INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO

RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA

+ + +

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

+ + +

March 26, 2014

9:30 a.m.

Frances Perkins Building Auditorium

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20210

BEFORE: 	DANIEL F. SOLOMON

	   	Administrative Law Judge

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL):

ANNE RYDER

Attorney, Office of the Solicitor

KRISTEN LINDBERG

Attorney, Office of the Solicitor

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA):

WILLIAM PERRY

Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

JESSICA SCHIFANO

Office of the Director

ANNETTE IANNUCCI

Health Scientist, Office of Chemical Hazards

- Non-Metals

JOSEPH COBLE, Sc.D., CIH

Director, Office of Technological Feasibility

TOM MOCKLER

Acting Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis

- Safety

JANET CARTER

Office of Chemical Hazards - Metals

STEPHEN SCHAYER

Office of Physical Hazards

TIFFANY DeFOE

Office of Chemical Hazards - Metals

B.J. ALBRECHT

Chemist, Salt Lake Technical Center

DANIEL JOHANSEN

Chemist, Salt Lake Technical Center

ROBERT BURT

Acting Deputy Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) (cont.):

ROBERT STONE

Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis - Health

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW:

ANDREW COMAI

Coordinator, UAW Health and Safety Department

ANDREW MERCER

Recording Secretary, UAW Local 8

JEFF P'POOLE

President, UAW Local 523

STAN BURKEEN

Trustee, UAW Local 523

RODNEY GRAVES

UAW Local 2317

GREG ESSEX

President/Bargaining Chair, UAW Local 226

SHAWN RAGLE

Health and Safety Chairman, UAW Local 974

ROBERT HITCHCOCK

Bargaining Chair, UAW Local 211

RICHARD BOECKER

Safety Rep, UAW Local 211

MATTHEW WAFFORD

Steward, UAW Local 2339

DARIUS D. SIVIN, Ph.D.

Health and Safety Department, United Auto Workers

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL (ACC)

CRYSTALLINE SILICA PANEL:

JACKSON MORRILL

Director

NEIL KING

Attorney

SAM BOXERMAN

Attorney, Sidley Austin

PETER MORFELD, Ph.D.

Head of Institute for Occupational Epidemiology and Risk Assessment of
Evonik Industries

PAUL K. SCOTT

Cardno ChemRisk, LLC

KELLY BAILEY, CIH

Chairman

Director of Safety, Health and Environment

Vulcan Materials Company

RICHARD LEE, Ph.D.

President/CEO, RG Lee Group

JACK WAGGENER

Senior Principal/Engineering Manager, URS

STUART SESSIONS

President, Environomics, Inc.

American Chemistry Council's Crystalline Silica Panel

Construction Industry Safety Coalition

OTHER PARTICIPANTS:

PEG SEMINARIO

Safety and Health Director, AFL-CIO

JAMES FREDERICK

Assistant Director, Health, Safety and Environment  United Steelworkers
Union

CHRIS TRAHAN

Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO

REBECCA REINDEL

AFL-CIO

FRANK HEARL

Chief of Staff, NIOSH

DR. ROBERT PARK

Risk Evaluation Branch, NIOSH

INDEX

										PAGE

INTRODUCTION

Judge Daniel F. Solomon						  PAGEREF a1Solomon \h  1828

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW

	Andrew Comai							  PAGEREF a2Comai \h  1829

	Andrew Mercer							  PAGEREF a3Mercer \h  1832

	Jeff P'Poole							  PAGEREF a4PPoole \h  1837

	Stan Burkeen							  PAGEREF a5Burkeen \h  1841

	Rodney Graves							  PAGEREF a6Graves \h  1843

	Greg Essex							  PAGEREF a7Essex \h  1846

	Shawn Ragle							  PAGEREF a8Ragle \h  1854

	Robert Hitchcock						  PAGEREF a9Hitchcock \h  1858

	Richard Boecker						  PAGEREF a10Boecker \h  1865

	Matthew Wafford						  PAGEREF a11Wafford \h  1870

	Questions								  PAGEREF a12Q \h  1876

INDEX

										PAGE

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL (ACC)

CRYSTALLINE SILICA PANEL

	Jackson Morrill						  PAGEREF b1morrill \h  1928

	Neil King and Sam Boxerman				  PAGEREF b2King \h  1933

	Peter Morfeld, Ph.D.					  PAGEREF b5Morfeld \h  1944

	Paul K. Scott							  PAGEREF b6Scott \h  1963

	Kelly Bailey, CIH and Richard Lee, Ph.D. 	  PAGEREF b7Bailey \h  1987

	Jack Waggener							  PAGEREF b10Waggener \h  1998

	Stuart Sessions						  PAGEREF b11Sessions \h  2022

	Questions								  PAGEREF b12Q \h  2043

ADJOURNMENT								  PAGEREF cAdjourn \h  2136

EXHIBITS

EXHIBITS		DESCRIPTION				 	PAGE

Exhibit 53	UAW PowerPoint					  PAGEREF e54mr \h  1926

Exhibit 54	UAW videos					  PAGEREF e54mr \h  1926

Exhibit 56 	Mr. King/Mr. Boxerman

			presentation					  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 57	Dr. Morfeld's presentation		  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 58	Dr. Morfeld's testimony			  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 59	Mr. Scott's presentation			  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 60	Mr. Scott's testimony			  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 61	Mr. Bailey's presentation		  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 62	Mr. Bailey/Mr. Lee testimony		  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 63	Mr. Waggener's presentation		  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928

Exhibit 64 	Mr. Sessions' presentation		  PAGEREF e56_64mr \h  1928 P R
O C E E D I N G S

(9:34 a.m.)

		JUDGE SOLOMON:	 We're on the record.  I'm Daniel Solomon.  I'm an
administrative law judge with the United States Department of labor.  My
address is 800 K Street, Northwest, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C., and zip
code is 20001-8002.

		This hearing is taking place at the Department of Labor.  The first
group is the International Union, UAW.  But, Ms. Ryder, would you enter
your appearance for the day, please?

		MS. RYDER:  Yes.  My name is Anne Ryder from the Solicitor's Office.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Is there any business -- anything I should
know about before we proceed with the panel?

		MS. RYDER:  No.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  So the instructions for today, I guess, will be that
the panel will have 90 minutes.  And then there'll be some questions
from the public, and then OSHA will have a questioning.

		And, hypothetically, we'll be able to break for lunch at 12:00.

		Out of necessity, sometimes we've had to change that a bit.  And we
have a long panel this afternoon, so we'll see how things go.  So who's
going to do the introduction for the Union?

		MR. COMAI:  I'll do that.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Would you state your name, please?

		MR. COMAI:  My name's Andrew Comai.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  And what is your position?

		MR. COMAI:  I'm the Coordinator of the UAW Health and Safety
Department out Detroit.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Do you want to introduce everybody first?

		MR. COMAI:  We could do that.  So we have a group of workers, experts
I call them, from around the country.  These are people that work with
silica on a daily basis, work in industries.

		We have Andrew Mercer, sitting to my left, Recording Secretary, UAW
Local 8, Sparta, Michigan.  He's going to describe hazards and small
foundries.

		Jeff P'Poole from UAW Local 523, Calvert City, Kentucky.  He's going
to describe the method for making silicon metal out of granite with an
electric arc furnace reduction process.

		Stan Burkeen, also from UAW Local 523, is going to talk about health
effects experienced by workers in that industry, his own personal
experiences, as well as a case that we would like to describe.

		Rodney Graves comes out of UAW Local 2317, Lafayette, Indiana.  He'll
be describing hazards faced by skill tradesmen, who 56 hours a week are
cutting brick, rehabbing furnaces, using refractory mineral fiber as
insulation.

		Greg Essex, UAW Local 226 out of Indianapolis, Indiana.  He's the
bargaining chair.  He's going to discuss the health impacts of working
around foundry silica and how workers believe that this is contributing
to adverse health effects and early death for many retirees.

		Shawn Ragle comes to us out of Local 974 Mapleton.  He spent 20 years
maintaining ventilation systems in a major foundry in Mapleton.  He's
going to describe the needs that he sees in terms of improving
ventilation systems.

		Robert Hitchcock, UAW Local 211 out of Defiance, Ohio.  They're going
to describe what we consider a model program for industrial hygiene, for
air sampling, for involvement of workers in solving the problems around
silica exposure.

		Richard Boecker is the full-time safety rep out of Local 211 in
Defiance, Ohio.  He's going to describe that industrial hygiene
sampling, his role as the full-time safety rep, and what they do to
reduce exposures.

		Finally, we've got Matthew Wafford.  He's a steward out of Local 2339,
Rushville, Indiana.  He's going to describe sort of the exposure in a
major foundry and his need for better air monitoring, better education,
and certainly better ventilation.

		Dr. Darius Sivin, sitting to my left, will also be talking.  We're
going to roll through, in the order that read those people.  We're going
to roll through the slide show and give you an efficient 90-minute
presentation.  Then we'll be free to ask questions, I think, or answer
questions.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  You're going to go first, Mr. Comai?

		MR. COMAI:  Yes, I'm just going to run the PowerPoint, and I'll
introduce Andy Mercer here.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay, go ahead.

		MR. COMAI:  So, again, we've got three workers who are going to talk
directly about exposures faced by workers.  Andrew Mercer, again
Recording Secretary for Local 8.  And then, we're going to do a musical
chairs, and Jeff P'Poole will come up, and then Rodney Graves.  And Stan
Burkeen is also in there, too.

		So Hazards Faced in Small Foundries.  This is a plant that has a
casting operation.  We've got a couple of short videos that people can
see.  We'll try to step through this, run it once.

		So this is a casting operation in Sparta, Michigan.

		MR. MERCER:  Good morning.  My name's Andy Mercer.  I work at Local 8
at a small foundry in West Michigan.  We represent about 180 workers,
and this here is one of them.

		He's working in a shakeout operation, removing hot sand from the
freshly cast iron.  What you're going to see here is this machine's
shaking.  Now he's going to pound on the cast iron screw, which is --
not only the sand is leaving, but he's stirring up more dust that way.
And then he's going to transfer it to a blast machine.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Let me just say.  The problem with video is that we're
making a written transcript here.  So the issue then becomes how does
one describe what is in the video in order to reduce it to writing.

		MS. RYDER:  This will be made available as part of the record and
available for viewing in the docket office.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  We haven't admitted the -- whatever --

		MS. RYDER:  I think they submitted the video.  I believe we have a
copy of it and --

		DR. SIVIN:  If it hasn't been officially entered into the docket yet,
it's our plan to do that today.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Okay.  Could we write a written description and
enter that later?

		MS. RYDER:  I think the video is fine.  That'll be a part of the
record.  It'll be made part of the record for anyone to look at.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Sorry to bother you.  Go ahead.

		MR. MERCER:  The operator on this particular machine, as you can see
with the dust coming up and being stirred up by all the commotion, and
also, an air intake is going to blow air down to try to cool these guys.

		The operation requires two hands for safety purposes.  That prevents
him from pushing one button and reaching through the safety guard.  So
he's obligated to stand in that exposure area and not be able to walk
away from it and just let it run on its own.

		And you'll see sand spill out, freshly shaken out, coming off.

		MR. COMAI:  And that's essentially a hole in the dumper where the --

		MR. MERCER:  Yeah.  This here is -- this is actual casting.  It's
freshly removed from the sand.  Still hot, still has loose sand attached
to it.  He's starting the next process to run while he finishes up the
first one there.

		So he's going to hand-strip these piston rings off this metal screw,
stirring up dust right in his own personal space as he does it.

		And then he's going to put this scrap screw onto a shaker that's going
to vibrate its way down to a separate area that's going to sort it out
and store it for reuse.  There's going to be various tumbling and
different operations, all putting particles into the air.

		MS. RYDER:  I just wanted to say that video was 4049.  Maybe just say
the title of each video before you start describing it.

		MR. MERCER:  So where are we at?  This is -- these are both the same
equipment.  This is originally set up without ventilation, this area
right here.

		All that dust you see in the video accumulates.  This is where the
operator was working controls.  And then you've got several of these
lines all the way down.  This is two different perspectives.

		This is what was added in after the fact.  It's actually pulling some
of the ventilation away from there, the dust particles away from there.

