to basin because of just the way the frack, the geology and the way the
pressures that are pumped, the grain sizes, some things change subtly
from area to area, too.  And a lot of that is called out by the NP
company when they design their frack.  They have to take the geology in
to account when they design that frack in terms of what size sand, how
much sand, how much additive.  So it's like mixing a cocktail a lot of
times.  It could change from whether you're in a 6 percent dolomite or a
20 percent sandstone process.  So it changes in that respect.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you.

		MR. BURT:  I'm sorry.  I had one more question I wanted to ask.  In
costing -- Bob Burt.  In costing regulated areas, you had a fairly high
cost for things like an air shower and HEPA vacuums to clean clothes.
Why do you think that was required by the regulation?

		MR. D'ANGELO:  This is Wayne D'Angelo answering.  Those I believe are
mentioned within the proposed regulation.  Again, I can't call up cite
and verse, but there is a prohibition on gross accumulations of finely
divided particulates for those.

		MR. BURT:  Yes.  What it says is potential for employees' work
clothing to become grossly contaminated.  And it's your interpretation
at least at the cost analysis that everyone in a regulated area would
have clothing grossly contaminated?  Is that my understanding?

		MR. D'ANGELO:  I don't know how we attribute, whether we attribute
that to all workers, but I can follow-up and let you know.  I don't know
precisely the cost factor, whether it's a per person, but we can
certainly provide that information, unless you have it on hand?

		MR. CROOKSHANK:  Steve Crookshank here.  I don't have that.  I mean
it's in the spreadsheet.  It's in the workbook that you have.

		MR. BURT:  Okay, I will check that.

		MR. CROOKSHANK:  It has a couple of paragraphs on assumptions and
calculations and I think it's embedded in there.

		MR. BURT:  And I ask this not only as a cost question, but because I
think OSHA may not have intended this provision to go as far as you, I
think, interpreted it to go.  And I would be curious about alternative
language that might clarify OSHA's intent, which is where dust would be
an appreciable fraction of a person's total -- off the clothing would
be an appreciable fraction of a person's total exposure is what I think
we're looking for there.

		And any suggestions you might have on how we could keep you from
thinking, and you aren't alone in this, and thinking that everyone has
to have this kind of clothing and so forth.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  This is Wayne D'Angelo.  We would love to discuss that
provision with you further.  Thinking further on your previous question,
though, I think the costs here are, you know, for having the vacuum on
site, for having the air shower on site, so it wouldn't, and perhaps I'm
missing the point, I don't think that is a per person cost.  It's just
noting if you have a regulated area and there is the potential for these
gross accumulations.

		Now maybe we are interpreting that differently than, you know, in
order to comply, one would expect the OSHA inspector is going to want to
see the HEPA vacuum or the air shower there.

		MR. BURT:  One more question.  What is your current practice on work
clothes?  Currently, is there any tendency to require any specific type
of work clothing on these sites?

		MR. JORDAN:  On frack sites, what you will find now is that you will
find almost 100 percent of them in FRC.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  That was Mr. Jordan.

		MR. JORDAN:  I'm sorry.  Yes.  But most of them are contracting.  They
are coveralls.  But almost all compliance is within FRC because of the
potential exposures to flash fire.

		MR. BURT:  Thank you.

		MS. RYDER:  This is Anne Ryder.  I have a few questions for you all.
My first question I think is for Mr. D'Angelo and maybe Mr. Jordan,
also.  And I have a question about some of the technology that is
currently being developed.  I saw on the STEPS website that there has
been a liquid dust suppressant that has been developed made with a
hydro-finished waxy oil.  Do you have any familiarity with this?  If so,
can you tell us a little bit about that as a control?

		MR. JORDAN:  This is Kenny Jordan.  I remember sitting in on that
presentation and thinking that that was an awful fancy name.  But I
don't recall anything specific about that technology.  I could go back
and get you that information about it, if you'd like.

		MS. RYDER:  That would be excellent, yes.

		MR. JORDAN:  Okay.

		MS. RYDER:  Mr. D'Angelo, do your members not use this, know anything
about it?

		MR. D'ANGELO:  I don't.  I mean I presume that it is in all to make
water more effective as a misting?

		MS. RYDER:  It's actually an -- you add it to the sand, I believe, is
that right?

		MR. JORDAN:  This is Kenny Jordan.  It's actually an additive to the
sand to keep the dust down is what it is.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  This is Wayne D'Angelo.  It's not something that has
been raised by my members, nor have I seen that technology.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  Mr. Jordan, if you are able to get more
information on that and whether people are using it, how effective they
are finding it, that would be really helpful.

		MR. JORDAN:  I will make that happen.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay, thank you.  And I guess just to follow up to that,
are there other either engineering or work practice controls that OSHA
hasn't identified that you've heard that your members are trying out?
And if they can -- if you could provide any information about how they
have been using these techniques?

		MR. JORDAN:  This is Kenny Jordan.  I think what we are finding is a
lot of them are looking for us for guidance right now, especially some
of the smaller companies.  Some of the larger companies have the means
by which to develop some internal controls and doing some things,
themselves, that, you know, at the end of the day, they might keep as
proprietary information, I don't know.

		But we are trying.  They're trying to ask us where is this going, what
are we going to have to do from that standpoint.  We're trying to give
them an overall picture, here is where you are today, here is where you
might be if this goes forward, but you need to be prepared for somewhere
so make preparations, if you aren't doing it already.

		MS. RYDER:  Mr. D'Angelo, do you have anything to add?

		MR. D'ANGELO:  The technologies that have been raised with me were
very consistent with those that were in OSHA's docket, you know, the
LEV, trying to control through capture.  The only thing that I can add
is just based on research I did in preparation for this hearing is
noting, you know, a gentleman who will be testifying later today that
another option that is currently out there being explored is ways of
sort of minimizing dust sources or compartmentalizing.  I'm not going to
attempt to characterize this technology.  But you asked and I am aware
of that technology, and I look forward to hearing about it.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay, great.  Thank you.  I have another question about
something that you mentioned, Mr. Jordan, about the medical, certain
degree of medical tests that are being done upon initial hire right now.
 I think you mentioned fit testing, a drug test, sometimes some
ergonomic evaluation.  Is that something that's being done wherever
you're hiring the individual, or are you hiring someone, bringing them
out to the site, and the conducting those evaluations at the work site?

		MR. JORDAN:  Most of them are having to do their physicals and drug
tests as a requirement of employment.

		MS. RYDER:  And where is that happening, I guess?

		MR. JORDAN:  It depends on where they are going to be assigned.  You
might have somebody walk into Odessa, Texas, who is going to work in
Odessa.  They will have a place there that they will do all that
testing.  You might have a corporation headquarters a lot of times where
they have to go in, where they might have an assignment in some part of
the country.  They might do the testing there and then send them on.  So
it varies company to company and how they get hired.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  Just to follow up on that, if someone was being
hired in Chicago and they were going to be sent to somewhere remote in
North Dakota, where would all of that happen?

		MR. JORDAN:  If they were hired, if they did their interview -- I'm
going to make an assumption here.  If they did their interview in
Chicago, they would probably do other testing there before somebody paid
for them to go to North Dakota and find out he can't pass a drug test.

		MS. RYDER:  All right.  And one other follow-up for you, Mr. Jordan.
You talked a little bit about the SafeLand training and how you recently
incorporated some silica training.  If you haven't already submitted, if
that's in written form and could be submitted to the docket and if you
haven't done it already, would you be willing to do that?

		MR. JORDAN:  This is Kenny Jordan.  I will submit the entire
curriculum for you.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Thank you all very much.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  That concludes OSHA's questioning.  Again,
Mr. D'Angelo, Mr. Crookshank, Mr. Jordan, thank you for appearing
this morning.

		MR. JORDAN:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I thank you as well, appreciate your time and
testimony.

		The next presentation on the agenda is by SandBox Logistics, John Oren
and Josh Oren.  Are they both here?  All right, Mr. Oren, I'm going to
take a five-minute break just to allow you time to get set up and
anybody else that needs it to take advantage of it.

		(Off the record at 11:53 a.m.)

		(On the record.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  If you call can take your seats, I think we're ready
to resume.  If you have any questions or you want to carry on
conversations, please step outside the auditorium.  And as I said, the
next -- we need some quiet, please.  Thank you very much.

		The next item on the agenda, as I indicated, is Mr. Oren from SandBox
Logistics.  Mr. Oren has provided me with a copy of his presentation.
What was the next exhibit, please?

		MS. KRAMER:  152.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I'll mark that as Hearing Exhibit 152 and that will be
admitted into the record.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing		 Exhibit 152 was marked
and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Oren, thank you for your patience and whenever
you are ready, you may proceed.

		MR. OREN:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Good morning or close to good
afternoon.  My name is John Oren.  I am Chairman of the Board of
SandBox Logistics, based in Houston, Texas.  I'm pleased to be here this
morning and presenting testimony in support of OSHA's proposed rule.

		I am here to talk about the technological and economic feasibility of
the proposed rule within the hydraulic fracturing industry.

		So the technology currently exists that will allow the hydraulic
fracturing industry to meet lower permissible exposure limits for silica
dust, and it is commercially available now.  I thought the earlier
testimony was pretty interesting as a lot of it had to do with what is
commercially viable today in the industry to help reduce or eliminate
silica dust exposure.

		This technology is economically viable and produces direct savings for
the industry, rather than increasing the costs.  SandBox Logistics
provides this technology, which is already being adopted within the
hydraulic fracturing industry.  And we support the proposed rule and
believe that industry now has an economically viable tool to comply with
more rigorous silica dust regulations.  So my testimony will explain the
re-engineered processes and equipment that will allow the hydraulic
fracturing industry to meet, if not surpass the proposed PEL.

		SandBox Logistics -- let's see if I can get this to move.  We are a
logistics business.  We have been in the industry for well over 35
years.  We own and operate the Pinch Group of Companies, which is
dedicated to the movement of oil field equipment.  And we also operate
today a conventional frack sand delivery service both in the Bakken and
in the Eagle Ford.

		We are also the inventors of a revolutionary new process for end to
end containerization and the delivery of frack sand that is safer, more
efficient, and more cost-effective than current processes, and
dramatically reduces silica dust levels throughout the sand supply
system.

		And so why do we support this proposed ruling?  Because it will be in
the best interest of the workers, the residents, and neighboring
well-site communities, and the hydraulic fracturing industry as a whole.
 It is viable.  It is economical, feasible, and it is commercially
available.

		So we are in support of a safer work site both at the sand mine where
sand is -- frack sand is produced, or wherever it is along the
logistics chain, in fact, all the way to the frack site or to the well
head.

		So our focus has been on these three points, 11, 12, and 15, and we'll
be focused on these matters.

		The Question 11, have there been technological changes within your
industry that have influenced the magnitude, frequency, or duration of
exposure to respirable crystalline silica, or the means by which
employers attempt to control such exposures?  The answer is yes.

		Has there been an effort in our firm to reduce or eliminate respirable
crystalline silica from production processes, products, and services?
Emphatically yes.

		And so we are here because you request information regarding
engineering and work practice controls to control exposure to silica
dust in the workplace or industry.  So we are here to talk about the
containment of silica dust and how we do it at SandBox.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I think you're a slide behind, Mr. Oren.  I'm sorry.

		MR. OREN:  Am I?  Very good, thank you.  So we have re-engineered the
existing commercial processes and equipment in a way that substantially
reduces or eliminates silica dust.  By doing this, we've removed
unnecessary steps throughout the supply chain and reduce costs for the
industry at the same time.  And we have created a safer, healthier work
site.

		We have done this by completely eliminating the pneumatic transloading
process, which is the primary cause of silica dust.  At the same time,
we have increased the operating efficiency for the industry.  And we
have done this by creating a full end-to-end solution that will shine a
positive light on an industry that is suffering from a negative stigma.

		Some of the ancillary benefits of our solution, reduces diesel
particulate emissions dramatically.  It reduces noise pollution at a
frack site, improving the working conditions of the people there.  We
eliminate the numbers of people operating near a frack site location.
And we also improve the condition of the sand or the proppant.  And we
also reduce the congestion on the local highways, as well.

		So how do we do this?  Sand-containing silica is loaded at sand mines
and remains contained in our SandBoxes which is ready for transport to
the railhead.  SandBoxes then are shipped to a well pad, where they
serve as storage vehicles.  At no time is the sand transloaded to silos
or conveyed to other methods of storage.  Sand is conveyed directly from
the SandBox into the blender hopper by gravity feed.  It is not
pneumatically transferred and so pneumatic sand transfers are completely
eliminated.  And the handling requirements are quite a bit minimized.
And the supply chain has been greatly streamlined.

