INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO

RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA

+ + +

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

+ + +

March 28, 2014

9:30 a.m.

Frances Perkins Building Auditorium

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20210

BEFORE: 	STEPHEN L. PURCELL

	   	Chief Administrative Law Judge

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL):

KRISTEN LINDBERG

Attorney, Office of the Solicitor

ALLISON KRAMER

Attorney, Office of the Solicitor

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA):

WILLIAM PERRY

Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA

ANNETTE IANNUCCI

Health Scientist, Office of Chemical Hazards

- Non-Metals

JOANNA GORSE

Office of Physical Hazards

JOSEPH COBLE, Sc.D., CIH

Director, Office of Technological Feasibility

TOM MOCKLER

Acting Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis

- Safety

DAVID O'CONNOR

Director, Office of Chemical Hazards - Non-Metals

JESSICA SCHIFANO

Office of the Director

TIFFANY DeFOE

Office of Chemical Hazards - Metals

ROBERT BURT

Acting Deputy Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

ROBERT STONE

Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis - Health UNITED STEELWORKERS
(USW):

ASHLEY FITZ

Health, Safety and Environment Department

Local 5668

ALAN WHITE

Local 593

MICHAEL WRIGHT

Director of Health, Safety and Environment

STEVEN MARKOWITZ, M.D.

Director, Center for Biology of Natural Systems

Queens College, CUNY

JOHN SCARDELLA

Program Administrator, Tony Mazzocchi Center for Health, Safety and
Environmental Education

ALLEN HARVILLE

Local 8888

Co-Chairman, Safety Committee

Newport News Shipbuilding Facility and Drydock

RAMI KATRIB

Health, Safety and Environment Department

ANNA FENDLEY

Legislative Department

JAMES FREDERICK

Assistant Director, Health, Safety and Environment

AMERICAN FOUNDRY SOCIETY (AFS):

ALFRED SPADA

Director, Marketing, Communications and Public Relations

JERRY CALL

CEO

THOMAS SLAVIN

Chair, Health and Safety Committee

Cardno ChemRisk

ROBERT SCHOLZ, PE, CIH

Health and Safety Committee

TRC Consulting

CHRIS NORCH

Vice President

Chairman, Texas Cast Metals Association

President, Denison Industries

PETER MARK

Corporate Director of Safety, Health and Environmental, Grady Holdings

DAVID SARVADI

Attorney

NON-FERROUS FOUNDERS' SOCIETY (NFFS):

JAMES MALLORY

Executive Director and CEO

AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI):

BRETT SMITH

Senior Director of Government Relations

GLASS PACKAGING INSTITUTE (GPI):

LYNN BRAGG

President

VERALLIA/SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS:

STEVEN B. SMITH

Vice President, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs

WILLIAM MANN

Vice President, Health and Safety

OTHER PARTICIPANTS:

CHRIS TRAHAN

Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO

PEG SEMINARIO

Safety and Health Director, AFL-CIO

FRANKLIN MIRER, Ph.D., CIH

CUNY School of Public Health

AFL-CIO

ELIZABETH NADEAU

Attorney, International Union of Operating Engineers

BILL KOJOLA

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health

NICOLE WINNETT

Attorney, Jackson Lewis

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Construction Industry Safety Coalition

DARIUS D. SIVIN, Ph.D.

Health and Safety Department, United Auto Workers

CELESTE MONFORTON, Dr.P.H., M.P.H.

PETER DOOLEY, CIH, CSP

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health

REBECCA REINDEL

AFL-CIOINDEX

										PAGE

INTRODUCTION

Judge Stephen L. Purcell					  	  PAGEREF a1Purcell \h  2503

UNITED STEELWORKERS (USW)

	Ashley Fitz							  PAGEREF b1Fitz \h  2503

	Alan White		 					  PAGEREF b2White \h  2504

	Michael Wright				 			  PAGEREF b3Wright \h  2512

	Steven Markowitz, M.D.					  PAGEREF b4Markowitz \h  2517

	John Scardella							  PAGEREF b5Scardella \h  2526

	Allen Harville					 		  PAGEREF b6Harville \h  2529

	Rami Katrib							  PAGEREF b7Katrib \h  2532

	Anna Fendley							  PAGEREF b8Fendley \h  2538

	James Frederick						  PAGEREF b9Frederick \h  2540

	Questions								  PAGEREF b10Q \h  2550

AMERICAN FOUNDRY SOCIETY (AFS)

	Alfred Spada							  PAGEREF c1Spada \h  2621

	Jerry Call							  PAGEREF c2Call \h  2625

	Thomas Slavin				 	  		  PAGEREF c3Slavin \h  2635

	Robert Scholz, PE, CIH 					  PAGEREF c4Scholz \h  2645

	Thomas Slavin							  PAGEREF c5Slavin \h  2656

	Christopher Norch    					  PAGEREF c6Norch \h  2671

	Peter Mark							  PAGEREF c7Mark \h  2683

	Alfred Spada							  PAGEREF c8Spada \h  2689

	Questions								  PAGEREF c9Q \h  2693

INDEX

										PAGE

NON-FERROUS FOUNDERS' SOCIETY (NFFS);

AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI)__

	NFFS - James Mallory					  PAGEREF d1Mallory \h  2795

	AISI - Brett Smith						  PAGEREF d2Smith \h  2807

	Questions								  PAGEREF d3Q \h  2813

GLASS PACKAGING INSTITUTE (GPI);

VERALLIA/SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS

	GPI - Lynn Bragg 						  PAGEREF f1Bragg \h  2833

	Verallia - Steven B. Smith				  PAGEREF f2Smith \h  2843

	Questions								361

ADJOURNMENT								371

EXHIBITS

EXHIBITS		DESCRIPTION				 	PAGE

Exhibit 77	Mr. White's testimony			  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 78	Mr. Wright's testimony			  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 79	Mr. Scardella's testimony		  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 80A	Mr. Katrib's testimony			  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 80B	Mr. Katrib's PowerPoint			  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 81	Mr. Frederick's PowerPoint		  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 82	USW photos					  PAGEREF e77_82 \h  2549

Exhibit 83	Reserved - Mr. Tuttle's

			testimony						  PAGEREF e83reserve \h  2549

Exhibit 84	AFS PowerPoint					  PAGEREF e84_89 \h  2692

Exhibit 85	Mr. Call's testimony			  PAGEREF e84_89 \h  2692

Exhibit 86	Mr. Slavin's testimony			  PAGEREF e84_89 \h  2692

Exhibit 87	Mr. Scholz' testimony			  PAGEREF e84_89 \h  2692

Exhibit 88	Mr. Norch's testimony			  PAGEREF e84_89 \h  2692

Exhibit 89	Mr. Mark's testimony			  PAGEREF e84_89 \h  2692

Exhibit 90	Mr. Mallory's testimony			  PAGEREF e90 \h  2806

Exhibit 91	Mr. Brett Smith's testimony		  PAGEREF e91 \h  2813

Exhibit 92	Reserved - Ms. Bragg's

			testimony						  PAGEREF e92reserve \h  2843

Exhibit 93 	Mr. Steven Smith's PowerPoint		  PAGEREF e93 \h  2854

P R O C E E D I N G S

(9:30 a.m.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Stephen Purcell.
I'm the Chief Judge for the U.S. Department of Labor.  I'll be presiding
over this hearing this morning.

		Let me ask the panel when they begin to have somebody introduce the
panel in its entirety.  Also, when you're giving your presentation, if
you would, please state your full name at the start of the presentation.
 And then when responding to questions, please make sure you identify
yourself when you're responding to the questions.

		The program this morning has changed a little bit.  Instead of two
different panels for the United Steelworkers, we're going to have both
panels at one time.  And with that, let me go ahead and ask, who wants
to introduce the panel?

		MS. FITZ:  Good morning.  My name is Ashley Fitz from the Health,
Safety and Environment Department of the United Steelworkers.  I'm from
the Local Union 5668 as well as an intern, pursuing my master's degree
in safety engineering.

		On the first panel we will have Alan White from Local Union 593; Mike
Wright, the Director of Health, Safety and Environment Department for
the United Steelworkers; Dr. Steven Markowitz, the Director of the
Center for Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College, City University
of New York and the consulting physician for the United Steelworkers;
and John Scardella, the Program Administrator for the United
Steelworkers Tony Mazzocchi Center for Health, Safety and Environmental
Education.

		The second panel will consist of Allen Harville from the United
Steelworkers Local 8888; Rami Katrib, United Steelworkers Health, Safety
and Environment Department intern; Jim Frederick, the United
Steelworkers Health, Safety and Environment Department Assistant
Director; and Anna Fendley from the United Steelworkers Legislative
Department as a Legislative Representative.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Fitz.  And who is going to start off
this morning, as far as the panel presentations?

		MS. FITZ:  We're going to switch out a little bit, and we're going to
start with Alan White, from the Local Union 593.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, Mr. White.

		MR. WHITE:  Good morning.  Can everybody hear me?  My name is Alan
White.  I'm from Local 593 in Buffalo, New York.  And it is an honor to
be here, and I thank you for your time.

		I may not look sick to you, but I am sick.  I have silicosis.  I
worked in a foundry for 16 years.  I'm not a supervisor.  I am from the
floor.  I saw the foundry from a vantage point not seen by visitors or
those who listen to management describe what goes on.

		We clean up for a week before visitors come by, and only start
operations when visitors are in position to see us start.  Then they
leave after a few minutes and we go back to normal; dirty, filthy and
dusty.

		The dust settles everywhere only to get stirred up again by brooms,
forklift exhaust, and other things.  Nothing cleans the crane rails 50
feet above the floor or the ceilings in the foundry like the concussion
from an explosion, which happens every once in a while.

		The operation at our foundry in Buffalo, New York, is more complex
than it looks.  A lot of training, smarts, guts and experience are the
only things that can help you understand the finer points of how to pour
60,000 pounds of quality brass, bronze or copper each and every time.

		In 16 years as a general helper, I performed every job in every step
of our process, having trained on them immediately after I was hired.
In addition to learning all the jobs, I learned about product quality,
efficient work practices, and how not to blow myself up.

		From materials testing and handling to furnace operation and furnace
lining cleanup, repair, mixing, and maintenance, I was known as a good
worker on every job in the department, and I worked with or around
silica-containing products without knowing the dangers or any
precautions to make a safer environment for myself.

		I learned that a dust mask was hardly, if ever, needed to do most jobs
in the foundry.  Part of my training, which was encouraged by the
culture of the foundry, was that respiratory protection was not
necessary unless while skimming slag out of the brass furnaces, in order
to avoid zinc flu.  And that protection was only the dust mask.

		I was test-fitted by the Safety Department for a dust mask, an N95
dust mask style respirator and a dual-cartridge respirator in my first
year, 1995.  I was told during that test fitting that the only
respiratory protection I would need was the dust mask, and that I would
never need to use anything else.

		We were taught that while cleaning, digging or doing other jobs, that
if we were overcome by dust, heat or smoke, we should go outside and get
some air and come back when we feel better.

		An employee who wore a respirator whenever he worked in the foundry
was repeatedly called crazy.  Never were there any warnings, and no
information was freely available about the products we worked with.

		In our safety training, there was always hearing and vision checks;
forklift safety; slip, trip, and fall prevention; and accident
prevention classes.  Only recently, three years after I left the
foundry, was there a brief class on respirators, not ever a mention of
silica or its dangers.

		It's easy to think that if there was a stricter OSHA silica standard
in place when I worked in the foundry, I might not be sick.  You're
absolutely right.

		There are other things you should know in order to have an
understanding of some things that a stricter silica standard can do to
help workers and also their employers avoid, based on what happened in
my first-hand experience.

		First of all, there was the growing problem of being out of breath
sooner than I used to.  That's a difficult situation for somebody that
was always a competitor, especially since I didn't know why.

		Then I received a big surprise during a conversation with the first
doctor I went to, when I found out that I do have silicosis, and he told
me that I would lose my job.  That was a shock.  He and the four other
doctors all agreed that the diagnosis is silicosis.

		Watching your wife and other loved ones cry as they figure out what
silicosis is was a big hit, and then shortly after that, there's the
radical pay cut from a transfer out of the foundry to a department where
I knew no jobs, because I had to do that, because I chose my health over
money.  Thank God, because of my seniority, I was able later to get a
decent job, to make some of that loss up.

		Meanwhile, there was a recollection of past events that foretold of
this silicosis, the getting out of breath sooner, the fading endurance
of what used to be easy tasks for someone that considers themself in
shape.  But since I didn't know, I didn't know.

		There are the compensation hearings, where the lawyers say that the
company doesn't use any silica-containing products, and when that
doesn't work, they try everything else under the sun.  Company officials
that praised me in the past lied about what I did while in the foundry.
Matter of fact, I just got a call this morning, just been denied
everything, so I got to go through the whole process again, which is
very nice.

		There was and still is the struggle on my new job to deal with
irritants that will affect my breathing and my performance sooner than
anybody else, because of the damage to my lungs, and also the resistance
of the company to assist me in this matter even though they know my
condition.