		MS. RYDER:  What's the name of that piece of equipment?

		MR. MERCER:  That's a -- the first part of the operation, where he
removed the model, is called a shakeout.  It's a standard foundry
operation.

		This over here is a shot blast machine that's going to use fine steel
shot.  And it's going to cycle around and clean it off.  That all has to
try to be captured.  Some of it's reused, some of it's collected
outside.

		MR. COMAI:  If I could just add, there's a particular issue with the
direct contact.  If I can get my video to run again.  So he's actually
touching the rings.  He's physical stripping those off the screw.  So
where you have the foundry sand is in direct contact with the molten
metal at that surface, at that location where the metal hits the sand is
where you have the generation of more crystal and silica.

		As you're stripping that off, consider the fact that is the business
end of the silica.  That's where the silica dust is of most concern.

		That screw then goes into a shaker conveyor.  There's no real
ventilation there.  So, again, you get a generation from there.  From
the shaker conveyor, it goes into a large tumbler.  Again, an
unventilated tumbler that generates dust as the screws and the waste
product are cleaned, as well.

		MR. MERCER:  The one thing that we tend to notice is not so much the
feeling you get to walk into a room and be overexposed.  A lot of people
notice with time away on vacation and whatnot, a clearing of the lungs,
a less shortness of breath that's kind of in the day-to-day routine of
it all.

		So in our opinion, there's definitely an effect to this from long-term
exposure.  I've been in it 19 years.  I don't feel the same as I did.
And you can attribute some to age and weight gain or whatnot, but you
can't help but wonder if it's from all the years of that exposure right
there.

		I'm here because our local chairman was originally slated to come
down.  He was just recently diagnosed with a brain tumor, so he's out
dealing with that and chemotherapy and radiation and all that stuff.

		My grandpa retired.  He worked very near that line right there.  His
two brothers, they all worked the same period of time.  My grandpa
worked in that operation.  The two brothers went into machining and
mechanics, different parts of the building.

		My grandfather passed away from cancer.  The other two: long, healthy
lives after retirement.  Definitely things that keep you thinking about
what you're being exposed to while you're at work.

		MR. COMAI:  So next up, we're again going to shift seats here.  Jeff
P'Poole, President of Local 523, Calvert City, Kentucky.  He's going to
walk us through a process, smelting silicone.

		MR. P'POOLE:  Hello.  As Andy said, I'm Jeff P'Poole, Local 523,
Calvert City, Kentucky.  We run one of the largest -- three electric arc
submerged furnace operation in America.

		What we do, we get silicone rock in.  It comes in on barges or
railcars.  That's some of our exposure there, the silicone rock.

		We take that rock and had to handle it two or three times before it's
finally dumped into the furnaces.

		What you're seeing there is the furnace.  It drops from the top down
into there, which you could have some dust come from that.  Then, we tap
it out into ladles and pour it.  When we're doing this, there's a lot of
dust that's up front.

		We've got another slide on there that'll show the dust that's up at
the top of the building that is probably left behind.

		Well, the granite rock, we get rock that's mined in, I think it comes
out of Georgia, most of it.  When it comes in, if it's dusty, our loader
operators, when we're unloading the rock cars and stuff, will dump water
on it to try to keep the dust down to protect our workers.

		We've got a belt.  When it goes in to be fed to the furnace, there's
sprinklers on the belts to keep the dust down.  There's a reason for
that.  It's to keep the silica dust off of us.

		When it's processed, we make a product called 75 high purity.  At
times, they mix in sand and lime in it.

		Once we process it, and it comes like molten metal, like a volcano
exploding is what -- how I look at it.  They skim those impurities off,
so those impurities come a lot from that sand and lime.

		We take it over to the ship inside and crush it down, which produces
more dust in our air, dust particles in our air.  And one of the main
things that, I guess, the reason that I'm here or we're here is we
supply most of these fellows behind me with our product, and what they
take our product and make, I think they get exposed too.

		We start it.  Maybe the mining of the rock starts, and then we're just
part of the process.

		This is upstairs from our building, like our walks that we walk up.
And you can see like the beam right there, and he's got the green light
on the beams.  It's just the dust that's in the air that our process
makes.  That's ash and dust.

		Okay, and that's more right there he didn't -- you can just see dust
particles in the air without a flash on the camera right there.  What we
do, too, with our metal, after the whole process is done, the stuff
that's on those beams gets taken out to our baghouse.

		Now, as you can see, it doesn't take all of it out.  But we've got men
in the plant that we sell the silicone fume.  The fume is sold and put
in railcars.  I think they ship it out, and they put it in concrete and
other type of things.  But we do sell that.  And we do also sell, when I
said the impurities, when we skim the impurities off the metal, it's
silicone dross.  And we also sell the dross.  That has part of the
crystalline silica in it, also.

		Okay.  This picture here is when we don't take the stairs, the
building, you know, we've probably got -- I probably couldn't -- how
many stories, Stan?  It's like a six-story building that you go to the
top of.  And you can take the stairs or you can take these man lifts.
And you take these man lifts here.

		And when you get off at certain levels, you can see the dust that's
left in our building and what we work in there.  You've -- we've heard
people come out with like raccoon eyes and stuff like that.  When you're
in there, and you're doing your job, you'll come out and you'll look
like a coal miner at times when people are getting cleaned up to go
home.

		I just mentioned whenever you're off for a week and things, your nose
is full of black stuff.  Once you come off of vacation, you come back
and the whole process starts all over again.

		If there's one thing that I've told Andy and stuff, that I hope that
we could get out of it is more testing of the air.  I asked our health
and safety girl at the plant to give me the readings from our last air
test.  And they were from 2011.

		And I would just hope that we could probably test the air more often.
Thank you.

		MR. COMAI:  We're going to shift seats again.  We're going to call up
Stan Burkeen, Trustee.  He's a former bargaining chair at Local 523 in
Calvert City.  He's going to talk about his health issues and health
impact on workers at the plant.

		MR. BURKEEN:  Yes, thank you.  My name is Stanley Burkeen.  I am a
Trustee at UAW 523, former president, prior to Jeff.

		I've worked at CCMA in Calvert City 523 for over 20 years.  My father
and several of his brothers before me worked there since the plant
opened in 1950.  My son works there now.

		There's been a lot of improvements over the years, through the
pollution, through work between the union and management to try to make
the air cleaner.  But it is a dirty and dusty place.  As Jeff said, I've
left many a day and looked like I'd come out of a coal mine.

		What I'm here to talk about, there was a young man that I hired in
with 25 years ago.  Tom was diagnosed with silicosis.  All the years
I've been there, that's the first I'd ever heard of it.  I know nothing
about it.

		Tom, his breathing got worse.  He took off work.  He was diagnosed at
Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville with silicosis.  He filed a workers'
comp claim.  He was denied.

		The next step was to hire a lawyer.  He did that.  He went to the
University of Kentucky Medical Center, where they said he was
misdiagnosed.  Tom didn't live very long after that.

		We don't know if he died from silicosis, if he died from some other
lung disease because of the, I guess, inability to have the proper
testing to see what he had or the testing of the air in the plant.  We
feel like, if nothing else, if we had stronger standards, better
education of what causes it, had a test for it, things like that
wouldn't slip through the cracks, I hope.

		We have a very young group of people in that plant now.  We've had a
big turnaround the last few years.  I would hope that we take better
care of them.  My son's one of them.  I would hope that we'd look out
for them and take better care of them than we took care of our retirees
before them.  I guess that's about all I've got to say.  Thank you.

		MR. COMAI:  Thanks, Stan.  Just to point out, there's a number of
health studies on the silicon smelting industry that we'd also like to
enter into the record.  Just to cite them here, and we'll get you those
PDFs.

		DR. SIVIN:  We'll enter them in post-hearing comments.

		MR. COMAI:  Next up is Rodney Graves.  He's out of Local 2317,
Lafayette, Indiana.  He's a skilled trade bricklayer, works 50, 60, 80
hours a week cutting brick and rebricking ovens.

		MR. GRAVES:	Hello.  My name is Rodney Graves.  We run one of the
largest heat-treat facilities in North America under one roof in our
facility.  We have five gas car furnaces, which a small one would be
roughly the size of this room.  Then, we have, as you can see in this
photo, this is a pit furnace that long shafts go down into.  On the
left, that's a liner that's inserted.

		As you can see on this picture, this part right here, that's the brick
area that we repair and stuff.  This, towards the top, they get so hot
that this starts to pretty much become dust.  Even when the operators
and stuff open these lids to change the parts out, there's a -- this is
about three foot in diameter.

		Down below, there's a fan in there that stands about a foot tall and
about two and a half foot in diameter.  It blows all this stuff up
through and out, so all that dust they're breathing every time they
unload and load these.

		We do a lot of work inside.  This is actually an open one.  The gas
carves all cases and annealers, furnaces.  Them are all enclosed.
There's where we run into the biggest hazards because we check the air
quality to clear the machine before we go in, to make sure the CO2
levels are right and everything.

		Then, once we go in, there's no ventilation because they're so tight.
Generally, when you're in there laying brick, you're sitting down.  The
wall thicknesses and roof thicknesses and bottoms are the minimum two
foot.  You're in there, curled up because you've got heating elements
above your head and stuff.

		You're sitting there, while you're repairing walls that might have
ripped out half the wall.  You take a handsaw, and you cut these brick.
Well, it gets so dusty in there, you have to take off your glasses and
stuff so you can see.  It just fills up.

		You have this stuff all over you.  I think he's got some more
pictures.  The picture on your left is just a place where we make bungs
and stuff that go around the heating tubes.  That's all in the open.

		On the right, that's our saw.  As you can see there, it has water in
it.  That's good.  We can have water in it when we cut the hard tile.
But when we cut the dry brick, we cannot use water because too much
moisture is absorbed in the brick.  When we lay them in the wall, we
fire the furnace it, it'll cause an explosion from all the water in it.
So we can't do that.  But the hard brick won't absorb the water.
There's just another picture of the saw.

		MR. COMAI:  So the controls for this would be enclosure, a good
exhaust ventilation.  There's some good radial saw ventilation diagrams
in the ACGIH manual that we refer to, so we can reduce that.

		MR. GRAVES:  Yeah, currently, just to speed up the process, and we
don't have the manpower we used to have.  They've been bringing these
saws up into the actual production area right next to the machine and
cutting large quantities of dry brick, which just throws that dust
throughout the whole shop.

		And then we don't have very good ventilation as it is.  The
ventilation we do have just recirculates it all over heat-treat.

		MR. COMAI:  Next, we've got Greg Essex, bargaining chair out of Local
226, Indianapolis, Indiana, Navistar foundry.

		MR. ESSEX:  Morning, everybody.  My name's Greg Essex.  I'm from
Indianapolis, Indiana.  I'm the President and Bargaining Chairman of
Local 226.

		I'm here to testify basically or speak on behalf of the workers at our
foundry in Indianapolis.  We are primarily a gray iron casting foundry.
It's been in existence since World War II.

		We've done a lot of work.  Most of you might know the name
International Harvester, back in the ag days.  We produced blocks and
castings for them.

		Since then, we've done stuff for the military, and Ford was a big
customer.  Over the years, with my military history, working for the
railroad the last, and now this place, for 14 years, I've seen a lot of
exposure to all kinds of elements.  I have really no doubt in my mind,
in my personal opinion, that these exposures are contributed to health
concerns.

		I have a list here that I owe to my, I guess, elders and/or deceased.
To mention their names today because they've all been subjected to these
exposures over the past 40, 50 years.

		Jack Pollard, cancer of the lung; Jim Chamberland, Burkitt lymphoma;
Mike Driver, cancer; Jim Galladay, cancer; William Canler, cancer; Jim
Pascul, cancer; James Nobel, cancer; Tom Gloid, cancer, lung transplant;
John Pugh, cancer; Russell Bebe, cancer; Bill Farmer, cancer; Ray
Kraft, cancer; Phil Ray, cancer; Carol Ramsey, cancer; Carl Stamps,
cancer; Walby Shuck, cancer; Doc Mitchell, cancer; Rick Hale, cancer;
Randy Dant, cancer; Charlie Rogers, cancer; Ray Turner, cancer; Gene
Jones, cancer; Les Everhardt, cancer, Dick Stanford, cancer; and Dick
Holmes, cancer; Jess Jennings, cancer; Doug McBane, cancer (all phonetic
spellings).

