip-Carey Company is doing sui.c work on eliminating all of the asbestos. This material has a lot of potential. Hi-Terop is a diatomaceous earth-type of insulation which tuniriins about 15Z 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. Mag Oxide is another fairly high asbestos-containing insulation which, it present, is not being used to any great extent here In the plant. Mineral wool insulating cement conmonly known as Webber's Cement con tains about 10Z asbestos and is quite dusty when being mixed with water. It has been suggested that the dry material be made up in batches large enough to last for a week or two. This would eliminate the need for a I'espiracor each time the material is used. The use of Armentite is smal enough so that making up large batches would not be warranted except in special cases. Every major manufacturer of insulation has been contacted with regard to new products available, etc. This practice will be continued and any clme we can find a new product that will be more effective or easier to work with, it will be brought into the plant for your use. hndlc-y said, as you can see in the past half-hour presentation, the prul.lems, the solutions affect all of us. I want to reiterate the ijcl chat management has a moral and legal obligation to protect the health. To continue our efforts to give you a safe place to rk, we are obviously going to eliminate any Insulating materials that ii.-iin asbestos. Starting August 11, in specific areas, until adequate : :ih>c 1 cutions are acquired, approved respiratory equipment must be worn. l:i .. v.-ry brief summary, I would like to reiterate these facts: We have known health problem. The solutions may not be popular. We have a choice between protecting employee health or occasional discomfort. I will go on record chat it's no choice for me to make. I make the one in protecting the employees' health. We are going to protect the em ployees' health and I would like to have any of your questions, and fi-ol Tree if you would like to ask any one of the panel. Edgecombe said he guessed he had one right off the bat. I'd like to have you show --(machine malfunction--). DeGesero explained that he had brought the sampling equipment or device with him today. We didnTt have this with the coverers and I regret it. What we have essentially is abubbler which is designed to pick up primarily particles in the range of . 1 to 10 microns. In this portion you migjht be able to see some fluid. This is very clean distilled water. We place this on the 376742 Soeciai Meecinc -11- Augusc 19, 1969 amp, . s ir.L- ' creaming zone. We located mis pump near the area around his nose and moucn chac he oreatnes air from. Then we cake chis dust and puc ic .nctr a microscope and count the number of particles, Che number of -articles of dusc in cne sample. This is a magnification 138 times just auout what we see in che microscope (referring to a transparency) o: the fluid in the scruDber. I'd like to call your attention to several -.iuniigncs on this magnification. It's pretty yell in focus. You see a numoer or these black lines. They could be fibere. You see some clumj here wnich are dirt, possible. There is a white area up here which is tnouant to be of a different nature which gives che appearance of havingon overexposed area of the film. I'd like you fellows to reference the rest of the slides to this general area. This is Che area that we'd like co snow you in enlargements. The next shot again of this area-that 1 was referring co is a ^00 magnification. Now suddenly we see many more fibers and particles visaole here chan we saw on the last or 100 magni fication slide. This is that white area that we were referring to. Some uf these particles could indeed be asbestos fibers. If you'll remember, this is a sample of Kaylo. In blowing this up 1,000 times, again refer ring to that same white area, you see these clumps of dirt-- these are 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 scrands which are visable on the last series of slides. So chis is basically the nature of the beast I guess. Warren asked DeGesero what they had counted there. DeGesero explained that what they do, we count up all the particles we can see here visibly Warren interjected that they didn't know whether they were asbestos or not. DeGesero explained chat the standard had been specifically formu lated in such a manner that you count Che total dust in che sample. It is true that sometimes you'll be counting particles which are chese particles appear to be-- are not fibrous or rather perhaps nuisance dirt: Ana cnis has been done co provide a margin of safecy 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, che people who went out and did this work, using che same techniques that we have copiec from them, counted total dust in Che sample and then reviewed che health records and the health performance of people exposed to these types of ousts at various levels of exposure. From this they chen judged chac five million particles per cubic foot of total dust cotint in an atmosphe: that contains asbestos at that time was believed