Document vyBQ8R50do8r93Q5bgKY8aJ8E

THE ASBESTOS COMPANIES - THEIR RESPONSE TO LOWERING THE TLV Date: March 16, 1972 Description: Hearings on the Proposed Asbestos Standard before the U.S. Department of Labor Mr. Swetonic (Johns-Manville/AIA): "In recommending a standard of two fibers per cc, the erroneous assumption has been made that today's technology is capable of lowering the levels in each and every asbestos operation to two fibers. Past experience would indicate that in a sizable number of operations it will be impossible to reduce the levels to two fibers, no matter how much money is spent... In these cases, the operations obviously would have to be shut down and the men thrown out of work. We have only a very rough idea at this time how large a segment of the manufacturing industry would be affected in this manner, but an estimate of perhaps 15 to 20% seems reasonable. ... Applied to the sales of a billion dollars, this would obviously work out in the range of $150 to $200 million." pg. 185 [emphasis added] THE ASBESTOS COMPANIES - THEIR RESPONSE TO LOWERING THE TLV Date: March 16, 1972 Description: Hearings on the Proposed Asbestos Standard before the U.S. Department of Labor Mr. Swetonic (Johns-Manville/AIA): "If OSHA promulgates a time-weighted average lower than five, the economic impact on the industry will be enormous. In addition, many asbestoscontaining products will probably disappear from the marketplace and thousands ofjobs will be eliminated." pg. 191 THE ASBESTOS COMPANIES - THEIR RESPONSE TO PROPOSED WARNINGS REQUIREMENT Date: March 16, 1972 Description: Hearings on the Proposed Asbestos Standard before the U.S. Department of Labor Mr. Swetonic (Johns-Manville/AIA): "Of additional enormous potential financial impact on the industry is the labeling requirement as contained in the final recommendations of the OSHA Advisory Committee. It would require the placing of a warning label on each and every product containing more than 5% asbestos by weight. This label which contains the words; "Do not breath dust -- may cause asbestosis and cancer." Such a label would surely spell the demise of a number of major product lines of the industry, including vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-pipe, and any other product that is sold directly to the consumer market. In addition, there is no doubt that our competitors will attempt to take advantage of the situation by encouraging the public to avoid asbestos-containing products because of the potential health hazards implied in the warning label, even though to the customer no such hazard exists." pg. 186 [Emphasis added] AIA TELLS OSHA: CEMENT IS NOT A HAZARD Date: March 16, 1972 Description: Hearings on the Proposed Asbestos Standard before the U.S. Department of Labor Mr. Swetonic (Johns-Manville/AIA): "A locked-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-locked-in products would be those in which the fiber is loosely bound and which release fiber during handling or application. Most asbestos-containing insulations would fall into this category, as would fire-proofing sprays and insulating cements." THE ASBESTOS COMPANIES - THEIR RESPONSE TO LOWERING THE TLV Date: March 16, 1972 . Description: Hearings on the Proposed Asbestos Standard before the U.S. Department of Labor Mr. Swetonic (Johns-Manville/AIA): "In addition, there will no doubt be cases where the technology is available to reduce levels to two fibers, but where the cost involved would make a particular product line either no longer profitable or no longer competitive on the open market against non-asbestos containing products of the same type. ...In these cases, the plant or manufacturing operation would also be shut down. This particular type of situation would also exist at a five-fiber level hopefully in not as many cases." pg. 185 [Emphasis added] UL-' aav 1^5 U.S DEPAfi iMENT OF LABOR Vsihinfton RECORDS AUTHENTICATION CERTIFICATE I HEREBY ATTEST. That the annexed copy, of each of the specified number of copies, of each document listed belo is a true copy of a document in the Official custody of the Department of Labor. 