		We have six individuals who are suffering from cancer today that are
still surviving, obviously going through some terrible pain and medical
conditions.

		MR. COMAI:  This is a 2006 video.  It's gotten better.  Describe
what's going on in the video.

		MR. ESSEX:  This is our shaker system.  The shaker system is about the
length of a football field.  It winds like a snake.  This is where the
castings are dropped out of the molds.  This is where they cool.  The
shaker is just like a vibrating system.

		The castings move on down the line.  You see these tubes here and
there.  This is what we refer to as the covered wagon.  This actually
covers the shaker in this particular area.  The ventilation tubes pull
out the sand and dust particles, and the dust.

		That is, like I said, the length of a football field as these
particles accumulate.  Then, it's not always been like that.  Some of
these guys I know personally, like Bob Truex (ph.), he died.  I seen him
dwindled away from a 5'6" man of stature, about 180 pounds, to 88
pounds.  He was diagnosed in November of 2005.  Cancer took him within
six months; he died in April of 2006.

		Like I said, he told me stories.  You couldn't see from here to the
back wall in that foundry 40 years ago.  There's been significant
improvement in at least the last 20 years.  I've been there 14, so I've
seen significant improvement in the last 14 years.

		This is also part of the covered wagon.  You see the dust.  You see
the glare off the light.  That's all dust.  Here's piles of sand and
dust.

		MR. COMAI:  So we're trying to get a shot of the backside, failure to
maintain the system, failure to maintain the ventilation.  We've got
major sand leaks on the ground here.

		MR. ESSEX:  What the previous guy had mentioned, walking out of there
looking like a coal miner, I've seen that in my last 14 years I've been
there.

		MS. RYDER:  Just for the record, I want to know the first video you
showed, was that 4042?

		MR. COMAI:  Yes.

		MS. RYDER:  Then you showed another video.  Did that have a number?

		MR. COMAI:  Not on the screen, no, it didn't.

		MS. RYDER:  Was it titled anything?

		MR. ESSEX:  These shaker systems have sections.  There might be a
section from here to that wall.  They'd number them, so they know when
they have to go change a spring or an arm, what section they need to go
to.

		Like I said, it's 300 yards long.  These things can be anywhere in
length from 12 to 30 feet in one stretch.  They number them
specifically.  You'll hear a bunch of different terms in here.  We all
pretty much work in the same environment.  Even though we have the same
processes, same type of equipment, we all in different areas of the
country have named them nicknames.

		MR. COMAI:  We submitted these videos, 4042, this one is 4043.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  42 has headings on some of it.  Just for the record,
can you state what the headings are?

		MR. COMAI:  So video 4042 is the shaker conveyor.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  After that, the next one that you showed.

		MR. COMAI:  This is the same system, covered wagon.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  And after that?

		MR. COMAI:  The number on the covered wagon video is 4043, the ones
that we submitted.  Then, this is 4044, exterior sand spill.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  And that says casting sand spills.

		MR. COMAI:  Casting sand spills, and we're up to 4044.

		MS. RYDER:  Whenever you start a new video, do you want to just say
what number it's going to be?

		MR. COMAI:  Sure.

		MR. ESSEX:  This is where the sand comes out of the shaker, and you
have the conveyors that take that sand away and take it to a place where
it is usually put in a dump truck, tarped over, and taken out.

		This is the 13-belt that goes outside.  It's part of the process.
That's at the tail end of the shaker.  The 13-belt takes it up, out into
the yard, and makes it out and ends up in that dump truck.  That's where
you see the big pile first, right here.

		MR. COMAI:  So this is ground level.  This is a 2006 video
demonstrating large piles that are falling through leaks in the sand
conveyor system on the roof.  When this happens, workers have to get up
there with a shovel and a wheelbarrow.

		Can you describe any respiratory protection they have when they do
that?

		MR. ESSEX:  Respiratory protection, I think it's an educational thing.
 Some of these older guys weren't educated on, and I don't know that
they were aware of, the complications of some of these particles could
have caused.  Otherwise, I might not have had to mention their names
today.  I thank them for paving the way.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Again, this is video 4045.

		MR. ESSEX:  This is slag in the furnace.  That iron in that furnace is
about 2600 degrees.  You can see the smoke.

		Like I said, this foundry is about 70 to 80 years old.  You can
imagine the dust particles that have collected throughout the I-beams in
the structure over the years.  You can see the smoke coming off of it,
obviously.

		Like he said, this video is from 2006.  We've since implemented
procedures where we wear face masks to protect our face.  That looked
like a good operation there where there wasn't a significant amount of
sparks that fly out of that furnace.

		Since then, we put face masks, hard hats, and they've made significant
improvements in recent years.

		DR. SIVIN:  Dr. Selikoff, whose work established the hazards of
asbestos, once said that "Statistics are human beings with the tears
wiped away."  We've heard a lot of the human stories behind the
statistics.

		I just wanted also to add that Stan Burkeen's story illustrates what
has been talked about a lot in these hearings about misdiagnosis and
under-diagnosis of silicosis.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  I don't want to butt in, but just for the court
reporter's benefit, you are Dr. Sivin.

		DR. SIVIN:  I'm Dr. Darius Sivin with the UAW Health and Safety
Department.  In any case, OSHA, in its Federal Register, asked
commenters to comment on whether 50 µg was the most appropriate
permissible exposure unit.

		OSHA's own risk assessment indicates 43 excess deaths from
nonmalignant respiratory disease, 18 to 26 excess deaths from lung
cancer, and 32 excess deaths from kidney disease per 1,000 workers at
that level, which is a total of 93 to 101 deaths per 1,000 workers
exposed, approximately 10 percent.

		We believe that this is unacceptably high.  Since the OSH Act itself
says to the extent feasible, no worker shall suffer material impairment,
we believe that in those industries, where it is feasible, we strongly
support OSHA's regulatory alternative of 25 µg/m3.

		Obviously, there are some industries where that may not be feasible.
For those industries, we strongly support OSHA's as proposed.

		MR. COMAI:  I'm going to introduce Shawn Ragle.  He is, again, a
skill trades ventilation repair and maintenance.  He's been working for
20 years, fixing ventilation systems that exist in the Mapleton foundry.
 I've got a couple of other people that will be talking about the
feasibility of ventilation and the feasibility of reducing to that 25
µg level.

		MR. RAGLE:  Hi.  My name's Shawn Ragle.  I'm the Caterpillar Mapleton
foundry Health and Safety Chairman for the UAW Local 974.

		We represent about 482 UAW employees.  There's also about 50 contract
employees in the building that are potentially exposed to silica.
Workers are exposed to silica contained in airborne dust produced by
transporting on flat belts, bucket elevators, leaks in sand
transporters.

		The dust collects and falls from overhead light fixtures, building
columns and overheard walkways.  We've seen in the video all the dust
that can collect on the beams is what I'm talking about.  In some of the
areas, it gets so dusty that the dust, as you walk, gets kicked up, if
there's that much dust.

		What I do there is a repairman, as Andy said.  Some of my work
involves EPA-compliance inspections, maintain dust collectors and
ventilation fans.  When they put in new ventilation or dust collection
in our plant, I would appreciate the opportunity to have some input into
it, at least kick around some ideas.  This never happens.

		When dust collectors go down in an area that it draws from, typically
the work doesn't stop.  The work will only stop if the employee raises
his hand and says there's something wrong.  Then, we investigate it.
Meanwhile, we're still running.

		In addition to that, we've got jobs that really put a worker at a
higher potential to have an inhalation of this dust.  For instance, like
a core making specialist, that's where they make the cores that they sit
inside the molds.  When the core box opens, they'll blow it off of
there, and you'll have a potential for dust there.  Sand mix specialist,
that's where they mix the sand that's being transported.  We've got a
lot of potential there.

		Maintenance is another area.  Maintenance don't do a lot of standard
work.  It's mostly nonstandard.  They're going in places where typically
most people don't go.  That's stairwells that have all this dust on it
working in the rafters.

		 Another thing is back up to the EPA compliance.  Caterpillar seems to
be really good about being concerned about what they put out their
stacks into the environment.  When it comes to inside the four walls of
that plant, sometimes I think we're a little lax on what we see there.
I would like to see some improvement there.

		We've got like a mold line specialist.  What that guy would typically
do, these shaker cables that we're talking about, where they transfer
the castings, and they want them to ride on a layer of sand.  You'll
have your castings.  A lot of them are not covered.  The dust will rise
up off of there.  It just collects.

		You can get this dust on you.  It could be totally accidental.  You'd
just be standing in the wrong spot.  Somebody does something, knocks it
off a rafter on you.  There's just a lot of dust in a foundry is what it
amounts to.

		I had an employee that raised his hand.  He was in the pit.  He runs
heavy equipment wheel-loader.  It's got an air-conditioned cab.  There
was an area of the pit where these castings are conveyed down a shaker
table.  They take the casting itself and separate it onto another
conveyor.  The tramp iron, the screw, the gating, the stuff that is not
a product, they allow it to fall into a shoot.  Then the sand also
follows another path down into the pit where it falls.

		Now, this stuff falls a good 30 feet into a pit.  When it's falling,
they have very limited dust collection on that.  They've got a dust
collection at each end, but the center's open.  When it hits the floor,
there's nothing there.  It just plumes up, and it goes everywhere.

		We filed a safety complaint on that.  The company chose to look at the
operator, put the monitoring on the operator instead of an area sample
at the time.  Well, the operator raised his hand and said the complaint
is over here on the floor, not in the cab of my tractor.

		Obviously, the readings that we got back, the results we got back,
reflected that it was pretty clean down there.  That really isn't the
case.

		MR. COMAI:  Yeah, the air sample pump was placed on the driver of a
vehicle who was in an air-conditioned cab for the remainder of the
shift.

		MR. RAGLE:  That's all I got.

		MR. COMAI:  Next up, we have Robert Hitchcock.  He's the bargaining
chair out of Local 211, Defiance, Ohio, another foundry.  He'll be
talking about the fact that UAW at General Motors has negotiated a lower
standard, a lower exposure limit.  We protect workers to that limit.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Good morning.  Yes, I'm Robert Hitchcock.  I'm the
chairman at Local 211 UAW for General Motors in Defiance, Ohio.  I tell
you, just in the last 24 hours, I got to meet these fellows sitting
beside me.  Their stories are just amazing.  I just can't believe some
of the things that they're put through.  Something that we, here in
Defiance, take as a norm is something that they are obviously striving
for.

		If I wasn't appreciative of where I work, if I hadn't been, I
certainly am today.  I truly do believe, though, that the UAW and
General Motors at our facility does a fantastic job ensuring the safety
of the workers out there.  We do that in various ways.

		More importantly, we do have a very structured and committed safety
plan at our plant, both union and management.  We have, over the years,
developed a very good relations, that we can sit down, we can identify a
problem, and we can work through it.

		Not every problem is cheap to work through.  There is expense to it.
At the same time, when you have two parties striving for the same goal,
it does tend to be easier to accomplish the goal and make changes for
the welfare of the people, and you know really for our namesake.
Whether it's UAW or whether it's General Motors, we are proud to be who
we are.  I'm very fortunate for that.

		Now, even though I've described our plant as being a very
safety-conscious plant, I will say that it's not always been like that.
I am the third generation that has worked at this plant.  My
grandfather, back in the '50s and '60s, died at a very young age of lung
disease.  I believe he even had some heart issues.

		I also had my father, back in 1994, die at the age of 49 from cancer.
Very difficult time.  In fact, during some of his most painful times, I
was in the U.S. military, never thinking I was ever going to come back
to Defiance, Ohio, but I did.  I guess fate brought me back.

		I ended up getting a job at General Motors.  I started working there.
I have been very fortunate to be part of the UAW.  I can think back, and
I remember as a child, meaning a teenager, where my father had attained
the permission to take me on a small tour of the plant back in the late
'70s, early '80s.

		I remember walking down the main aisleway there at the plant, right by
the cafeteria.  You could look down and you could see your footsteps.
That's how dirty and dusty, with the silica sand that we use that was
just infested all over our plant.