		The Safety Department manager and a company official who was at my
comp hearings wrote me up to discipline me recently, for wearing
breathing protection, because in their words, it is not necessary, and
in so many words, you don't need it because we say so.

		Later on, it was, if you keep wearing that, eventually everyone will
want to wear one.  Thank God that I belong to the Steelworkers or I
definitely would have been fired for trying to protect my already
damaged lungs.

		My union has never heard of anything so callous and careless,
especially since they have allowed other people in the plant to wear the
respiratory protection that they didn't want me to wear.

		There are also difficulties outside of work, and issues for me to look
forward to in the future.  Walking while talking on a cell phone is very
exhausting, as well as walking up the stairs from my basement to my
second floor apartment.

		I have increasing difficulty on my current job.  Certain irritants
like air fresheners, potpourri and cleaners make home life increasingly
difficult -- excuse me, and I was told that it's down here -- excuse
me, downhill from here for both home and work life.

		What happened to me is preventable with this proposed standard in
effect, and it can help companies, too.  The company I work for can
avoid losing a person who could fill any opening in the foundry, which
costs time and money to replace.

		As the amount of jobs known by general helpers is voluntary -- they
can learn one job or all, or some number in between, the first two years
I was gone, the company needed three people on the shift to cover the
jobs that I used to cover when I was there.  In addition, the mistakes
made by people while in training cost the company money.

		As much as they plaster "Your safety is our number one priority"
throughout the facility, they could easily mention the dangers of
working with silica and the corresponding protective measures and safety
training all for less money than replacing a good worker -- or workers.

		My employer is just like -- excuse me, every other employer in the
world.  They don't want someone to miss a lot of time from work, or be
unable to perform their duties for whatever reason, especially after
investing in training them.

		That's why they interview, check references and require physicals and
more, to make sure they hire the right person for the job.  They want
someone there for the long haul.  If the employee has to stop working
because of silicosis, the company loses.

		Companies also preach continuous improvement to their employees.  So
they themselves need to accept this proposed standard as part of
continuous improvement.  With the new OSHA standard in place, there can
be more warnings about silica and protective measures put in place to
keep people like me from saying that a stricter standard could have
helped me stay on the job.  Thank you, and have a nice day.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. White.  I'm going to ask that we hold
questions until the panel has completed its presentation.  Who is going
to speak second?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Is this --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  It's on.

		MR. WRIGHT:  -- working?  Okay.  My name is Michael Wright.  I'm the
Director of Health, Safety and Environment for the United Steelworkers.
We're a union that represents 850,000 North American workers.  We're the
predominant union in steel, of course, but also in metals, generally,
rubber, papers, chemicals, oil, glass, general manufacturing.

		Our members are exposed to silica in a variety of industries,
foundries and the glass industry, in particular, but also in many
industries in operations like sandblasting, refractory manufacturing,
and refractory tear-out.

		In addition, we represent the majority of unionized metal and nonmetal
miners, many of whom are exposed to silica, some of whom actually mine
and process it.  Of course, their exposures are regulated by MSHA, not
by OSHA, but both are Department of Labor agencies, and I can't let the
opportunity pass to urge the DOL to protect American miners with an
equivalent rulemaking under MSHA.

		Establishing a new silica standard is, of course, a matter of PELs and
risk factors and technical controls, economic feasibility, sampling
methodology and proper medical evaluations.  But it is also a matter of
human beings, of human health and human welfare, of fairness and
justice.

		Our first witness, Alan White, made that point far more eloquently
than I ever could.  Alan was to be followed by a second witness, Tim
Tuttle.  Tim is a long-term glassworker who now heads the union's Glass
Industry Conference.  Tim lost his father from silicosis.

		He's seen coworkers contract the disease, and he knows the industry
well.  Unfortunately, he became ill yesterday -- not with silicosis,
with a virus.  He's asked if he could submit his testimony in writing,
and with Your Honor's permission, we'd like to do that --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Certainly.

		MR. WRIGHT: -- during the evidentiary period.

		Let me speak briefly about the proposed permissible exposure limit and
the action level.  We support OSHA's finding that silicosis -- that
silica substantially increases the risk of lung cancer.  Not every
epidemiological study examined by OSHA showed a significant increase in
lung cancer.  They never do.

		When we've dealt with any occupational carcinogen, there are always
so-called negative studies, which we actually define as inconclusive
studies, because they don't prove the absence of the risk.  They only
get to the point where they cannot prove its presence.

		But many of the studies OSHA examined did show a significant risk, and
even one well-conducted study should be sufficient.  Of course, there's
no need for OSHA to show a relationship between silica and non-malignant
respiratory disease.  That's been known since antiquity.

		We support the 50 µg/m3 PEL.  In fact, based on health considerations
alone, the PEL ought to be considerably lower.  Although the proposed
PEL considerably reduces the risk of fatal health outcomes, it still
results in estimated risks considerably in excess of the lifetime risk
of 1 per 1,000, which the U.S. Supreme Court found to be clearly
significant in its benzene decision.

		We think the risk estimates are good, based as they are on the six
cohorts identified in the Steenland pooled analysis.  But even if they
are high by an order of magnitude, most of the estimated risks would
still exceed the 1 per 1000 level.

		Thus, the standard is based on feasibility.  OSHA has conducted --
OSHA has collected far more data on feasibility than we have.  But we do
have limited data that indicates that at least in some of our -- that
at least some of our employers are meeting the 50 µg/m3 limit, and in
fact are far below it.

		My colleague, Rami Katrib, will describe those data later this
morning.  We think the OSHA analysis shows the standard to be both
technologically and economically feasible with current technology, even
though OSHA is empowered to set technology-forcing standards by the 1975
Vinyl Chloride SBI v. OSHA decision.

		In fact, OSHA feasibility determinations have typically over-estimated
the difficulty and cost of compliance.  Estimates by trade associations
have grossly over-estimated them.

		We also support the 25 µg/m3 action level.  There's no reason for
OSHA to deviate from its policy of setting the action level at half the
PEL.  OSHA and NIOSH have both found 25 µg/m3 to be measurable with
current methodologies.

		Some participants have testified that silica cannot be reliably
measured at that level.  Interestingly enough, we've seen sampling data
from employers at levels well below 25 µg/m3.

		In fact, some of it comes from a lab operated by a witness who
testified earlier that levels that low could not be reliably measured,
even though his lab was reporting that to -- was reporting lower levels
to one of their clients.  And we'll introduce that later.

		The USW has participated in almost every OSHA general industry
rulemaking since the beginning.  I've personally been part of most of
those, beginning with the failed beryllium rulemaking in 1977.

		The silica proposal is among the most thoroughly analyzed and
supported Notices of Proposed Rulemaking that the Agency has ever put
forward.  It's tragic that it was delayed by the Administration for more
than two years.  Workers paid for that delay in death and disability.

		We can't get those two years back, but we can move quickly forward to
get this rule in place, and to lift the burden of silicosis and all the
other health effects of silica from American workers.  We urge OSHA to
complete its work as rapidly as possibly, and the Administration to
promulgate the standard without delay.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Wright.  Is Dr. Markowitz next?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Thank you for allowing me to appear today.  I'm Steven
Markowitz.  I'm an occupational medicine physician, and I run large
medical surveillance programs, one for the Steelworkers, among
Department of Energy workers, and I ran, for numerous years, a medical
screening program for World Trade Center workers.

		I'm going to address two issues today.  One is the information that
the OSHA standard requires that the licensed healthcare provider share
with the employer.  And the second issue I want to address is the use of
a low-dose CT scan for screening for lung cancer.

		The proposed silica -- the OSHA standard requires that the employer
offer workers exposed to silica medical surveillance tests by a medical
provider.

		The provider will provide a written opinion to the employer that "will
describe the employee's health condition as it relates to exposure to
respirable crystalline silica, including any conditions that would put
the employee at increased risk of material impairment of health from
further exposure to silica."

		As a practical matter, I find the language to be exceptionally vague.
The phrase, "any conditions that would put the employee at increased
risk of material impairment of health," does that include any chronic
lung disease that the employee might have, in particular those not
caused by silica?

		So, for example, if I were the examining healthcare provider and I saw
an employee, and he had what I identified as idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis, which is diffuse scarring of the lungs with an unknown cause,
in this case, not silica, is that information that I would need to turn
over to the employer because further exposure to silica might impair
that person's health or not?

		Or what if the worker has emphysema, which is a silica-related
condition, and the provider believes that that emphysema is not due to
silica exposure but to the employee's long-time smoking history.  Is
that information that the healthcare provider is supposed to turn over
to the employer?  It isn't at all clear.

		But actually I'd like to discuss five other, I think, more important
problems with the language in the standard.  First, the sharing of
medical information violates a person's right to privacy and autonomy.

		A person's control over their medical records is enshrined in HIPAA
regulations.  HIPAA may or may not apply to occupational illnesses, but
HIPAA certainly reflects a societal consensus about the primacy of
control over health information held by the individual.  Our health
information belongs to us as individuals, and there have to be very
compelling reasons for release of such information without our
permission.

		Now, this thinking has evolved over the past two decades, and
certainly over the past four decades that OSHA has been promulgating
standards.  It's time now for OSHA to catch up with this thinking.

		Secondly, requiring the sharing of health information laws assumes
that the employers will act on that information without prejudice, or
that such prejudice is acceptable.  And this -- clearly, these two
assumptions are clearly not supported.  Mr. Frederick will talk a
little bit more about the role of medical removal protection.

		Third, I think employer notification of health conditions that pertain
to silica exposure actually puts employers in a huge quandary.  What are
they supposed to do with this information, exactly?

		It ignores the complexity of silica-related illnesses, especially, as
I mentioned before, emphysema, which has a more common cause than silica
exposure, namely cigarette smoking.  Are employers or their providers
supposed to separate out the role of smoking versus silica exposure?

		Even if the employer is not required or expected to attribute the
emphysema to silica or to smoking, what is to stop a rational employer,
thinking a step ahead about workers' compensation, from -- and now
alerted that the worker has emphysema by the healthcare provider, what's
to stop that employer from beginning to collect information about
smoking that might be used in a workers' compensation proceeding?

		My fourth objection to sharing health information -- and I think
this, actually addresses directly, part of OSHA's rationale for
requiring the sharing of health information, is exactly what correction
will the employer make when he or she newly learns that one of their
employees has silicosis?

		I think the rationale in the OSHA standard or preparatory material is
intervention.  What intervention is the employer expected to make?  Of
course, silicosis occurs as a result of exposure to silica that incurred
many years ago, 15, 20 years ago or more.

		The exceptions are accelerated silicosis or acute silicosis, but those
are rare, and we're not really discussing those because the PEL will --
the proposed PEL will prevent those conditions from occurring.

		I don't see what inference the employer is supposed to make about the
magnitude or the effect of current silica levels, when finding out that
one of their employees is newly diagnosed with silicosis.  After all,
that silicosis reflects exposure that occurred many years ago.

		And, in fact, the employer and even the employee are unlikely to have
the data, real data about the silica exposure from those many years ago.

		Clearly, the best information about current exposure to silica is
derived from exposure monitoring, as required by the proposed standard.
And I don't think learning about a new case of silicosis is going to
provide the employer with information that can really be acted upon,
interpreted sensibly, in order to make some intervention in the
workplace.

		And then finally, the fifth, I think, objection relates to putting the
provider in an unethical position, in terms of sharing information.  If
you look at the statement of the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine organization, and just quickly I will just quote
from them, this is a 2012 statement.

		"The physician should not provide the employer with specific medical
details or diagnoses unless the employee has given his or her
permission."  So we occupational medicine physicians consider sharing
medical information with the employer to be unethical, and therefore
OSHA should not require it.

		So the second topic is that low-dose CT scan, and let me just say, the
Steelworkers, we've run a program of lung cancer screening since the
year 2000 among nuclear weapons workers.  We've screened 12,000 workers
using low-dose CT scan for lung cancer.

		We've identified 105 workers with lung cancer, most of whom were
detected early as a result of those exposures, so we have a lot of
experience in this area.

		The low-dose CT scan is useful in two ways.  One is, it can pick up
silicosis earlier than a chest x-ray.  And, secondly, it can pick up
lung cancers at an early stage, when they're curable.  For those
reasons, it's disappointing to see that the OSHA standard doesn't
address the use of low-dose CT whatsoever.

		We would recommend at the age of 50 that the workers receive not a
chest x-ray but a low-dose CT scan, due both to the increased risk of
lung cancer beginning at age 50, but also the increased risk of
silicosis, given the latency between exposure to silica, usually
beginning at age 18, 20, 25, and the appearance of silicosis, usually
not before age 50.

		Now, this is using age, in part as a proxy for latency because we
couldn't really figure out how to build latency issues into a standard.