1 copy each of: Transcripts from March V:,15,16, and 17 Commencs and heating exhibits of: W.J. Nicholson, American Petroleum Institute, D.A. Holaday, Brand Insulations Inc., L.J. Bibri , B.J. Ph i 11ips(Certain-teed), M.W. Borou, J.D. Moran(Flintkoce), F.L. Pundsack(J-M), J.W. Rawlings, W.M. HancockfDow), W.K. Hesse(j-M) , E.M. Fenner(J-M), E.J. Killian(Nat. Gypsum), Cement Asbestos Products Co., M.M. Key, C.E. Best(MCA) >IGN'ATU'RE ANO OFFICIAL TITLE DIVISION AND BUREAU DATE Daniel j-j Marsick Technical Information Specialist Docket Office/Technical Data Center/Occup. Sfty & Hlth Adm/ U.S. Dept, of Labor 7 Sep 73 1 HEREBY CERTIFY, That Danial,,,J- MJLrsi(Tk______who signed the foregoing attestation, is now and was at the time of signing (title) Technical Information Specialist anH ha9 lcgal CUBtody of the official records of the United Statca Department of Labor therein ___ att.ated and that full faith and creditahould begiventohia act as auch. IN WITNESS THEREOF, 1 Lafranchise - w jiyi ---Vt^ ^eS'natCt^ ^7 Secretary of Labor as Authenti- JOiriI"^^^^tnJ:'4f,''ation Officer of the Department of Labor, hare here- unto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the Department of Labor to be affixed this _1_LlL day of Septer.fcen ^ 78n 0 fit'/ {(:'*( / Authentication Officer / Department of Labor /\ m UNITED STATU TT'ATTrTUrr OF LA TOR In t'ne Tetter cl': ?-- sta;da:t tot iT-uruRE to aseestos dust, PROPOSED KUL" "ri; .. .1 HO PUBLIC lUARIi':1 0 c n f_ :nce Eo o tyi E Into rc opart-ente 1 Auc 1 tor 12t.h A- Constitution Arc . . ' t sii i n on, DC . Thurr.ctjy. i-trcii 16, IT7'2 7Ac a Lo c --cnt i t led r.is t te >n Tor fu-vtivir hecrin-. pursueni* to , , U . to rr- C to* O-nv'', / * V^ 1 c.'.cot. c ,in. . irgcicv, i-- -* > 197?. EErOTE: - ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Koarint E::cr.ir.er APIIIaRI'CEE : ( As 'heretofore no red.} \J ITS (The document above referred to v;as carted as E;:hibit Ko. 58 ?-- EXAlilllil?/ GOLDBERG for Identification.) All right. MR. FAY: And the second one is the Asbestos race Sheet concerning the uses of asbestos and asbestos prod UC 13 . ZRMMrfrR GOLDEERG: That will be Zbuiibit 39. (The document above referr GQ tO . v:as marked as Exhibit Ro. 39 for identification.) EX/fllEER GOLDBERG: Thanh you. Exhibits 38 and 39 are received. . (The documents previously identi fled as Exhibits Eos. 3S and 39 acre received in evidence.) ZMAMIiTZR GOLDBERG : Introduce yourself. MR. Z\JETOITIC: My name is Matths:? M. Guctcnic, and I an Executive Secretary of the Asbestos Inf arm Lien Associa tion of L'crth America and also manager cf spscial projects in the Frolic Affairs Section for the Johns-Llr.nvilie Corpora tion. Mr. Fay has already described the acsociati6n, and identified the ccnoe.n5.es vil'ich it represents. T.'e areybasicsL an information disseminating organiuaties and the facts or w,-_r...c.nr cca '.a race an my pre mentation are supported in the 179 medical literature or constitute the professional opinion of medical and technical experts available to the industrv'os consultants. ' __ The asuestos industry has recognised for many years that there are occupational health hazards associated \:ith j i| the excessive inhalation of asuestos dust. Recognizing its ooligaticn to protect its workers, the industry has over the 1 years invested many millions of dollars in sophisticated and highly efficient equipment to reduce asuestos dust levels in : !! ;!l' the work places generally accepted safe limits. Some $100million has uecn invested for this purpose in the past decade alone. I just might point out in reference.to seme cf the testimony that uas given this morning tnat almost ex.clusively l I i h this equipment uas designed fc prevent exposure at the source. ! '( ' 1 i dust collection equipment of the type that was described for in the insulation trade but or. a much, much larger scale - - * l again not protecting the v;orker, cut protecting him from the , ` duct uercrc it ever gets to him. ' .1 *i j | . II The cr.eralnositionuithin the ~ industry is tna_ \:c j vcu'.d never .like to sec a man ever have to v:ear a respirator, for example. The source is the place to stop exposure. ... . Over the years, acceptable safe limits for asuestos j l ! I : exposure has been levered a numuer of times uy various uodies, i including TCC-IK and others. The industry has uerxed hard to --ct each of these lore red limits. ion. noueve- . m.e 'V lOo [ ;i li _r is eeing faced with the pcssioility .of yet another decrease j i:ii in the neceptnole Limits for asuestos exposure. In the past, ! each new standard was accepted uy tiie industry