		Now, over the years, and correct me if I'm wrong up here, but I
believe in the early '90s, somewhere around '91 or '92, the UAW
negotiated, along with General Motors, to exceed the standards set by
OSHA, their standard of being 100, down to 50.  Since then, the UAW has
been very aggressive in taking advantage of going out, identifying areas
that were over that limit, and working collectively to correct those
areas.  That is exactly what we have done.

		Now, through this commitment and bargaining, basically what it did was
it provided a commitment that both parties were committed to the folks
working out there.  They were committed to their health and safety, not
only for air quality, but for other various health and safety issues.

		We made tremendous improvement on ventilation, better exhaust.  You
have heard some of the folks talk about dust collectors.  We have them
all over our plant.

		We have also instituted a very effective preventive maintenance
program, so that we can identify up front that, hey, something is
starting to go bad, so that we can keep an eye on it, so that we can fix
it prior to it going down and affecting the people.

		We also have areas that are on that edge of 50.  We have to keep close
eye on that.  We have got an industrial hygienist at the plant full-time
that continuously checks and monitors these areas.  Some of the things
that we've had to revert to in some cases was even an air-cooled
respirator.  We've taken that extra step because the folks are working
out in these high temperatures, the environment is not very good.  To do
something that would make the employee more comfortable, more willing to
want to do that job, we've done things like that.

		Just recently within the last year, since I've been the chairman here
in the last three years, we actually are doing some experimental tests
with bringing in a unit that they actually use in NASCAR in the
racecars.  What it does is there is a unit that actually conditions the
air that is provided, that goes up through the hoses into the helmets
for the workers that makes it cooler.  It actually provides more airflow
for them.

		We don't have near the issues that we may have once had from heat
stress or heat stroke.  At the same time, by having the conditioned air,
they are not breathing the silica dust that surrounds them.

		Even though our plant isn't perfect, we continue to try to make things
the best that we can.  I think we've been very successful with that,
from the commitment from the UAW and management, that you can't just
settle on something as a norm.  If there's something out there that's an
approved, better way of doing something, we are certainly going to look
at it.  We're going to investigate it.

		We're going to bring something into the plant.  We're going to try it.
 We may try it for a month.  We may try it for two months.  Based on the
results, based on the people's reaction to it, we may decide to keep it
or we may decide to start looking somewhere else.  We continue to go
down that path.  I'm very fortunate for that.

		Today -- I described what it was years ago, where you could see your
footsteps.  Today, you can walk down in our main aisle.  You can walk
out into our plant.  In some cases, you wouldn't even think you're in a
foundry, to be quite honest with you.

		Now, I'm not shortchanging nothing.  Like I said before, we still do
have a few areas that we struggle with, but we keep it closely
monitored.  We continue to seek improvements.  We will continue to do
so, at least as long as I'm there.

		There is a very good commitment.  I greatly appreciate the UAW
bargaining that lower standard and the commitment that General Motors
has made to it.  Is there anything else you'd like me to talk on?

		Recent ventilation improvements, I'd say within the last five years,
we made some pretty significant investments out to our plant.  We
actually identified through testing, through velocity checks and what
have you, where we've had some ductwork that's been plugged.

		What happens is that as you melt iron and go through a process with
the hot sand, we actually get a creosote buildup in our ductwork.  You
wouldn't necessarily notice it because you can't see it within the
ductwork.  What you do notice is the restriction of airflow.

		Through the testing, we have identified that this buildup is in there.
 Creosote is very difficult to remove.  What we've had to do in a couple
of areas is we've just gone in and actually just cut out the entire
ductwork and ran new ductwork.  We've also had areas where we've had to
take dust collectors and make adjustments to the fan blades, change the
sheaves on them to increase the airflow.

		It's just a continuous project, is what I would call it.  Something
like I mentioned earlier, that we monitor closely.  And when we start to
see the readings go down, well, then we're reacting.  We've got some
really good people in place to address that.

		I have along with me here today our Health and Safety Rep at Defiance,
Ohio.  His name is Rick Boecker.  Maybe he can shed some more light on
what we do at Defiance.  Thank you.

		MR. BOECKER:  Good morning.  As Rob said, my name's Richard Boecker
with Local 211, Defiance, Ohio.  I am the UAW Safety Rep and electrician
by trade.  I have worked on the floor, so I'm familiar with some of the
hazards from being a skilled tradesman, as well as a safety rep.

		Some of my comments may be a little redundant with what Rob said, so I
apologize for that.  As Rob said, in Defiance, we are kind of a model
for these gentlemen behind us.  There is sampling we do, and what we do,
as far as how do we protect our people, that comes from years of
originally tough negotiations.

		Now, what I see with union management relations at Defiance, it's more
of a joint effort to take care of our greatest assets, which our people
are.  I'll try to paint a picture here a little bit of some of the stuff
that we do jointly that was originally negotiated.

		As a Health and Safety Rep, I'm part of our local joint Health Safety
Committee, which I have a counterpart on management that is also present
on that committee.  We have industrial hygiene, who is full-time.  He
has a management counterpart, as well.  We also have joint ergonomics
rep.

		With these resources in places on a full-time basis, we have the
ability to address concerns and complaints immediately.  Some of these
guys don't function full-time.  We've got an unfair advantage where we
can address it on the spot.

		As I said, our full-time industrial hygiene rep, that is really
important.  I wish all these guys had that opportunity.  Each year, our
joint industrial hygiene representatives from management and UAW submit
a written proposal of an air sampling plan that we're going to do
throughout the plant.

		That's approved by the International parties.  We do deviate from that
on a regular basis.  If we got complaints that come forward, we address
them quickly.

		Another thing that we just started -- as Rob said, he is our shop
chair.  He's been instrumental in bringing some of this stuff forward.
He helped us start regular joint meetings with key players in the plant,
with our local joint Health and Safety Committee.

		We asked maintenance folks to be present, salary and hourly.  People
that have direct impact on how our equipment is operational, say like
bag changes, cartridge changes, that type of stuff.  The reason the
industrial hygiene is so important for air sampling, like the one
gentleman probably knows back here, on your dust collection system, they
do velocity checks.

		They'll do differential pressure checks across the filters, as well.
If there's no differential pressure change, a lot of times, your bags
are blown or your filters have got a hole in them.  We can't always rely
on mechanical gauges.  That's why we need to do our air sampling.

		I guess to put a personal note on it as well, from myself, my dad was
shop chair when I was a kid.  I also went through that plant and seen
how dirty and filthy it was.  It really was a terrible place to work, to
be honest with you, very dirty.

		My father was very instrumental in getting some of these things
negotiated at the plant.  Like Rob's father, he passed away at an
earlier age, too, than he should have.  We just buried him about seven
weeks ago from multi-organ shutdown.  I assume some of them health
issues come from working at that foundry.  It's my goal to make sure my
children or your children can work in that environment and be healthy.
Thank you.

		DR. SIVIN:  I'd just like to point out a couple of things.  Last week,
we saw some data presented by Dr. Frank Mirer, which suggested that in
the '70s and '80s, the Detroit Three foundries may have been worse than
some of the other foundries.

		Today, we just heard the sequel to that story, whereby once we got
contract language, legally enforceable, we got improvements at the
General Motors foundries.  Similarly, if we get a legal enforceable OSHA
standard, we would expect to see similar improvements at all these other
workplaces you've been hearing from today.

		I also wanted to mention that Dr. Mirer referred to the industrial
hygiene tech program.  You just heard a full description of it.

		We just heard a little bit about the medical surveillance program at
General Motors.  I just wanted to add a little more from our testimony,
including we believe that medical surveillance should be triggered at
the action level.  Medical examinations should be provided in response
to employee reports of signs and symptoms related to silica exposure, as
well as to the action level.

		It should provide that a physician or other licensed health care
provider can determine that it is medically necessary for a worker to be
removed.  In order to protect confidentially, it should be the worker
who decides where that information is conveyed to the employer.  We also
believe the standards should provide for multiple physician review.

		MR. COMAI:  Our last presenter is going to be Matt Wafford.  He comes
out of Local 2339 in Rushville, Indiana, another foundry worker.  He's a
shop steward in the molding department.

		We went through an OSHA investigation together.  The company was
eventually cited for HazCom.  This is the way it went.  There was a
fatality in the plant.  We went through 15 OSHA interviews.  The OSHA
inspector was a good one.  He was a good inspector from Indiana.  I'll
go on record saying that.

		He asked us the following questions, every single worker, skilled
trades, lots of experience:  Do you work in a foundry?  Yes.  Do you
work with hazardous chemicals?  No.  Do you work in a dusty environment?
 Yes.  Do you know what's in the dust?  Well, it's foundry dust.  Has
anyone ever mentioned silica?  Yeah, everybody knows about silica.

		He asked that series a questions.  That just really drove home to us
this idea that we need more training, especially in that plant, on
general safety, lack of -- confined space, but the dust was an issue, as
well.

		We want more training.  We think that's important.  Regulated areas,
signage, those basic levels of protection where workers can get
notification and take action to protect themselves.  I will turn it over
to Matt.  He's going to describe some of the work that he's done in and
around hot sand.

		MR. WAFFORD:  Hi.  I'm Matt Wafford from 2339 Rushville.  If you look
right there, there's files.  This right here are turrets that spin.  The
sand comes in from the belt, return sand.  That cools it to go back into
the other.  That gets buildup on it.  It gets buildup on the walls in
there.

		We've got to climb in this door right here and get in there and scrape
that off each night so it can be kicked out and get discharged.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Just for the record, the title of this is "Sand Cooler
Cleanout."

		MR. WAFFORD:  You've got this blower here, if you see that blows cool
air in to blow that.  It just builds up.  You're in there scraping it.
Once you scrape, it poofs up, and you breathe that in your respiratory.
You're coughing and stuff.

		Here's a picture of it.  See how it's all built up there and there and
on the walls?  This right here adds the water into it.  Then, when you
put the water in it, it's more likely to stick to you if it's wet when
you get in there.

		Here's a picture of it where you have the double turrets.  This one
spins this way, and this one spins this way.  It discharges it through a
door.  There's a door about right here.  There's another level where you
climb in to get into there.

		See how it's real thick?  You've got to get in there and scrape that.
You're going to be breathing that when you scrape that.  There ain't no
ventilation.  Suck it out while you're in there scraping it in the air.

		Here's where the access doors used to be before the accident happened.
 If it comes on, you're there.  Now, they put these interlocks where
they're locked.  If the power's not off, that don't come off to get in,
which helps.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  This slide is entitled "Before and After."

		MR. WAFFORD:  They've made a lot of improvements on access to stuff
since that happened.  You've got this guy down here and this table right
now.  This slide is named "Desprue."  This table right here shakes all
day long with sand.

		You see the two guys there?  There's nothing on their heads.  They've
got ventilation right there, but it's not accurate.  There's dust always
flying.  You come out looking like they said before, like raccoons or
worse.  There's sometimes that table's full up to there with sand on it
when something gets plugged from ventilation.

		No dust masks.  There ain't no hood or nothing.  There's ventilation
right there.  You see right there, there's ventilation right there that
sucks it.  It supposed to suck it right there, but it's just when it
goes down there.  All this other is exposed when it shakes.  It flies up
in the air.  It gets on you.  You breathe it in.

		They gave us new respirators that fit over your head.  It's got a
tube, and you hook it to an air hose.  There's like 10 of them.  None of
us use them because it's just too big and bulky.  It constricts you.
You can't hardly move.  It limits limitation on your job.  It's actually
more a hindrance than anything.  It probably weighs three pounds.  You
get it on your head, trying to move around and do your job, and it's
just more trouble than anything.  What they need is something better
that will suck the ventilation, more training on what we're exposed to,
a better system.

		The last time we did an air sample, the paper I got was two years ago.
 They done it on two employees that were in desprue, but it was right
after they worked on the dust collectors, not everyday use.

		We've got some employees there that have been in desprue for 15 years.
 I know he's been there, and him and another one, there's two of them,
one's been nine years.  They have the COPD.  They're hacking.  They're
coughing.  They're breathing.

		We've got an employee that works at the other end of the plant.  This
part is where they come off the machine, where they're already done.
The lady that works where they make the molds, she's had stuff removed
from her throat because she's had buildup from -- I can't remember what
she called it.  She's had them removed, and they're back again.  Polyps,
yeah, that's it, from breathing the dust.  It's always dusty, and they
need better ventilation for the employees to breathe.