Co be a safe level for eight-hour exposure. Today it is commonly thought Chat this five number is coo high. So now we refer to evo million particles per cubic foot. Encibous reasoned that the test would tend to give you a conservative- answer. On the ocher hand, I can't believe you draw up all che dust articles in chac one bubbler. DeGesero explained Chat what it does is ive a statistical cross section or a statistical sample. Engibous aske ; on 376743 ST00C0377 Special Meeting -12- August 19, 1969 if the five million particles per cubic foot was obtained with the same kina of bubbler. DeGesero said that when he was talking about the five and two, he was talking about health standards. What we do with this gadget is to take it out in the field and sample the dusts. We counted the dusts here----- Engibous interjected that he knew what they did. DeGesero continued that they then compare. It's ail the same, the same procedure. Whenever we sample any kind of dust, asbestos or fiberglas, regardless of the concentration in Che scrubber, it's all the same equipment, all analyzed the same way. And analyzed I might mention in the standard technique for analyzing dusts. Engibous said he didn't think he was making himself clear. When Che people sent five million particles per cubic foot, they got that particle count with the same kind of bubbler? DeGesero replied, precisely. Engibous reasoned that if they only caught half the particles, DeGesero only caught half the particles. DeGesero explained that Che point was that it's a reference point to go from. So we have to be careful to follow and duplicate tneir techniques as much as possible. Brzezinski asked how many cubic feet of air we normally breathe, say per hour per day. Does anyone happen to know? Dr. Kramer answered that he thought it was something like 500cc, depending on how deep you're breaching. If you're running or something, it'll be much deeper. If you're resting, it'll be much more shallow. Brzezinski asked how they arrived at the fact that there's a health problem with asbestos if the history of the x-rays of all Che pipe coverers at Dow show there is no 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 asbtstosis. At that time I looked for data to indicate how much asbeslos he had been exposed to and found that we did not have sufficient data available and had to base our data on same studies done at Dow Corning to estimate what he had been exposed to. Ac this time I asked Mr. Hoyle to see if he would get into Che business of checking on what the exposure of our people was. About this same time, I started getting things from Larry Warren and other people regarding the hazards of asbestos. These appeared in Che 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 these levels. Now our group repre sents a fairly small group and as such we cannot work with them statis tically. Remember, we're not here producing a classical disease, asbestosis. We talked about that as one of the diseases that is produce Another disease, very rare, Amesothelioma, which might never occur in our people. It's very rare even in asbestos workers. The third disease is cancer of the lung. Now cancer of the lung is caused by many different things. It has been associated with smoking. Nobody really knows all of Che causes of cancer of the lung. But there is data in larger groups Chan ours where they have enough people which indicates Chat when you study a large grot : 376744 -~r^ :iUw 'j B Special XinuLes . -13" .August 19, 1969 :ntbt oeople, that you do find a much higher incidence of cancer of :r.c lung man the people chat have been exposed to asbescos ac these leve 1 talked co Dr. Silikoff on the phone and Ralph Sherwood has a letter fro;: 'ira regarding fibergias. But I discussed asbestos which him also and taked him wnac he felt the safe level for asbestos exposure was. He lakes che extreme view that the level should be some twenty-five times jwtr cnan it presently is. In ocher words, he would lower it much `.`wtr chan it has been lowered.I have a statement made before che Congress of che United States by Dr. Silikoff in which he presented to .hi- Congress all the statistics on which be makes his conclusions that umi si os is a hazard. I have data that indicates che levels that have ui-t-n considered to be safe are actually not safe. Now, another thing is, how about our group. I have reviewed the health ~i our group. I cannot prove chat their health is worse insofar as their lungs are concerned, but there is sufficient evidence there chat suggests :o n,e chat they do look worse than Che regular plant population. We're ~ot a statistically big enough group that I can prove my point. The Bob ------ case, Bob-- I have his permission to talk, about this. I asked for it before 1 even mentioned his name in any of these meetings. He developed some thickening of the covering of the lung. This is seen in people who work with asbestos. And as a result he was studied in Ann Arbor. They came up with some conclusions that were rather indefinite. And I personally have recommended that we should accept this case as