		So let me see if I can do a better job of explaining it.  There was a
movie that came out was called Transformers.  So if you kind of keep
that in mind here.  If you can imagine putting frack sand in a SandBox
and never touching it again until it actually is delivered into the
blender hopper at the well site.

		So the SandBox becomes a silo storage unit.  It then is, because it is
modular, because it is mobile, it then can be easily put on a railcar,
which SandBox had had to design and patent.  And then it is picked off
of the railcar and put on a chassis that is designed specifically for
this 10 foot by 8 foot box, in a way in which that box, when it is
filled with frack sand, weighs approximately 53,250 pounds, which
matches what a pneumatic truck currently transfers.  And then it is put
on a cradle or a conveying system where the frack sand is gravity-fed on
a proprietary belt and fed directly into the blender hopper.  So this
technology -- or this portrays how the technology makes it a far safer,
more efficient, and less costly sand delivery process.

		So, once again, this is how it works.  It gives a better idea of who
the product transforms itself from these different modes of storage and
transportation.

		I think one of the most important things that might be noted here and
there has been a lot of discussion about thief hatches, but the SandBox
completely eliminates the thief hatch.  It removes the sand king or the
sand mover from the frack sand in its entirety.  And the sand is not
delivered pneumatically or under pressure, which creates the plume of
silica dust at a frack sand, so that is completely eliminated.

		So sand, once again, is shipped by rail or truck in closed containers.
 The containers are loaded from railcars to trucks at the railheads.
Trucks unload containers into highly concentrated storage areas at the
well head.  And the result is no proppant or sand transloading is
required ever.  Reduced steps, which means there are safer processes in
place and there is a great deal of reduction in handling costs.

		So exposure to silica dust is all but eliminated throughout the
transportation stage of this supply chain under the SandBox solution.

		As it relates to storage, sand is stored in closed containers using a
very minimal footprint.  Need for wellpad storage silos and sand movers
is totally eliminated, as I said.  Results, no need for expensive, just
in time delivery requirements for a frack job.  There is less capital
investment required for equipment used at a frack site.  There are fewer
steps, which are more economical.  And there is improvement in the
proppant quality.  There is no proppant degradation.  Reduced handling
costs.

		One very important point I'd like to make is that SandBox completely
eliminates a very high cost at the well site, which is the demerge,
demerge of the trucks at the railroad depots, demerge of the sand hopper
cars.  That is eliminated.  And congestion on roads are eliminated
during the frack job.

		At the well head, the cradle, which is the conveying system that we
have invented, holds four containers, allowing for a continuous flow at
the most aggressive flow rates.  The container can empty, if required,
in less than two minutes, where it delivers 46,000 pounds of natural
sand, greater than that if you are managing ceramic products.

		There is a higher quality sand fed by gravity feed onto a conveyor
belt and then, in turn, into the blender hopper.  And so a forklift
operator loads and unloads these containers in a very, very short period
of time, less than 4 minutes, as compared to 89 minutes on the average
for one truck pneumatic delivery.  So there is a dramatic improvement in
efficiency at the well site.  Less traffic at the well site, fewer
people on the well pad, and the elimination of the pneumatic usage in
the frack sand delivery supply site.  So our specially designed cradle
dramatically reduces silica dust typical to conventional methods and
processes.

		And so going to what NIOSH has identified as the top sources of silica
dust at a frack site, the top access ports on the sand movers, known as
thief hatches, side ports on sand movers, and the transfer belts under
sand movers.  The sand kings or the sand movers are completely
eliminated.  There are no sand movers required.

		Transfer belt between the sand mover and the blender, top end of sand
transfer belt, which is known as, what we refer to as the dragon tail.
So this belt design that we use on the cradle is a very unique design,
designed to eliminate at high rpms the vibration of dust on the sand
belt.  And so with our design, it moves it very efficiently, with very
little vibration causing silica dust.

		There is also dust generated by heavy equipment moving on the pad
site, grinding mud and dirt into a very fine powder.  Because our trucks
can be on the site and off the site in four minutes, you know, what is
generally a 20-truck to 30-truck operation to supply sand at a frack
site, SandBox is able to do that with 7 to 10.

		And there is a great deal of dust that is released from the worker
clothing.  Greatly reduced amounts of dust on well pad result in reduced
exposure.

		So our supply chain solution addresses each of the eight major areas
of concern identified by NIOSH regarding exposure to silica dust at the
well site.  And, in several cases, the offending process is eliminated
altogether.

		So these are common occurrences.  Silica dust in the air at well
sites.  Respirators are proving to be ineffective protection.  SandBox
endeavors to eliminate all of these scenarios.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And for the record, there are four photographs shown
on the slide.  Starting from the top left-hand corner, it says top of
storage, pneumatic delivery, transfer belt, and sand mover.

		MR. OREN:  So improved technology is commercially viable and available
now, and it does reduce silica dust exposure, medical expenses due to
illness, injury, and dust exposure; proppant degradation and the amount
of capital investment in equipment required at the well head; reduces
diesel particulates and hazardous noise levels, congestion on local
highways, demerge, and costly shutdowns due to a lack of sand or
proppant.

		So we improve by creating a safer work site, a healthier work site, a
more environmentally friendly work site, and a more efficient and cost
effective work site.

		We are just receiving news, in fact, this past week where we have been
taking samples.  We intend to publicize the results of the testing by an
industrial hygienist.  The early results are supposed to be from what
I've been told remarkable.  The solution is currently implemented in the
Bakken Shale.  We intend to have operations in the Niobrara Shale region
in the next 100 days and also in the Eagle Ford within the next 120
days.

		So we're moving forward with extensive professional hygienic testing
that will measure and document the drastic reduction in levels of silica
dust throughout the supply chain.

		And so, in conclusion, the SandBox management team is confident that
the ability to satisfy the proposed PEL is both economically and
technologically feasible for the hydraulic fracturing industry.  In the
hierarchy of controls to prevent exposure to silica dust, the most
effective and preferred method is elimination of the source.  We have
drastically reduced and in most cases eliminated the source of silica
dust in the proppant supply chain.  So promulgation of the proposed rule
is in the best interest of workers, residents, and the neighboring well
site communities, and the hydraulic fracturing industry.

		I might make a note that it has been 76 years since Frances Perkins,
then Secretary of Labor under President Franklin Roosevelt, committed
the Labor Department to eradicating silicosis in the United States.
SandBox has taken an important step forward in fulfilling that
commitment within the hydraulic fracturing industry.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Oren.  With that, I will open it up
for questions.  Can I see a show of hands?  Ms. Seminario and a
gentleman over here on the left.  We'll start with Ms. Seminario.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Good morning.  My name is Peg Seminario from the
AFL-CIO.  Mr. Oren, thank you very much for your testimony.  When was
this technology, the SandBox technology developed?

		MR. OREN:  Well, I am the co-inventor and I began the process about
almost three years ago.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And what motivated you to explore this technology?

		MR. OREN:  We are in the frack sand delivery business.  And we
experienced a great deal of problem in getting frack sand put into our
pneumatic trucks, and a great deal of problems meaning that
transportation is all about efficiency.  So there is very inefficient
ways to get great amounts, great volumes of frack sand loaded on
thousands and thousands of trucks daily.

		To give you some point of reference, close to 70 billion pounds of
frack sand were consumed in 2013.  That's over 9,000 truckloads per day.
 So there was a shortage of equipment, a shortage of drivers, long lines
both at the distribution centers and at the well sites.  And we saw a
need for ourselves to try and streamline the logistics chain.  And so we
began to really leverage our past experience in transportation and
storage to the frack sand delivery industry.

		One of our businesses was in the movement of containers throughout the
United States.  We owned and founded a company called RoadLink USA.  And
that business allowed us to really understand the railroad modes of
transportation, steamship line modes of transportation, the systems
themselves, and as a container goes from a steamship line, to a
railroad, to a truck, we were steeped in the industry.

		And we felt like the containerization would bring great efficiencies
to the fracking industry.  And so we began to think in terms of applying
that principle of containerization to frack sand.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you very much.  I think in one of your slides,
you stated that this technology is currently commercially available and
that it is being used in the Bakken Shale area.  Is that correct?

		MR. OREN:  Yes.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  How many different frack companies or operators are
you working with these days?  I understand that may be propriety
information, but just trying to get a sense of the scope of your work
and the availability of this technology.

		MR. OREN:  Well, no, it's not proprietary.  We have been marketing
this system within the last six months.  So it is very young.  We've
spent a lot of time, money, and effort just in the research and
development, trying to understand the entire logistics chain from the
sand mines to the well heads.  You can imagine that there is, even
though the end result is a fairly simple and elegant solution, you have
to do a great deal of study to figure out the minute things.

		For example, what is the property of sand riding along on a highway at
an interchange at 85 miles an hour.  What happens?  You have to engineer
that.  You've got to figure that out.  You also have to -- I'll say it
this way.  We endeavored to take on the entire logistics chain and come
up with a solution that improves all of the stakeholders along the
logistics chain from the sand mine owners or suppliers to the railroads,
to the transloading and storage folks, along with the last mile delivery
people and the hydraulic fracturing people, themselves.

		So we had to come up with a full end to end solution.  Then we had to,
you know, as a business, a for-profit business, we had to come in with a
competitive price.  We couldn't -- we didn't feel like we would have a
commercially viable system if we came and it was something that's pretty
effective, but it's at a higher price.  We wanted to be the last guy
standing if the price of oil or gas collapses.  And we've done that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So on the price issue, how does the cost of say the
amount or volume of sand delivered in this process compared to the more
traditional delivery of frack sand.  You said it's competitive.  Is it?

		MR. OREN:  Yes.  Well, we, you know, if we are able to win an account
that wants us to provide an entire logistics chain solution, that is
from the sand mine all the way through the well site, we -- our cost
comparative analysis is giving a conservative estimate of a savings of
26 percent.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So it's actually a savings using your system?

		MR. OREN:  Yes.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Just to be clear, SandBox Logistics is providing the
whole service, that is from acquiring the sand at the mine, to the
transport, to the delivery.  And then at that point, do the containers
leave the site and are they reused, or is there also storage of
containers on site?  I wasn't clear about that.

		MR. OREN:  We are a logistics firm.  So we are offering our services,
you know, which quite flexibly, we can do a turnkey service, providing
all those functions that you just mentioned, with the exception of
supplying the sand.  We do not own the sand.  We just move and manage
the sand through the logistics chain.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  So the containers that you were showing here
are part of your service and they are your property.  You don't like
sell the containers?

		MR. OREN:  No, we do not.  It is our property.  It is our proprietary
equipment.  These are pieces of equipment that are patented, not patent
pending, but patented issued, and so we do not sell the SandBoxes.  But
we put them out for lease, as we do the other pieces of equipment.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And recognizing that this technology is relatively
new, what is your sense or your best estimate of the ability to scale up
the application of this technology?  Let's say if the standard goes into
effect, there is a demand for reduction in exposures, what would be the
ability of your firm to scale up to provide the technology on a
larger -- to a larger customer base?

		MR. OREN:  Well, that's about two years of research to try and figure
out an answer to that.  We have done I think a tremendous job of
planning for explosive growth, because we believe that our system will
be in very high demand.  So we have sought high quality manufacturers
domestically and foreign.

		These manufacturers are folks that are in the business of building
these kinds of equipment and have been for a long, long time, so we know
their quality.  We know of their ability to meet certain quantities that
we were required -- that we require of them.  But I think we have some
limitation to scaling.  I mean we are a company that has limited
resources.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And one last area of questioning and that has to do
with the industrial hygiene evaluation that is ongoing currently with
respect to the exposures with this control technology.  I think you
mentioned in your presentation that the results of that initial
evaluation would be available in Quarter 2 of 2014.  By my calculation
sometime I guess earlier this week we entered Quarter 2 of 2014.  Do you
have a better sense of when that data would be available?

		MR. OREN:  Well, I'm hoping that we will have this report in our hands
within the next week.  We'll evaluate it.  And then we'll be discussing
how we disseminate the information into the marketplace with our
customer in the Bakken.  But our customer and SandBox, you know, we're
highly motivated to get the information out.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  All right, well, thank you very much.