		Generally, 98 percent of us work 7 days a week.  On Mondays, we're
okay, but on Friday, we're all wore out.  We're tired.  We feel like we
can't go anymore.  To just keep breathing it, it just wears you down
constantly.

		MR. COMAI:  We brought a hood along.  It's up in the coat rack, we
think.  I don't know if we can --

		DR. SIVIN:  We've already submitted for the record evidence that shows
that 25 µg is feasible in dental equipment manufacturing.  It didn't
get into the slide show, but it has been submitted for the record.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay, that was Dr. Sivin again.  Mr. Comai, do you
have anything else?

		MR. COMAI:  No, we're done.  Thank you.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  It's 10:46.  Do one of you want to go up and
get that hood?  Okay.  And so, you're just showing that to us?

		MR. WAFFORD:  Yeah, you've got to --

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Do you have a picture of that or something that we
could use?

		DR. SIVIN:  We'll submit a picture for the record.

		MR. WAFFORD:  You've got to put it on your head, and then you've got
air to airline.  You're constricted in the way you move your head
because you've got this tube going down your back.

		It steams up.  You can't see, so most of us just take it off and put
our regular hard hat back on.  These are just put in our lockers.  I
don't know that anyone uses them that they've gave them to.

		DR. SIVIN:  What does it look like when you put it on?

		MR. WAFFORD:  You want me to put it on?  This goes on your back.

		MR. COMAI:  So we'll let the record show that he's steaming up
already.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  So could I get an idea of how many people
wanted to ask questions?

		Ms. Seminario, you're in the first row with the people who also want
to ask questions.  They all seem to be to my right, to your left.

		Would you line up behind her?  After you're done, then OSHA will have
some questions.  Apparently, we will be able to break at noon for lunch.

		Okay, so state your name and spell your last name.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I'm Peg Seminario,

S-e-m-i-n-a-r-i-o.  I'm the Safety and Health Director for the AFL-CIO
here in Washington, D.C.  Good morning.

		Thank you very much for coming and for your testimony.  Just a few
questions about conditions in the different facilities.  Before I start
that line of questioning, I just want to clarify.  In what year was the
50 µg/m3 silica level negotiated between the UAW and General Motors?
Someone mentioned 1991; is that correct?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  I believe it was either between '90 and '92.  I'd have
to get the exact date on that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  If you could provide that, that would just be useful
as a point of historical reference from the changes that took place.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Let me remind everybody, you have to identify yourself
for the record before you speak.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  I'm sorry.  Rob Hitchcock.  I believe it was somewhere
around 1990 to 1992.  We could get clarification on that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.  There have been some suggestions or
recommendations made by some of the industry representatives in these
proceedings, that to control silica in a final standard, that OSHA
should move away from the traditional approach of controlling hazards,
which is applying a hierarchy of controls of engineering controls first,
such as ventilation, the enclosed cabs that a number of you spoke about,
work practices to limit exposure, and then finally with respiratory
protection.

		They have suggested that should be abandoned, and in its place the
standards should allow any kind of method that an employer might choose,
including allowing personal protective equipment, including the use of
powered air-purifying respirators, as was just demonstrated.

		In your view, would allowing such a change in the hierarchy, and
relying primarily on respiratory protection as the primary means,
provide adequate protection to workers against silica?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle.  No, we've got to have some sort of controls.
 For instance, on the dust collection, the production workers down below
filed a complaint that it was very dusty down there.  What we ended up
doing was putting an Andon system in.  Basically, that's a light telling
the operator that everything's working fine.

		What really happens is the electrical engineer attached the light,
triggers the light by looking at a motor starter and not the actual dust
collector or whether it's working or not.  The motor can be spinning.
It will give you the green light, the go light, to go ahead and run.
You may not have any belts on your collector.

		You could have any number of problems.  I think what we should be
looking at is our differential pressure, maybe velocity.  That will give
us a true representation of how our dust collection is working.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Dr. Frank Mirer, the former health
and safety director of the UAW, was here last week and testified with a
lot of focus on foundries.  One of the issues that he talked about and
presented some data on and his experience on is that, in the foundry
environment, there are several jobs where silica dust is generated.

		There's exposures that occur, cross-contamination to other workers
working in the facility who may not be working directly in that
location.  Is your experience at cross-contamination of other workers
who aren't directly involved in that process, where they may be the
highest exposures, also end up being exposed to silica dust,
particularly when you don't have it controlled at the source?

		MR. P'POOLE:  Jeff P'Poole, Local 523.  We have a process in our
facility where they spray ladles with -- I have to ask Stan exactly
what it is.  The spray on those ladles contains silica in it.  If you're
on the casting floor or, just say, doing another job in our furnace
room, the over-spray from that spray, you can be contaminated with it
that way.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  If you control the dust at the source, it would
protect not only the people working right there, but other people in the
facility.  Is that correct?

		MR. P'POOLE:	Exactly.  And like I was mentioning in my presentation,
whenever we make the high purity, there's an exhaust fan on that stir
station that does that, but it doesn't collect everything.  There's men
that are working on the floor all the time that will get the fumes off
the sand and lime that goes into the pot.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Another issue that's been talked about quite a bit by
some of the witnesses, particularly some of those from industry, is that
if you apply this standard with certain control measures, that it is
going to somehow cause productivity in a facility to decline.

		The question that I have, do you think the application of engineering
controls, which would control the dust at its source, as has been done,
I guess, in the GM facility in Defiance, if those kinds of controls were
applied in these other facilities, where there's still a problem in
lowering dust, would that have a negative impact on productivity, or
would it have a positive impact on productivity, given that workers
would no longer be exposed to these high levels of dust?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock, Local 211.  I don't think it would
hinder anything.  In fact, as an example, one of the things I spoke on
earlier about us upgrading some ductwork, basically, what we were able
to do is not only improve the air quality for the people working in the
area, but we also prevented a fire hazard.  In fact, the ductwork had
actually caught on fire a couple of times prior to that.

		I think if nothing else, I think it provides a sense of security, a
sense of safety-ness for the people working in the area.  For
management, it provides a sense of ability to run.

		They know that their equipment is good running condition.  They know
that the people are safe.  They can go to a meeting or go to wherever
they may go, knowing that they don't have to worry about someone getting
hurt or someone falling out, whether it is respiratory issues or heat
stress or whatever it may be.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you very much.

		MR. COMAI:  Can we backtrack to a question, so other people can answer
it as well?

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Well, there's no question on the floor right now.
What question are you referring to?

		MR. COMAI:  It was just that several jobs where dust is generated,
people who are nearby that operation are exposed.

		Andy Mercer from Local 8.

		MR. MERCER:  My name's Andy Mercer from Local 8.  I would like to add
to that.  The PPE, if it was the ventilated hood for whatever, the guys
in our areas in the high concentration, I'm not sure of our overall
building size, but we basically only have one interior wall.  All the
operations, I might be performing in an area of high silica, and at the
end of this right here, 10 feet away, somebody else, a totally different
job, open floor plan.

		It's going to have exposure indirectly just from being in the
building.  Their job isn't going to require that because they're not
labeled as a high-concentration area.  Overall collection of it and
getting out of there for the whole facility is the way to go.

		MR. COMAI:  Again, when we toured that facility, there was a worker
whose main job was doing quality control and going around sampling
silica.  He had a high cristobalite reading.

		We have people that are doing ladle repairs.  If we put those people
in respirators, and sure they're able to repair the ladle and not be
exposed, there's some really simple methods to ventilate that ladle
repair using a snorkel and some local exhaust ventilation, where the
operator can be respiratory-protection free.  He's got the local exhaust
ventilation, and we're protecting all those other people around that
area who are nearby.

		 A couple solid examples where engineering controls are necessary.  If
we don't do that, then we spread that contamination and the exposure to
a broader work floor.

		We had some videos, as well, where we have people on the pour deck.
They're skimming dross.  Why do they have this high silica level?  For
that operation, they're not near the sand molds.  Those sand molds are
50, 60 feet away and kind of curl around that whole melt deck.  People
are exposed to that sand drifting down on them.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Good morning.  My name is Jim Frederick with the
United Steelworkers Union, and it's F-r-e-d-e-r-i-c-k, for the record.
I have a couple of questions.

		First, thank you to the UAW and your panel for coming in today.  I
know you all had to take some time out and travel to Washington.  It's
much appreciated to add your stories into the record.

		The first question is for Greg Essex.  It's a question about health
effects of silica and silica exposure.  Earlier in the hearings, there
was a person that was a former medical director from Navistar.  They
stated that they were unaware of any cases of silica-related disease in
anyone hired by the company since the 1960s.  Are you aware of any
silica cases, disease-related, among your members and co-workers in the
foundry?

		MR. ESSEX:  I'm not a medical professional, so I cannot attest to that
any of these were related.  All of the names that I had mentioned
earlier, they all died of cancer.  It's kind of hard for me to conceive
and comprehend how a medical professional from Navistar could make that
statement.

		I could give you an example.  I filed a claim two years ago.  That
claim was dismissed without merit.  I wasn't sent out.  I was treated on
site.  No further testing; it was just dismissed.  I'm on thyroid
medicine today and have been for the last two or three years.

		MR. FREDERICK:  A couple of questions again for the panel, anyone or a
couple of people if they want to respond to this, about industrial
hygiene and air monitoring in the facility.  Several of you touched on
this in your testimony.  I just wanted to get a little bit better sense
of how frequently employers are currently monitoring for silica exposure
in your workplaces?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle, Local 974.  The only time that I've witnessed
any silica monitoring is when it's requested.  I'm not even aware, even
being the safety chair there at the plant, I'm not even aware of what
their practice is as far as their plan to monitor.

		In fact, we've got an active safety complaint right now where I went
down and took air velocity readings on three ducts.  Two of the ducts
didn't meet the minimum airflow.  The other duct just barely met the
minimum.

		I asked, what are we going to do about it?  Well, we'll see what we
can do.  It's just an ongoing process of trying to get them to work with
us.

		As far as an active monitoring, I haven't seen it.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Okay.  And before anybody else answers that -- sorry,
you all have very good testimony.  It's running together in my head
slightly.  You identified that you do maintenance on ventilation system.
 It's kind of your day job, correct?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah, that's correct.  I'm a repairman there.  I've been
there for about 20 years a repairman.  I've been a full-time, every day
working on the ventilation for the last 10 of those 20 years.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Again, in earlier testimony in the hearings, it's been
stated, and I think we certainly from the USW agree that ventilation is
a significant investment in the workplace, and it's an important
investment.

		In your workplace, is there a preventative maintenance program so that
you go around and make certain that equipment is working properly in
exhaust ventilation?

		MR. RAGLE:  We do have preventive maintenance that we do perform.
It's more for the well-being of the machinery, not so much as the dust
collector or the ventilation actually doing what we want it to do.  It's
more for how can we make it last longer.

		That's why I believe we need to start looking at controls.  I'd like
to see static pressure readings or differential pressure readings.
Let's put on some photohelics or magnehelics, so that we can actually
see what's going on.

		A lot of people walk up to a dust collector or a fan, and it's
running, but that's all they know.  It can easily be running, the fan
can be turning, everything looks good.  But it may not be doing you any
good because it may be plugged up.

		MR. FREDERICK:  And just to follow up on that, and then we'll bounce
over to another, but to follow up on that, does the equipment operate
more effectively after you've done maintenance on it?

		MR. RAGLE:  Oh, most definitely.  Actually, the equipment runs better.
 Also, the people inside, it makes a world of difference when you do a
little maintenance to it.  It's just the blowdowns.

		The blowdowns is a part of the machinery that keeps your filters
clean.  If those aren't working, you're basically running on a plugged
up vacuum sweeper is what you've got.

		MR. BOECKER:  Richard Boecker, Defiance, Local 211.  At our plant, we
have a system called Maximo, where it tracks preventative maintenance,
where you do the velocity checks.  Check the louvers, check the docks.
I think it's on like a monthly basis.

		Then, that is incorporated into like a maintenance plan for the
weekend schedule, that type thing.  As another example, like Monday
inside the plant, we were getting complaints of excessive dust on one of
the mold lines.