being an occupational disease to the insurance carrier. They however claim that because of the nature of Che report from Ann Arbor, that i hey cannot voluntarily accept the case. Schroeder remarked that that rase 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 stand lo testify against Bob----------- because I feel in my own mind that the Bob---------- case does have some relationship to his exposures. Schroeder said, if you found out that five million parts is detrimental to health, why do you wait to put these into effect? I mean, it seems sort of silly that if I know this is true, that the five is detrimental, 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 the Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists sets Che standard. Whenever they change a standard they give a period of time during which people who have data available which might contradict the standard may present evidence to the concrary. In other word*, this gives people who may chink that five is a good figure or that ten is a good figure, or it should be one or it should be less, time to get in their data and do what ever studies are necessary so chat when you finally finalize on it, chant a proposed standard to an actual standard, there has been as much oppor tunity given as possible for this to be done. Schroeder reasoned that it wouldn't necessarily take affect in 1971. There could be enough opposition-- Dr. Kramer stated that this was possible. Ue think the data that Dr. Silikoff has is so strong that this will turn out that way oeciai .Meeting -14- August 19, 1969 .-.n interesting tning nappened- in the meantime. *e ware talking about t proposed stanaard here of Che American Conference of Governmental ina Industrial Hygienists, which has been a voluntary standard, which .naustnes have voluntarily used to protect the health of the worker as not oeen a legal requirement that they be protected. How big industries do follow these standards, but many industries do not fol low these standards. They don't pay any attention necessarily to these figures. Since this all began, the Ualsh-Healey regulations have come into affect and this is a part of the Waish-Healey Act. There are some regulations issued under that act which in effect state these ihings apply in every plant, factory, building or surroundings, or working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to :ne health or safety of employees engaged in the performance of said contracts. It applies to peopie involved in contracts entered into by sny plant with the United States Government. It's unclear just how .ide cne application is. Schroerier asked if this was in effect now. -r. Kramer agreea. DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer continued that the legal people did not know whether-- Well, 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 wouia not be known until few cases have come up in court to try the regulation, to see if they stick. Schroeder asked when this took effect. What's the date on this? DeGesero replied, January 1, 1969, I believe. Schroeder asked if this had been proposed or if it had actually been put into effect. Has it been passed? DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer explained that it had been passed as far as he knew. Now the Waish-Healey Act will make it a requirement in jlher words under circumstances to follow these standards. And they .Qve in nere not to set the standard of five, but they have set the = cun card of two as the legal standard. In other words, they're not waiting until 1971. They've goc it into the law now. Schroeder asked Ur. Kramer by what reason he would say that Dow people wouldn't come under the Waish-Healey Act as pipe coverers. Vhac stretch of the imagination-- Neering explained that they meant are they all working on jobs with Government contracts involved. That's the question. We have a Government contract for certain products maybe, certain items. But not all of the fellows work in that area. Schroeder added that they were all subject to that area. Neering reiterated that what he had explained was the question. Sure, they're all subject assign ment to working in that area. I guess I'd agree to chat. But whether or not that means we're under the Waish-Healey Act or not, our Legal Department cold you that they thought they were. But that some cases might have to be cried in court. Dr. Xramer explained chat DeGesero had the opinion from the Legal Department. Neering thought maybe they had better read the opinion. That question hasn't come up before in^ other areas. 376746 70000350 Special Minutes -15- August 19, 1969 Dr. Kramer explained chat if they couldn't find it he could remember '--at :ne essence of it was that they test cases to determine who was = oinc lo be covered where. This is true of all of industry, all across :re country right now. Everyporiy is trying to figure out whether it tupjits or not. Schroeder reasoned that if Dow people were under a -uniract, all the people were subject to most any and every place in the plant. I guess if we do have some government contracts, I don't see how inert'd be doubt in anybody's mind as to whether we come under the WalshHt/uity Act. I guess this sort of surprises me. Warren pointed out that ihc Legal Department was agreeing with Schroeder. Neering notied that they didn't give the conform of being able to say, "Yes, you are." Halcomb asked if they were saying then chat it just covered part of them, .'