		There's concern about the radiation dose with low-dose CT scan.  It's
about 1 mSv.  It's about 10 times that of a chest x-ray, but it's about
eight times lower than the diagnostic CT scan.  So you should understand
that it's considerably lower than what is used -- what is referred to
in the standard or the proposed standard as a CT or as a high-resolution
CT scan.

		That dose is much higher than a low-dose CT scan.  And excuse me, and
the radiation dose, actually is decreasing, with low-dose, every year.

		Now, it would be optimal to apply low-dose CT or early lung cancer
screening to workers who not only had silica exposure but also had a
history of cigarette smoking, because that increases their risk of lung
cancer.  But I can't quite think of a practical way of integrating that
into the standard.

		So now an alternative to mandating low-dose CT for silica-exposed
workers over age 50 would be to leave the decision about a chest x-ray
versus a CT scan to the licensed healthcare provider.  The problem with
that is that there would be inordinate variability in how that's
actually implemented, and secondly, frankly, the provider might be
pressured by the employer to save some money and not use a CT scan but
use a chest x-ray.

		Finally, there's concern about classification system on the CT scan
that we don't have it.  But we have it for chest x-ray; we don't have it
for CT scan.  There is such a classification system used now in Europe
and in Japan, and clearly that's not an insurmountable obstacle.

		So let me just close by saying that lung cancer is the most important,
common and lethal outcome among silica-exposed workers, in fact, among
workers in general exposed to lung carcinogens, and not only that, but
among the general population in the U.S.

		We now have a method of detecting lung cancer early, and we can reduce
lung cancer mortality, and we ought to use it now for workers exposed to
silica as well as other lung carcinogens.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Dr. Markowitz.  John Scardella is next on
the list.  Mr. Wright, if you wish to change the order, just let me
know, but --

		MR. WRIGHT:  No, we're fine.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  -- otherwise, I'll go down.

		MR. WRIGHT:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  Mr. Scardella?

		MR. SCARDELLA:  Thank you, Your Honor.  My name is John Scardella.  I
am the Program Administrator for the United Steelworkers Tony Mazzocchi
Center for Health, Safety and Environmental Education.

		The Tony Mazzocchi Center provides training to approximately 30,000
members and their respective employers annually.  The USW and our
predecessor unions have over 70 years experience in providing training
to all sectors of our membership.

		In providing this training, the United Steelworkers has created
hundreds of training programs, using a well-rounded approach to adult
education.

		In the instance of creating training surrounding silica, the
curriculum would be written to reinforce the requirements of the
standard, but also stress the health effects for those who are stricken
with silicosis and other diseases, and health effects associated with
silica.

		The proposed standard for respirable silica requires that employees be
informed of the dangers of respirable silica, by means of labels, safety
data sheets, and employee information in training.  OSHA emphasizes that
it is important that employees are informed of the dangers of what they
are exposed to, and what measures are taken to protect them.

		Effective hazard communication requires that all affected employees be
trained in the knowledge of specific operations that could result in
exposure, specific procedures that employers have implemented to protect
employees, the content of the standard, and the medical surveillance
program required by the standard.

		We believe that employee participation in any safety program is the
best practice for adult learners to retain important safety information.
 We further believe that this training should be conducted prior to or
at the time of assignment, and that an annual refresher training be
required.

		The best practice for adult learners is that training be provided in a
manner in which all employees are able to understand.  An example of an
effective training can be protecting workers from hazards associated
with particular work.

		We should look no further than the asbestos standard, and in
particular, 1910.1001.  The training requirements within the asbestos
standard, we believe, have helped save hundreds of workers exposure to
this carcinogen.

		Likewise, in this proposed standard, as in the asbestos standard, we
believe the following elements or the best practices for training adult
learners include the definition of silica, the health effects of silica,
knowledge of the sources of silica in the employee's workplace,
knowledge in ways to control exposure to silica in the workplace, and
the annual training for employees who may be affected by exposure to
silica.

		Workers having this skill and ability, gained through training in
recognizing hazards and the potential for exposure to silica, are
essential elements of any training program.  Training workers
immediately prior to job assignment that may be potentially exposed to
silica is the best training scenario for workers.

		To further illustrate training effectiveness or the lack of
effectiveness, we can look to the federal OSHA frequently cited
standards using the NAICS code for iron and steel mills.  From October
of 2012 to September of 2013, their number one cited violation was
overhead and gantry cranes.

		The general industry standard does not have any training requirements
for operators of overhead gantry cranes.  It allows for a designated
employee to be permitted to operate a crane covered in this section of
the standard, thus allowing employer discretion in the training for
these operators in this highly hazardous operation.  Conversely,
asbestos was the least cited for the same industries.

		We believe the training is all-encompassing in the recognition of the
hazards associated with silica, and not left to the discretion of the
employers, who may not have the health and welfare of workers as their
top priority.

		The United Steelworkers agrees with the training approach as written
in the proposed standard, but recommends that yearly refresher training
be a requirement for that of respirable silica.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Scardella.  The next panel speaker
will be Allen Harville.

		MR. HARVILLE:  Good morning.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Good morning, Mr. Harville.

		MR. HARVILLE:  My name is Allen Harville.  I'm with Local 8888 of the
USW in Newport News, Virginia, Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock
facility.  I've been on the Safety Committee there since 2001.  I've
been the Co-Chairman of the Safety Committee since 2003.

		I started at the facility in 1974.  I've been there approximately 40
years now.  Our facility is a VPP Star site.  The facility is comprised
of shipbuilding shipyard facilities with drydock facilities, shipways,
outboard docking facilities.

		We have assembly platens, shops, machine shops, warehouses, and
foundries.  Foundries make up a big part of building a ship.  You know,
the large parts of the ship structure are cast.

		The bearing structures for the shafts, the parts of the ship that --
where the shaft comes out of the ship is cast structure.  As a result of
that, the foundry uses large quantities of casting sand.  They actually
use it by the ton.

		Part of my job on the Safety Committee is our joint committee with the
company does monthly inspections, walkthroughs, and that of all the
facilities throughout the yard.  And it's a large facility.

		The yard is about 2 miles long, and that's -- it's about a half a
mile wide, and that's just the main facility.  And there are a lot of
offsite warehouses and facilities.  There's some offsite shops.  And
then there are a lot of satellite machine shops and so forth.

		One of the inspections we made at the foundry, of course, resulted in
our committee deciding we needed to look into some issues we found
there.  And so that generated a request for some information on --
monitoring information for the silica sand, what was used, what was
being used, who was being exposed and that sort of information.

		What actually happened with the request was, the company told us the
only way we'd get the request is to sign a nondisclosure statement.  We
still have not got that.

		The reason we asked for the information to begin with is that we were
trying to -- we're trying to protect our workers, here.  I mean, my job
as Co-Chair of the Health and Safety Committee for the Local is to
protect my membership.

		I've been there 40 years, and I've seen the old workforce come and go,
and suffer the health effects of working there at Newport News
Shipbuilding, and there are various health effects of working in the
industry.

		I've seen the old generation come and go with that effects, and I'm
seeing the younger generation come in.  And what I'd like to see out of
the standard is that them be able to take away, and be protected, and
not have to go away with, you know, any adverse health effects from
this.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, thank you, Mr. Harville.  Appreciate your
comments.  The next speaker listed on the program is Rami Katrib.

		MR. KATRIB:  Thank you.  Hello, my name is Rami Katrib, and I work in
the Health, Safety and Environment Department at the United
Steelworkers.  I will be graduating in early May of this year with a
master of public health, majoring in occupational and environmental
health from West Virginia University.

		First off, I'd like commend OSHA on the respirable silica proposal.
The PEA is very well thought out and comprehensive.  But as we've heard,
it does leave a little bit of room for improvement.

		As we've already heard, many provisions in the PEA such as medical
screening and training can be found in other OSHA regulations, and it's
time that we see these implemented with regards to respirable silica.

		Many of the USW members work in industries such as glass, brick, and
foundries.  These industries put workers at high potential for
respirable silica exposure.  It's important that we do everything that
we can to ensure that these workers do not suffer excess morbidity or
mortality due to their occupations.

		I'm here to give a short presentation on what the Health, Safety and
Environment Department at the USW was able to determine from our
members' workplaces with regards to respirable silica.

		We started out by using the North American Industrial Classification
System, NAICS codes, to get a comprehensive list of workplaces we
represented that had potential respirable silica exposure.

		We used NAICS codes that are associated with foundries, brick, and
glass, in general industry as well as maritime.  We then narrowed the
list down to 70 workplaces by only including sites with greater than 174
USW members.

		Starting in mid-January of this year, we began sending information
requests to the employers of the 70 sites.  Up until this past Monday,
March 24, 2014, we have received a total of 10 responses to the 70
information requests, providing the sampling we asked for,
unfortunately, none of which were from a refractory.

		The majority of the employers have neglected to respond, and some have
responded by refusing to provide us with any information.

		Here are the four questions that we asked in the information requests.
 We asked for silica exposure monitoring records, summary of how silica
is used in the workplace, a summary of the controls used to mitigate the
exposure, and if any current or former members were experiencing any
silica-related illness.

		From the 10 responses we received, a scatter plot was compiled,
depicting their exposure history.  Each blue data point on the scatter
plot represents an eight-hour time-weighted average personal sample
taken during various operations within each work site.

		The red line on the graph represents the current approximate PEL of
100 µg/m3, while the green line indicates the proposed PEL of 50
µg/m3.

		As you can see from the graph, the majority of the sampling done was
well below the current and proposed PEL.  Also, a lot of the samples
taken were below a feasible 25 µg/m3 action level.

		Interestingly, as Mike Wright said earlier, three out of the 30
personal samples that you see on this scatter plot, that are well below
the 25 µg/m3 action level, were analyzed in a laboratory whose vice
president testified here saying that they could not report that low with
any certainty.  The report from the lab made no mention of any
uncertainty in the samples that were sent to the employer.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Excuse me.  Sorry to interrupt.  If you could just note
for the record which slides you're looking at as you go through them,
for identification.

		MR. KATRIB:  Oh, okay.  This is -- I was referring to Exhibit 1 when
talking about this.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Thanks.

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.  Okay, next slide.  All right, here is a list of
some of the various operations that were included in the sampling
reports that we did receive.  As you can see, there's a lot of
variability in the operations performed in the 10 glass and foundry
worksites.

		All right.  In response to Question Number 3 of the information
requests, the employers detailed what types of controls were used to
mitigate the silica exposure at their workplaces.  Almost all of them
reported that engineering and administrative controls were used to
reduce their exposure below the current PEL.  These controls included
dust collectors, local exhaust ventilation, enclosures, misting and work
rotation.

		As you can see from this scatter plot, which is Exhibit 2, the purple
dots represent personal samples which were -- which controls relied
solely on respirators.  Four of the eight personal samples at or above
the proposed PEL reported that they relied only -- solely on either N95
or powered air-purifying respirators, PAPRs, to protect workers, with no
mention of any other types of controls.

		In conclusion, the majority of employers did not send or refused to
send any sampling, medical or control information.  It cannot be
determined the exact reason why they refused or ignored our information
request.

		A strong possibility, maybe they have never done sampling for
respirable silica due to no current requirement in the standard.  It is
also possible that they have done sampling but do not want to provide it
to us because of being out of compliance.

		From the sampling data we did receive, it's clearly obvious that
compliance with the proposed PEL and even a potential 50 percent action
level is achievable in foundry and glass.  It is also clear that
numerous well-known labs that analyze the samples are confident in
providing employers with sampling results as low as single digits.

		Additionally, I'd like to read a couple of quotes that we've -- were
in the reports that we received from employers.  This is the first
quote.

		"Within the foundry area, there are a total of five dust collectors
controlling external processes and fugitive emissions at the molding,
melting and casting and shakeout areas.  In all, these collectors
capture more than 40 tons of particulate material each week.  In
addition to these collectors, there are point-collection sources on
various hoppers and silos involved in the transfer and storage of sand
products."

		And this is the second quote.  "Many of our operations such as
tumbling and shaking are enclosed with exhaust ventilation and
appropriate systems for collecting dust.  In some cases, people are more
integral to the process, such as manufacturing the cores and assembling
the molds, sorting and separating cast parts from casting, metal, scrap
metal, and finishing, grinding the castings.

		"These processes typically have point-source exhaust systems to
collect particulates containing the crystalline silica.  In addition, we
use work practices such as misting and rotation to reduce potential
exposures."  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Katrib.  The next panel speaker will
be Anna Fendley.

		MS. FENDLEY:  Good morning.  My name is Anna Fendley.  My comments
this morning will briefly cover two areas of the proposed standard.  The
first is access to qualified industrial hygiene professionals.  Concerns
have been raised about a lack of access to those professionals, and our
union has a unique perspective about a solution to that concern.

		Our union recognizes the value and the need of industrial hygiene
professionals as a resource; however, we also know that the vast
majority of our employers who fall under the requirements of OSHA health
standards do not employ an industrial hygienist.  Most utilize other
safety professionals or third-party industrial hygienists in the
assessment and evaluation of workplace occupational health hazards.