		We didn't even need to do an air sampling.  It was basically called to
the skilled trades supervisor and the manager of the area to coordinate
the filter change for the next down time.  I guess the point is there is
easily preventative maintenance measures that can be put in place.

		MR. COMAI:  Just to clarify, Maximo again is a computerized program.
The fact that the ductwork or the dust-collecting system plugged up, you
go back into that computer system.  You go back into that computer
system and say, well, instead of every month, we're going to have to
change that to every two weeks.

		It's a computerized system where there's constant feedback.  If we get
a complaint from the floor, then we go back and we change that
preventative maintenance schedule.  A red flag comes up, maintenance
supervisor hands out tickets saying, okay, here's the preventative
maintenance that needs to occur during the weekend shutdown.

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle, Local 974.  When you talk about preventative
maintenance, now, like I said in my testimony, I do EPA compliance, and
we do have it for that.  That's really if you want to say, do we do PMs
to see if the collectors are operating properly?  It's only because of
EPA compliance.  That would be the only reason.

		MR. FREDERICK:  If I can jump back to the industrial hygiene question
from earlier, and switch gears over to the example from the UAW GM
facility that discussed in the testimony about the training for local
union representatives as industrial hygiene technicians.

		Can you describe that program a little bit more in kind of the
availability of training for the UAW members across the GM chain to go
to that, receive the training?  Then, a little bit more detail of you
described a plan for the year of air sampling.  At your facility, is
silica included in the air sampling on a regular and periodic basis?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock, Local 211.  I'll try to answer that the
best I can.  There's a few questions in that.

		For starters, our location, and I believe just about every location
for General Motors UAW, has someone identified for an industrial hygiene
representative, a member from management and a member from union.

		There is specific training that is provided for them through the
parties in Detroit.  We have a Center for Human Resources in Detroit
that specializes in training for several different things.

		We also have, when we talk about a plan, and I believe Rick Boecker
spoke on this earlier, each year, our plant submits a plan of testings
that they would like to do throughout the year.  Now, it is not one,
two, three, four, five.  I mean, it's hundreds of them.

		And what they do is they scatter that out throughout a 12-month
period.  When a question is asked, how often do we do it, the air
sampling, we could pretty much say on a daily basis, based on the
average of how many we do per year, with the exception of a situation
that arises, an out-of-standard situation where a piece of equipment may
break down or what have you.

		We have the ability to go out there right then and there, run the
test, and get the results back.  In the event we need to put our members
in some type of a respiratory respirator or air-cooled or whatever it
may take, we have the ability to do that right then on the spot.  We
don't have to wait, per se, for results.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Just one last question on that.  In your opinion and
in the opinion of your members that you represent, is industrial hygiene
air monitoring readily available for your workplace?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Once again, Robert Hitchcock.  Yes, it is readily
available.  In fact, one thing I'd like to add is in the event a
decision would be made to put someone in a respirator due to a
circumstance, they will remain in a respirator until there are two
successful tests taken.

		What I mean by that is, let's say they put me in a respirator today,
and next week, we take a sample of the area.  It comes out good.  I
still have to be in a respirator until a second test is done.

		That second test cannot be done for a minimum of one week later.  At a
minimum, the employee is going to be in that respirator for a minimum of
two weeks to ensure that the air quality has improved.

		MR. FREDERICK:  A question for Mr. Wafford.  You described the
warning signs in the workplace.  Do the warning signs that are included
in your workplace about silica provide good notice to the coworkers you
work with, others from the employer that may not normally work out on
the shop floor, any other folks that might be coming in, vendors or
others, about the hazards of silica?

		MR. WAFFORD:  No, there's no signs that say there's dangerous silica
in the facility.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Okay, I apologize.  I misunderstood your statement
earlier.  My apologies.

		My final question just about education and training on silica.  Again,
this was touched on in a couple of folks' testimonies.  Has anyone
currently experienced where there's not training on silica hazards in
your workplace?

		MR. GRAVES:  My name's Rodney Graves.  We're probably the perfect
facility for that because most of these guys are foundries and stuff.
In my actual plant, we make gears.  It's mostly machine.  Like I said,
we've got the largest heat-treat facility in the North America area.

		We put the gears in it.  So our company is not really up on the silica
because they just buy the product already made and bring it in.  The
skilled tradesmen put it in.  It's not like a part of everyday process
for them for their production.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Okay, so it's not been included in your hazardous
communication training?

		MR. GRAVES:  No, none of the oils and stuff, no.

		MR. WAFFORD:  Matt Wafford.  Indiana OSHA decided -- we're not
training on silica.

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle.  I'd like to speak to that, if I could.  At
our plant there, I don't remember the last time we had any silica
training at all.  In fact, I think you could go out and ask the employee
on the floor what the hazards were or where can you even pick it up at?

		I don't think anyone could really tell you.  It's one of those things
that, if it is educated, it's because somebody else has told you on the
shop floor, you probably ought to wear a respirator because bad things
can happen to you.

		We've had several people that worked there that's lost lungs, one lung
or part of a lung, in our plant.

		MR. FREDERICK:  Thank you.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Thank you.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Good morning.  Chris Trahan with the Building Trades,
T-r-a-h-a-n.  I wanted to ask about, I believe it's in the Defiance
plant.  You gentlemen have talked about measuring velocity, doing
velocity checks.  Who does that?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock.  We have skilled trades that perform
them tests.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Is it the same as the IH techs that we're talking about?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  No, it's not.

		MS. TRAHAN:  What kind of training does it take to do a velocity
check?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Well, we've got that incorporated into the millwright
trade.  Millwrights, as they go into an unfamiliar area, we have safe
job procedures and other procedures that they have to read through and
educate themselves on.

		If there is something such as that, that would require some additional
training, even outside the plant, we would even send them to that.

		MS. TRAHAN:  I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, can a
construction worker be trained to do a velocity check?  Is that
something that you could envision a skilled construction worker doing
outside of your plant environment, based on what you know about what it
takes to do that?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  I believe --

		MS. TRAHAN:  Can I clarify that question a little bit?  Not in your
plant, but with equipment they may use in the field.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  I believe if anyone's properly trained, anyone could
probably do the job.

		MS. TRAHAN:  And what type of instrument is used?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  It's just a small digital type meter system, a
handheld meter.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Just to try to close that up a little bit, could you
venture how much time it would take to train somebody to use that small
handheld velocity meter?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle, Local 974.  I actually take velocity
readings.  Basically what you're using is you're using a handheld meter.
 I use a hotwire, and a hotwire is a probe that you put in the duct and
take your reading.

		Basically, it's very simple.  Probably you read through the manual,
have probably a 45-minute class or something on your meter.  Learn what
you're seeing on your meter, and that's pretty much what you have.

		MS. TRAHAN:  All right.  Well, thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Finally --

		MS. REINDEL:  Hi.  My name is Rebecca Reindel, R-e-i-n-d-e-l.  I am
with AFL-CIO.  Thank you very much for coming today.

		I just have a couple of quick questions.  Mr. Ragle, you mentioned
that there's limited air monitoring in your plant.  I was wondering, as
a safety rep, have you ever been allowed to observe the air monitoring
that has been done?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle, Local 974.  Excellent question.  Actually,
I've requested to be an observer for air monitoring, and the company has
denied me that access.  They've chosen to go with the employee that they
put the monitor on.

		Really, if you're doing your job, how are you going to monitor your
monitor to make sure everything is going correctly?  I really think that
we need to have a little more voice, or at least some validation that
the monitoring is being done correctly.

		We shouldn't put that on the employee wearing the monitor.

		MS. REINDEL:  Thank you.  Mr. Ragle, one more question for you
specifically.  I was wondering what kind of medical surveillance that
the foundry workers currently get.

		MR. RAGLE:  Our plant got it through bargaining.  An employee that's
been at the foundry can get a chest x-ray every four years if he goes
and requests it.  The company won't tell the employee that he's able to
get it at this time.

		What they do is they take your chest x-ray.  They send it to a third
party in Ohio.  They don't put on the chart that you're a foundry
worker.  They just send the chest x-ray to a facility in Ohio.

		MS. REINDEL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Then, I have one more kind of
question for anyone who would like to answer.  We've heard from some
workers, and other workers in this hearing, about dust in the workplace
being taken home with them on their clothes or maybe it goes into their
vehicles, and heads to their home.

		I was wondering that if you were only to rely on respirators in the
workplace, would that help relieve any of the dust that you take home
with you?  Can you talk about any experience you have of dust ending up
in other areas of your life that are not at work?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle, Local 974.  I can talk a little bit on that.
Foundries are tall buildings, and there's lots of stairs.  If you have
to wear a respirator and try and climb stairs, as you could probably
guess, that's probably not practical.

		There's a lot of instances where a respirator is kind of a hindrance.
Even though it may be trying to provide you cleaner air to breathe, it's
a hindrance to a lot of tasks that are being performed in the foundry.

		A lot of your employees are going to choose not to wear it just
because they just don't want to wear it because of how it affects their
job.

		The dust, like I said, in foundries, there's dust everywhere.  You go
over, and you tap on a beam, you're going to get dusted.  The building,
at least in our facility, to walk into the foundry and not take home
dust with you, I think it's unrealistic.

		MR. MERCER:  Andy Mercer, Local 8.  Part of your question, as far as
bringing it home, it's a recognized hazard in our facility.  We have, in
our contract, the company has to maintain locker room facilities for
people to be able to shower.  We also have our uniforms are provided
free to prevent bringing home dirty clothing, having to wash it with
other family members' and stuff like that.

		There are measures taken for us, as far as that goes, as it's
recognized.

		MS. REINDEL:  Okay.  Is that the experience of other facilities?  You
have those facilities at other workplaces?

		MR. ESSEX:  Greg Essex, Local 226, Indianapolis.  It's the same as our
facility.  They provide shower facilities and locker rooms and the
uniforms in most cases.

		MS. REINDEL:  Okay.  And as some of you have mentioned in your
testimony, the increased ventilation in your facility would decrease the
overall amount of dust that's around in the facility.  Do you see less
dust ending up on you, if that is the case?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle, Local 974.  Yeah, the dust collection, we use
in there, what I see is they may have dust collector, but they don't use
a lot of local capture on a lot of stuff.  They'll want to go with a
general capture, and it's not very efficient.

		There's a lot of things that we could do to make improvements on that.
 One thing would be to get more local capture on where the problem areas
are.  Then, we can monitor whether magnehelic, it's a gauge you use to
measure differential pressure.

		Just a lot of things could be done to maximize the equipment that we
have now.

		MS. REINDEL:  Okay.  Thank you.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay, Ms. Ryder.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  OSHA will begin our questioning now.  We will start
with Jessica Schifano.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Thank you so much for your testimony this morning.  We
really appreciate it.

		My first set of questions is for Mr. Wafford.  I just wanted to
follow up about the use of the respirator that you demonstrated earlier.

		Is that respirator connected to a supplied air source or a
battery-powered fan?

		MR. WAFFORD:  It's a supplied air source.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  You mentioned that while you're wearing the respirator,
that it can fog up.  Really, that requires you to take it off.

		Can you just talk a little bit more about specifically if you are
using the respirator, how it affects your vision and ability to do your
job?

		MR. WAFFORD:  When you're using it, just like your safety glasses,
it's going to get fogged up.  It's going to get dust all over it.  You
ain't going to be able to see to do your job with it.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Does the respirator also impact your ability to
communicate?  If so, how does it do that?

		MR. WAFFORD:  It makes it so your face is covered, your whole head is
covered, your ears are covered.  You want to say something to the guy
beside you.  He can't hear you.  He can't read lips, so you're going to
have to take it off and talk to him and then tell him to take his off,
too, so he can hear you.

		There's three of us downstairs that has to break these casts.  The
first guy flips it, and then the other two gun it.  Well, if your first
gunner misses some, you're going to have to holler at the other guy and
say, hey, you're going to have to get these because I missed them.

		Say your gun breaks, you've got to holler at him.  Or the person
running the shakers, if they don't flip it, they'll have to holler at
you, hey, I didn't get that part done.  You're going to have to pick it
up, the next two guys.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  So you would say communication is vital to performing
your job effectively?