-'i-cring answered chat he wasn't saying that. I'm only quoting what the Legal Department has to say. Engibous reasoned that until there are :oiiie test cases, they won't take a black and white position on anything. I tnink tne answer that probably all of our workers are covered is as good as you could gee. Neering added that there was no solution, only their opinion. Bad ley pointed out that it didn't mean or imply Chat the Company wasn't concerned whether they fell under the Walsh-Healey 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 recommended exposure. Schroeder 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 asbescosis, I want to know whether that guy comes under chat Valsh-Healey Act or not. So you can get some guy in here that does accidently get silicosis. I guess we should know whether we're going to ~e under the Act or not. I mean that's part of it too. Dr. Kramer com::i-nuc that he would, regardless of the level of exposure. If the Compensation Conxnissioner decided that as a result of the exposure they would be protected by che compensation law, regardless of what level of ixDOsure it was. Reid stated that they could calk about what the moral and legal obligation was under che Walsh-Healey Act. Of course you've got your State Comp. Laws. For years they've been dramatically wishy-washy on airborne disease 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 Duw Chemical's air or air outside the plant. They never took much of a stand on it. Of course che 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? Schroeder 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. Schroeder noted that Dr. Kramer had even ~ 376747 SiK'iiai i- l mg -16- August 19,. 1969 rL-fc.tiiuiicmit.-d it and they wouldn't pay it. Dr. Kramer reminded that it was trcause of Ann Arbor. I was very dissatisfied with Ann Arbor's. I didn'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. 3ut the letter they wrote to us wnich is being used as the basis for this thing, just doesn't give the insurance company enough support. I have gotten them to agree at least not to make a big issue over the thing, but merely present me data to the Commissioner and let him sake up his mind. Schroeder added that this was a big thing and there was no doubt about 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 too. 1 imagine they'll play it cool. Edgecombe stated that he had another question. . On this parts per million, would you put thatchart up mere like you did over there for showing? The difference of the asbestos and fiberglas, the percentage like you did over tncre? DeGesero explained that this was a summary table chat was in the origin, report. On this table, 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. We go through and find out which ofthese materials contain asbestos or some ocher chemic. agent or minerals in this case which could cause a stress on Che worker In other words, a potential threat to his health. We find out how much time on the average he spends working with these materials and then Lake Lhis little scrubber that I showed you gentlemen out in the field and ascertain what the actual concentrations by operation here are. Wc- also like to express a range of concentration. What we do is the following: In order to estimate a man's eight-hour average exposure, -a i.jve co look at the contribution contributed to this exposure by loch of che materials in each of the operations which contains asbestos. (.Set- page 16A for chart) In tins case. Air Cell, Kaylo, and Mag Oxide, are all asbestos containi: Wo take the amount of time that a man spends working with Che material and multiply it by the amount of material there co get 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 chat these are the most conmonly used materials in the Midland location] asbestos. We wind up with a series of columns of fractions which are then totaled. It is then this number that we compare with the health standard. Here is 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 Che best information available on che effects of eight-hour exposure to these particles 376748 Special Meeting STQ000332. -16A- August 19, 1969 Table 1. TIME-WEIGHTED EXPOSURES OF- PIPE. COVERERS TO DUSTS FROM ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS Concentrations Time-weight One-rations Materials X Dav \ (mppcf) Mean Range 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 9.6 34.9 2.2-30.5 2.7^13.5 19.6-6.14 3.0 11.7 1.7 -T 0.6-6.2 4.9-23.1 0.8-2.6 5:7 0.2-16.4 5.7 0.4-22.3 2.4 1.2-3.8 m ... 