uecause the developing medical evidence indicated chat new lower limits j | j* might indeed ue necessary. This is certainly not . the case j i with the tuc-fioer standard proposed, uy the National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth. The medical urief pre- j pared oy HIOSH in support of tr.e tuo-fiuer limit, in cur opinion, falls far short of estaulishing the necessity of so a s tandard. The criteria document, in fact, states quite clearly on page D-1C that- "the r.umoer cf studies that have collected both environmental and medical data and with a significant nureer of exposed workers is not sufficient to establish a meaningful standard cased upon firm scientific data." ' If this is tr ue-. then C he que s tier. must ue asK.ec : upon u'h nc co aa snali. a s ta non rd ue L/w m ^ z ? I f i;c ore going be. s-e our eta ncard upon v;hat othc -r c have done , which is tne . basic approach that NICSK had taken, trail v:e era running CI j around in circles, tecause if specific data is not available Co us today, then it could not possiuily have seen availaoLe to others when they developed their standards in the past. The sim'ole/ tru.h is that no one, N.lCSN included, j I I ^I y.r\ 101 There is general agreement among Che professionals studying the 'I proulem that it should -prouauly ue lower than 12 fioers per \ cc, out how much lower is a questio-n that l:as not been answered to everyone's satisfaction. The main reason for this is that Che disease we are seeing today is the result of conditions that existed 20 or 30 or AO years ago, at a time when today's highly sophisticated dust collection equipment was not readily avcilaole and when ooth the industry and the medical profession knew relatively little aoout the hazards of asbestos dust. This point has been made repeatedly oy the doctors testifying before this hearing. j Vie simply do not know for sure what the dust levels I were in those days, out there is every indication that they j were enormously higher than they are today. For this reason. ! .t . Ii as many doctors have porntea out, we must be vc-ry caretul 1 aocut looking at today's conditions and today's disease and j 'i I trying to arc*.; a parallel between the two. Such a parallel , ! dess not exist, and this can lend to some veryerroneous conclusions. j j Let me give you an er.aiacle. `i -- it has occn- reported oy somere scare t.ersstudying | ins a L?.cn --------ur.s .,ul t::3ccs in this country that the dust ccr- I lc coy on insula uion jou sites cr.d in ship- 4? 102 led to a calculation chat the very high death rate found among these men is directly attributable to levels of around three floors per cc. The evidence is substantial that this a-- calculation is inaccurate * I am submitting with ny testimony a paper which describes the decreasing asbestos content of insulations used in the trades over the past 30 to 40 years. You will recall that this basic question about the levels of exposure in the past among these people was brought up yesterday oy Dr. Nicholson and under question oy Hr. Sheckler. The basic document which substantiates the conclusion that the levels are considerably different, although we don't know what they' wc-re 40 years ago, but we do know they wore much higher, is contained in this paper which I have here entitled, ''Changing Concepts of Insulation Material." I v?ill not go into the details of what ie contained in this paper, except to submit It. her example, I submit this paper not tc discredit any researcher 1 s work. Obviously, I am net in a petition tc d?. that, hut merely to point cut as others have cone, the enormous difficulty one encounters in trying to establish meaningful numerical standards. In addition, as Dr. holmes pointed cut in his testimony, the evidence seems to indicate that mere importance ~ 1 r 1 r ' rs 133 potential than to time weighted averages. Tc:: example, in the tearout of old Insulations . aboard chip, the Dritir.hhave counted levels as high as i | ; i 3LC0 fibers cor cc, *;:.cn"n moan ranging cetv;cen 15v liters ; t per cc and 333 floors per cc. Today, of course, men performin': %I this vrorU a.re protected by air supply respirators. Thirty ! years ago, v;hen they received exposures that led to their . present disease, they ters not soprotected. The doctors are generally agreed that the lung's . abilityto cleanse itself of accumulated dust