		MR. WAFFORD:  Yes.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  And that the respirator impairs your ability to do
that?

		MR. WAFFORD:  Yeah.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  And so, the effect of all of these complications is
that you do not wear the respirator regularly in performing these
operations?

		MR. WAFFORD:  Correct.  I wore it for like an hour.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Okay.  Great.  Thank you so much, Mr. Wafford.

		My next set of questions is for Mr. Boecker and Mr. Hitchcock.  We
were talking earlier about the IH technician at your facility.  I just
wanted to know if they were trained specifically about silica hazards.
If so, what that training consisted of.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock.  Yes, they were.  Mike Bassinger (ph.)
is our IH tech.  He's been around for quite a few years.  He's probably
one of the most knowledgeable persons probably within the UAW, to be
honest with you.

		Over the years, he has taken several courses.  I couldn't tell you
right now exactly what those courses were.  I'm sure the UAW could get
that.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Great, thank you.  With this specific knowledge that he
has of silica hazards, is he able to identify places in the facility
where there may be problems with silica, inform workers that are
performing those operations of silica hazards, and just generally
provide information to other workers in the facility about silica
hazards?

		MR. BOECKER:  Yeah, that's part of the plan, the yearly plan that Mike
will put together -- sorry, Rick Boecker, Local 211.  That's part of the
plan that I spoke of that they put together on a yearly basis and
jointly agreed upon with the UAW and General Motors.

		Since Mike is trained with silica, he knows the areas that potentially
are more at risk than others.  He'll go out and canvass employees and
put the pumps on them or whatever material he needs to perform the
tests.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Great, thank you.  And Mr. Boecker, you mention again
the plan that is put together on an annual basis.  Does that plan also
include information about exposure controls and what sorts of things are
supposed to be in place to protect workers from silica hazards?

		MR. BOECKER:  Yeah, I can't 100 percent answer that.  But I know Mike
is involved in, I guess, preventative measures, that's what you're
asking.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Yes.

		MR. BOECKER:  Yeah, so based on that, he'll give recommendations to
engineering, or they'll work together to try to rectify the issues.
Does that answer your question?

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Absolutely.  And more generally, are all of -- is all
of the information in this annual plan or document that you put together
about silica hazards, is that used to inform workers?  And what is the
value of that plan to a regular worker?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock.  What that does for our workers, for
one, it provides a sense of security, I'll call it.  As a week goes by
and an area is tested, Mike will go out and inform the area what he's
doing, why he's there.

		And when he's done and the results are back, he also goes back and
informs them of the results.  So it's a continuous educational piece
that is in direct correlation of the schedule that we put together on a
yearly basis.

		MS. SCHIFANO:  Great.  Thank you so much.  That concludes my
questions.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay, thank you, Jessica.  I'd like to continue on with
some questioning.  This is Annette Iannucci.

		I'd like to follow up with Mr. Ragle, first of all.  You mentioned
that your chest x-rays get sent to a third party in Ohio.  Do you know
what they do with the x-rays there, what the third party does?

		MR. RAGLE:  No, I have no idea what they do in Ohio.  They basically
read the x-rays.  And if they send them back to the plant, after the
plant receives them, they'll call us up there.  And they'll have the
plant doctor tell us if there's anything wrong or not.

		And, typically, I've not heard them ever say anything was wrong with
anybody.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  So the results do get reported back to your
employer in that case?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yes.  And then the employer reports back to the
individuals that had the x-ray taken.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Are any workers intimidated by this, by having
the results go back to the employer?

		MR. RAGLE:  No.  Actually, at Caterpillar, they don't advertise that
this is available.  I've asked the company if they would notify the
individuals on the shop floor, when their four years are up, to have
it -- have the x-ray completed, and they've elected not to so far.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Thank you.

		Now, I'd like to ask if any of the other companies have any medical
surveillance, and what that surveillance program involves.

		MR. P'POOLE:	Jeff P'Poole, 523.  Once a contract year, our company
allows us to have a physical done.  And they will do one x-ray on that.
I don't have any knowledge of anybody going through it and having it
done.

		They do try to make us do it.  But a lot of people, you do it on your
own time.  Most people won't do anything on their own time, even if
it'll save your life, I guess you could say.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  So having it on company time would probably
increase participation?

		MR. P'POOLE:  Oh, yes, definitely.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.

		MR. BOECKER:  At Defiance, we do yearly physicals -- I'm sorry,
Richard Boecker, 211 -- we do year physicals, and I guess the pulmonary
testing where you blow.  We did that on a regular basis, yearly basis,
in the past.  But now, I don't know what the sequence is, we -- maybe
three years or four years, I'm not real sure.  But we do some testing.

		I guess chest x-rays, we have done them in the past, too, so optional.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Optional.  Okay.  And do those results go back to your
employer?

		MR. BOECKER:  Yes.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Yes.

		MR. P'POOLE:  I left that out, too.  Every year, we do the pulmonary
and our hearing test and stuff, where you, you know, blow to make sure
your lungs can, you know, function properly in our plant.

		And that's the same time of year that they make us have a respirator
fit test.  So it'll --

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  It is mandatory at your company?

		MR. P'POOLE:  Yes.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  For the other companies where it's not
mandatory, do you have any idea of how many employees participate, a
percentage?

		MR. P'POOLE:  That test is mandatory, but the physical per contract is
not mandatory.  Okay, just to clear that up.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  And do you have any idea how many employees
participate, take advantage of it, a percentage or --

		MR. GRAVES:  Well, in our facility, we have our own health clinic and
stuff.  And we do -- we actually were here lately unaware of all the
silica stuff, and that's why I'm here.

		The UAW health and safety knows -- trying to -- what these standards
and stuff, and letting our plant know that we do have problems in the
facility with that.

		So at the moment, we currently don't have anything for that.  We just
do the yearly physicals that -- and they do pay you to go do that.  And
it actually lowers your monthly insurance cost, if you do their
physicals.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay, Mr. --

		MR. GRAVES:  Rodney Graves, I'm sorry.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Yes.

		MR. WAFFORD:  Matt Wafford, 2239.  We don't have no yearly physical or
no checks necessary where I work at.  I've worked there seven years.  I
ain't never had nothing done.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Thank you.  Is more medical testing something
all you would like to see?

		MR. MERCER:  Andy Mercer, Local 8.  We have nothing, and I would
definitely encourage that, absolutely.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  And would you have any preference of how the
results are reported?  What gets reported to your employer?

		MR. MERCER:  Personally, I wouldn't.  I mean, that's something I think
you'd want a member consensus on within the facility, you know, how they
want that handled and how it's most applicable.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  And can I please direct a question to
Dr. Sivin?  I think you might be the right person.  I know in your
comments, you mentioned that the only thing that should get reported to
the employer is whether the employee has limitations on respirator.

		I was just wondering if you have any experience.  Like if someone
needed to be referred to a specialist, how you'd be able to handle that
and maintain confidentiality.

		DR. SIVIN:  Well, I think you would give the referral directly to the
employee, excuse me.  If it were a question of who was paying for it, et
cetera, the employee would have the right to share that information with
the employer.

		If, for some reason, I mean, they'd have the right in any case, and
they'd certainly have the right if it were somehow procedurally
necessary in order to get the service.

		If the employee decided that the information about the referral were
somehow a threat to their ability to maintain their current position
with the employer, it should be the employee's right not to share that
information.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Thank you.

		I just wanted to check on a couple of other things.  I think I've
heard several of you mention that your family members have worked at a
certain place maybe their entire work duration.  Is it uncommon to see
somebody work at a location maybe for 45 years over their entire working
lifetime?

		MR. BURKEEN:  Stan Burkeen, Local 523.  As a person and personally, my
family's been at CCMA since it opened in 1950, so I've had several
family members there.  And it's not uncommon.

		We have a gentleman, Rob Low (ph.), who works there now.  He's been
there approximately, what, Jeff, close to 45 years.  He's in his
seventies.  He's still not ready to retire.  So it's not uncommon in our
place.

		Now, there's been a time throughout the years that they wouldn't hire
family members because there was so many family members in the plant.
They've recently got away from that and went back taking referrals from
the employees.  And so, there's more family members there now.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock.  I just want to make a point here.  A
few years ago, we just had an employee retire.  I believe he had 53
actual years.  So yeah, people do tend to stay for quite some time.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  I'm sorry, Dr. Sivin, did you have something else?

		DR. SIVIN:  I'm fine, thanks.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Thanks.  One other question, we've heard some
commenters say that at some locations, it's not possible to use a
cleaning method other than compressed air or dry sweeping.  Have any of
you found that to be the case?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle.  Yeah, we looked at how could we get away
from using compressed air.  And we were able to change a few jobs, but a
lot of the jobs that we used compressed air, they still use it just
because of the process.  It simplifies it.  There's less cost, and it
seems to work good for the company to keep the compressed air the way it
is.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.

		MS. RYDER:  I guess just a follow-up on that really quickly -- Anne
Ryder.

		Do you know whether or not it's impossible to use some other method of
cleaning?

		I think yesterday we heard that cleaning around molten metal is just
too hard to do, to use wet methods.  I'm not sure if any vacuum methods
were mentioned.  But do you know whether it's actually possible to use
another method of cleaning in that situation?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah, we come up with other methods for some of the jobs
we looked at.  But after it was discussed, we just -- the company chose
to go ahead and stay with the air.  But yeah, it's definitely possible.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  I know some of you mentioned that they regularly
check the ventilation controls to make sure they're meeting EPA
requirements.  And is this because of EPA laws that require a certain
frequency of checking those controls, or does anyone know?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah, you'll have controls.  I think the controls, just
going off memory, was around 2007 when they were enacted for foundry
melters or dust collectors that pull from the melters that are treated,
when treatment is put into a melter.

		Those collectors, you have a daily check, and it's just a general
check.  And then, you'll have a quarterly check that you have to file
and keep on hand for, I want to say, it's 5 or 10 years.

		But, anyway, those checks are more in-depth.  Those checks are the
ones that check for holes in the bags and to ensure that the collector
is actually performing like it should be doing, and that we're not
emitting contaminants more than what the permit would allow for.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  So there's OSHA regulations requiring things
such as air monitoring for a certain frequency.  Your employer would be
likely to follow those?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah.  Personally, I think that would be a good thing to
do anyway.  If you've got a happier workforce inside, we know our
collectors are working.  We've proven in our plant that, you know, a
little maintenance goes a long way on our collectors.  And that cleans
your air up a lot inside there, and you get a lot less complaints.

		And actually, the productivity, you know, if people are not having to
blow black stuff out of their nose and hack stuff up, they're a lot
happier with their job, if they can go in, do a job, and be able to go
home.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay, thank you.  That's it for me.  I'd now like to
turn it over to Joe Coble.

		DR. COBLE:  Good morning.  Thank you all very much for being here
today.  I'd like to compliment you on some of those videos and pictures.
 I think the saying is, "A picture is 1,000 words," and really
communicated effectively, I think, some of the challenges and the
sources of the dust.  To actually hear from people that work in those
settings is extremely valuable.

		We saw lots of examples of engineering controls that were in place but
appeared to be leaking or maybe not doing what they were designed to do.
 How much of the problem is related to the lack of controls versus just
ineffective controls that are in place, in your experience?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle.  At least in our plant, one of the issues you
have would be like a pneumatic sand transporter.  You're basically
blowing your sand through a pipe across the plant.  Essentially what
you're doing, you're sandblasting the inside of the pipe.  That creates
a lot of little leaks that you're always chasing.  It's always eating
through the pipe.  So you've got a constant leak basically on that.

		As far as your shaker tables go, they jam up a lot.  So a lot of
times, maintenance people, the facility, don't want to put covers on
those shaker tables because that's just an additional burden to try and
fix the problem.  So controls would help out a lot, if we could get some
sort of, you know, hard control we have to follow.

		DR. COBLE:  We saw the shot core booth, I think it was, in one of the
earlier ones.  I don't know whether it was Andrew -- but it was -- you
said they were using steel shot to clean the parts.  Was that instead of
using silica sand?  I mean --

		MR. MERCER:  Andy Mercer.  No, the steel shot is blasted, same as like
a sand blaster would do.  It's blasting the residual sand off the
casting, making it more a clear visibility on it for inspection and
finished purposes.