		MR. OREN:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Seminario.  Mr. D'Angelo?  Please
state your name for the record.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  Sure, Wayne D'Angelo; Kelley, Drye, and Warren.  I
appreciated your presentation.  I thought it was very interesting.  The
testing, can you just talk a little bit more about the exposure
monitoring that you are conducting?

		MR. OREN:  Our customer has, in conjunction with SandBox, has hired a
third party industrial hygienist who came into a frack site and did
their own independent testing.  I shouldn't say independent, it would be
we hired them to do the testing.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  Fair enough.  Just to get a better understanding of it,
you own the boxes, you own the trucks, you are in the logistic chain all
the way to the end.  The device that elevates those boxes that are fed
into for funneling proppant into the well, is that your device or is
that purchased by the hydraulic fracturing company?

		MR. OREN:  It's our device.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  It's your device.  So the -- I'm trying to assess the
cost for companies that want to adopt this.  Are there equipment
purchase costs?  Are they going to need, for instance, I've seen on the
website that there is a forklift.  Is that theirs or is that yours as
part of the logistic chain?

		MR. OREN:  It depends on if the customer wants SandBox to operate this
equipment on a turnkey basis or if they would prefer their own personnel
at the frack site to operate certain pieces of the equipment, for
example, the forklift operation or the cradle operation.  So we can do
that for a fee or they can do that.

		The customer, you know, early on as we build our business up and we
want to transfer capital investment expenses and manage that balance
sheet issue, ourselves, we would like to see our customers buy the
cradles.  We would like to see the customers buy the forklifts.  We then
supply and lease the SandBoxes.  We supply transportation services for a
fee, just like pneumatic carriers do.  So we take on that
responsibility.

		As it relates to the railcar, that is a negotiated process.  Does the
sand supplier purchase or lease the railcars or do the pressure pumpers,
who are in the region and need to have a consistent supply of sand,
would they do that.  So would we participate in that arrangement in a
joint venture, for example.  So there is a great deal of flexibility in
the way that we manage the capital expenses for these pieces of
equipment.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  Interesting, thank you.  If someone were to buy the
cradle under that option, can you approximate or ballpark a cost for the
cradle?

		MR. OREN:  $350,000.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  $350,000.  And, again, the incremental cost over
typical sand delivery, you're saying you're delivering sand at 25
percent less than the cost of typical sand delivery?

		MR. OREN:  What I said, Mr. D'Angelo, was that if our customer avails
them self to the entire logistics chain services, that is allowing
SandBox to provide the movement of sand via rail, providing the
transload and storage function in the Shale Region, and then the last
mile delivery of the sand to the frack site, and then also using the
cradles to convey the sand directly into the blender hopper, eliminating
the cost for T-belts and sand movers, then we peg conservatively a
savings of 26 percent.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  So it nets out the cost of not purchasing a T-belt at
all, not purchasing a sand mover at all?

		MR. OREN:  Correct.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  Okay.  And so right now you're in the Bakken and 120
days you're going to add two more basins, is that right?

		MR. OREN:  Yes.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  Long term, I assume you're looking at long-term
projections for going nationwide.  Have you forecasted any sort of time
for being able to grow into many of the other basins in the United
States?

		MR. OREN:  Yes.  We measure our -- our projections are based upon the
number of frack spreads that are operating in the United States today
which are over 600.  So we sell our services to hydraulic fracturing
companies based upon allowing us to manage their sand delivery mechanism
to the blender hopper.  So we hope to contract frack spread by frack
spread.  So our projects through 2014, we're hoping to have four to six
contracts.  We have expectations of being at 15.

		The difficult thing, and I alluded to this earlier, is trying to gauge
the demand.  We're relatively new at this.  But we are at 100 -- we're
3 for 3.  Every time that we go into the field and we actually frack a
well with this system, it has resulted in a new contract.  So we're 100
percent.

		We are beginning to get the attention of senior executives in
hydraulic fracturing companies and also the attention of senior
executives in integrated oil and gas firms.  So our fear is being
overwhelmed by demand.  That is, I think, our largest challenge today.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  Well, I wish you the best of luck.  I thought it was a
very interesting --

		MR. OREN:  Thank you.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  -- presentation.  And I thank you for your time here.

		MR. OREN:  Well, I hope you tell all of your constituents about
SandBox.

		MR. D'ANGELO:  There are anti-trust prohibitions about how I approach
my members but --

		MR. OREN:  We can figure a way around that.  I hope that's not in
testimony.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Take a commercial break now and ask if there are any
other questions from the audience?  Seeing no additional hands, I'm
going to turn it over to OSHA.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you, Your Honor.  And thank you, Mr. Oren, for
appearing today.  Joe Coble will begin OSHA's questioning.

		DR. COBLE:  I appreciate your testimony and a good example of American
ingenuity that we heard about earlier.

		MR. OREN:  Thank you.

		DR. COBLE:  Have you communicated with the STEPS Network at all?  Are
you familiar with what was described earlier about the API sponsored
group looking at dust control?

		MR. OREN:  No.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.  One other question I have on these boxes, what's
involved in terms of maintenance prior to refilling?  Would it be your
employees that would maintain these things, and prepare them to be
refilled?  I mean have you evaluated potential for exposure to people
during the transport of the sand?

		MR. OREN:  What was that last part, Mr. Coble?

		DR. COBLE:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Well, I guess it was really two questions.
 The first was what sort of maintenance is required on these prior to
turning them around to refill it.  Is it necessary to get inside or is
there potential for exposure when --

		MR. OREN:  No, the maintenance on these SandBoxes are minimal.  They
are very durable with a life of more than 10 years.  The sand empties
completely out of the box.  And there is no maintenance to it.  I guess
you might have to paint it every once in a while, paint the box every
once in a while.  But, no, you do not have to get inside it.

		DR. COBLE:  Have you assessed the potential for exposure to employees
that are transporting these boxes?

		MR. OREN:  There is no exposure.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.  That's all my questions.  Thank you.

		MR. BURT:  Just a couple of questions.  Bob Burt, OSHA.  I just want
to confirm some understandings of things that you wrote.  Currently, you
have one site where this is fully operational or is there more than one?

		MR. OREN:  We're operational commercially in the Bakken today, in the
Bakken Shale.

		MR. BURT:  And that's one operation?

		MR. OREN:  Well, that's one shale region today.

		MR. BURT:  But there might be more than one operation in that region
you're working on?

		MR. OREN:  Yes, there are more than one operation.

		MR. BURT:  Oh, okay.

		MR. OREN:  We have two operations.

		MR. BURT:  Okay.  And then you mentioned two additional installations
in progress.  Can you explain what that means exactly?

		MR. OREN:  Well, we've been successful in negotiating contracts with
two other pressure pumpers with multiple frack spreads.  So it's
equivalent to about another six contracts, which would put us in the
Niobrara or DJ Basin, and in the Eagle Ford within the next 100 to 120
days.

		MR. BURT:  Okay, that covers what I had.  Thank you.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay, sure.  Hi, my name is Anne Ryder.  I have a question
for you.  I think you already talked about the exposure monitoring that
you did in the Bakken Region, but I just wondered if you would be able
to tell us a little bit about maybe just anecdotally or based on your
observations how much the box has been able to reduce exposures once you
get onto the site?

		MR. OREN:  Let me comment a bit on that.  We want more testing.  This
costs money.  So we have made application for an SBIR grant that is
making its way through the National Institute of Health, OSHA, NIOSH
process, and the grant application is specifically for money to do the
testing, more testing that we want.  Because we want to prove it.  We
want to prove the efficacy of the system.  And we think good data is
going to be very important to us.  And so that's what we want to do, we
want to supply this information.  But from my own observations, the
results are remarkable.

		MS. RYDER:  And you say that because you're not seeing the plumes or
can you elaborate on that a little bit more?

		MR. OREN:  We're just not seeing the silica dust.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  And you mentioned that you are working on
publishing the data.  You are hoping to get the results this week.
Would you be able to submit that data during the post-hearing comment
period, even if it is still in somewhat of a raw form?

		MR. OREN:  The answer is I don't know.  I have to collaborate with my
customer, who is going to dictate to what extent they want to -- how
widely they want to publicize the information.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  Well, I think it's something OSHA would be really
interested in, even if you can blind, if you can redact their name or
whatever the case may be.

		MR. OREN:  I'd be happy to do that.

		MS. RYDER:  All right.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Yes, absolutely, I'd like to reiterate that that
information would be of value to us and identification of the source,
the company names, anything of that nature is really not relevant to us,
so if that's redacted, the data is still valuable to us.

		And that concludes OSHA's questioning.  Again, I'd like to thank you
for coming in today and testifying.

		MR. OREN:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you very much, Mr. Oren.

		MR. OREN:  Thank you, Judge.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Next on the agenda and the last presenter for this
morning -- this afternoon, now, is Robert Nehman from Allamakee County
Protectors.  I'm not sure if I pronounced that right, but Mr. Nehman,
I'm sorry.

		Mr. Nehman, if you have a copy of your testimony you would like to
offer the record, I'll introduce that.  Thank you.  And the next exhibit
number is Hearing Exhibit 153.  That will be entered into the record.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing		 Exhibit 153 was marked
and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Are you going to do a video?  Is that part of your
presentation?

		MR. NEHMAN:  Correct.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  And if you would during the presentation
describe what's being shown on the screen so the record itself will be
clear.

		MR. NEHMAN:  Sure.  That's in my testimony, itself.  So as the video
is playing, it will be described.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Great.  Thank you, Mr. Nehman.

		MR. NEHMAN:  Thank you for listening to my testimony this morning.  My
name is Robert Nehman, and I am here today representing my group, the
Allamakee County Protectors.  We support stricter limits on levels of
crystalline silica exposure at occupational sites and do feel that
lowering the exposure limits to 50 or even stricter limits at 25 µg/m3
will help protect individuals not only at crystalline silica occupation
sites, but also at occupational sites directly affected by the industry.

		My family and I live in the beautiful Driftless Region of Northeast
Iowa, along the Mississippi River, just across from Wisconsin and south
of Minnesota.  Over the past few years, the tri-state region has seen
increased levels of fugitive airborne crystalline silica dust due to the
rapid increase of the extraction of particular silica sandstone
formations.

		The video you are seeing today is a highly compressed representation
of the actual scale of crystalline silica exposure to the workers,
general populous, and other occupational sites within my region.

		These pure silica formations that are more than 500 million years old
are being extracted at an alarming rate in order to be used as proppants
which hold open fissures and shale formations where hydraulic fracturing
is taking place.

		I am not here today to talk about a fracking mining site or particular
operations associated with a mining site.  I do understand that MSHA
regulates the actual mining site and its safety measures.  Today I want
to talk about the workers, the communities, and indirectly related
occupations that are being exposed to elevated levels of crystalline
silica dust while it is being transported through their areas.

		Wisconsin, in 2010, had five industrial silica sites producing silica
for a number of applications.  Today, there are more than 120 permitted
proposed and active crystalline silica operations.  Many workers,
home-based businesses, such as farms, bed and breakfasts, and other
employers not related to the crystalline silica industry have been
impacted.

		Many people along these transportation routes can no longer put
clothes out to dry on the clothesline without crystalline silica and
diesel fumes coating their fresh laundry.  Some people dust several
times each day to keep up with the layers of dust.

		At a school in New Auburn, Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Occupational
Health Lab measured an increase in crystalline silica found in air
filters from less than 1 percent to 5 percent in only one year.  This
school is located in close proximity to crystalline silica operations.
Currently, the school has an indoor air filtration system and is
required to routinely change the filters to keep the staff and the
children from being overexposed to indoor crystalline silica.  How do
you protect the children on their playground?

		I do feel, as does my group and many other individuals, that there is
a gray area where the general public, home-based businesses, and other
occupational sites are suffering from crystalline silica dust exposure
caused by the rapidly expanding silica sand industry.

		Bagley, Wisconsin, sits just across the Mississippi River from
Pattison Sand Company, who operates in Clayton County, Iowa.  The
prevailing winds often blow the silica particulates across the river.

		Because the small, sugar-like grains are so fine, they often slip
through the cracks in haul trucks and rail cars, and are leaked along
roads and railroad tracks.  Railcars and trucks are seen leaving a
stream of fine sand behind.  The crystalline silica is continuously
stirred up by the traffic and is in the ambient air.