v.'ouid be _ . seriously reduced at ouch high levels, yeta- tire-xsighted ave::age for a Mj-kour v.'eeh might chow a relatively lor level. ! Ii ; i 1 I ! j In the spraying industryccur.es ac high as 1500 fibers per cc have been, recorded. Yet, considering the tire spent o:i preparation of the equipment and other non-spraying tnshs, the cine-re righted average for these workers might come out to be reasonably moderate. Thus. in the opinion of most experts, cimc-rcighted averages can os very misleading if the men are periodically exp cod tc fiber levels so high that the lung's cleansing mechanism fails considerably in its ability to rid the lung of accumulated fiver. If, as the experts have told us, the lungs can remove 99% of all inhaled particles, including an testes fiver, then a reduction in the cleansing function.of even a ter -c: ?>n 1 1 n 184 by Chav: many magnitude. . ` ' In addition tn those reasons, there ore excellent . .. , tecrncicgr.co.l end eccncmwc reasons >:or not prcr.uigr.tins too ! ii i strict n ' t?.we-woightodl average . end instead piecing more i ! i attention cn eliminating the high peck exposures. The induotrv I is in the process of trying tc develop accurate data with re- ! r.-nrd tc economic impact. II". Fey referred Co this in his presentation. L;c are working hard on this problem with 05KA, ; i j ! *.i-reau of Standards, and with Arthur D. Little. v.'hiie it _ rill he some weeds beforefinal figures will oeavailable, r ly a bir.ates indicate that the cost to the industry of j i \ ! re a "lag a two-fits:: s tsndarc": ,in those sections of the industry! ^i a; ere c:,ch a s trued a:-;d is feasible, would be in the vicinity c f -'.ifO million . ; i ; i In recommentinga standard of two fibers per cc. I -'he erroneous ar.sumption has boor: mace that today:'s tech- r olcgy id capable of lowering the levels ineach cad every : be a tc s operation bo two fibers. Past experience would ;I ; i ' ii cm b c f -at in a sir.able numberof operations it will oe * v* poosiu-ic to reduce the levels bo r.v:o fibers, no matter hew i -ah rarer is s1pent. In there eases, the operationsobviouslywould have ; o r.:.down a..ntj the men thrown out of word.. he nave only a 'cry rwvgh idea at this time lx;; large a segment of the I I I ! * 185 i manufacturing Indus Cry would te affe.cted in Chis manner, but : an estimate of ocrhaps 15 to 207. seeca reasonable. ' ` . ` /. applied to Che sales of a billion dollars, this ! I j Mould obviously viorU out"in the range of $150 to $200 million.; In addition, there will no doubt be cases where the technology is available to reduce levels to two fibers, but where the cost involved would make a particular produce line I i i either r.o longer profitable or no longer competitive on the open market against non-asbestos containing products of the same type. _ n:In these cases, the plant or manufacturing operati would also be shut down. This particular type of situation would also emist at a five-fiber level hopefully in not as cany cases. . Trying to put a handle cn the potential number of lost jobs is er.trcnely difficult. Many small manufacturing operations will undoubtedly go under, but it is nearly impossible to determine the total number of men me are f1 ii ii i iii i t talking about. Perhaps 15 to 30 thousand is aeout as ccose aw we can come at chic time. This would not bo just :n but would be a consideration of the insulation Ii Crawsw and other groups as well. i 7.he figures I have just mentioned may not seem larse i ii/ ' .` w.'cn compared to what the steel or autcmoDile .industries wou_a have to pan/ In similar circumsbanco s, but the ae nee te s locus1-- ' 1SS in this country is much smaller, and $200 million in equip ment, another $200 million cr more in eliminating product lir. due to an inability to meet the tuo-fibar standard, and 20 or 25 thousand lest jots is an enormous chunU of chi3 indust. For this reason, it is Vital that G5LIA give considerable thought before promulgating a standard that even the erperte agree is net based cnsolid scientific evidence. Of cdd.it5.onal enormous potential financial impact c the industry is the labeling requirement as contained in the final recommendations of the OSHA Advisory Committee. It mould require the placimg of a warning label cn each and ever product containing more than 5% asbestos by we light. Teis label, which contains the words: ,JDo not breath dust -- maycause asbestosis and cancer." Such a label would surely spoil the cornice of a number of major product lines of the industry, including viyn rejectee floor tile, aob-cotos-pipc, and any other product ic cold directly bo the consumer mr.rhet. In addition, there :1c no doubt that our competitors will atconut to teho r iv ;.o of the riituaticn by encouraging the public to avoid a- .c :'.