		The Steelworkers also has a unique perspective on how to achieve
industrial hygiene coverage at workplaces that do not employ industrial
hygienists.  We have worked with employers over the years to provide
training to our members, and in some cases to safety managers or plant
managers, to serve as industrial hygiene resources.

		What we mean is that we take skilled, inexperienced steelworker
members, shop floor workers, and provide them with training to
understand industrial hygiene sampling protocol.

		They then provide resources in a variety of roles in their workplace,
including calibrating and setting up sampling instruments pursuant to
specified protocol that is determined by the employer, performing air
monitoring, properly collecting sampling media and submitting it to
laboratories for analysis, receiving sampling results, reviewing them,
consulting with resources and making certain that they are understood
and interpreted by those who are affected.

		And when internal or outside personnel are performing monitoring that
our representatives participate in, they make sure that workers are
engaged and properly involved.

		The training that we provide has been developed by workers, curricula
development professionals and occupational health and industrial hygiene
persons.  The training that we have provided is available to all of our
members and to any steelworker employers.  And we believe that workers
in all workplaces could be trained on industrial hygiene protocol to
assist in their workplace.

		The second topic that I'd like to refer to is a written exposure
control plan.  We believe that a written exposure control plan is
necessary to any successful employer or workplace.  We want each USW
employer to be successful, and planning to work around a hazardous or
toxic substance is vital.

		A written exposure control plan is included in other OSHA standards,
such as lead.  In general industry and maritime, requiring employers to
have an exposure control plan is an important part of a final silica
rule.  Our written comments detail what we believe should be included in
an exposure control plan, and as always, we believe that the employer
should require a copy of that plan to be accessible to employees at all
times, on all shifts.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Fendley.  The last speaker on the
panel is James Frederick.

		MR. FREDERICK:	 Thank you, Your Honor.  I am Jim Frederick.  I'm the
Assistant Director of Health, Safety and Environment with the
Steelworkers Union, out of our headquarters office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

		I have been with the Steelworkers Union a little bit over 20 years and
have been a Health and Safety Representative with labor unions for about
25 years, spending most of my time working directly with our local
unions in the variety of workplaces that previous presenters this
morning have talked about, and gaining experience of working with our
members around health and safety in those workplaces.

		We, as the union, have been strongly supporting OSHA's efforts on the
proposed silica standard; however, we believe there's at least a couple
of items that need to be discussed this morning in our presentation of
areas of concern that we'd like to see added to the final rule.

		I'll start with a few comments around medical removal protection.  We
strongly believe that medical removal protection and multiple physician
review should be added to the final rule.

		Without medical removal protection and multiple physician review,
workers may not participate in screening programs.  We'll talk a bit
more about this, but again, we know the realities of what goes on in
workplaces, and the number of reasons why employers put programs in
place that keep workers from participating in things like a voluntary
medical screening program.

		In performing the review for the comments we're making this morning,
we looked at the other OSHA standards from general industry that provide
medical removal protection, including lead, cadmium, benzene,
formaldehyde, MDA and methylene chloride, and formulated our comments
based on some of the information materials from those standards.

		What we took away from medical removal protection requirements in
general industry OSHA standards is that there are essentially four
important points that should be in play in order for medical removal
protection to be utilized.

		Those include, when exposure and occupational health outcomes are
documented, when medical removal protection is necessary to encourage
worker participation in medical surveillance, when it's necessary to
protect wages and benefits of affected workers, and when removal will
medically benefit the exposed and affected worker.

		So starting with exposure and occupational health outcomes and when
those are documented, the OSHA proposed standard provides for a medical
surveillance program to be integrated in affected workplaces.

		The medical surveillance program will provide documentation of
occupational health concerns.  We've heard this morning and in prior
testimony of what a medical screening program will look like, from the
proposed standard, and essentially it to some extent, will look like in
a final rule.

		The USW hopes that OSHA will reconsider the process, as already stated
today, and provide for added privacy of the personal medical
information, as well as the multiple physician review process.  With
these additions, silica-exposed workers can opt in to participation in
medical screening, and provide their employer with a summary document
pertaining to the medical screening results.  This will protect the
health information of the worker and also be more encouraging to those
workers who need to participate.

		As we said then, encouraging worker participation in medical
screening -- medical surveillance, prior testimony has documented
various reasons that workers might not participate in medical
surveillance, for fear of job loss, other retaliation, and coercion.

		  Medical removal protection provides workers with a backstop, and a
vastly improved understanding that negative medical results will not
result in immediate loss of job, benefits, salary, et cetera as a result
of participation in medical screening.

		Through the years, there's -- particularly in recent rulemakings,
OSHA has heard much information about the various programs in place in
workplaces that keep workers from participating in whatever the issue at
hand may be.  Much of that can be found in the Steelworkers' comments on
recordkeeping provided to OSHA earlier this year.

		Protection of wages and benefits of affected workers, workers with
initial diagnosis of silica-related health effects should be afforded
work in an area that has a reduced exposure, and be assured that
respiratory protection is not required, should a result of exposure to
silica keep them from safely wearing a respirator.  In addition, their
pay and benefits should be protected.

		And a medical benefit for exposed and affected workers; as indicated
in prior testimony this morning, removal from additional exposure to
silica is beneficial to workers who have been made sick from exposure to
the hazardous materials in their workplace.  Medical removal protection
provides a means for workers to transition to work with no or low silica
exposure.

		OSHA MRP provisions and other standards provide protections for
workers whose health may not improve as a result of the removal, an
example of that being in the cadmium medical removal protection, where
if a worker is no longer to wear a respirator due to the medical
condition, medical removal protection still applies.

		So these four items apply to silica too.  Silica exposure and
occupational health outcomes are documented.  Medical removal protection
is necessary to encourage participation in medical surveillance.
Medical removal protection is necessary to protect wages and benefits of
affected workers.  And removing affected workers from silica exposures
makes medical sense.

		OSHA should add medical removal protection provisions to the final
rule, based on the medical removal protections in OSHA's cadmium
standard.  OSHA should also add multiple physician review.  The affected
worker should be the afforded the opportunity to opt into MRP, and
choose a physician for multiple physician review.

		I think it's fair to say that anyone in this room, if diagnosed with a
serious medical condition, is going to immediately, at least consider, a
second opinion, and workers should be afforded the same opportunity to
do so in an occupational setting, particularly around a hazard such as
silica, that we know that health effects can result in such serious
concern.

		I'll now switch gears slightly, for just a couple of additional
minutes and talk about retaliation of fear, and the things that are
keeping workers from participating or potentially will keep workers from
participating in the provisions of a final rule on silica.

		And those include, in our mind, privacy of medical records, as we've
discussed briefly already, multiple physician review access, and
provisions for strong enforcement of discrimination for workers.

		Privacy of medical records, OSHA should reconsider the provision in
the proposed rule to ensure confidentiality of medical information for
the healthcare provider, and add provisions for multiple physicians'
reviews.

		Summary information as well as detailed results should be provided to
the worker who's experiencing health effects or occupational illness,
without relaying the worker's screening records.  This added protection
will increase participation in medical surveillance.

		There's no doubt in our experience in other workplaces that workers
will be more likely to participate in medical screening if they feel
confident that their records will be private and confidential.

		Again, in the multiple physician review realm, the primary instance
for us is that workers certainly deserve the right to a second opinion,
and that the ability for a worker to see an additional physician when
necessary provides added protections and increases worker participation
in medical surveillance.

		A multiple physician review mechanism provides a means to overcome the
fear of the employer-physician bias in the medical opinion and increases
participation in medical screening.

		There's a natural and existing concern by workers in workplace after
workplace that our members are in and throughout our country, where
workers are concerned with the bias of the employer-hired company
physician.  And we need to make certain that there are provisions in
place to protect workers' rights around those concerns.

		And lastly, as we said, the fear of retaliation.  Provisions should be
included in the final rule for strong enforcement of discrimination and
retaliation protection for workers.  We need to make certain that
workers, if they are discriminated against in any way for participating
in this or any other OSHA activity, have those protections.

		With that, Your Honor, I believe our panels have completed, and we'll
be happy to take questions.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you very much, Mr. Frederick.  Before we go to
questions, I'm going to mark the written testimony that I have and the
slide presentations as exhibits.  What's the next hearing exhibit?

		MS. LINDBERG:  We're at Number 77, Your Honor.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right.  I'll mark as Hearing Exhibit 77 the
written testimony of Alan White.

		Hearing Exhibit 78 is the written testimony of Michael Wright.

		Hearing Exhibit 79 will be the written testimony of John Scardella.

		I'm going to mark Hearing Exhibit 80A as in apple, the hearing
testimony of Rami Katrib, and then 80B, the slide presentation that
accompanies Mr. Katrib's testimony.

		Mr. Frederick, you had a PowerPoint presentation that accompanied
your remarks.  I'm going to mark that as Hearing Exhibit 81.

		And then there were a series of photographs that were displayed during
the presentation.  They overlapped various witnesses.  I'm going to mark
that as Hearing Exhibit 82.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing  Exhibit 77 was marked
and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And I know there was -- Mr. Tuttle's testimony was
going to be submitted after the proceeding.  I'll note that as Hearing
Exhibit 83.  Were there any additional exhibits or testimony that you
wish to submit?

		MR. FREDERICK:  I think that is -- this is Jim Frederick, and I
believe that is what we had for this morning.  We'll have some
additional post-hearing comments --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr. Frederick.  Let me
see a show of hands from those individuals who have filed a Notice of
Intent to Appear who have questions for the panel this morning.  All
right, if you would, we'll start in the third row here.  I believe --

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Can I defer to a colleague to go first?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right.  The first individual that would like to
pose questions, please come up to the lectern.  State your full name and
your affiliation.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you, Judge.  Chris Trahan with the Building Trades,
it's T-r-a-h-a-n.  I think my questions are for Alan White.  What year
did you start working at the foundry?

		MR. WHITE:  Alan White, 1995.

		MS. TRAHAN:  And how long had you worked at the foundry before you
were diagnosed with silicosis?

		MR. WHITE:  Fourteen years.

		MS. TRAHAN:  And you mentioned you had been to multiple doctors.  How
many doctors have diagnosed you with silicosis?

		MR. WHITE:  In total, five.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Have you ever been involved in any industrial hygiene
monitoring at your place of employment?

		MR. WHITE:  No, not in the foundry.

		MS. TRAHAN:  And before you started work at the foundry, were you
exposed to silica in any other work?

		MR. WHITE:  No, not at all.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Do you know of workers who've been at the foundry for
more than 20 or 30 years?

		MR. WHITE:  Yes.

		MS. TRAHAN:  More than 40 years?

		MR. WHITE:  Yes.

		MS. TRAHAN:  You transferred jobs when you found out about your
illness.  Do you think that moving jobs has helped your health?

		MR. WHITE:  Yes, a little bit.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Do you feel better after being in the new job, or the
same?

		MR. WHITE:  About the same, yes.

		MS. TRAHAN:  If your employer offered medical screening programs, with
a physician chosen by the company, is that something you would
participate in?

		MR. WHITE:  Yes.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Would your coworkers participate in that type of
voluntary medical screening?

		MR. WHITE:  Probably not.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Why not?

		MR. WHITE:  They don't trust the company.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Do they know you have silicosis?

		MR. WHITE:  Yes.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Do other workers in the plant have silicosis?

		MR. WHITE:  I don't think they know.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Do you know if any of your coworkers have health effects
that might be related to their silica exposure?

		MR. WHITE:  Yes.  I think so, but I'm not sure.

		MS. TRAHAN:  And I think this is my last question, Judge.  Thank you.
Do you believe that there's been a reduction in the amount of dust in
the air in your foundry since you started work in 1995?

		MR. WHITE:  No, not really.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Trahan.

		Who would like to go next?  Okay, if you'll please come up to the
lectern.  State your name, and spell your last name for the record.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Good morning.  My name is Peg Seminario,
S-e-m-i-n-a-r-i-o.  I'm the Safety and Health Director from the AFL-CIO.
 And good morning to all of you, and thank you very much for your
testimony.

		Some questions, starting with Dr. Markowitz.  You mentioned the
medical surveillance program that you have been conducting, I believe it
is for the DOE energy workers, the Former Worker Program.  Do you have
any information pertaining to the efficacy of the early lung cancer
screening with the CT scan that you mentioned?  And could you enter that
into the record?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Sure.  I can, you know, summarize it here and provide
additional detail in writing.  1999, it was published in Lancet, an
article by Henschke and others, demonstrating that low-dose CT screening
among smokers could detect early lung cancers.  To the tune of 80 to 90
percent of lung cancers they detected were Stage 1 disease, the earliest
stage lung cancer, when lung cancer is curable.

		Lung cancer, in the absence of screening, is almost always not
curable.  Only 10 to 15 percent of times when people present with
coughing up blood or shortness of breath, will they be cured of that
disease.  And Henschke showed that you could exactly reverse those odds.