		Bicycle routes have also been affected.  Trempealeau County,
Wisconsin, worked for many years building rural bicycle routes into
their community.  The tourism they were promoting has been impacted
greatly due to increased ambient silica dust created by haul trucks.

		It is the invisible dust of 4 microns or less that is the most
dangerous to inhale and has been associated with silicosis and other
respiratory ailments.  Only six states currently have crystalline silica
exposure limits to protect the health of their citizens.

		By creating stricter OSHA limits at crystalline silica occupational
sites, along haul routes, and their destination points, the general
public, along with other nonrelated occupations could be better
protected.

		I do realize that silica is used as an ingredient in many products.
But with the increase of hydraulic fracturing, communities are being
left in a cloud of dust in an attempt to transport crystalline silica to
its destination.  I do feel that there are reputable companies within
the crystalline silica industry that can and will work within the
regulatory limits set by OSHA.

		Stricter limits on crystalline silica exposure not only will save
lives at the industry sites, but also benefit the general public.

		Standards that my group support are but not limited to respirators
required to be worn by all employees dealing with silica sand, including
large machinery operators, truck drivers along haul routes, and railroad
workers and barge operators.

		Sealed, not just covered trucks, barges, and railroad cars in order to
contain the fine dust particles.

		Air monitoring at home-based businesses, public areas, including
schools, libraries, community centers, located within a defined radius
of the transportation grid.

		Air filtration systems at occupational sites and public areas where
elevated levels of crystalline silica particulate matter are found.

		And continuous monitoring of employees' health since silicosis takes
years to develop.

		My group and I do feel that there is a potential here for a public
health epidemic.  In the future, we may look back and understand this
issue in the same way that we now directly relate asbestos exposure to
mesothelioma.

		Some of the related industries may say the cost is too high to have
stricter limits on crystalline silica exposure, but what will it cost in
the terms of public health of workers and others that were exposed to
elevated levels of crystalline silica dust.  The future could be
determined right now by approving stricter limits that will protect
thousands of workers, their families, and neighbors.

		In conclusion, I would like to introduce Jane.  Jane has several young
children and a home-based business, and has been directly affected by
the crystalline silica operations.  Her family lives and has been
dramatically hurt -- her family's lives have been dramatically changed
and they are constantly living in a cloud of silica sand dust.

		So it will be one second and Jane will pop up.

		(Video begins.)

		JANE:  I'm talking to you from my garage as sand trucks are going by.
I am literally 300 feet away from sand trucks that go by.  I'd estimate
a number of 4,000 trucks a week, and that's just the haul trucks, the
trucks that haul the sand, 4,000 trucks a week.  It's kind of paralyzed
what we've been able to do as a family.  We're not able to ride bikes
anymore.  We're not able to walk as a family anymore.  My kids are only
allowed to pay outside -- these haul trucks go on all night long, all
day, all night.  So I feel that my health and safety have been impacted?
 Absolutely.  I mean even if you don't look at the long-stand effects of
the mine itself, if you just look at the amount of traffic that's around
here and what I have to live with, even if you just look at the
emissions from all these trucks, you know, they've installed some air
monitors at the mine site itself to finally start monitoring some of
these air quality issues, but do I have concerns about it?  You bet I
do, because, you know, the mine itself regulating its air emissions, so
I have no way of knowing if their data is accurate or not.  I have no
way of knowing what the longstanding impacts are.  My family and myself
are all guinea pigs in a big experiment.  We don't really know -- and so
they ruin the road.  The asphalt that they laid in October only made it
about eight weeks and had to be redone.  And so there is always either a
paving crew out here, or haul trucks, or both.  And they don't stop the
haul trucks to even repave, so they pave as trucks haul.  So there is no
break.  Sundays are about the only day we get a break.  And so we're
really limited in the summer what we can do as a family at our house.
We've got a 160-acre farm that we used to be able to -- limited our
ability to run our business.  It has limited our ability to spend time
with the family.  It has eliminated our sense of safety and peace and
quiet that we -- every day I put myself on the line just by walking out
the door, and these were things I took for granted until these sand
trucks were put in.  And so do I know what the answer is?  I think that
we certainly needed to proceed with caution before we allowed this to
happen, because the citizens had no input in this at all.  And now I'm
forced to live with the consequences.

		MR. NEHMAN:  How do you feel your land values have been affected?"

		JANE:  Well, yeah, well, a fine example is my home.  My home was worth
about $120,000 before the sand mine came through.  They did an
assessment, the town did an assessment last year and now my home is
worth $60,000.  So in a matter of two years, my house lost half of its
value.

		(Video ends.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, thank you very much for that presentation,
Mr. Nehman.  I appreciate you coming here all the way from Iowa.

		MR. NEHMAN:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  With that, I am going to open it up for questions.
Are there any questions from members of the audience?  Seeing no hands,
I'll turn it over to OSHA.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you, Your Honor.  And thank you, Mr. Nehman, for
testifying today.  Are you aware of any sampling that has been conducted
in workplaces where exposures are occurring because of these sand mining
operations or operations related to the movement of sand, the
transportation of sand?

		MR. NEHMAN:  Yes, I do.  I do know of studies being conducted right
now as we speak.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Are you aware of the results or can you submit any of
that information to the rulemaking record?

		MR. NEHMAN:  I am allowed 45 days after this testimony to submit that.
 It's the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin that are
actually doing the studies.  Their preliminary studies are out and I
have them with me currently.  I could probably submit those, but I am
not speaking on behalf of the universities and I am not speaking on
behalf of any of my elected officials.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  All right, thank you.  That information would be useful
to us.

		MR. NEHMAN:  Okay, thank you.

		MS. RYDER:  Hi, Mr. Nehman.  My name is Anne Ryder.  Thank you for
coming here today.  Throughout the hearing, people have talked about
fugitive or local dust ordinances dealing with various types of silica
dust and other types of dust, too.  Are you aware of anything like that
in Iowa or Wisconsin, Minnesota, that would address some of these issues
or concerns?

		MR. NEHMAN:  Of practices at the mining companies or their
transportation?

		MS. RYDER:  Or local ordinances related to ambient dust and dust in
the air?

		MR. NEHMAN:  Right.  Currently, the DNR in the state of Wisconsin and
the state of Iowa do not regulate and I have that with me today.  They
don't necessarily regulate it.  It's kind of a self-regulating industry,
at this point.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay, all right.  That's all the questions I have.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you again, Mr. Nehman.  We appreciate your
testimony.

		MR. NEHMAN:  Sure.  And then I enter this to the --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Yes, if you have different exhibits other than your
testimony, let me have those, and if you can identify them for the
record, I'll mark them.  The first one will be Hearing Exhibit 154.

		MR. NEHMAN:  Will be the frack sand mining project proposed schedule
for the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin that was
started in November of last year and will be concluded July of this
year, 2014.

		I also have the map of all the facilities, the transload facilities in
every county that have the actual 78 active mines, along with there is
120 permit proposed and active mines in my area.

		And then I will -- the next one will be the particulate matter 2.5
levels along rail lines that were initially conducted by the
universities.

		And, once again, I am not speaking for the universities.  This is
preliminary data that's out for the public's knowledge.

		And then I will also be submitting the video testimony that you saw
this afternoon.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay, thank you, Mr. Nehman.  The proposed schedule
for the frack sand mining project, I've marked as Hearing Exhibit 154.
The map of the frack sand facilities in Wisconsin, I have marked as
Hearing Exhibit 155.  The chart showing the PM2.5 levels along the rail
line, I've marked as Hearing Exhibit 156.  And the video will be marked
as Hearing Exhibit 157.  All those exhibits will be admitted into the
record.

(Whereupon, the documents referred to as Hearing Exhibits 154 through
157 were marked and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the morning
portion of the program.  The time now is 5 minutes to 1:00.  We're going
to take an abbreviated lunch and resume at 1:30.  With that, we are
adjourned.

		(Whereupon, 12:56 p.m., a lunch recess was taken.)

A F T E R N O O N   S E S S I O N

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is
Stephen Purcell.  This is the afternoon session of the final day of the
14-day hearing for the proposed rule on occupational exposure to
respirable crystalline silica.

		The next group on the agenda is the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund
of North America.  There are several individuals up here, including
Scott Schneider.  I'll ask Mr. Schneider to introduce himself and the
others.  And then do you intend to proceed in the same order as the
agenda?

		MR. SCHNEIDER:  I am not sure.  I think it will be something similar
to that.  I will be myself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Parsons, Dr. Melius,
Mr. Mallon, and then Mr. Hoffner, and then Mr. Nunziata.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, if you would as you go along,
Mr. Schneider, just introduce the next panel speaker.

		MR. SCHNEIDER:  Okay.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And whenever you are ready.  I have received a copy of
your written testimony and marked that as Hearing Exhibit 158.  And also
a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, marked as Hearing Exhibit 159.
Both of those exhibits are admitted into evidence.

(Whereupon, the documents referred to as Hearing 	 Exhibits 158 and 159
were marked and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And you may proceed when you are ready.

		MR. SCHNEIDER:  Thank you, Your Honor.

		Good afternoon.  My name is Scott Schneider.  I am the Director of
Occupational Safety and Health for the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund
of North America.  The Health and Safety Fund is a joint
labor-management trust fund affiliated with the Laborers' International
Union of North America, or LIUNA.  LIUNA represents approximately
500,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada, most of whom do construction
work.

		The Health and Safety Fund was created 26 years ago to help LIUNA'S
members improve their health off the job and to help signatory
contractors improve safety performance on their construction sites.

		I have been the Director of the Occupational Safety and Health
Division for almost 16 years and have worked in occupational safety and
health for various unions for the past 32 years.  I have participated in
numerous OSHA rulemakings, starting with the asbestos hearings in 1984.

		I have been a member of the OSHA Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health and the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors.  I am a
certified industrial hygienist.  I am also a fellow member of the
American Industrial Hygiene Association, and was awarded the William
Steiger Award by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists in
2010.

		I have published numerous, peer-reviewed scientific papers and book
chapters on a variety of topics such as occupational epidemiology,
construction ergonomics and noise.

		We greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
Laborers have some of the highest exposures to silica among the
construction trades because of the nature of their work.  Laborers use
jackhammers to break up concrete.  They cut concrete, brick, and block.
They do demolition work, highway work, building construction and
pipeline work, as well as renovation.

		They also do cleanup work, which involves sweeping up dust that has
been generated by uncontrolled processes.  They often work adjacent to
dust-generating operations.

		We have long been concerned about the hazards of silica and have been
disturbed by the long delays in promulgating this standard.  NIOSH
proposed a comprehensive standard 40 years ago and OSHA published a
Federal Register notice that same year requesting feedback on whether
the permissible exposure limit, or PEL, should be reduced to 50 µg/m3.

		No actions were taken until the late '90s, when OSHA began working on
a comprehensive standard.  In the past 40 years, our knowledge about the
dangers of silica and the ways to control it has grown tremendously.

		Recent studies show a clear danger from exposures at the current PEL.
Studies in Holland, which have been submitted to the record, show early
signs of silicosis among 10 percent of 1,339 construction workers
screened who had only 19 years of exposure at an average age of 42.
Among these construction workers, 2.9 percent had 1/1 x-rays.  The Dutch
exposure limit is only 75 µg/m3.

		These studies showed a clear dose response curve.  While we might be
sympathetic to those willing to institute all the other provisions of
the standard and leave the PEL at 100, the data show a disturbing risk
at that level, making that position untenable.

		This isn't some theoretical or hypothetical problem.  It is a very
real one.  Despite all the claims that silicosis is disappearing in this
country, the only reason that appears to be the case is that we haven't
looked for it.

		We have no real surveillance system in this country for occupational
lung disease.  Construction workers who change jobs frequently certainly
are not being screened for it.  I was disturbed at these hearings last
week when a company which seemed to be doing all it could to protect its
workers, including giving them medical exams, failed to give them chest
x-rays as part of those exams.  A few years from now should workers from
that company discover they have silicosis, they are going to wonder why
it was not identified earlier.  I suspect there might be some liability,
at that point, as well as some regrets.

		The employer associations who have testified at this hearing who are
convinced that silicosis is a thing of the past have been deceived by
the silicosis mortality data.  They haven't looked at all the data,
which tells a very different story.  And this is before we even go into
the evidence on lung cancer and renal disease, etc.