9.6 1.1-39.5 , 2,\1 d.9-3.9 8.5 2.4-24.6 1.0 0.1-2.3 2.0 1.4-2.9 1.4 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) in mppcf 4.9 376749 Special .Meeting j i U 033 -17 August 19, 1969 _'i cust. There are quite a bit of numbers on it but to us it's quite meaningful and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Edgecombe asked DcGc-sero if he could put on the blackboard on the charts applying to -acn operation of the cutting and so forth. Schroeder remarked that :t -as quite high then in certain parts. DeGesero 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. Now the health standard, as 1 told you on the threshhold, the present is five for the eight-hour day. Now these numbers are not representative of an eight-hour day, but when totaled up, as I explained on the vic-wgraph, they do. (At this point, the reporter's machine malfunctioned 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. Curling 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. S-o you see that we have high levels of dust during operations here -uch as removing and applying. If you'll notice here in the cutting, Juring the cutting operation, Xaylo 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 Chat ve were looking at before, in attempting to trark down- Che areas where a 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 tlie amount of dust that Che Kaylo does. On ocher operations, they're very comparable. So we applied this protection. I might mention tnat this chart and the card have been labeled appropriately, "Minimum Respiratory Protection Requirement." And it's done on this basis. '*'e search through this table and find the areas where the biggest contribution to the exposure comes and it's ac these points that we selectively apply chir respiratory protection, so that we don't drive a tack with a sledge hammer so to say, but try to put the protection where it's going to do the most good for the least amount of time. Plaeens said that he had a questions on that. One of your reconmendatio is to use respirators where you have an X under Chose conditions, or . use fiberglas. DeGesero explained thac these findings were for the average pipe coverer The average pipe coverer very seldom uses Thermobestos and very seldom uses High Temp or Mag Oxide. Now when a fellow on the other hand is using these materials, these so-called exotic materials rather exclusive 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. 376750 5! Special Meeting -18- August 19, 1969 if r:-.ey vouid be over tne proposed or present health standards. I didn't do tnis with High Temp or Mag Oxide because these materials are very difficult to find in common use out in tne field. And let's ;usc assume chat a man worked his entire day with Kaylo and had no exposure to Air Cell cr any of these other materials listed here, including even the cements. Now chis is an eight-hour exposure. He'd be exposed to about 5.1 million particles per cubic foot. Rememoer 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 talking about, Careytemp, this does at the present contain about 6Z asbestos. In other 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 :r.e Kayio, in an eight-hour day that exposure would be 3.2. Now, let's take a look at ail this data and then go back and put in fiberglas Plagens asked, how about Thermobestos. Put .it on your list now. DeGcsero explained that as he had said, he hadn't done that. But I can possibly obcain some sort of an eyeball estimate for it. (At this point, due to a further malfunction of the reporter's equipment, some conversation was lost) Let me explain it this way. When we drew up these cards, we realized that we were trying to reach the greatest nuniDer of men possible. At meetings where the issue was brought up, we said chat for instance if the man is using High Temp all day long or if a man is using Mag Oxide all day long, which is improbable, or Thermobestos, that he should consider (in light of such findings as :nese) wearing mac 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 material, we could 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 think management has a better solution and that is to replace the source of the trouble. Plagens noced that the chart said that if you're removing Kaylo you should wear a respirator 100Z of the time. Suppose he was removing Kaylo for four hours. Then, for the last five minutes he removed Thermobescos. Are you saying it's all right to take off the respirator to remove the Thermobestos for the 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 co 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. 