		So in 2000, we proposed, with the Steelworkers, to the Department of
Energy and to Congress, to fund us to expand our conventional medical
screening program to include a low-dose CT for lung cancer protection.

		And over the past 14 years, we've -- with -- we have two scanners.
One is in Oakridge, Tennessee, and one is a mobile unit that goes
between Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; Harrison and Dayton, Ohio,
to screen nuclear weapons workers.

		We've screened over 12,000 workers, who have had exposure to
radiation, to asbestos, to a variety of lung carcinogens, many of whom
smoke cigarettes, many of whom quit smoking cigarettes, mostly above the
age of 50.  And we have detected 105 lung cancers, and 2/3 of them have
been early stage disease.

		So we have demonstrated that workers, if offered low-dose CT will --
are very interested in this, that they will come back for additional
testing.  When we see a nodule that we're not sure quite what it is, we
ask them to come back at three or six months.  And they do come back
then.  So they're very compliant with this, because they, above all,
understand what lung cancer is, what it does, and how it kills.

		We've done this not in the tertiary care medical centers, where it was
proven otherwise to work, that is to say, Cornell or Memorial Sloan
Kettering or Roswell.  We've done this in Paducah, Kentucky and
Portsmouth, Ohio and Oakridge, Tennessee.

		So clearly it's feasible.  Clearly workers are motivated and
interested and will participate.  They just need to be educated about
its utility and be offered the scan.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  You recommended in your testimony that OSHA include
low-dose CT scans in the final rule, and you suggested that these begin
at the age of 50.  At what frequency would you propose that these
low-dose CT scans be conducted?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  So for the purposes of detecting nonmalignant disease,
that is to say silicosis, every three years is fine.  The -- frankly,
for lung cancer, no one knows the optimal interval.  It's not three
years.  It's less than three years.  It's probably a year, maybe a year
and a half.

		And so the way I think, to deal with that, is to have the licensed
healthcare provider have the discretion, for workers who have exposure
to silica but also other risk factors for lung cancer, to order a
low-dose CT at a more frequent basis than every three years.  That would
be for detection of lung cancer.  For nonmalignant disease, every three
years is fine.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  On the question of -- or the issue of
silica-related disease, and workers who are presenting symptoms of
various silica-related disease, is it possible that they will be
diagnosed as having, you know, something other than silica-related
disease?  Are there problems with the diagnosis of occupational
diseases, in your experience?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  In general, yes.  Physicians are more ready to obtain
information about more common exposures like cigarette smoking, and
they're more readily apt to ascribe chronic lung disease to cigarette
smoking.

		But silicosis is certainly well described.  It's well known.  And the
key, really, is for certain counters to incur, that a counter is that
the worker is discussing with the physician their history of exposure to
silica or other occupational exposures, and secondly that the physician
has some experience, some expertise in diagnosing silicosis or other
pneumoconioses.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  But is it possible that a silicosis victim will be
misdiagnosed with something -- you know, some other condition?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Oh, sure.  Sure.  I mean, there are other causes of
rounded opacities in the lungs, and without the information about silica
exposure, a physician is likely to attribute it to idiopathic, meaning I
don't know.  So I'm sure it happens, and the statistics we have about
the number of cases in a country, the hospitalizations, mortality, I'm
sure, are underestimated.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.  A question for Michael Wright.  As you
indicated in your testimony, you personally, and the Steelworkers as an
organization, had been involved in, with the development of many OSHA
standards, you know, going, you know, way back to the beginning of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, including coke ovens, lead, arsenic,
hexavalent chromium.  Just go down the list, particularly in the area of
the major health standards.

		And as you mentioned, in many of those -- with many of those
standards, there were estimates by employer organizations who claimed
that the standards were infeasible, would be so costly to put
industries, entire industries out of business.

		The Steelworkers represents workers in a lot of these different
sectors.  There have been changes in the manufacturing sector, a lot of
other things going on the economy.  But has it been the Steelworkers'
experience that after these standards have been applied, that they have
had the kind of impacts that the industry has claimed?

		Were they responsible for shutting down the steel industry,
responsible, you know, for, you know, for other adverse economic impacts
that were claimed by the industry when they were proposed?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Well, the best example is probably the very first.  One
of our predecessor unions, the Oil Company and Atomic Workers
participated pretty heavily in the vinyl chloride hearings.

		And during that rulemaking, several fairly prestigious research
organizations brought in testimony based on extensive studies that
showed that if OSHA set a 1 ppm vinyl chloride limit, it would be
impossible to comply with.  The industry would go out of business, and
the very best case scenario is, the price of the plastic would more than
double.

		What happened, after OSHA ignored those warnings and went ahead, was
the industry stayed in business, became more profitable, and the price
of the plastic was actually reduced.  Some of that was economic
conditions.  Part of it was, the standard actually induced improvement
in the work process that actually saved companies money.

		So that's the first example, and there are others.  We were -- there
were predictions of doom in the steel industry from the coke oven
standard.  We would never make coke in this country again.  And we're
still making coke in this country.

		And the steel industry is in some economic difficulty now, due to
things like imports, but it has nothing to do with their safety and
health, or even their environmental obligations.

		So we have never seen one of these predictions come true.  We are
still -- where industries have thrived or failed, it has not been
because of safety and health regulation.  It's been because of market
forces.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Just one last question, somewhat related to this area,
and that has to do with the impact of OSHA standards on productivity.
And there has been some discussion, and I believe in OSHA's PEA, their
economic analysis, that they include an adjustment for a loss of
productivity due to the standard.

		And I won't ask them why that is included in there, but that has also
been the claim of a number of the employer groups, that this standard
will basically reduce productivity.  Has it been your experience, again,
based upon either individual standards or changing conditions in
workplaces, when exposures are reduced, controlled at their source, a
healthier environment, does that reduce productivity or increase
productivity?

		MR. WRIGHT:  It does both, depending on the circumstances, if you
define productivity as the output per person-hour.  But in the steel
industry, for example, we've had major environmental regulations over
the past, say, 30 years.  We've had several safety and health
regulations which greatly impact the steel industry.  Coke ovens is one,
benzene is another.

		And yet, the industry measure of productivity, which is person-hours
per ton, has been -- per ton of steel produced, has been greatly
reduced during those 30 years, by almost an order of magnitude.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Seminario.

		MR. WRIGHT:  Can I -- before you sit down, can I answer a question
that you previously asked one of the other participants?  And that is
about misdiagnosis.

		We've -- part of why we're so keen on a three-doctor review mechanism
is because we've seen, in some cases, what we believe to be deliberate
misdiagnosis, by physicians acting for the company.

		I would like to think that every physician acts completely ethically.
But in one case, at least, we've got fairly dramatic evidence that it's
not always true.  That case is occupational noise exposure.

		There's an unfortunate part of the OSHA record-keeping rule, which
says that if an occupational -- if a physician or other health
professional, acting for the company, decides that a hearing loss case
is not occupational, the company doesn't have to record it.

		We've got some plants where there's high noise exposure, and a lot of
recorded hearing loss cases.  We've got some with equally high exposure,
where there has never been a hearing loss recorded, because in every
instance, the occupational physician acting for the company decides that
it's hunting, it's listening to rock music, it's yelling at your kids,
everything they can think of besides occupational noise exposure.

		We have some cases where workers have been compensated for hearing
loss under the workers' compensation system, which operates by different
rules.  And yet, those cases have not been recorded.

		Under the current standard, that's legal -- unfortunate, but legal.
So that's why we think that the unbridled discretion of a physician or
other health professional acting for the employer is a bad idea.  That's
not just misdiagnosis due to medical complications.  That's deliberate
misdiagnosis, and we want to make sure that the standard doesn't empower
that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Wright.  Next questioner, please
identify yourself for the records.  Spell your last name.

		DR. MIRER:  Frank Mirer, M-I-R-E-R, CUNY School of Public Health, and
consultant to the AFL-CIO.  First I wanted to say -- I used to work for
the UAW, and we brought witnesses from the local unions here.

		And I want to say to Mr. White and Mr. Harvette [sic], I understand
it's scary, but it's a tremendous contribution the record and our
understanding of what's happening in the workplace to have people like
you do this.

		And so now I want to ask the question, let's start with Mr. Harvette.
 Would you agree with the proposition that every worker, given their
seniority and skills, is in the best job they can get?

		MR. HARVILLE:  This is Allen Harville.  Possibly yes, they are.
Sometimes they're in the best job that they know they can get.

		DR. MIRER:  Okay.

		MR. HARVILLE:  Not necessarily in the best job they can get, but in
the best job they know they can get.

		DR. MIRER:  And what's the most likely result if that worker goes to
company medical and discloses increasingly severe symptoms from an
exposure on the job they're in?  What would happen?  Would they be
transferred?

		MR. HARVILLE:  In some cases they could be, yes.

		DR. MIRER:  So they'd be worse off, in their view?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Yes, possibly.  Yes.

		DR. MIRER:  Okay.  So I'd like to ask the same questions to Mr. White
as --

		MR. WHITE:  Alan White.  What was your question again?

		DR. MIRER:  Well, the first question is, are people in the best job
they can get in the shop?  And if they disclosed symptoms to manage --
well, we already know what happened to you, but if they disclosed
symptoms to a management physician, would they likely be transferred to
another job?

		MR. WHITE:  Well -- this is Alan White.  Usually they're in the best
job they can get at the time, because of seniority.  And more than
likely, they would be removed from that job post haste if they went to
the company and said, you know, I'm getting sick or I'm having
difficulty doing my job.

		DR. MIRER:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

		MR. WHITE:  You're welcome.

		DR. MIRER:  So for Mr. Scardella, do you think training for silica,
in particular where we have exposure measurements, training for silica
for workers should include discussion of the exposure levels and
specific measures and work methods which will reduce exposure?

		MR. SCARDELLA:  Absolutely.  John Scardella.  Absolutely.  I think
it's vitally important for workers to understand what the exposure or
the potential for exposure is, and with that understanding, know that in
fact, monitoring is an important factor, being -- knowing that in fact,
those exposures are below the PEL.  And I think that's a very important
factor in the educational process.

		DR. MIRER:  Well, above the PEL would have impact, too.  But do
you -- in your experience, are regular rank and file workers capable of
interpreting industrial hygiene numbers if they're properly explained?

		MR. SCARDELLA:  Absolutely.  We do it all the time.  We do it in any
type of exposure that is part of our training curriculum.  That is
included.

		DR. MIRER:  Okay, thank you.  Ms. Fendley, do you have confidence
that hourly workers, people without college degrees going through your
training program are capable of conducting industrial hygiene sampling
and appropriately interpreting the results?

		MS. FENDLEY:  This is Anna Fendley.  Yes, I am very confident that
that's possible.

		DR. MIRER:  Yes.  We always thought that our IH techs in the UAW were
better at it than the management people, because they knew the job
better.  It's --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Mirer, if you would, just ask questions please.

		DR. MIRER:  Sorry.  So, do you think hourly people are better than
management?

		MS. FENDLEY:  I think they can be, yes.  Yes.  They have a more
intimate knowledge of the shop floor and the places where exposures are
possible.

		DR. MIRER:  Okay.  And, finally, both for Mr. Mike Wright and Jim
Frederick, compared to the atmosphere in the workplace in 1976 or so
when we were first talking about medical removal protection, is the
atmosphere of intimidation and fear in the workplace for raising health
and safety problems, is that better now, or worse now, than it was then?

		MR. WRIGHT:  I think in many ways it's worse.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Wright?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Sorry.  Michael Wright, and I'm a little too far away
from the -- a little too close to the microphone.  Let me try that
again.  I think in many ways it's worse.

		MR. FREDERICK:  So -- and this is Jim Frederick.  I'll just add to
that, although I cannot provide personal experience from the middle
1970s, I certainly can, in the last 20 years, provide the experiences
that I've had working with the Steelworkers Union and our members across
North America.

		I never thought, as a health and safety professional going to work for
a union, that I was going to spend as much time as I do on any given
day, dealing with workers that are treated horribly and are persuaded
not to participate in health and safety for some reason.

		And, again, we've provided a significant amount of information to OSHA
in the past on this issue, again referencing back to -- most recently
to the recordkeeping comments that we submitted earlier this year.  But
we spend a tremendous amount of time, of our department in -- out of
the international union at the Steelworkers, I would estimate that on
any given day, one or two of our staff are spending much of their day
working on issues with our members specifically pertaining to the
comment of your question.

		DR. MIRER:  And last question for my colleague from CUNY, Steve
Markowitz, could you say something about how -- about the notification
of results from the DOE screening that you conduct, who gets the report
and how you recruit people to take these exams?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Sure.  We're based in New York City, but we have under
contract, clinics around the country who perform a medical protocol that
we, in collaboration with DOE, dictate.

		We get all the medical results from those examinations, and those are
summarized and sent directly back to the participant.  And they're
shared -- if the participant has given written authorization, then
they're shared with the personal physician of that participant.  So
certainly the DOE contractor, the DOE doesn't get any of that
information at all.