		Likewise, they have been convinced that a 25 µg action level is
unmeasurable.  Yet, for years, ACJH has had a 25 µg limit, as have some
jurisdictions like the Province of Alberta.  A 50 µg standard is easily
measured using current 1.7 liter pumps and 4.2 liter pumps are widely
available.  They draw over twice as much air per minute and,
consequently, can easily measure half of the 50 µg limit level.  It is
simple math.

		Industry claims the standard is economically infeasible.  The
arguments made by industry to try and inflate the costs have been almost
laughable.  To suggest that OSHA has to consider the cost incurred by
2.5 million self-employed workers in construction just doesn't hold
water.  Just about every OSHA standard has had a look-back that has
shown the cost to be greatly overestimated as industry has innovated to
meet the new standard.  These claims probably should be considered just
that, claims with little to support them.

		So the issue boils down to technological feasibility.  We have
reviewed the data in the record carefully.  From our reading, we are
convinced that most operations can meet the 50 µg standard most of the
time.  This is particularly true as many of the tasks are not performed
for a full day.

		OSHA acknowledged that in Table 1 by allowing the use of controls
without respiratory protection for many operations of four hours or
less.  We believe a new OSHA standard with a lower PEL will spur
innovation in the construction industry to meet the challenge.  We have
already seen how industry can partner with labor and manufacturers to
reduce exposures successfully in NAPA's testimony on the asphalt milling
partnership.

		Could other sectors duplicate this effort?  Absolutely.  Every month,
we see trade magazines touting new tools with dust collecting equipment
to "help employers comply with the proposed OSHA rule."  This will only
increase.

		With a lax standard and little enforcement, many uncontrolled
operations are exposing thousands of construction workers every day to
dangerous clouds of silica.  This standard will help shift the industry
to controlling exposures as the norm and simultaneously change the
culture from a lack of regard for worker health to concern and attention
to it.

		Right now, workers are suffering the impact of this neglect.  By
changing the culture through a new standard, we can preserve worker
health, help construction workers lead longer and healthier lives, and
based on much of the testimony to date, likely make work more productive
in the process.

		We fully support this effort.  We also support the comments from the
Building Construction Trades Department and the AFL-CIO, both of which
we work closely with in developing their comments.

		We would also like to echo the comments of the International Union of
Operating Engineers about the need to reconsider how demolition work is
approached and how it might be covered in Table 1.  Demolition, by its
nature, involves the crushing of construction materials which contain
silica.  Operators can and should be protected in air-conditioned cabs
with filtered air.  Laborers who assist operators on the ground may have
higher exposures.

		In addition, LIUNA's members are involved in shotcreting and guniting
operations where concrete is basically sprayed onto surfaces.  These
operations are generally done in closed or confined spaces, so even
though they are wet operations, there is potential for high exposures.
These operations need to be reviewed by OSHA before the final rule is
promulgated.

		Now I'd like to introduce the rest of our panel, who will address
specific elements of the proposal.  Next, we'll hear from Walter Jones
of the Health and Safety Fund, who will discuss control technology.
Travis Parsons will then speak from the Health and Safety Fund on the
competent person requirements.  Dr. Jim Melius, from the New York State
Laborers' Health and Safety Fund and the Laborers' Health and Safety
Fund of North America, will discuss the medical surveillance
requirements.  Eddie Mallon from Laborers Local 147 in New York City
will discuss his experiences as a sandhog.  Ken Hoffner of the New
Jersey Laborers' Health and Safety Fund will discuss the work of the
silica partnership in New Jersey.  And Tom Nunziata, from LIUNA Training
and Education Fund, will discuss the training requirements.  Thank you.

		MR. JONES:  How you doing?  My name is Walter Jones.  I'm the
Associate Director of the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund.  I'm a CIH.
I've been doing construction here, industrial hygienist in construction,
I don't know, for maybe 12 to 15 years now.

		For the last plus six years, spanning two different administrations, I
have served as an employee representative on the OSHA Advisory Committee
on Construction Safety and Health, or better known as ACCSH.  I have
co-chaired the ACCSH silica workgroup with Matt Gillen of NIOSH and
various ACCSH employer reps.

		Most of our early work from 2007 through about 2010 focused on
development of a task-based approach to controlling silica exposure and
the use of objective data in substitute for sampling.  Our workgroup
meetings were heavily attended by construction industry stakeholder,
many of whom are in this room today or have been participating in these
hearings.

		Although the rules did not require the workgroup to not only reach
consensus, we also began by making sure -- whenever we moved forward on
a topic of any contention, we made sure we had a sense of the room
before moving forward.  The one thing about this ACCSH silica workgroup
is that we work with our industry folks and other industry stakeholders
on what were the best approaches of moving forward on addressing silica.
 Many, many, many of the stakeholders talked about a non-complicated way
of addressing silica exposures and tying tasks to exposures, and getting
away from hiring industrial hygienist to come out and doing monitoring,
and thus this concept of Table 1 was born.

		Although it was a part of the original SBREFA process that OSHA
instituted in 2003 regarding the silica rule, we pushed it forward to
see if we could get total buy-in from most of the folks in the room
today.

		ACCSH members and all the construction industry stakeholders all
agreed it would be more effective and efficient to tie silica control to
worker tasks and activities.  We used the Georgia Tech OSHA consultation
program, their matrix; we looked at the ASTM silica standard, and a
bunch of different other silica matrices so we can look at tying tasks
directly to exposures.  And we proposed all of this at the main table at
ACCSH many different times to see if OSHA would buy into this concept.

		At the December 2009 ACCSH meeting, the OSHA Director of Standards and
Guidance Panel, Director Dorothy Dowry, Deputy Director Bill Perry, and
David O'Connor provided a PowerPoint presentation describing their most
current thinking on the requirements currently under consideration for
the proposed silica standard, with an emphasis on the areas where they
were changing from what they previously prepared for the SBREFA panel
review back in 2003.

		After the presentation, I moved that the ACCSH support the expanded
concept of Table 1 from the 2001 SBREFA draft, the inclusion of
competent person requirement into the proposal, and an exemption of
employers from monitoring requirements if they implement specific
controls from Table 1.  All of this passed unanimously.

		So what we are talking about is something most of us have already
agreed on in terms of Table 1 and construction requirements.

		As I move on, as we look across the country, we see that state
municipalities are all passing laws to protect their citizens and
workers from silica-containing dust, just like the presentation we heard
right before we went to recess from what's going in in Iowa.  The states
of California, New Jersey, the cities of Boston and Chicago, they now
prohibit dry cutting and pulverizing without ventilation and wet methods
or respirators.

		Many, many more states and local municipalities require control of all
fugitive dust.  On a project at the Harvard Fog Museum in Boston, who
were trying to look at silica controls and smoking cessation programs,
workers reported that dust control use was basically based on whether
the project was within Boson city limits or not.

		At a CPWR silica control workgroup meeting in Chicago, researchers
documented the unusual prevalence of dust control use within the city of
Chicago.  Recently, a couple of months ago, I toured the Bay Bridge
demolition project in San Francisco where it is required that all forms
of dust be captured and controlled and not allowed to fall into the bay,
neighboring properties, or on the ground below the bridge.

		I recently toured the new 49ers project in Santa Clara.  On that
project, subcontractors and contractors reported that dust control
efforts, whether environmental, or occupational, or common place, and
were treated equally.  The concept of just letting dust float freely is
not something that contract owners of projects are allowing contractors
do to, at least in major urban markets.

		As a matter of fact, dust control on construction projects is already
an important responsibility for contractors and it's really not a new
concept, as has been reported here a lot of times or at least over the
last three weeks.  As a matter of fact, we can only expect efforts to
intensify in the future.  Therefore, it is time that we look at evening
the playing field to hold all parties to the same standard, whether
we're talking about noncompliant contractors, rural communities, or
workers' health.

		Many localities have rejected the idea that contractors are not
responsible for dust plumes created during their construction
activities.  Contractors are not allowed to let dust plumes plow into
neighboring yards, streams, and sewers.  I cannot impress upon you the
concern expressed by signatory contractors and affiliates throughout the
years that I've been doing industrial hygiene because dust plumes rain
down on cars or the fear expressed when these contractors have to deal
with the fact that pedestrians may have to walk through these plumes.

		Whenever I have had to help out on a project to abate these
environmental concerns, worker exposures were seldom brought up.  It was
up to me to make the case that controlling dust at the source through
ventilation or water instead of opting to the default position of the
enclosure of the project; it was up to me to make that case.  And I ask
many of you out there how many times do you see in response to
environmental concerns that workers are facing for a contractor to
button up the project into a plastic balloon to protect nearby cars and
pedestrians.

		Often, this only increases worker exposures and that's why we fall
back to Table 1.  I find the beauty of Table 1 is in its ability to be
both pragmatic and forward-leaning.  Occupational dust control is as
much an art as it is a science.  For example, exposures can easily go
from compliant to hazardous based solely on the operator, contractor,
experience, maintenance level of the equipment.  It is vitally important
that OSHA not only automatically require activities for every task and
control, but also enforce the note section of Table 1 to prevent uneven
application of compliance activities that may easily turn hazardous.

		Table 1 not only makes compliance in my eyes easier to determine,
enforce, and teach, it also assures acceptable levels of healthfulness.
At its core, the proposal is a technology-forcing standard without which
we would be stuck listening to folks tell us that the hierarchy of
controls is outdated.  The future of worker health is respirators, I've
heard say here over and over again at these hearings.  To them I say,
you know, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

		But our brothers and sisters on the environmental side, they don't
have to deal with such a lack of concern about the problem.
Environmentalists do not have to ask Americans to walk around wearing
respirators because it was infeasible to move lead from gasoline or
because it would cost jobs.  Instead, they fought to have lead removed
from gasoline, which became probably one of the greatest public health
successes of our lifetime.

		Around the globe, other rich industrialized countries choose to side
with the infeasibility argument which forces their citizens to walk
around with respirators through murky clouds of dust and particulate
matter and pollution.  I believe OSHA's forward-leaning proposal will
create an environment where equipment and manufacturers can aggressively
develop and promote all the existing new control technology, as Ken
Hoffner will talk about later during his presentation.

		We worked to develop a jackhammer with dust control protocol that
works.  But in spite of what I am testifying today, equipment
manufacturers continually tell us that there is no market for this.  And
to me there always seems to be this tacit compact between equipment
manufacturers and for that matter everybody in construction sometimes it
seems of not using worker health and safety to a competitive advantage.

		I am often told by equipment manufacturers that the demand does not
exist for safer equipment or that they do not want to assume some
perceived liability after the abatement does not work as advertised.  I
guess I understand what they are saying, but to which I normally reply
manufacturers have never been to a health food store where every product
promises strength, vitality, and long life.  Imagine that, you know.

		Earlier this week, you know, the MCAA reported here that the diamond
blade saw suppliers, you know, diamond blades are normally used wet, the
suppliers reported that the are declaring that the water used to keep
their products maintained and long life has nothing to do with dust
control.  They are running away from this concept that there are
ancillary benefits associated to a well-maintained device.

		Equipment manufacturers seem fearful of bringing this silent compact
on worker safety and willing to continue to wait on the sidelines until
OSHA requires their participation, which I am asking OSHA to do.  When
equipment manufacturers start fully participating, probably only for
compliance only, they're not going to say it's safe, they're just going
to say this is OSHA compliant, but that works for me because there is a
lot of products out here that control dust and dust capture.

		I am convinced that the dust capture and control market will take off
with just a little prodding.  Can you imagine the free market if they
just applied 10 percent of the technology used in my phone to dust
control, to make products more responsive, companionable, and
comfortable.  Greater production, use and protection would be ensured if
we did that.  Thank you.  I'll take questions afterwards.

		MR. PARSONS:  Good afternoon.  My name is Travis Parsons.  I am the
Senior Safety and Health Specialist at the Laborers' Health and Safety
Fund of North America.  I have worked as a safety and health
professional at the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund for about 12 years
now.  I provide an array of safety and health services to the members
and the signatory contractors of the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of
North America on issues concerning workplace safety and health, on a
multitude of work sites throughout the United States and Canada.

		I would first like to thank OSHA for the opportunity to testify today
and commend the Agency for moving forward on such a very important
standard for LIUNA's members and the whole construction industry.

		I have participated in OSHA's rulemakings before for hexavalent
chromium, cranes, confined spaces in construction, and a couple of
others.  I am also an OSHA master instructor for OSHA 500 and 502
courses with the Building Trades in the construction industry.  And,
lastly, I am also a subject matter expert on a panel within our training
fund that is developing a competent person training right now as we
speak to respond to this standard when it is promulgated.

