Document rx2GrZj86mz7yDXzV5jMeg65J

FILE NAME Brakes BRK DATE 2011 Dec 30 DOC BRK247 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Letter to Law Firm from Expert in Occupational Hygiene & Environmental Health Responding to Specific Questions Regarding a Plaintiff's Exposure a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA School of Population and Public Health 2206 East Mali Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z3 Phone 604 822 2772 Tax 604 822 4994 sppn ubc ca www.sppli.ubc www.sppli.ubc ca December 30 2011 Jonathan Ruckdeschel The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC 5126 Dorsey Hall Drive Suite 201 Ellicott City MD 21042 Dear Mr. Ruckdeschel am Professor in the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia My areas of expertise and training are occupational hygiene and environmental health I have academic training in the field from the British Columbia Institute of Technology DiplT 1979 the University of California at Berkeley MPH 1982 and the University of Washington PhD 1994 I have professional certification from the Canadian Registration Board of Occupational Hygienists ROH No. 296. My area of research interest is exposure assessment with a particular emphasis on improving response estimation in epidemiology and empirical modeling of factors that influence exposures At your request I have reviewed the information about Mr. Harry Chichester You me with Mr. Chichester's Supplemental Answer to No. provided Interrogatory 19 Exhibit 3 from Mr. Chichester's deposition and a transcript of Mr. Chichester's deposition You asked me to answer the following questions based upon my expertise and training In answering these questions you requested that I assume that Mr. Chichester's diagnosis of mesothelioma is accurate In considering these questions I have reviewed among other things the scientific articles discussed in my answers and the articles provided by you I have listed your questions below in italics then my answers to them 1 Was Mr. Chichester exposed to respirable asbestosfrom the work he and his workers describes in his deposition performed as By virtue of the tasks he performed including brake inspection repair and replacement Mr. Chichester was exposed to airborne and respirable dust from brake linings which were designed during the time of his employment to contain asbestos 2 Were such exposures significant Yes he performed this work repeatedly on a daily basis 6 days per week over a period of 40 years Each time he replaced brakes Mr. Chichester used compressed air to clean dust and debris from the brake drum area Sometimes he didn't need to the brake linings and instead repaired them via sanding replace a Were they within the range of exposures known to be capable of causing or contributing to the development ofmesothelioma Brake lining replacement and repair work as performed by Mr. Chichester and his colleagues includes numerous activities that produce high levels of airborne asbestos dust including using compressed air for cleaning the brake area sanding brake lining surfaces and filing edges of brake linings The current OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit PEL is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air cc as an eight time- weighted average Levels that have been reported the literature listed in the footnote below for these activities regularly exceeded the current OSHA PEL often by 2- to fold and sometimes by as much as fold Cleaning with compressed air and sanding and grinding friction products have been shown to create hazardous levels of airborne asbestos dust and because of this these specific operations have become subject to regulatory restrictions Some jurisdictions have lower exposure limits for asbestos than the USA As an example the current standard in the Netherlands is 0.01 ccand the Health Council of the Netherlands has recently proposed even lower standards of 0.002 cc for chrysotile asbestos and 0.00042 cc for amphibole asbestosbecause epidemiological evidence based on the highest quality exposure information has shown that the exposure relationship is steeper than predicted when poor quality studies are included in the analysis 3 Was there sufficient latency between Mr. Chichester's exposures to friction products and the diagnosis ofhis disease Mr. Chichester's work as a mechanic including daily brake repair took place over a more than year period starting in 1950 when was about 23 years of age Estimates of the minimum times since first asbestos exposure to mesothelioma diagnosis vary though they usually range from 15 to 20 years One study that examined the elevations in risk of mesothelioma with respect to timing and duration of exposure found about a trebling of risk with 38 to 48 years since first exposure a fold increase in risk with more than 20 years of exposure duration and more than doubling of risk with an age of first exposure of 23 or more Mr. Chichester's exposures met all these criteria ' Kakooei H Hormozy M Marioryad H. Evaluation of asbestos exposure during brake repair and replacement Ind Health 374-80 Epub 2011 Mar 1 Richter RO Finley BL Paustenbach DJ Williams PR Sheehan PJ An evaluation of short exposures of brake mechanics to asbestos during automotive and truck brake cleaning and machining activities J Expo Sa Environ Epidemiol 2009 458-74 Epub 2008 Jul 30 Weir FW Tolar G Meraz LB. Characterization of vehicular brake service personnel exposure to airborne asbestos and particulate Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2001 1139-46 Rodelsperger K Jahn H Br^...ckelB MankeJ Paur R Woitowitz HJ Asbestos dust exposure during brake repair Am J Ind Med 63-72 2 Burdorf A Heederik D. Applying quality criteria to exposure in asbestos epidemiology increases the estimated risk Ann Occup Hyg 565 568 Iwatsubo Y Pairon JC Boutin C M^'nardO Mass~-nN Caillaud D Orlowski E Galateau H Bignon J Brochard P. Pleural mesothelioma response relation at low levels of asbestos exposure in a French population control study AmJ Epidemiol 133-42