		DR. MIRER:  So the DOE and the worker's employer don't get the report
unless the worker decides to give it to them?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  That's correct.  That's correct.  And we would have
no -- you know, we would have no idea, actually, whether the worker
ever decides to do that or not, to share it with the employer or use it
for whatever purpose, actually.

		DR. MIRER:  So this is the way it's done when --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Mirer?

		DR. MIRER:  Sorry.  I'll go.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you.  Thank you, Dr. Markowitz.  Next
questioner?

		MS. NADEAU:  My name is Liz Nadeau,

N-a-d-e-a-u, and I'm with the International Union of Operating
Engineers.  My first question is for Allen Harville.  What are the
final products produced in the shipyard, and does building such large
vessels require the foundry to produce large castings?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Allen Harville.  Our final product, we build the --
right now we're building the Ford class aircraft carrier.  We're
overhauling the Nimitz class aircraft carrier.  We're decommissioning
the Enterprise, and defueling the Enterprise.

		We're building, in a partnership, the Virginia class submarine
program, with Electric Boat.  We're in a partnership with them to build
the Virginia class.  We're currently building the John Warner and the
USS Washington.

		And as for your second part of your question, does that cause a
foundry to build large pieces, cast large pieces?  Absolutely.  The bow
piece on a aircraft carrier is a cast piece.  The outboard bearing
support for the shaft is a cast piece.

		The hatch for the submarine and where it integrates into the hull is a
cast piece.  The tail section of the submarine is a cast piece.  Those
pieces, in some cases, are 40 feet long.

		MS. NADEAU:  Thank you.  And to clarify -- same person, you stated
that you are an OSHA VPP site and you requested silica exposure
information but have not yet received it.  Did I really understand this
correctly?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Allen Harville.  Yes, ma'am, you did understand that
correctly.  We gave the company a written request for information on the
same request that Mr. Rami gave us, had requested the same criteria,
you know, what's being used, monitoring data, has anybody been exposed,
that sort of stuff.

		You know, we asked for that information in writing to the company.  I
presented it to the director of O27's health and safety.  We got a
answer back at our monthly meeting that they needed a letter of
nondisclosure signed by us from the company, stating that they had
custody of the information, that we would not be allowed to get custody
of the information.

		We could see it.  We couldn't copy it.  We couldn't write it down.  We
couldn't make any notes.  And if we disclosed it, we'd be terminated,
that suing us wouldn't be enough.  They would terminate us on site.

		MS. NADEAU:  Do you know workers who have been at the shipyard for
more than 20 years or 30 years or 40 years?  What are the greatest
lengths of time that you know about?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Allen Harville.  I've got -- right now we have a big
hiring push on, because of the increase in production for the new class
of carrier and submarine.  I've got employees from one day to 50-plus
years.

		MS. NADEAU:  And how -- are there a good many that are toward the
more than 30 years, or?

		MR. HARVILLE:  I would say, right now we're about 60 percent 15 years
and below, and 20 years to 40 years is probably 15 to 20 percent, and
probably 5 percent with 30 years or more, 30, 40 years, 45 plus.

		MS. NADEAU:  Thank you.  And do you know any workers from the shipyard
who have silicosis or other lung-related silica diseases?

		MR. HARVILLE:  We weren't given that information.

		MS. NADEAU:  All right.  And has there been a reduction in the amount
of dust in the air in the foundry in the past 20 years?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Not that I'm aware of.

		MS. NADEAU:  All right.  My next question is to Mr. --

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Katrib.

		MS. NADEAU:  Katrib.  Why did you select sites with more than 174
workers?

		MR. KATRIB:  Well, after we compiled the list of -- a comprehensive
list of all the foundry, brick and steel -- or -- yes.  So anyway, we
got a comprehensive list, and we wanted to show sites that would
represent the majority of our workers.

		So we picked ones that had -- it's not the total workers that they
have, necessarily, it's just the ones -- 175 or more of our actual
members.  And we found that that was going to be best representing what
our workers are experiencing.

		MS. NADEAU:  Will you be able to provide additional sampling data
received between now and the post-hearing comment period with your
post-hear comments?

		MR. KATRIB:  If we receive more, because we still are -- actually we
received one yesterday.  It was too late to put into the PowerPoint.
But as we receive them, we will add them to the post-hearing comments,
and make a composite list of all of them.

		MS. NADEAU:  Okay.  Do any steelworkers utilize an exposure limit
below 100 micron cubes --

		MR. KATRIB:  Micrograms?

		MS. NADEAU:  Micrograms, yes.

		MR. KATRIB:  Actually, yes.  We have foundries in Canada that we
represent, and they use below -- they use 50 or below, just depending
on the province.

		MS. NADEAU:  Okay.  And final question for Jim Frederick, are workers
fearful of retaliation based on their participation in the OSHA silica
rulemaking process?

		MR. FREDERICK:  This is Jim Frederick, and yes, we worked with a
number of other local unions across the steelworkers who were -- had
some interest in participating in the hearings with us, however for a
variety of reasons decided it was in their best interest not to, for
fear of retaliation when they came back to work.

		Mr. White has described some of what he has experienced as a result
of being an activist on this issue, and trying to assist in a process of
better health protections in his workplace.  So certainly, yes.

		And just as a quick aside, or a quick addition to Mr. Katrib's last
answer, we also have one employer in North America, a global employer,
who recognizes a standard of half of the current OSHA permissible
exposure limit.  They recognize 50.  And that is Alcoa.

		So we certainly have workers in both the United States and Canada that
have workplaces with levels, permissible exposure limits below the
current 100 µg/m3.

		MS. NADEAU:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Nadeau.  Next questioner, please state
your full name for the record and spell your last name.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Good morning.  My name is Bill Kojola, K-o-j-o-l-a, and
I'm here for the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health.
And I have one question for Mr. Harville, a couple of questions for --
on hierarchy of controls for either Mike Wright or Jim Frederick, and
then a couple of questions for John Scardella about training.

		So I'll start with you, Mr. Harville.  Just a moment ago you gave
sort of a percentage breakdown of the age structure of your workforce in
Newport News.  Could you tell us for the record how many workers are we
talking about, who work in your facility?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Allen Harville.  Currently right now we have somewhere
between 11,500 and 12,000 union-eligible workers at the shipyard.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay.  So the proportions or percentages that you gave
would apply to the 10,000 or 11,000 workers that are working in that
facility?

		MR. HARVILLE:  Yes, sir.  That's correct.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay, Thank you very much.  Now I'd like to turn to
several questions about hierarchy of controls, and I can address it to
Mike or Jim, it doesn't -- it's your --

		MR. WRIGHT:  I'll start.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay, great.  Thank you, Mike.  So is it your
understanding that what's known as the hierarchy of controls, is that
not an ordered, sequential preference of controlling a worker exposure
to hazards, beginning first with the elimination of the hazard, at the
top of the hierarchy, followed by substitution with something less
hazardous, then using engineering controls, administrative controls?

		And then, lastly in the hierarchy, and sort of the last control
measure that should be selected in the hierarchy is the use of personal
protective equipment such as respirators.  Does that adequately describe
what the hierarchy is?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes.

		MR. KOJOLA:	Okay.  So this proposed OSHA silica standard, just like
all existing OSHA standards for chemical hazards, incorporates the --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Kojola, let me stop you there.  I think you can
ask your questions a little more succinctly.  It sounds more like you're
testifying than asking questions.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay.  All right.  The proposed OSHA standard for silica
incorporates this control hierarchy by requiring employers to first use
feasible engineering controls and administrative controls, and then
lastly, if those are not effective, then to use respiratory protection.
Does the Steelworkers support this exposure control measure in the
proposed silica standard?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes.  We always have, in every previous standard, and we
see no reason to change now.  That's the best way to protect workers.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay.  So for operations that generate large quantities
of dust with high exposures to respirable silica, an engineering control
approach like a local exhaust ventilation system would capture silica at
the source of its generation, would it not?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Kojola, again, you're testifying.  If you have a
question, please ask it.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay.  An engineering control system like a local exhaust
ventilation system would control exposure at the source, would it not?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes, it would.  And that's actually a little ways down
the hierarchy of controls.  In some cases, we can control silica
exposure by removing the silica.  That's been done to a large extent in
sandblasting, for example.

		There still is some sandblasting that goes on in our workplaces, but
mostly it's been replaced by blasting with other media that don't
involve silica exposure.

		And as you move down the hierarchy, you come fairly quickly to
engineering controls.  Ventilation is a very good one, and that can be
applied, both on a very, very large scale, with very large ventilation
equipment like we use in the steel industry, which basically removes
contaminants from whole furnaces, down to, for example, in grinding and
in some places where you're essentially grinding the sand off of a cast
piece, the grinders can be equipped with ventilation systems on the
hand-held grinder.  So it's an effective control, really, at all levels.

		MR. KOJOLA:  So a local exhaust ventilation system would limit
exposures to all workers engaged in an operation; isn't that true?

		MR. WRIGHT:  And it would, in fact, limit exposure to other workers as
well, because there may be workers who are, for example, doing grinding
on a piece.  The ventilation system protects them, but it protects
everybody else in the workplace who might breathe in the silica that
escapes from that operation, were it uncontrolled.

		MR. KOJOLA:  So those would be the bystander exposures --

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes.

		MR. KOJOLA:  -- those not necessarily engaged in the operation?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes.

		MR. KOJOLA:  And so, you know, you could have one local exhaust
ventilation system --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Kojola, attorneys like to ask leading questions
all the time, that responses are just yes or no, and that's essentially
testifying.  Please limit your questions to questions, and let the panel
respond to those questions.

		MR. KOJOLA:  The -- so in that situation, then, as you described,
that would -- the local exhaust ventilation system would protect a
number of workers; isn't that correct?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes, yes.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Those involved in the operation and those who may be
as -- exposed as bystanders, is that correct?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes, as of course, would substitution.  The place where
you start protecting only the individual worker and not getting the
residual benefits are when you start applying, to some degree,
administrative controls, but certainly personal protection is a very
individual thing.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Now, if you took that same operation that generated
silica and you, instead of using a local exhaust, you put workers in
respiratory protection, would every worker exposed have to be in a
respirator?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Well, under the law, every worker -- well, first, if
they could not control the situation down to the applicable and -- I'm
sorry, down to the applicable permissible exposure limit, then everybody
who is exposed above the permissible exposure limit would necessarily
need to be in a respirator.

		The -- and let me say, the way the hierarchy works is even if you, in
the end, need respirators, you still need to do all of the other stuff,
because the less load that respirator sees, the less dust it has to
contend with, the more effective it's going to be.  So --

		MR. KOJOLA:  So if there was no exhaust ventilation system, no
engineering control, and workers were given respirators, you would need
to put a respirator on every worker that was exposed; is that correct?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Well, the first thing we would need to do is have a frank
discussion with the company about the other things they could do.  And
that frank discussion might be accompanied with an OSHA complaint.

		But, again, assuming that you can't control it any other way, you
can't get down to the PEL any other way, people, yes, need to be in
respirators.

		MR. KOJOLA:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Kojola.  And any further questions for
the panel?  Please state your full name and spell your last name for the
record.

		MS. WINNETT:  Nicole Winnett,

W-i-n-n-e-t-t.  I'm here on behalf of my colleagues, Brad Hammock and
Henry Chajet, who represent the Construction Industry Safety Coalition
as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Winnett.  And who are your questions
for?

		MS. WINNETT:  Mr. Katrine?

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Katrib.

		MS. WINNETT:  Katrib.  I would like to know a little bit more about
the sampling data that you were able to collect from employers.  How
many employees or samples does the PowerPoint represent?

		MR. KATRIB:  This is Rami Katrib.  I don't have the exact number, but
each sampling data was returned from a lab, and each -- some people had
4 personal samples, some people had 10, just depending on how many
people they sampled.

		MS. WINNETT:  And were all of the samples personal breathing zones, or
were some of them areas --

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.  All those -- they were area samples in the reports
but I left those out.  I just wanted the personal samples.

		MS. WINNETT:  And then were all samples based on a eight-hour
time-weighted average?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes they were.

		MS. WINNETT:  And do you know anything about the activities the
employees were performing, other than their job position?

		MR. KATRIB:  A lot of them, just, the labs just -- or the employer
just outlined what the actual job position was, didn't mention, you
know, oh, industrial hygienist watching them for, to see what they were
doing all day.  But they just said that they were doing this type of
position.

		MS. WINNETT:  So you don't know if there were any special activities
that the employee was performing on the day of sampling?

		MR. KATRIB:  No, we wouldn't know that.

		MS. WINNETT:  And you wouldn't know if there was any down time, so to
speak, where the employee was not necessarily exposed to silica during
the work day?

		MR. KATRIB:  No, we wouldn't know that.  But that's probably what --
that's what the point of a eight-hour time-weighted average.

		MS. WINNETT:  And my understanding is, based on the request that you
made to the employers, that it only covered members where you had 174;
is that correct?  Members?

		MR. KATRIB:  174 or greater.