		I have been on many work sites and have seen firsthand that many
construction workers are repeatedly exposed to excessive amounts of
toxic silica dust, which is a known human carcinogen.

		In a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, OSHA itself called
silica one of the most pervasive hazards found in the workplace.

		In my testimony now, I am going to shift and I am going to focus on
one question, Question 35 from OSHA's identified issues within the
proposed rule.  I am not going to read the whole question to you, but
basically they ask if OSHA should include competent person provisions in
the new rule.

		To me, including competent person provisions in the new rule are a
no-brainer.  Almost every organization that I have heard testify over
the past three weeks have mentioned something about the variability in
the construction industry and the transient nature of the workforce.
This, alone, exemplifies the need for stronger competent person
requirements in the silica standard for the construction industry.

		OSHA defines a competent person as one who is capable of identifying
existing and predictable hazards in surrounding working conditions which
are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has
authorizations to take prompt, corrective measures to eliminate them.
That is exactly what a competent person is.

		By way of training and/or experience, a competent person is
knowledgeable of applicable standards, is capable of identifying
workplace hazards relating to specific operations such as silica, and
has the authority to correct them.

		Some standards add additional requirements which must be met by the
competent person.  For example, in asbestos and lead, they might have
different qualifications to become that competent person versus a
physical hazard, like a scaffold or excavation.

		When it comes to silica, a competent person is needed to ensure that
controls are working properly to protect all workers on the site.
Competent person requirements are especially useful also for health
standards because of the unique training and knowledge a person will
need to be a suitable competent person.

		Furthermore, if contractors rely on Table 1 for compliance, there may
be a need for respirators as a last means of defense.  This is another
reason to have a capable competent person on site that can make an
impervious decision to protect their fellow workers.

		The competent person is also a powerful tool to reduce exposures in
environments that are especially hazardous such as abrasing -- abrasive
blasting, excuse me, and regulated areas.

		As a matter of fact, in a 2013 recent paper published by the American
Industrial Hygiene Association, titled "Recommended Skills and
Capabilities for Silica Competent Persons," states that a key component
in preventing over-exposure to silicon subsequent disease is to have one
individual on the work site who is capable of recognizing and evaluating
situations where over-exposures may be occurring, who knows how to
evaluate the exposure potential, and can make initial recommendation on
how to control this exposure.  This is, again, a competent person.

		In a 2009 meeting, OSHA's own advisory committee, ACCSH, which Walter
just recommended, recommended that OSHA utilize a competent person
approach for silica particularly.

		Competent person provisions were also in the original 2003 proposed
standard and should be included in the final rule.

		Now, I'm just going to do a little summary.  It might sound a little
bit redundant right now what I'm saying competent person, competent
person, competent person, but that's why it is a no-brainer.  As
previously mentioned, construction work is fluid.  It changes on a daily
basis and from work site to work site.  Numerous OSHA regulations, we
count 19, already account for this by investing the power and authority
in a competent person and the silica standard for construction should be
no different.

		The use of a competent person has been a longstanding staple of safety
and health in the construction industry and in construction standards,
and is also commonly used by conscientious contractors, OSHA, and the
American National Standards Institute, ANSI, for construction
regulations and best practices.

		Competent persons can ensure controls are being used effectively, and
know when to call in a qualified person such as an industrial hygienist
for more complex or unusual scenarios.

		As the silica proposal rightly placed heavy emphasis on proper use of
controls, exposures can greatly vary, as it has been pointed out, if
controls are not used properly.  A competent person is essential to
ensure that these controls are used properly and make the appropriate
decisions.

		A competent person can monitor water flow rates, the functionality of
local exhaust ventilation, and any other control that's needed on the
worksite.

		We recommend that OSHA include and strengthen the competent person
provisions in the final rule.  And we believe that competent person is
one of OSHA's most vital and effective safety and health tools in the
construction industry and it must be part of a new standard.  Thanks.

		DR. MELIUS:  Good afternoon.  My name is Jim Melius.  I am an
occupational physician, epidemiologist, working.  I think Scott
introduced me earlier.  I want to spend more time on that.  But in my
testimony I want to focus on two different things, initially on the
medical surveillance provisions of the standard, and then I want to talk
specifically about tunnel construction work.

		As mentioned in previous comments, our union members are exposed to
silica in a variety of different types of construction work.  We know we
have experienced as a result of this exposure they have an increased
risk of developing silicosis and other illnesses.

		The proposed standard includes provisions for medical surveillance,
which we believe to be a very important addition to the regulation and
enforcement of silica exposure.  Given the serious risk of lung disease
and cancer among silica-exposed workers, obviously this is an important
element of the proposed standard in providing protection for these
members, we think, particularly in the construction industry.

		Although we support major elements of the medical surveillance
provisions in the proposed standard, there are a number of issues with
that standard that we believe need to be addressed and in the final
regulation.

		I'm going to focus mostly on the construction parts of the standard,
though I think many of these issues also relate to the general industry
section of the standard.

		First of all, the trigger for medical surveillance.  Given the
structure of the proposed construction standard, using the proposed PEL
to trigger medical surveillance we think is the most practical approach.
 However, given the widespread nature of silica exposures in the
construction industry, frequent employer and job rotation, and the
difficulties of documenting individual silica exposures in construction,
the 30-day requirement for exposures above the PEL may be difficult to
administer.

		We suggest that this requirement either be eliminated or certainly at
least clarified so that there are clear instructions for the employers
in terms of when medical surveillance is required and when it needs to
be done.  It's a difficult area, but I think some further clarification
would be very helpful.

		Secondly, frequency of medical examinations.  We support the
provisions requiring an initial examination in 30 days and then once
every 3 years.  However, in certain circumstances, we believe that the
examination should be more frequent.  This includes when a shorter time
period is recommended by the examining healthcare provider, when the
person has abnormal pulmonary function testing, or when the employee
reports indications that they may have a silica-related illness.  In
those situations, we don't think that the three-year schedule is
appropriate and a more timely medical examination needs to be done in
order to address any developing health problem.

		We also have, on the other hand, we also know that construction
workers frequently change employers and may have multiple employers
within a single year.  This could lead to a situation where an employee
could end up with multiple examinations within a year or over a period
of years, far above the three-year periodicity included in the standard.

		We think it is important that OSHA should provide provisions or
instructions that encourage the ability of contractors or contractor
associations to pool resources to provide examinations for a group of
workers working for their members of the association, who may rotate
among these employers.

		Such programs have been successfully implemented by union contractor
associations for respirator fitness, drug testing, other required
medical examinations such as asbestos exposure, and we think would be a
useful and cost effective way for providing silica surveillance.  At the
same time, they would eliminate unnecessary chest x-rays and other
examinations, unnecessary examinations for silica-exposed construction
workers.

		I noticed I believe people from the hydraulic fracturing industry also
mentioned this issue earlier in their testimony.  And I think it would
be a very helpful addition.  It is allowed, I think, currently by OSHA,
but it can be difficult to get these kinds of arrangements set up and
approved.

		Content of examinations.  We support the proposed content of the
medical surveillance examinations; however, there needs to be a clear
provision for ensuring that pulmonary function testing is done properly
in order to appropriately detect changes over time, should meet the ATS
or similar guidelines, and there needs to be guidelines in the standard
or within the instructions for the standard for evaluating changes in
individuals' pulmonary function over time, which can be an early
indicator development of silica-related lung disease.

		Silica-exposed workers are also at risk of developing lung cancer.
There is now good scientific evidence supporting the use of low dose CT
scans for the early detection of lung cancer.  We believe these should
be added as a required part of the silica medical surveillance standard.
 These have been recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
for screening for the general population in relationship to cigarette
smoking.

		Although their guidelines do not include detailed recommendations on
occupational lung cancer risk, I think the basic justification based on
the occurrence of disease, the rate of concurrence of disease among
population of different age groups would also apply to occupational
exposures or occupational exposures in conjunction with cigarette
smoking.

		We believe that as the specific guidelines for this testing are being
developed the standard should provide the ability to adopt these newer
guidelines as they become available.  It's an important outcome from
long-term silica exposure and I think availability of a screening method
can be important in at least reducing the ultimate disease from
long-term silica exposure.

		Finally, I think the most important concern we have about the medical
surveillance standard is the confidentiality provisions.  We believe
these current confidentiality provisions are woefully inadequate and
would place our members at significant risk of being discriminated
against in hiring and job retention.

		We see this as a growing trend among our members being denied work
based on poorly justified so-called fitness guidelines or fitness
standards which have no basis in sound medical science.  The current
provisions of this standard would only aggravate that situation by
providing personal medical information to the employer, which some
employer might then use as a rationale for not hiring a worker or for
not retaining them in their current employment.

		We believe that all individual medical information should only be
shared with the employee being examined, not with the employer.  Similar
to other provisions in the black lung rules, for example, the examining
physician should only provide the employer with this information as to
the employee's ability to wear a respirator.

		The standard must also include language to prohibit any retaliation
against the employee based on the results of the medical program, their
participation in the program, or their decision on what personal medical
information, if any, to share with the employer.

		Now, I'd like to go on and talk about tunnel construction.  Some of
the potential for our most severe exposures for our union members are in
tunnel work, where the confined nature of the work, the often-limited
ventilation, and the ability of tunnel boring machines and other tunnel
equipment to generate dust from excavating large amounts of material can
lead to substantial silica exposures for our members working in tunnels.

		The beryllium silicate content of the ground being tunneled can
substantially change as the tunnel is being bored and this can then lead
to changes in silica exposure for workers.  Often this change in silica
content may not be detected without proper monitoring.

		Many members of our local union in New York City that performed only
tunnel work, this is Local 147, have developed silicosis and have
actually received compensation for this work-related illness.  We
recently conducted a small medical screening of 13 members of this
union, actually did the screening focusing on some dermatological
disease and found that 5 of the 13 members had findings of silicosis
based on CT scan.  The median job duration for these workers was less
than 10 years, so these were not just long-term workers who had been
exposed in the distant past.  Many of these people had only been exposed
within the last 10 years.

		This screening was conducted by an occupational health clinic at a
large university medical center.  And while not maybe totally
representative of the population of this union, we believe it does
provide indication of the potential hazard.

		I have with me today Eddie Mallon, a long-time member of our New York
City tunnel workers' local, who will testify about his experiences with
tunnel work and silicosis.  Mr. Mallon?

		MR. MALLON:  How do you do?  My name is Eddie Mallon.  I am a
70-year-old.  I worked in the tunnel business in New York City for 50
years.  I mainly did construction work underground.

		In the last six years, I have been a business agent and my job was to
go on the job sites and watch out for the welfare of the men.

		Last year, my doctor advised me to stop work.  He diagnosed me with
silicosis and advised me to avoid the job sites.  I could not be exposed
to silicosis any longer, so I had to leave that business.  I did not
want to leave that time.  I enjoyed doing what I do.

		In the 40 years plus I worked underground, many hazards including very
dusty environments and exposure to silica and concrete burns have gotten
worse.  I will tell you that the overall safety on the job has gotten
much better.

		When I first came into the business, I worked on a job called
Watertown.  We had 26 men die on that job.  Since that time, the
improvements on the job site as far as OSHA is concerned, north time
(ph.) actions are about as good as they can get.  Everybody is involved
with it today because of north time actions.  That is one of the
problems with silica, you don't see north time.  The north time you see
is at the end of your life.  There is no north time actions on that.  So
the dust control situation today is way behind in technology.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Mallon, I'm sorry to interrupt, could you move
that back a little bit?

		MR. MALLON:  The technology down the hole -- maybe you can hear me if
I just don't use it.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  No, just move it back.

		MR. MALLON:  The technology in the hole is not keeping up with what's
going on down there.  Years ago when I first started this business, we
would have a drilling chute.  We would go in there and dynamite the
drilling chute.  The smoke would come out.  The silica would be in the
air.  It would be sucked up with a pipe.  If the pipes weren't working,
the ventilation system wasn't working, we'd go back to the line or we'd
leave the tunnel.

		Today's environment, there is no going back to the line.  You are in
there for eight hours.  These machines are running for eight hours.  If
it is not the machine that's running, it's a road hare (ph.) that's run.
 That's worse than drilling, actually cutting into the rock.

		If that's not going on, then we're down the hold and we're
shotcreting, either a wet mix or a dry mix, which could be actually
worse than the machines.  So the exposure in the tunnel business as of
today is a terrible situation.