`:oe"Oputa.'.r:iug pro due to beoauso of the potential health 1 nr-.* mho implied. in the warning label, even the ugh to the c*mtr/io:-: u.o such hnrard r.nists. ' 7 mould question whether such a labs3. Is, rn.facc. recoosarv or called for in the majority of asecotcs-ccntarmim ,h_ 28? products. Everyone iu i:l'.e Industry end in the medical end scicr.t5.fic profession who has dealt with the asbestos health problem ever the years is familiar with Che ccr.acpt c:: Iceitce- _ 3 -- * r* r* rrn.a**n-i Ipcc*h ^cd] ---i?m products. A IccUc-d-in product is era i: which the asbestos is bound into the product with. cement, asphalt, plastic' or seas ether br.-.dcr which prevents the escape cf free fiber 5.n use.* Euanp.lcs cf loehed in products would be asbestos cement products and floor tile. L*oa-lachad-in products would '> l ;i be those in which the fiber is loosely bound and which release ' fiber curr.r.p; handling or application. Host asbestos-containir. insulations would fall into this category-^ as would fire proof ing sprays cud insulating cements. ll X 1 should man tier, that while- there is no lab el in." vs-iuircr.cni: under any federal statute for insulation products at the '-resent tine. 7. believe ue rcr.j ora uy cr the ecus a: in the is due try voluntarily have.a warning label on most l;.:v.Ietiers which they consider potentially hn.unrecus in use. *. c t a -r. applies to a lot cf bay asbestos ccnsnt products ur.d -i 1 fiber shiercr.hs- This was a voluntary action on the part of !< r-'vu.y or..c.:;c ccurnr.r.es i.n .tn.c.n.nc..u.otry. ?Z the matter is that the' percent of a product has absolutely nothing to do *.;i to a health orablcai. An insulation ccn- -5 ' -r entire: t1lr*\o. while an asbestos cement .-sheet with Lei asbestos requires 1mr-. .0 _ none. Per this reason, it is only logical that the A 'ItV* *Ji*wi *W'' * k Csrriiitce Tzcpmmcr.dcd labeling system be discarded in raver or a system which only requires labeling on those ' products which readily release asbestos fiber in a hazardous j during handling or application. ' llith regard to the monitoring requirements of the ; ' i.t/p J v-w^ J regulations, I would only libs to point cut that i i I there are probably no more than three cozen trained industrial I hygienists in the entire country available Co industry to* ; I sample and analyze asbestos dust concentrations. OiTIl should j appreciate this problem because ox its c*:n d5_fficu.Iticc in I finding qualified industrial hygienists. lien can bo trained to do this job, but it is going to tsie cv.ch zero time thr.n i ' is permitted under the leu. ' 1 might also point cut that the ciuct menu during ` system as rccuvircd in the regulationswill cost the menu- . fac Curing incus try alone between $3 and $5 million, per year. .'.0 rot an oriverL-itaut cum when viewed by itself, sue ere that adds to an already heavy financial burden on the industry. As my final pc5.nt, I would line to discuss for a j minute the radical aspects of the Advisory Commit ice- re cor.- i rsedation:'.. The reccmmendnflora state that the medical ' cv.rvoillaucc program ciinll be carried out by physicians If \t \ la? selected by the employee, and that tha medical records nill be available only to IHTJ and DOL physicians and 'medical consultants and physicians designated and authorised by the emp-loyee. Jl __r You will note this employer is by omission pro- _> hibicea frem. seeing an employee's medical record, even though the employer is responsible under the la:; for the medical condition of his employees. Under Section (c)(7) cf the Advisory Ccrsr.ittee recommendations, an employer is required fomabe sura that mo employee ''should be assigned to tasks requiring use cf Co- J...c. win .