		MS. WINNETT:  So that -- your request wouldn't have assumed, or
wouldn't have requested information from smaller businesses?

		MR. KATRIB:  No, they wouldn't have.

		MS. WINNETT:  And my --

		MR. FREDERICK:  But to clarify, smaller than 174?

		MS. WINNETT:  Well, no.  I mean --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Please identify --

		MS. WINNETT:  -- yes, 174 members.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Sorry.  That was Jim Frederick with the question.

		MS. WINNETT:  Like, where your members are smaller, so for instance, a
smaller foundry or those kinds of things.

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.  And the data was for our membership, the United
Steelworkers membership at a facility of that number and higher.  It's
not reflective of the total number of employees at the facility that are
not part of the bargaining unit --

		MS. WINNETT:  Sure.

		MR. KATRIB: -- in question.

		MS. WINNETT:  I understand.  So I guess my question was trying to get
at, is the fact that you didn't necessarily request samples from smaller
businesses, such as people who have less than 100 employees?

		MR. FREDERICK:  We did not ask for information for less than 100
employees.  Your Honor, I have one point of clarification I wanted to
ask.  I'm not sure that the questioner is -- has a Notice of Intent to
Appear.

		MS. WINNETT:  I am here representing the Construction Industry Safety
Coalition, which did file a notice of intent.  Brad Hammock, my
colleague who could not be here today, testified actually on Monday, as
well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and my colleague, Henry Chajet, who
testified last week.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Your Honor, we have no objection to her asking
questions.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, I'll allow it, Ms. Winnett.

		MS. WINNETT:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  In the future, please let me know ahead of time that
you're not the individual that filed a Notice of Intent to Appear.

		MS. WINNETT:  Your Honor, I did mention that I was here representing
Brad Hammock and Mr. Henry Chajet at the beginning of my testimony.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Well, I didn't understand it to --

		MS. WINNETT:  Okay.  I apologize.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  -- mean that you hadn't filed a Notice of Intent to
Appear.  Thank you.

		MS. WINNETT:  Apologize.  My understanding is -- based on the
testimony today, is that you're saying -- you guys, the union, the
United Steelworkers Union is saying that because there was a laboratory
that reported at 25 µg/m3, that you believe that it's technologically
feasible, and that the sampling error -- that there's no sampling error
at that rate?

		MR. KATRIB:  Well, as I said, that a lot of the laboratories --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Katrib, please identify.

		MR. KATRIB:  Oh, sorry, Rami Katrib.  A lot of the laboratories
reported well below the 25, and some even in the single digits of
micrograms per cubic meter.  And I searched all the lab reports and none
of them mentioned anything about any inconsistency, any error.  They
reported that back to the employer as a confident sample.

		MR. WRIGHT:  Let me add to that -- this is Mike Wright, we did think
it was ironic that one of the industry witnesses who said you could not
reliably sample below 25 runs a laboratory that submitted results below
25 to one of its clients and said nothing about it being unreliable.

		MS. WINNETT:  But that doesn't necessarily --

		MIKE WRIGHT:  Presumably charged them for the service as well.

		MS. WINNETT:  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the sample data
is -- that there is not a sampling error.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Ms. Winnett, ask questions, please.

		MR. KATRIB:  No.  Yes, this is Rami Katrib.  It does not.

		MS. WINNETT:  And OSHA recognizes that there is error at trying to
sample at that low of a level.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Ms. Winnett --

		MR. FREDERICK:  We can't answer OSHA questions.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Is that a question?

		MS. WINNETT:  Do you agree that OSHA has asserted, in the proposed
rule, that it is technologically infeasible to sample at that level --
or that there's sampling error.  I apologize.  That there's sampling
error.

		MR. FREDERICK:  This is Jim Frederick.  That was not part of our
testimony, either in our written comments or our presentation today.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, Ms. Winnett, do you have any further
questions regarding the testimony provided by the panel this morning?

		MS. WINNETT:  I would like to ask Ms. Anna Fendley.

		MS. FENDLEY:  Yes.

		MS. WINNETT:  Can you speak to the amount of hours that it would need
to train someone in order to perform these IH services that you spoke
about?

		MS. FENDLEY:  This is Anna Fendley.  I am going to defer that question
to Jim Frederick.

		MS. WINNETT:  Okay, sure.

		MR. FREDERICK:  This is Jim Frederick.  I actually oversee the
training program in question for the union, and it has varied over the
years.  There has not been one set amount of time that we have done
that.  In some cases it has been as short as one week of training for a
group of workers and managers to return to the workplace and participate
in the process of air sampling.

		In other cases -- excuse me, in other instances, in some of the other
training, it has been multiple weeks of training performed over multiple
years in order for those workers and their employer to feel comfortable
for those workers to do, to perform the air monitoring, from calibration
setup, monitoring itself, and then returning the media to the
laboratory.

		MS. WINNETT:  Okay.  Thank you.  And would that amount of training
need to be considered in the cost of the rule, you believe?

		MR. FREDERICK:  Again, that's not part of our testimony today, nor in
our written comments.  We are only providing an example of what we have
experience with, with our members and our employers.  Much of that cost
has been done -- has been absorbed by the union, proper, and our
training entity, the Tony Mazzocchi Center, not the employer.

		MS. WINNETT:  And --

		MR. WRIGHT:  May I add to that?  This is Mike Wright.  I think it's
clear that our employers have found that cost effective, when it comes
to the difference between doing it that way and hiring an outside
consulting industrial hygiene for -- so it is a cost-effective method
for doing the required monitoring.

		MS. WINNETT:  Does the United Steelworkers, did they consider the cost
of adding medical removal provision to the rule?

		MR. FREDERICK:  The purpose of our comments on medical -- this is Jim
Frederick.  The purpose of our comments pertaining to medical removal
protection has been our comments of the Steelworkers, in an effort to
ensure that we are properly representing our members to the best of our
ability, and seeing what is necessary for this standard to be effective
in workplaces.

		Again, as indicated on the prior couple of questions, we certainly did
not include that information in our written comments nor in our
testimonies today pertaining to the cost benefit.

		MS. WINNETT:  Thank you.  And -- all right, well, I was curious if
you could speak to -- and this will be my last question, speak to the
training that the United Steelworkers provide on silica to your members.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Again, this is Jim Frederick, and perhaps John
Scardella should add to this if I leave anything out, but again, I have
the, kind of the responsibility from the union to oversee the training
program and the work of the Tony Mazzocchi Center.

		We certainly have provided information through training to our members
on silica.  In fact, prior to leaving the hotel lobby this morning, I
was talking with brother Harville about training that I am scheduled to
come to his facility and perform in June, specifically on a number of
items, one of which is silica.

		What we have is our members have a need for this training.  However,
what we do not have is a demand and the ability from our employer
counterparts to put our members into a classroom to receive the training
at this juncture.

		So where we are able to provide training to our members on silica is
on their own time, at the union hall, in the evenings and on the
weekends when they're off work, and to a very little extent in the
workplace, in a labor-management setting.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Scardella, anything you wanted to add to that?

		MR. SCARDELLA:  No thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Ms. Winnett.

		MS. WINNETT:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And just as a point of order, let me make it clear
that questions of the panel or the individuals providing testimony are
allowed for individuals who have filed a Notice of Intent to Appear.

		If you want to ask questions and have not filed a notice, let me know.
 And if we have time at the end of the day, then that will be permitted.
 But please limit your questions to those individuals who have filed a
Notice of Intent to Appear.  Questions from the OSHA panel?

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, Your Honor, we do have some questions for the panel.
But first, just let me, on behalf of the Agency, thank the Steelworkers
panel for appearing today and providing testimony, and particularly
Mr. Harville and Mr. White.  It's always very valuable for OSHA to
hear from workers who will directly benefit from regulations, to hear
about your experiences.  So I thank you for that.

		So we'll begin our questioning with Ms. Iannucci.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And that was Mr. Perry talking, by the way.

		MR. PERRY:  Pardon?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  That was Mr. Perry talking, by the way.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, I was.  Sorry, Bill Perry.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Hey, this is Annette Iannucci.  Good morning, and
thank you again for testifying.  My first question is, goes towards Alan
White or Dr. Markowitz.  Would you expect that a person diagnosed with
silicosis but not experiencing any symptoms yet would be impacted, that
this would have an impact in their life?

		MR. WHITE:  This is Alan White.  Yes.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Could you please explain how you think that would
affect a person's life?

		MR. WHITE:  Well, it happens slowly, but it will affect them as they
try to do a hard task like, you know, exercise or walking long distances
or, you know, and it's a slow and gradual process.  So it will impact
them, maybe not by next Tuesday, but it will.

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Steven Markowitz.  Let me comment.  So a person with
early silicosis won't necessarily have symptoms or even know they have
silicosis unless they've had a chest x-ray and had it correctly
diagnosed.

		But that person may not have symptoms, or they may have symptoms only
if exercised in some way.  But let's say they have no symptoms
whatsoever.  They've gone from being a well person to an ill person, and
I think this would have an enormous impact, actually, on how they see
themselves and how they see their future, actually.

		Silicosis is generally a progressive disease.  It is usually
relatively slowly progressive.  But it means the person so diagnosed
will look to the future knowing that they are likely to get worse over
time, are likely to need to curtail their activities, and in fact,
probably sooner rather than later, certainly curtail their exposures and
take protective measures.  So I think it would have enormous impact even
though -- even without symptoms.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay, thank you.  I'd now like to look at the issue
about medical privacy.  There's some things in the proposed standard
such as letting the employer know if somebody needs to see a specialist,
or some things suggested to us such as providing the employer with
information on restrictions on respirator use, or maybe a need to see a
second doctor under multiple physician review.

		Is this enough information alone to cue the employer in that there may
be a problem with the employee?  And if so, what advice could you give
OSHA for addressing this?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Steven Markowitz.  I think you're right.  It could tip
off the employer that there is a concern, although frankly, a
consultation with a specialist is still in the process of identifying
whether there is a real problem or not.  So it doesn't necessarily mean
that the person has an illness or not.

		I think that if OSHA were to pull back on its proposed language about
what the provider tells -- can tell the employer, pull back to only
communicating with the employer either nothing, or whether the person is
fit to do the job, then that would be a different context in which to
view whether the provider wants to consult with a specialist or not, and
in that sense, I think would give relatively minimal information.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  And my next question is to Mr. Frederick.
Could you please describe how medical removal protections work under
union contracts?

		MR. FREDERICK:  Do you mean the OSHA requirements in a union
workplace, or other, outside of existing OSHA standard removal?

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Outside of existing OSHA.

		MR. WRIGHT:  We actually have three doctor review mechanisms.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Wright.

		MR. WRIGHT:  I'm sorry, Michael Wright.  We actually have three doctor
review mechanisms in some of our labor agreements.  They work about like
OSHA does.  They're -- if a worker gets a particular diagnosis or a
particular restriction from a company doctor -- or doesn't, in some
cases, but thinks they should, they have a right to go to a second
physician.

		And those two physicians, if they disagree, have the obligation to
refer it to a mutually agreed third physician.  And those -- some of
those agreements predate the three-doctor-review mechanism in the OSHA
standards.

		Medical removal protection usually operates where somebody is removed
to a different job in the company because of exposure in a particular
job.  Their wages and their benefits are protected as if they remained
in the job from which they were removed.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  This is permanent removal to another job?

		MR. WRIGHT:  It can be permanent removal.  It's probably more often
permanent removal than temporary removal.  And usually what will happen
is eventually their wages and benefits will basically -- well, their
benefits will remain the same because the benefits are usually the same
throughout the bargaining unit, but the wages will eventually catch up.
So it is permanent in the sense that they're always entitled to the kind
of wages they had in the job from which they were removed.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Thank you.  And I have one final question for
Dr. Markowitz.  In terms of CT scans, are you concerned at all about
possible health effects from radiation exposure, and are there any
studies to show if that's safe?

		DR. MARKOWITZ:  Sure.  I'm concerned, and there's general concern
about -- excuse me, Steven Markowitz responding, a general concern
about radiation exposure; it is limited.

		And there have been publications describing the projected risk from
low-dose CT, say beginning in the early 50s -- a person in their early
50s, having an annual CT for lung cancer screening, and over the long
run, 20 or 30 years later, that person incurring an increased risk of
lung cancer as a result of that radiation.

		There would be a very small but likely finite risk of lung cancer from
annual screening with low-dose CT.  And so the question is, the benefit,
really, of the early lung cancer detection has to exceed the risk
incurred as a result of that radiation exposure.

		And that's why we wouldn't screen non-exposed individuals who never
smoked, never had occupational exposures, didn't have a family history
and the like, even though there is a very small risk of lung cancer
among such individuals.

		We wouldn't recommend that screening, because in those instances,
clearly the benefit wouldn't outweigh the risk of the low-dose radiation
over time.