		I strongly believe OSHA needs to implement strong silica standards.
We need them and especially in my industry.  I do believe that 50 years
down the line, you will never see a 70-year-old man sitting up here
talking about silica if things don't change.  These young kids today,
what they're going to face down the hole is nothing what I did.  For the
first 30 years of working the tunnels, it was bad with the silica, but
nowhere near what it's like today.

		Today's situation in the tunnels where they want progress so they
don't stop the machines.  They need progress.  I'm working on a job
right now on east side access.  It is one of the biggest jobs in New
York City.  We wanted more ventilation in the hole.  We were told we
couldn't have it.  They didn't have the electricity to supply us, to
give us better ventilation in the hole.  And I think we have to have a
lot of changes in that.  I think a big change could be if a government
puts out a job for $100 million or $200 million, they can put an OSHA
inspector on the job that understands silica, that can take the tests,
that can keep the men protected.  Outside of that, I don't see anything
really helping us right now.

		That's about all I can say on that.  If you have any questions, I'll
be glad to answer them.

		MR. HOFFNER:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ken Hoffner, and I'm the
Assistant Director of the New Jersey Laborers' Health and Safety Fund.
For over 15 years, the New Jersey Laborers' Health and Safety Fund has
been involved in a partnership to reduce construction silica exposures
in New Jersey.  The partnership emerged from a Rutgers University work
zone safety and health task force to reduce fatalities, injuries, and
illnesses in road construction work.

		Then New Jersey silica partnership includes participants from
academia, from labor, road construction contractors, contractor
associations, and state, federal, and local transportation and safety
officials.  In 2006, this partnership signed an agreement with OSHA to
become known as the New Jersey Silica Outreach and Research Alliance, or
SOAR, we call it.

		From the outset, our silica partnership has worked together to
identify, evaluate, and control crystalline silica hazards on road
construction sites in New Jersey.  Over the years, we have sampled
crystalline silica exposures for road construction workers and
collaborated to reduce these exposures.

		In some specific operations listed in Table 1, we have identified
existing controls that achieve compliance with the proposed PEL.  An
example is wet saws.  And in other operations, we worked together to
develop new controls that can be easily implemented.

		One such example is the jackhammer water spray control we developed
that reduced respirable dust levels in jackhammering by 90 percent.  Our
work corroborates that the application of wet controls and respiratory
protection for the jackhammer and impact drilling activities listed in
Table 1 will achieve compliance with the recommended PEL.

		If you want to see what this jackhammer spray looks like, just Google
how to make your own jackhammer dust spray control.  We actually tried
to get it out there by making the plans available to all the contractors
who were interested.

		We know that wet controls for concrete and masonry saws are so
effective in reducing silica exposure below the proposed PEL that in
2004 the New Jersey Laborers' Health and Safety Fund joined with other
stakeholders in getting a law passed in New Jersey that prohibits the
dry cutting of brick, block, and other silica-containing building
materials.  That law is NJSA 34.5-182.

		Since that time, the majority of construction contractors that I work
with around the state have purchased and routinely used wet saws to cut
masonry materials virtually eliminating those activities as a source of
silica exposures to workers.  Many contractors have dealt with the usual
concerns about what to do in the winter by wrapping gutter heat tape
around 55 gallon drums to make sure the water stays liquid in freezing
temperatures.

		The proposal OSHA silica standard is extremely important to our
Laborers' union member.  A few months ago, I received a call from a
Laborers' Local 77 member, who I'll call by his initials, S.B.  S.B. is
an immigrant worker who was employed for a contractor at a university
construction site using a handheld disk grinder to remove the raised
seams in the concrete left from the form work.

		In the five and a half months he did the work, S.B. reported there
were no local exhaust ventilation controls used in the grinding, nor was
he required to use a respirator by his employer.  Even obtaining a
half-face disposable respirator for voluntary use at the job site was
difficult for S.B.

		He reported that the concrete grinding dusts were so high in this work
that he began to have problems with his eyes and with his respiratory
system.  After leaving the job site, he sought medical attention from
his own doctors.  He was unaware of the worker's compensation system.
And he subsequently had to have eye surgery because the dust levels were
so high that he was exposed to they blocked and obstructed his tear
ducts, according to his doctors.  He is currently being evaluated for
potential damages to his respiratory system, including silicosis.

		There are thousands of workers every day in the U.S. exposed to
similar conditions on the job.  And we need this new standard to offer
better protection to these men and women for silica exposures in
construction.

		Through our participation in the silica partnership for over 15 years,
New Jersey Laborers' Health and Safety Fund concludes that controlling
crystalline silica in construction is just not that difficult with the
three W's.  The three W's are water, sprays; wind, local exhaust
ventilation; and the third is a will to act.

		What has been mostly lacking is the will and the motivation to control
exposures.  And we believe that the proposed standard will provide an
impetus for employers to implement the simple controls and work
practices necessary to greatly reduce exposures.  One thing we know
about the construction industry is that our workers and our contractors
are creative, innovating, and clever when confronted with a need to
overcome a problem, including crystalline silica exposures in
construction.

		The New Jersey Laborers' Health and Safety Fund does not believe the
proposed construction standard presents any insurmountable obstacles to
reducing worker exposures to the proposed PEL and below, and we urge
OSHA to quickly publish a final rule on silica.  Thanks.

		MR. NUNZIATA:  Good afternoon.  My name is Tom Nunziata, and I am a
curriculum developer, training coordinator, and master instructor for
the LIUNA Training and Education Fund.  LIUNA training is a 501(c)(3)
labor-management training trust fund and the training arm of the
Laborers' International Union of North America.  Established in 1969,
LIUNA training's mission is to provide its affiliate training funds with
products and services designed to improve the lives of LIUNA apprentices
and journey workers, and a competitive position of LIUNA and its
signatory contractors.

		LIUNA training develops and provides up to date innovative training
curriculum, instructor training and certification, professional
consultation, technical support, and direct training assistance to more
than 70 affiliate training sites across North America.

		Each year, approximately 120,000 LIUNA journey workers and apprentices
employed in commercial and residential construction, heavy and highway
construction, environmental remediation, demolition, deconstruction, and
restoration projects, and construction supervision receive training
developed by LIUNA training through its network of affiliate training
sites.

		LIUNA training's construction craft laborer training is
learner-centered, activity based, and designed to enhance job skills,
keep workers up to date on new technologies, increase job opportunities
and, most importantly, provide information on the job site hazards so
they may work safely.

		LIUNA training is pleased to be here today and to express our strong
support for OSHA's effort to promulgate a final standard designed to
protect workers from crystalline silica in the construction industry.

		As with all OSHA construction standards, the silica standard is being
developed with one primary goal in mind, to protect the American
construction worker from known hazards on the job site.  And like other
OSHA standards, proper worker training and education on hazards they
face on the job is a vital component in seeing that OSHA's goal is
reached.

		Today, I would like to express LIUNA training's position in regard to
the training component of the proposed silica standard.  As drafted,
OSHA's proposed silica and construction standard, which includes a
communication of hazards and training component, is a good start.

		Providing information and training to workers on the hazards to which
they are exposed on the job goes a long way in protecting a worker's
health.  However, other OSHA standards which address harmful substances
such as asbestos and lead include more detailed training requirements
that employers must follow in order to keep their employees safe.

		So, too, it must be with the silica and construction standard, as it
has been well documented that exposure to crystalline silica causes
respiratory distress and disease, affects the immune and renal systems,
and most importantly is a known human carcinogen.

		OSHA's proposed silica and construction standard should take a
stronger stance in providing the training and information workers need
in order to perform their jobs safely.  The training proposed by OSHA
first references the hazard communications standard and includes a
number of provisions so that workers understand what types of operations
may cause exposures above the permissible exposure limit; procedures the
employer has implemented to protect workers including work practices and
the use of personal protective equipment and respirator protection; the
content of the standard, and the purpose and description of the medical
surveillance program.

		Although this is a good starting point, the pervasiveness of silica on
construction sites is a significant health risk, mandates that training
must be more substantial as the effectiveness of engineering controls
used to limit silica exposure is heavily dependent upon how the controls
are used, and the care and skill exercised by the worker.

		Therefore, it is imperative that workers directly engaged in
dust-generating operations receive task and equipment specific training.
 It is LIUNA training's experience that the best approach to training a
worker in the proper operation of a tool and associate engineering
controls is through hands-on training.  This assures an individual is
proficient in performing an operation safely by demonstrating their
ability to use the tool and engineering controls correctly.  Therefore,
LIUNA training supports the idea that each worker directly engaged in
silica dust reducing tasks receives hands-on training on the engineering
controls and work practices associated with the specific task an
employee is performing.

		With regards to the training of the competent person, OSHA should
mandate the training include, at a minimum, the same level of training
for those workers performing silica dust-generating tasks, including
hands-on training addressing the safe operation of tools and associated
engineering controls.

		Because by definition the competent person is one who is capable of
identifying an existing, predictable respirable crystalline silica
hazards in the surroundings or working conditions, and has the
authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them, it
is imperative that they have a detailed knowledge in the safe operation
of the tools and engineering controls being employed on the job, and be
capable of identifying when the controls are not functioning or being
employed properly.

		Workers on site who are not directly conducting silica dust-producing
operation but are potentially exposed simply by being in the area of a
silica-generating operation should receive training so that they may
recognize and avoid exposure.

		Although this training may not be as extensive as training for workers
directly involved in silica dust-generating tasks or include a hands-on
component, it should at a minimum identify the specific tasks in the
workplace that could result in exposure to respirable crystalline
silica, the health effects of crystalline silica, the procedures the
employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure including
engineering controls and appropriate work practice controls that will be
used on the job, and use personal protective equipment such as
respirators and protective clothing.

		This training should also address the employer's silica exposure
assessment and written exposure control plan, including identification
of the competent person on the project.

		As with other OSHA standards addressing hazardous substances, LIUNA
training feels it is important that training be provided prior to or at
the time of initial job assignment, require annual refresher training,
and additional training when modification of tasks or work procedures,
or new tasks or work procedures are implemented.

		In conclusion, LIUNA training feels that by implementing a strong
training component within the silica construction standard, OSHA will
provide lasting and effective protections to American construction
workers who have been exposed to this deadly substance far too long.
Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Nunziata.

		MR. SCHNEIDER:  That concludes our presentation.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay, thank you, Mr. Schneider.  With that, I'll open
it up for questions.  Can I see a show of hands of individuals in the
audience who have questions?  Two, three, four, five, okay.  We'll start
with Ms. Trahan.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Chris Trahan with the Building
Trades.  Thank you for your testimony.  Mr. Nunziata, since you are up
front, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions regarding training.
The first one is can you describe the national training program that the
Laborers have, part of what you work in, just a little bit about it?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  LIUNA training is the parent organization of training
funds located across the United States and Canada.  Each training fund
is a 501(c)(3) labor-management training trust fund.  They receive goods
and services from us in the development of curriculum and the training
of the instructors.  What else?

		MS. TRAHAN:  So they're a joint labor-management fund, so they are
funded collectively by the employers in a given area?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  That's correct.  So they are all independently owned
and operated.  They provide training to their local members at the local
level.

		MS. TRAHAN:  So collectively the workers in that area get training and
that's delivered on behalf of all of the employers who are
participating?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  Yes, all the signatory employers who pay into the fund
are signatory to those local unions, the workers receive training
basically free of charge at the local training fund.  And the training
funds also have the ability of going on the job sites to provide
training if they are not available to come to the individual training
sites.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you.  Do you know if there are other similar
programs in other Building Trades unions?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  A lot of the other Building Trades unions have the same
network of arrangement with training sites.  To my knowledge, there are
some 1,700 or so training sites located throughout the United States,
representing all building trades.

		MS. TRAHAN:  All right, thank you.  And the Laborers' education and
training fund provides silica training at this time?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  Yes.  We actually received a grant back in 1998 from
OSHA when they had a special emphasis program at that time.  And the
grant program called for lead and silica impingers.  We developed the
program.  And after the grant, we separated the two topics so that we
may have an awareness program in lead and an awareness program in
silica.  And to this day, that program, the silica awareness program is
still being conducted at many of our training sites.

		MS. TRAHAN:  And as far as general silica awareness program or perhaps
training under the final rule once it is finalized, who should get the
training?  Who should get silica awareness training?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  Well, anyone on the job site where there is silica dust
being produced.  And then anyone who is conducting a task, a job task
where they are actually generating the dust.