376751 Special Meeting ST00QC335 -i9- August 19, 1969 Now it's interesting to note that a pipe coverer working out in the field, and pipe covereis whohave used asbestos, have come to me and said :r,at they could tell me jusc by looking at the stuff that this is ~ucn dustier than either the Kaylo or Air Cell. What they are seeing is ousts wnich are visaole to the eye. Fiberglas is so constructed by the nature of che macerial chat it does not fracture easily. It tunes off rather in large chunks. This is what a man complains about when ne gets some of this on him. There are these large chunks that are beyond or greater than the particle sire which a man can normally respire into the lungs. That particle size is 0.1 to 10 microns. This is essentially what this scrubber or this little vacuum sweeper that we have craps. Stuff bigger than this will be stopped according to the doctors in che nose and in the throat to be spit out, etc. This suggests that fiberglas in this particular application is pretty dusLy. In cutting and applying though, it fairs much better than the asbestos containing materials. Now if we were to go over to this same right hours of exposure, given the levels that we found during this report, an eight hour exposure to fiberglas, a man would be exposed to 2.0 million particles per cubic foot. Even given the fact that during one specific operation he's exposed to relatively dusty concen trations. I 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, on 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 che grape vine has it that this TLV of fifteen is going to be dropped and raised to fifty million particles per cubic f;-ot. 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 than this room, it's a real dust storm. But even at these concentration levels, there is still no hazard to health according to.the 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 and they survived wich no effects of health. Engibous asked, 100,00 what? DeGesero replied, no chronic affects. 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 stuff is iner?. So if this new number, this fifty, becomes che new TLV and by the same process this five is going down to two, then that thirteen becomes insignificant as far as Che hazard or that would cause chronic lung problems. The other numbers assume a much greater significance because they are numbers of materials which contain asbestos This again reflects this value of the American Congress of Governmental 376752 ST0000336 Special Meeting -20- August 19, 1969 and Industrial Hygienists. They're continually reviewing and revising : neir standards like this. And every year-, they pyt out a booklet with tnese tr.anges in them and we expect momentarily 4 shipment of booklets. Nobocv is going to be particularly surprised to see this fifty number in mere for fiberglas. (At this point the >eqvi'poenc malfunctioned again and conversation was lost) Dr. Kramer advised that since complete their final presentation to the pipe coverers, they had reconsidered their position on the wearing of the respirator when removing fiberglas as follows: It is reconmended chat when removing fiberglas insulation that -ay be contaminated with toxic chemicals* that the pipe coverers are to wear respirators in addition to any other.protective devices that iv.ay be deemed necessary. It's not because of any pulmonary hazard from exposure to fiberglas but because of possible injury due to the contaminating chemical that may be present. It occurred to us that ionie of that fiberglas might become contaminated with materials chemselv< far more toxic than fiberglas. If this is suspected, they should protec themselves. Edgecombe said that he had another question. It's going to be a repeat but I've heard it about the percentage of people that'll lose a classifi cation on account of the product that they're using, fiberglas. Dr. Krar pointed out that these were estimates. _ I haven't been able to get real good figures that I can use. They vary between five and ten percent of the people who will not adapt to fiberglas. At first when they work with fiberglas they itch. After a while it's very much like the sun. When you first go out you burn. The skin thickens up enough so that the fiberglas becomes less irritating and there are people who adapt to it and have no trouble getting into fiberglas after that. The questi is, now many people do not adapt to fiberglas. I've found estimates or five percent and I've found estimates of ten percent. I 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 goes. Ve did have a fair question relative to chat. That is that Che 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 because of it, or if unless we first convinced him that it was to his benefit to be taken off the job. But there is a possibility that some men-- we may have to reconxsend 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 explained that this was a figure. We don't have exactly. I'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. I don't know exactly what Che figures are~ 376753 ST0000397 Special Meeting -21- August 19, 1969 Halcomb said.that he thought that was what Edgecombe's question was co 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 fiberg las full time. They have no trouble at all. Neering asked now many Dow had. Warren replied that they had eighty-one and maybe a few more one way or Che ocher. Edgecombe consented that he had neard ninety. Warren explained that they had had 61 for a long time. We almost doubled it. If fiberglas completely took the place of Air Cell, about 40Z or 45X of the total would be of this nature. It'll only go up to 400. It can't be used on--lec'g say it isn't being used on 150 pound steam as such, on the line itself. It is put over tracings. As far as putting it on a two inch, 150 pound steam line, you'd use Kaylo or Careycemp. 