		But in most instances, with a history of significant occupational
exposures, or with a significant smoking history, the benefit of a
low-dose CT in early detection of lung cancer far outweighs the very
small risk of the cumulative radiation dose.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay, thank you everyone.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Iannucci.  Any other questions from
the OSHA panel?

		MS. GORSE:  My name is Joanna Gorse.  My question's for Mr. White.
Thank you again for coming and testifying.  You mentioned that there's
dust all over in the foundry and that you stir up dust with the brooms.
What cleaning methods are used in the foundry?

		MR. WHITE:  This is Alan White.  We have push brooms, corn brooms,
some people still use compressed air, that just move dust and stuff out
of the area.  And then also we have a -- I don't know what to call it,
but it's like a -- it looks like a Zamboni machine that's used in
hockey, but it has a sweeper on the bottom of it.

		And it has a capability to either dry clean or wet clean, but they
usually run it through the foundry dry.  So wherever it goes, it has a
big cloud behind it.

		MS. GORSE:  Would it have been possible to vacuum when -- instead of
using a broom?

		MR. WHITE:  Alan White.  Yes, it is but, you know, using a broom,
sometimes, is easier, and it takes less time, just like using compressed
air is.  That's generally the easiest thing to do, quickest thing to do,
so that's, you know, just as popular as using brooms.

		MS. GORSE:  And are there instances when you couldn't vacuum, where
you would have to use air or brooms?

		MR. WHITE:  Alan White.  Yes, there are instances where we have to use
air but, you know, usually with -- they substitute corn brooms or what
we call deck brushes or bench brushes.  It's like a small broom, so you
can get down in, you know, small areas.  So it's like half and half.

		MS. GORSE:  Okay.  Thank you.

		DR. COBLE:  Good morning.  My name is Joe Coble, and I wanted to ask
Mr. Katrib a little bit more about his survey.

		You indicated that you received 10 responses from foundries, glass and
brick operations.

		MR. KATRIB:  This is Mr. Katrib.  We solicited 70, but we only
received 10 from glass and foundries, none from brick.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.  How many of those were foundries?

		MR. KATRIB:  I don't have those numbers right off hand.  I think the
majority of them were foundries.  If memory serves me correctly, it was
eight foundries and two glass.

		DR. COBLE:  So the majority were foundries?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.

		DR. COBLE:  And then you listed some specific operations that the
survey results indicated had been monitored?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.

		DR. COBLE:  Were the high exposures associated with specific
operations that you could identify from yours?

		MR. KATRIB:  Well, with the majority of the sampling and the lab
reports that were done, they didn't list the sampling with the
operation.  The employer listed the operations that were done and then
provided the sampling.  So there wasn't really a -- you couldn't really
tie them together.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.  On your Exhibit 1, you showed a scatter plot of the
points.  Now, it looked like -- are those all of the time-weighted
average values you were able to assemble from the data, the complete set
of them?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.  Personal samples, yes.

		DR. COBLE:  But it looks like about 80 percent or so are below 50.  Is
that correct, when I look at this?

		MR. KATRIB:  I would say approximately, yes.

		DR. COBLE:  So the majority of them were well below 50?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.

		DR. COBLE:  And were there non-detects in there?

		MR. KATRIB:  There were a few non-detectables.

		DR. COBLE:  Do you recall what the -- when you plotted these
non-detects, how did you treat the non-detects?  Did they give you a
value, a less-than value?

		MR. KATRIB:  I don't recall, right off hand.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.  And did you know when the monitoring was conducted?
 Did they provide dates, in terms of what's the range of the dates in
which these were collected?

		MR. KATRIB:  The majority of them were in the past, from 2011 to
current dates.

		DR. COBLE:  Did you specify in your request any sort of date?

		MR. KATRIB:  We requested the previous five years of sampling if it
was possible, yes.

		DR. COBLE:  Previous five years?  Okay, yes.  Okay, thank you.  All
right, well thank you.  I'll leave it there.

		MR. KATRIB:  Thank you.

		DR. COBLE:  Oh no, I do have one more request.  You mentioned you
received a lab report from R.J. Lee, with the sampling results -- or
one of the results came from the lab that testified.				MR. KATRIB:  It
was from --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Coble, either finish your question and let
Mr. Katrib answer.  You can't talk over each other.

		DR. COBLE:  Would you be able to submit some of the examples of the
lab reports that you cited as part of your post-hearing testimony?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay, thank you.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Hi.  Tom Mockler.  I had a couple of questions.  The
first question had to do with captive foundries, and it -- particularly
for Mr. Harville.  Could you describe the foundry operations just in
terms of employment at the facility?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Can you move the mic a little closer?

		MR. MOCKLER:  Sorry.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Could you describe the foundry operations at the
shipyard --

		MR. HARVILLE:  Yes.  This --

		MR. MOCKLER:  -- in terms of just magnitude of employment.

		MR. HARVILLE:  This is Allen Harville.  I don't have exact numbers,
but in my estimate, if you take into account the actual -- the foundry
workers, the welders, crane operators, that kind of stuff, there's
probably about 200 people there in the foundry.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.  And in the total shipyard, what would be the
employment?

		MR. HARVILLE:  As I said later, there's somewhere between 1100 and
1200 -- 11,000 and 12,000 union eligible.

		MR. MOCKLER:  All right.  Is there -- what are some -- just more
broadly for the Steelworkers, what sort of captive -- what industries
do you find your captive foundries in?

		MR. WRIGHT:  It depends on how you define it.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Wright.

		MR. WRIGHT:  I'm sorry.  Michael Wright.  It depends on how you a
captive foundry.  We have some things which, for example, are foundries
and machine shops and, you know, do we classify them as machine shops or
as foundries?

		But we have a fair number of those that make parts by a variety of
methods, one of which is casting, another of which is in some cases
forging and machining.  The steel industry operates some foundries --
it's kind of a dying breed, but -- because they contract a lot of that
work out now, but there are some steel foundries left.

		But I would say the majority of our foundries are probably places that
you would recognize as being primarily a foundry.

		MR. MOCKLER:  My other question was, is it a fair characterization,
based on your previous testimony, that there are a number of facilities
that your members work at, that are already in compliance with a 50 µg
TWA?

		MR. HARVILLE:  This is Allen Harville.  I don't know.  They didn't
give us the information.

		MR. WRIGHT:  Well, let me answer more broadly for the union.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Wright.

		MR. WRIGHT:  One of the -- I'm sorry, Mr. Wright.  One of the
problems is that, of course, there is no requirement under OSHA to do
monitoring for silica.  And when we have gotten into some cases where
OSHA comes into a workplace, does monitoring and finds that they're over
the 100 level, and we get involved in those and, you know, work on
settlement agreements.

		And we've had some success in getting levels down below 50 as a result
of putting in the engineering controls that respond to the OSHA
citation.

		I've been in -- I think the overall answer to your question, though,
is that we have seen places that we believe are in compliance by the
amount of dust in the air, and by the engineering controls they've
installed.  And we've seen other places -- Alan White's employer is a
good example, where we believe they are not in compliance.

		But I don't think we've seen a place where we think they could not be
in compliance, if they installed the proper controls.

		MR. MOCKLER:  And those that have reached these lower exposure levels,
they've remained economically viable?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Yes.  We have, for example, foundries as has been said,
in -- up across the border in some of the Canadian provinces, which
have adopted a 50 µg standard.  As a matter of fact, British Columbia
is considering a 25 µg standard.  And the foundry industry there is
thriving.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. PERRY:  This is Bill Perry.  I have a few questions.  Going back
again to the shipyard and captive foundries there, how many captive
foundry facilities are there at Norfolk?

		MR. HARVILLE:  This is Allen Harville.  At Newport News Shipbuilding
there's only one foundry that I'm --

		MR. PERRY:  There is just one?

		MR. HARVILLE:  There's just one.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  So does it cast anywhere from very small to the
very large, like you described, 40-foot long --

		MR. HARVILLE:  They cast items as small as the ship's plaque all the
way up to, like I said, those items like the main hatch for the -- main
hatch opening for the submarine, which is quite huge, the bow structure
for the aircraft carrier that's, you know, 40 feet long.

		They cast the outboard support structure for the shaft for the
aircraft carrier.  That piece is -- you couldn't fit it on this stage.
I mean, it's huge.

		MR. PERRY:  Well, it is pretty cramped up here on this stage.  I'll
agree with that, so --

		MR. HARVILLE:  It's huge.  They -- it takes a railroad car to carry
that thing to the --

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  Very good.

		MR. HARVILLE:  -- to the aircraft carrier.  There's about four of
them on each -- four to six of them on each aircraft carrier.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  And among shipyard employees -- not contractors,
but shipyard employees, what other sources of exposure to crystalline
silica are there in the shipyard outside of the foundry environment?

		If you're not sure, you want to think about it, I would welcome you to
submit that information in post-hearing comments.  But we've gotten
really very little indication that other than abrasive blasting, that
there's much of an exposure issue in shipyards.  And if that is
incorrect, we would love to hear about it.

		MR. HARVILLE:  Again, it's Allen Harville.  Well, again, like I said,
you know, the foundries use the silica sand for the casting.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes.

		MR. HARVILLE:  And they use quite a large amount of that.  Other than
that, they -- the insulation department uses a lot of calcium silicate
insulation on main steam pipes inside the engine rooms, and main
machinery spaces inside the reactor compartments on, you know, primary
and secondary systems inside the reactor.

		Even though it doesn't -- I don't think it specifies that it's
crystalline silica, it's calcium silicate.  There's warnings all over it
that state, you know, that it's danger of silicosis, you know, and you
have to provide controls.

		MR. PERRY:  Would it be possible for the Steelworkers to submit safety
data sheets for that material?  Do you have those?

		MR. FREDERICK:  We'll request that from the employer.  This is Jim
Frederick.  We'll request that from the employer, and it will somewhat
determine whether or not that facility and that contractor agrees to
provide them.

		MR. PERRY:  Very good.  Thank you.

		MR. WRIGHT:  This is Mike Wright.  Let me add to that, they have an
obligation to provide it.  Sometimes it takes us a while to enforce that
obligation.  So if we get -- we will, indeed, enforce it one way or
another, but by the time we get it, it may be after the record closes.
But we will get it.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  Very good, thank you.  Just one question for
Mr. Katrib, just so we're really crystal clear about this, because you
indicated that the -- I think, in response to a question from
Dr. Coble, that the sample data that you did receive, that you
requested and received covered a period of at least a few years, and
came from the employer's usual exposure records.  Is that correct?

		MR. KATRIB:  This is Rami Katrib.  I would assume that that would be
from their usual.  It was -- mostly it was the information the employer
typed out of what -- the four -- answers to the questions we asked,
and then behind that would be just a lab report that they had presumably
received from the lab.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  So you got the lab reports?

		MR. KATRIB:  Yes.

		MR. PERRY:  So do you have any reason to believe that the exposure
data you received was somehow not representative of typical workplace
conditions at those facilities?

		MR. KATRIB:  No.

		MR. PERRY:  But you don't have any evidence to that effect?

		MR. KATRIB:  No.

		MR. PERRY:  Very good.  Thank you.  Just a question on the training of
your members for industrial hygiene, to provide industrial hygiene
services, that does include respirable dust sampling using personal
respirable dust samplers, yes?

		MR. FREDERICK:  This is Jim Frederick, and yes.  The answer is yes.
The little bit more detail of it is that, and when we provided that
training, we have done so in a pretty specific way, determined by the
needs of the employer and local unions that are involved.

		So we make certain that the training we provide matches the exposures
and the hazards in their workplace.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  Another training question, on Pages 14 and 15 of
your written submission, you have a fairly detailed outline of the
training that you recommend OSHA consider to require for any workers who
are exposed to crystalline silica.

		And on Page 5 you talk about having a competent person establish,
relay the data, and so forth.  What additional training do you think is
necessary for the competent person that's above and beyond the training
that you're recommending for everybody here?

		MR. SCARDELLA:  I'm not sure I understand the question on the
competent person --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Scardella.

		MR. SCARDELLA:  I'm sorry.  Mr. Scardella.  I'm not sure I understand
the competent person.  What we're saying in our written comments is that
we would -- we like to see a comprehensive training program, including
in all those elements that are listed.

		That would be, in fact, our way of ensuring that our members are fully
trained and understand not only the exposure, the potential exposure,
but also the health effects of that exposure.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  I see now what you're saying.  Thank you.  I may
have misread something in here, but we will look at that again.  Thank
you.

		MR. WRIGHT:  This is Mike Wright.  Can I add one thing to that answer?

		MR. PERRY:  Please.

		MR. WRIGHT:  We do think it's important for OSHA to be fairly detailed
and fairly specific about what a training program could require, and
that comes from sad experience with other standards.

		The 1983 HazCom standard, for example, was not terribly specific.  We
had a little betting pool in my office about what employer would have
the shortest training under the HazCom standard.  The record was
something under five minutes.  That clearly indicates, I think, that
OSHA needs to be pretty specific and detailed about what an employer is
expected to impart to an employee.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  I appreciate the comment.  Thank you.  I think the