		MS. TRAHAN:  We talked a little bit about the need for a competent
person and that there may be similar training required of that person
than a general worker on the job site.  If that's -- is that something
that the training infrastructure that you have already described could
provide?

		MR. NUNZIATA:  Oh, yes, very easily.  We're set up to do that.  We
provide all sorts of training.  We have training programs in
environmental construction and safety that there's probably 50 different
courses in our catalog at this time.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay, thank you.  Dr. Melius, I had a couple of
questions for you.  The question on medical examinations, how are other
medical examinations that are required handled in your view in the
construction industry?

		DR. MELIUS:  Well, it can be quite varied.  When it's done by
individual employers, some are pretty careful about trying to follow to
the letter of the regulation.  As I mentioned in my testimony, people
end up with multiple examinations for the same provision within a
calendar time period.  I think they have gotten better recently about
sharing some of that information so it's not quite as bad as it was say
10 years ago, but it is still a problem.

		What a lot of the -- what I mentioned in my testimony is that a
number of our contractor associations and actually some of our training
funds have developed programs to try to provide required medical
examinations in conjunction either with training or as a contractor
association.  So everybody working for contractors and that contractor
association would receive medical surveillance, and those records would
be shared.  The fact that examinations were done and the appropriate
results of those examinations as required by different standards would
be shared.

		I think the most common one has been for respirator clearance, but
also for drug testing.  As I mentioned, we've done it for asbestos and
hazardous waste, and in other areas.  It is much more efficient and it's
a way of, again, avoiding unnecessary exams.  Also, it provides
assurance that the examinations do get done.  You're not allowed on the
job site unless you've had the examination.

		And those apply not just to our own members, but to members of other
trades working for those in similar types of work for those
associations.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thanks.  Do you have an opinion as to if workers will go
and get medically screened under a surveillance program if the
information was not kept confidential?  Do you have any sense of what
that would do to the participation rate?

		DR. MELIUS:  I can say in my experience and in dealing with many of
our members that without -- unless it is, you know, they somehow think
it's required as part of the job or something, they are very leery of
having to get the surveillance because their experience has been that if
you get surveillance and have any sort of a positive finding, you end up
without -- you lose your job.  And, again, it may not be all employers,
but it can be with many employers.

		And when you're dealing in a multi-employer environment, you're never
sure who the next employer is going to be.  So it can be difficult.  So
confidentiality is I think extremely important and becoming more
important as people see discrimination against their fellow workers.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Hoffner, you talked about a ban in New
Jersey on dry cutting.  How is that working or how well is that working?

		MR. HOFFNER:  It's working pretty well.  As I said, it has been in
place for 10 years now.  And I think that the word has gotten around.
The Department of Labor actually assigned two inspectors to enforce this
law, one for the northern half of the state, one for the southern half
of the state.  And when the issue comes up, they will go and actually
visit the job site and say, hey, were you aware of this law.  Now one of
the things that's easy is there is an easy fix for it, you know, use wet
saws.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay.  So you talked a little bit about the use of water
in cold weather and I wasn't really clear on what you meant.  Can you
elaborate on that a little bit?

		MR. HOFFNER:  Sometimes contractors will say, well, what do I do in
the cold weather?  What happens when it freezes, if you're going to use
water as some kind of control?  I've seen contractors deal with that,
especially with the wet saw issue where you have the ability to plug
into an AC circuit.  They'll just wrap electric gutter tape around
55 gallon drums, and plug those in, and then that keeps the water
liquid at night.  So they come in, in the morning, and they just take
that liquid water and fill their wet saw, and start without too much
trouble.

		MS. TRAHAN:  So that's when you have a plug.  What if you don't have
electricity or water on the job?

		MR. HOFFNER:  Well, we've talked about that.  I think we have one
contractor on a road construction site that was using our jackhammer
sprayer and was concerned about that.  And they actually got some kind
of environmentally friendly antifreeze kind of thing that they just
added to the water.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay.  And there is a mike, so I don't know if you -- I
did have a question for Mr. Mallon.  Did I say your name?  Mr. Mallon,
you talked -- I noted something that I've heard through this hearing
from other people that the technology in tunnels has changed and you
think the exposures are higher now than they were perhaps when you
started out.  But what kinds of controls are being used now in the
tunneling operations?

		MR. MALLON:  Some of the controls that we use are water, they can use
water on a mole, in the head.  They can use foam, which I understand is
better than water, but the expense is higher, so I've never seen any
used on a job site that I've been on.  Water is the main thing.  But the
problem with water in the tunnel business, it causes -- it spills over
and causes a mess.  You've got to pick it up and it costs time.  So even
though it's there, you'll see the, well, we'll go down one night and
we'll make sure the water valves are all working.  We'll go on another
shift and we'll see that they haven't been turned on.  And there is
nobody really policing that type of work.

		MS. TRAHAN:  All right.  A couple more?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Well, we have several questioners, I think, so if you
can, Ms. Trahan, maybe one or two more.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay.  I think this question is for Mr. Parsons.  So you
talked about competent person.  And, you know, we've heard through this
hearing and other folks say that there is a great deal of variability in
exposures and it's very difficult to control on construction sites.  In
your view, is there something a competent person or is there a role a
competent person could play in reducing that variability?

		MR. PARSONS:  Yeah, absolutely.  They could, if done correctly, almost
eliminate that variability when it comes to silica exposures, maybe not
variability on the job or the transient nature of the job, that's
inherent, but when it comes to silica in particular, they could help
eliminate that problem.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you.  And another thing that we've heard about in
the hearings is the fact that there are a lot of operations that go on
at the same time, and laborers work alongside of other trades while
there are dusty operations going on.  How does that play into
controlling the hazard?  Or how can people benefit from controls in
those situations?

		MR. PARSONS:  I think that's just pure communication between trades.
They need to have that communication between each other and share
information with each other about what exposures they are giving to each
other.  And also, again, back to the competent person, they would be
responsible for making sure that happens.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay, thank you.  Oh, I'm sorry.

		MR. JONES:  If I may follow up on that, Chris?  That's why it is
important that we use control in the first place, because a lot of times
our folks are not going to be -- they're not operating the equipment
per se, but they are helping the person operating the equipment.  So the
person operating the equipment, they're in the respirator program,
they've got -- everything is protected for them.  But the laborer
isn't.  And he's the one that's being exposed to the dust.

		So if we were to control the dust at the source that protects everyone
on the work site.  You know I'm looking at some of these pictures up
here and just seeing the dust that's around the area on the ground is
just frightening.  But that's what we would be -- we are exposed to on
a regular basis, because we're not all -- we're just the helper.
That's pretty much what the laborer is called.  We're the helper.  So
we're not always in the respirator program.

		I've heard folks here testify all week about that and that's the
problem.  That's why controlling at the source whether it's wetting,
ventilation, and work practices.  That's why it's so important to us.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay, thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Trahan.  Ms. Seminario?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario from the AFL-CIO.  Good afternoon and
thank you for your testimony.  I just want a few questions in the area
of controls.  Mr. Hoffner, you mentioned in your testimony that the
laborers working with others in a partnership in New Jersey had
developed, I think you said it was the jackhammer spray dust control
unit.  And I did what you suggested which was to Google it on my phone
and saw a description of it, but I couldn't bring up a picture of it.
Could you describe what this unit is and how it controls the dust?

		MR. HOFFNER:  Sure.  Kind of the way it got started was one of our
members of the team worked for a contractor who had a quarry.  And they
were well used to using water sprays as a control of dust.  So we ended
up developing just a system that we used a nozzle for a furnace fuel oil
spray and at that time we were using compressed air to press, you know,
to push water through that and just create a spray that was aimed at the
point, the jackhammer point.

		We subsequently decided that using compressed air to move the water
wasn't quite so safe, so we went to a system that you can buy of the
shelf from Northern Tools or whatever.  It was an agricultural spray
unit, just a plastic tank, fill it with water.  It's got a 12 V pump on
top, provides a constant 40 psi flow of water.  We used the same little
spray heads that were aimed at the point.  And we found out that
that -- average jackhammering exposures were about 3.8 times the PEL
when we started and we were able to control those, reduce those
exposures by about 90 percent and get it to below the current PEL.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And when you're talking about the PEL, you're talking
about the construction PEL or the --

		MR. HOFFNER:  The 100 µg.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So it's the 100 µg, not the 250, just to be clear.
And so with this invention, how much does this cost?

		MR. HOFFNER:  I've got it on my line, if you Google that, I've got a
parts list that you can get the parts from McMaster Carr, and the cost
of each of those.  I haven't updated it in a couple of years, but it
was -- it's less than, it's about $350.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  $350 for --

		MR. HOFFNER:  That will run several jackhammers.  In other words, you
can manifold that and run up to I think we fed six jackhammers off the
same spray unit.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And so this has been in use for some time now?

		MR. HOFFNER:  Yeah.  In fact, I created it on the New Jersey Turnpike.
 One of the early adopters was the New Jersey Department of
Transportation and they actually went above and beyond what we did and
developed a big system that they put in the back of their trucks.  And
they use the system now to supply water to jackhammering, to spray saw
operations, anywhere that they need water to actually control dust
exposures, they're using this.  They even adapted it so that -- one of
the big exposures is cleaning off dust after something has been done.
They had an air lance and they actually injected spray into that to cut
the dust levels down.  We weren't able to measure how effective it was,
but they're being pretty innovative with it.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And do you have any information on how long this unit
lasts, like what's it shelf life in use?

		MR. HOFFNER:  I've been running them for at least eight years now.  I
have a unit that I lend out when we have contractors who don't need it
or don't want to buy it on their own, they'll just say can we use that.
I mean I've never had to do anything to it.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So it is still the original unit?

		MR. HOFFNER:  Um-hum.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And does it need much maintenance?

		MR. HOFFNER:  No.  It's just a plastic tank with a 12 V pump on top
with some rubber hose.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Very good.  You also talked about in your testimony,
in response to questions from Ms. Trahan, about the changes that you
saw in New Jersey with the adoption of the ban on dry cutting.  Could
you describe in a little bit more detail the kind of control measures or
the kind of tools that are being used now compared to those that were
being used before to comply with the law?

		MR. HOFFNER:  Well, a lot of times, especially in building
construction, they would have taken just what we call a chop saw, it's a
handheld chop saw with a masonry blade on it, and use that to do pretty
much all their cutting for brick, and block, and things like that.

		One of the changes I saw was, with the passage of the law in New
Jersey, is people went ahead and bought table saws, masonry table saws.
It has a little water tray in the bottom.  Has a little pump that picks
up the water and then it actually sprays onto the blade.  And you'll see
workers in construction sites and they just set that up on the
construction site, and they'll cut all the block and brick that they
need right there on the site.

		And like I said, the one thing that they were concerned about was
keeping the water liquid in the winter.  And a lot of our contractors
have just decided to keep a water tank with -- the sell that gutter
heat tape at Home Depot, and they just wrap that around and it keeps it
liquid during the night.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So would one of the differences be the table saw would
be at a more fixed location and the chop saw would be more --

		MR. HOFFNER:  It is.  It's also more efficient to use a table saw.
You can get a lot more -- many more cuts done.  And so that was another
selling point.  There are often unintended consequences to some of the
controls that we have.  And one of the unintended consequences I think
was in going to that they were more efficient in their cuts.  They still
have to use portable chop saws on some points like in building corners
and some places where they can't make the kinds of cuts that they need.
But I've seen anywhere from people hooking up water lines -- almost all
portable chop saws now have a water fitting on them.  You didn't see
that many years ago.

		But I don't think you can buy one now without that water fitting.
Some people use it, some people don't.  But you don't even have to hook
that up.  I've seen people take those sprayers for extermination and
actually just take the wand and while they're using the cut they just
spray that, and it's actually pretty effective.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Interesting you mentioned that.  The picture I was
going to introduce to the record, in my local neighborhood hardware
area, somebody in the street that was doing work and had a little pump
operation and there wasn't any dust.

		MR. HOFFNER:  Yeah, no visible dust.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And similar questions for Mr. Jones.  You mentioned
some of the job sites that you had been on in I think the Boston area,
Chicago, and then also in California, where there are ordinances that
exist with respect to dust control.  What kind of controls have you seen
put in place to reduce dust exposures in those operations, in those
cities?

		MR. JONES:  The two primary uses were local exhaust ventilation.  As
Ken mentioned earlier, a lot of our saws are now coming if not with the