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 crying to get rid of asbestos containi insula Lion material. Plagens asked Warren if he was saying Chat he was expecting perhaps 50Z of the insulation would be fiberglas. Warren agreed. Plagens added that the rest would still be Careycemp-- Warren explained chat it would be Kaylo, Careycemp-- I'm sure that in the past we've always been able co work things out. I'm sure in this particular case it can be worked out, assuming that 991 of them or 501 don't come along and say chat they can't work with it. 51 is limited. Schroeder reasoned that there really wasn't any fear of anybody losing their job if they switch to fiberglas. d/fin replied, if this 51 figure is true, no. If it comes out that way. Erzezinski 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 calked to his supervisor and says he itches and wants to go and cake a shower. What would the response be in a case like this? Warren answered that he knew if he saw a guy that was removing covering (and I've seen this happen before), removing covering chat's up over a guy's head and he's in this for two or three hours, he deserves a shower. I'm sure that most foremer 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 asbescos so that he could take 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.am real hard feeling for it right now. I do know from what I've heard 376754 310000338 Special Meeting -22- August 19, 1969 from these fellows that we're the only one in Michigan using Air Cell, barren agreed. Edgecombe added, and three in the United States. Warren expJained that there were only three companies in the United Slates that even make Air Cell. And we're the only industrial plant in the State of Michigan that use it. Neering related that he had been at a meeting with about twenty chemical 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, I believe. This was my impression, (machine malfunction and some conversation -as lost) Prior questioned whether there was any problem with the clothing you wear working with fiberglas. Will the fibers become embedded in your clothing and will you not be able to get them out? Warren replied that supervision recognized this problem. It's a problem 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 coverer needs a replacement, we'll have them available. That's about the way it'll happen. Edgecombe conxnented that he hoped that it worked better than it had in the past, (machine malfunction and same conversation was lost) Warren remarked that it was surprising how many coverers are already wearing their masks. This is quite gratifying really. And most uf them do have the masks around their necks right now. As of the second, we'd like to follow through on this whole program. Martini added that this was the date that Wittbrodt 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 had started the research on tnis-.as of the first of this year. Was it January 1 that you had Lhese 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 my records. It was about the time that I first started with Bob -----------.. Schroeder remarked that that was a good year ago. Halcomb asked if they had worked with Dow coverers and if they had gone 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 questionaires sent out to the coverers. We talked to the steward and everybody. Neering added that in fact, the men had done some research of their own during that time. Edgecombe said that he would like to say for the record that there had been a broad discussion on the way that the operation was performed out there, the way the samples were taken. There were several discussions on this, that I heard. They weren't satisfied with the way you took them. 376755 ST0000339 L-iiai Meeting -23- August 19, 1969 Schroedur 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's Bob case where Dr. Kramer got involved. L'Nl ON RECESSED Nti-ring 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 c omt- up. That's going to be it. DeGesero asked if Edgecombe had been at the meeting where the fact was brought up Chat some guys had called up and somebody had refused to do the sampling or something like that. Edgecombe- answered yes. DeGesero continued that he had started thinking about that. I think there was a call from the fellows over in the Power Department to come out and survey while they were ripping off the bottom ot a boiler or something like that. And as I recall the entire incident at this time, what it amounted to was that they wanted me to come out and I had already made a previous comnitmenC and could not make it. So I said I'd come out at another time and I did come out and measure while they--I think it was-- Edgecombe stated that it hadn't been DeGesero. This happened at 71 Building.- The guy came while they were cutting this. He said it was too dirty and he wouldn't take it. Do you remember this? Jim Martin was the fellow chat brought this up. Net-ring stated that if they had a problem they could work it out. ADJOURNED Management Bargaining Committe 376756