> if hie most mount medical enemies lion indicates" and. than the section goes on to the.certain medical criteria. r;c*j can an employer obey the section cf the regulations if he is prohibited from seeing an employee1s 11 medical records by another section of the regulation? This 't ( , is completely illogical and is obvious].y reflective of the baste nith which the advisory committee ras required to perform, its duty. In addition, ho*? could an employer conduct c pre ventive medicine program in his plant if he car.not perfenr ermine, lions, note changes in medical conditions, and counsel employees? These programs are in cristcncc in cssc-r.tially co'meauic s in the asbestos Indus 'c..y Ans not c-.Lv 193 possible occupational health problems, but on the general overall health condition as well. . h'3 have heard the arguments from certain unions, net necessarily here.? but from others, that it should be solel up to the employes to clec5.de whether or not he is willing to work unde:.* the existing conditions, whatever they nay be. This simply docs not make good sense, because it is still the responsibility cf the employer to safeguard the health of his employees. where the responsibility lies is where the implementation of the medical surveillance program should be centered, arid no place else. ` It should also be pointed out that a system of the type proposed in the recommendations would effectively present future eCidsnio.lorical studios of the asbestos industry, except on a very limited or local scale. The medical records vital to such studies would be distributed among thousands cf doctors all across the country, and retrieval would be virtu ally impossible. In cor.clus5.on, I would like to summarise very briei 1 .V c v-'irieus points I have attempted to bring out in my pre- ; . tic- . Cr.c. The medical evidence fer establishing a r.'--.1 time-weighted average 5.s unavailable at this time. Two. Host exports agree that the brief, massive dr. scs of as res too fitc-r are probably more important in the 191 causation of the disease than continuing, long-tern, lev; or tr.e*l a rate exposure. This is not to preclude that la:; exposure over: an enormous perieq of time are not to be considered at all, but that the one is more important than the other. Three. If CSTA promulgates a timo-ueightod average 1 :::or then five. the economic' impact oh the industry ivill be enormous. In audition, many csbes tos-ccntair.ing products will | i probably disappear fron the marketplace and thousands of jobs ; rill bo eliminated. i .j i Four. A labeling requirement of the tyce recommended `j by the CSRA Advisory Committee Kill result in the unnecessary \ 'i loss of hundreds cf millions of dollars in sales each year. \ Fntire' segments of the industry -.rill be destroyed, v.-ith ! i resultant large-scale unemployment. ; Five. The dust monitoring program recommended by ; C Z'AA is- impractical at this time because of the lac'.: of ined personnel. ` i , Ci:;. Tb.c medical surveillance recommendationof ` : e Advisory Committee is illogical ar.d unrcrkab.le. There are, o.i course, other sections of the proposed yui.a bio no that '.:-i.l:. create difficulties in addition to those t'v.'.i: i distursec! a no these v:ill be mentioned bp* separate i.: a if ic:. ;. Hc-tsve:-:, v believe that the points that I have / covered arc the most .Important, at least to the cunuracturrrg ride of the industry. -P CSKA has a tremendous responsibility in the establishing of occupational health standards on asbestos. l*ot only must the \;orl-;crs be protected, but the continued a-- availability of a3bestos-containing products to our society must be assured. To promulgate unnecessarily strict or impractical stand arc's that would destroy entire segments of the asbestos industry v;ou.!d be a serious mist a he. IT'/illhIA GO'.DBsZXG: Do you wish to introduce your document ? LEU SUZTOKIC: I have two ox then. iiAhlllrTZU GOLDDEr.G: Document entitled, ''Change * in_ Time Period of Insulation Materials,M will be car iced end la received in evidence. (The document above referred to was marked Exhibit i'o. AO for identi fication ar.ci received in evidence.) ryj.V.'Ziy.?. GOLDLiUG: Ida? these gentleman be crcused? you, gentlemen. 11AT.CH: Gentlemen, ny name is John H. Marsh. I' am Director of Dlarming for Paybestss-Uanhattan, ins. Trier to ray remarks which will be directed tcwarc the economic impact'of the proposed regulations, I should like to have Ur. Isaac 1-1. '.leaver speak on the technical feasibility c_ reaching the proposed standard and comment cn certain other aspects of the uroposed regulations. . ir