		DR. COBLE:  But is the steel shot being used instead of blasting it
with sand, or it's always been steel shot?

		MR. MERCER:  As far as I know, it's always been steel.  It's fighting
against the sand, so --

		DR. COBLE:  And then we're interested in this -- I think it was
Mr. Hitchcock talking about the challenges involved at the GM plant,
where it wasn't always like it is today.  And you mentioned back in the
early '90s, there was a commitment made to go ahead and try to address
this issue.

		And I suppose at the time, there might have been some skepticism as to
whether you'd be able to get there.  Was it -- there are numerous
sources.  So was it a matter of systemically going out and identifying
those sources, one by one?  Or could you just kind of control some major
sources and that got you there?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Well, Rob Hitchcock.  I think the initial plan started
out as first, both parties sat down and collectively agreed that we're
going to move forward on health and safety, okay.  And once that was
decided and agreed to, I think what really took place is they identified
probably the worst areas of the plant to go start out with, okay.

		And as they would knock one area out, as far as meaning make the
improvements needed, then they would move onto the next.  And over the
years, those areas have been consolidated down to a very manageable
number of areas, where we can continue to monitor and make adjustments
as needed.

		DR. COBLE:  And then, you mentioned you have routine air monitoring.
Does that indicate that you've achieved levels below 50 in most of the
plant?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Absolutely.

		DR. COBLE:  Did you --

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Now, we do have a few areas that we still have to
manage, we keep close eye on.  It's right there at the 50, but those are
the areas that we'll continue to do the dust collector bag changes and
things like that, to keep them to that standard.

		DR. COBLE:  And how are the air monitoring results communicated to
employees?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Face-to-face.

		DR. COBLE:  Face-to-face, so that happens on a routine basis?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  That's correct.  Each area of our plant has a safety
talk each week.  And as results come out, it's either taken to that
meeting in front of the group that works in the area or staying into the
specific individual that was tested.

		DR. COBLE:  Right.  And then my final question is for the panel in
general regarding the secondary exposures.  And to what extent, there
are some jobs that are directly working with the source of the sand.

		But what percentage of jobs there are exposed primarily through
secondary exposures that could potentially be reduced by controlling it
at the source?  I mean, are there jobs in which you don't really work
with the sand, but you still get exposed anyway?

		MR. RAGLE:  Shawn Ragle.  Yeah, there's -- obviously like you said,
there's some jobs that have a high potential to be exposed.  But there's
also a lot of jobs, such as a trucker, that may be trucking through an
area that'd pick it up, just a truck driving across the floor, kicks up
dust.

		You've also got, like we discussed, about blowing off parts or
inspecting parts.  You've got dust floating around there that could
affect the inspectors at the end of the line.

		So as far as a percentage goes, I just think about it real quick here,
I would say probably -- we probably have about, say, 70 percent of our
employees would have the second-hand exposure, and the other 30 would
probably be more of the higher risk category.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay, thank you.  That's it for me.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay, thank you.  Tom Mockler will now ask questions.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Yeah, I wanted to follow up on the Defiance plant.  Is
it possible to get more detailed information on sort of the before and
after, in terms of like the cost of installing the controls and some of
the exposure measurements before and after, the number of employees
affected?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Rob Hitchcock.  I don't know if I could get you that
information or not.  I'll be honest with you.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  You know, the improvements, if we're looking at from
the time where the standard was lowered to 50 to today, you're talking,
you know, over 20 years.  I don't believe I could get that information
for you.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Is it possible to get parts of the information?

		MR. BOECKER:  Rick Boecker.  What specifically were you looking for?

		MR. MOCKLER:  Well, really, I mean, like for a particular job, how
much an engineering control costs to install, for example.

		MR. BOECKER:  Yeah, we don't have that access available to us.  You
know, I don't think that anybody's withholding it, but, you know, I
guess through Andy or something, we can maybe try to get you guys
something.

		MR. COMAI:  So we can work with you on that.  We have a -- there's a
national agreement.  There's a national Joint Committee on Health and
Safety.  I sit on that committee.  I sit on the Industrial Hygiene
Review Committee for UAW General Motors.  And we'll do the best we can
to fill in anything you can ask for.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.  All right.  Thanks.

		MS. IANNUCCI:  Okay.  Anne Ryder will now ask questions.

		MS. RYDER:  I have a couple of questions.  I think first, I have a
question for Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Boecker, since you guys talked
about your GM plant in Defiance.

		You said that most of the areas are staying below 50, but in some of
those areas, you're right at 50.  Are those areas demarcated in any way,
so that employees know, you know, this particular area has higher
exposure levels, and you need to take certain precautions because of
that?

		MR. BOECKER:  I believe those areas that are respirator-required,
that's posted as part of their job instruction.  They'll have like a, I
don't know, they call it the "little man" or something that'll have your
PP, your glasses, your respirator, that type stuff.

		MS. RYDER:  So how would an employee who's just walking around the
plant know that there's an area that has higher levels of respirable
crystalline silica?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  In the event there would be an area where someone
could just walk into, it would be well-defined, signage.  We have all
kinds of signages for any type of hazard that we have out to the plant.

		Our joint team is very good at identifying and ensuring that the
placards are updated and clear to see.  And anything we can continue to
do is what we do.

		I mean, in the event there would be a particular area that would
create -- or that could potentially cause a hazard to anyone coming to
an area, most generally, we have a 100 percent contact at our plant.
And it would be communicated through a safety talk in our weekly safety
meetings.

		And that way, everyone understands that, hey, if you would go over to
this area, we have a situation right now.  Stay clear of the area, et
cetera.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  And you said there's usually a sign in that area or
something to notify people?

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Yes.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.

		MR. HITCHCOCK:  Yes.

		MS. RYDER:  All right.  I think maybe Mr. Ragle will be able to
answer this, but some of the rest of you might be able to, also.  We
heard yesterday from the National Association from Manufacturers that
when repair work or maintenance needs to be done on equipment,
contractors are coming in to do that type of work.

		So I was wondering if that's your experience.  I think you mentioned
that you do repair work.  And if there are contractors who are coming in
to do any repair work, who is telling them about the hazard, you know,
the silica hazard?  And who's in charge of those workers?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah, it depends on the job.  If it's a smaller job, as
far as in our plant, people that come in every day, knowing they're
going to work on the dust collectors are myself and a partner.  When you
get into a bigger job, such as a rebag, they'll usually hire an outside
contract crew that can bring in a sizable workforce to do that.

		Essentially, when an outside contractor comes on site, they have
to -- the company gives them basically a handbook that tells them all
of our safe practices to follow while they're on site.  Now, as far as
in the actual dust collector or maintenance of a fan, that's left up to
the employer to ensure that his employees have been properly trained and
notified of any hazards.

		MS. RYDER:  You mean the contractor would be notifying those
employees?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah, the meeting between Caterpillar and the contract
worker, they typically would only send their safety representative from
the contract company.  The safety representative of that contract
company would go back and relay any safety measures that we take or
follow for our plant.

		Now, as far as what's inside the collector fan or any hazards, that's
up to the employer or the contract employer to relay to his employees.
I don't believe -- I haven't been part of their meetings, but I do work
with them out there.

		And as far as I can tell, it's mostly -- the stuff that they get told
is mostly about where to park on the facility, stop at all the stop
signs.  It really doesn't deal directly with what's in the dust
collector.

		MS. RYDER:  At that meeting, that pre-meet that they have, would
Caterpillar be able to tell them about, you know, you're working on
equipment that's got silica dust in it?  Do you think that's something
that's doable?

		MR. RAGLE:  Yeah, that's very doable.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.

		MR. RAGLE:  The company is aware of what's going inside the dust
collector.  We know what comes out of it, you know, through -- and
where we get rid of the waste from the dust collector.  So, yeah, that
information's there.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  Does anyone have anything else?  I think that's all
that we have.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Yeah, I don't want to prolong the agony, but I guess
curiosity and maybe the interest of justice require that I ask.  You
have a national contract with GM.

		DR. SIVIN:  Correct.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  So is the Defiance situation replicated in your other
facilities?

		DR. SIVIN:  For the most part, yes.  And for example, there was a
question asked about ventilation checks earlier.  Those ventilations are
per the occupational health and safety language of the national
contract.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Do you track the health of the employees?  I assume
that you have claims that are filed.  You have the variations on the
theme of insurance claims, claims for benefits even for governmental.

		DR. SIVIN:  General Motors also provides pension and health care to
the employees until death.  So yes, in fact, and General Motors collects
all the death certificates.  And many epidemiologic studies have been
published out of that information.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  All right.  And I just wonder whether OSHA had been
provided all of that information.

		MS. RYDER:  Not that I'm aware of.

		DR. SIVIN:  Some of it was in Dr. Mirer's testimony, and we'll be
happy to provide all other relevant information in post-hearing
comments.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  Great.  Thank you.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Does anybody have any questions?  Do you have
any questions based on what I just --

		MS. RYDER:  No, I just wanted to mark for the record and enter into
evidence.  I think I have a copy of your PowerPoint presentation.  I'm
going to mark that as Exhibit 53.

		DR. SIVIN:  Yeah, we hope you have it electronically, too, with all
the videos.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.

		DR. SIVIN:  I think -- I believe you have that all ready.  If there's
any part of that you don't have, we'll be -- we're happy to provide it.

		MS. RYDER:  Okay.  I'll mark that as Hearing Exhibit 54 and -- the
videos.  And I'm going to reserve Hearing Exhibit 55 for pictures of
that PAPR or the respirator that you --

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  All right.  Since there's no objection, Exhibit Number
54 is entered into evidence.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing Exhibits 53 and 54 were
marked and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Anything else, Ms. Ryder?

		MS. RYDER:  That's it.  Thank you.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  If there's nothing else, we're going to go off
the record until 1:00.

		(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., a lunch recess was taken.)

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

(1:00 p.m.)

		JUDGE SOLOMON:	 Okay.  We're back on the record.  This is the
afternoon presentation from the American Chemistry Silica Panel.

		And, Ms. Lindberg, do you want to enter your appearance for the
afternoon?

		MS. LINDBERG:  Sure, Judge.  Kristen Lindberg from the Office of the
Solicitor here at the Department of Labor.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  You have some exhibits?

		MS. LINDBERG:  Yes, Your Honor.  I have a number of exhibits that the
American Chemistry Council has provided, which I would like to mark now.

		Number 56 will be the presentation materials from Neil King and Samuel
Boxerman.  Number 57, if I can get it off the sheet here, will be the
presentation materials from Dr. P. Morfeld.  58 will be the testimony
of Dr. Peter Morfeld.  59, the presentation by Paul K. Scott.  Number
60, the written testimony of Paul K. Scott.  Number 61, the presentation
by Kelly S. Bailey.  Number 62, the oral testimony of Kelly S. Bailey
and Richard J. Lee.  Number 63, the presentation materials from
Jack Waggener.  And last but not least, the presentation materials from
Stuart Sessions.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  So that is 64.

		MS. LINDBERG:  That is 64, yes.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  With objection, they are entered into evidence.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Thank you.

(Whereupon, the documents referred to as Hearing Exhibits 56 through 64
were marked and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Mr. Morrill, are you going to introduce the
members of your panel?

		MR. MORRILL:  Yes, Your Honor.  May I start now?

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Sure.

		MR. MORRILL:  Okay, great.  I have a few opening remarks, and then
I'll introduce the panel as we go.  Okay, great.  Thank you.

		For the record, my name is Jackson Morrill, last name spelled
M-o-r-r-i-l-l.  I'm the Director of the American Chemistry Council's
Crystalline Silica Panel.  And on behalf of the panel, I want to thank
OSHA for the opportunity that you've provided for us to give testimony
today.

		Since 1989, the panel's mission has been to ensure the regulatory
actions regarding crystalline silica are grounded in sound science and
are properly designed to protect the health of workers and the general
public, without eroding the economic viability, competitiveness, and job
base of the many sectors of American industry that produce or use
crystalline silica or products in which it's contained.

		In fulfilling this mission, the panel has supported and continues to
develop and support cutting edge scientific and technical research on
silica-related issues that we believe are directly relevant to this
rulemaking.

		The panel's current membership, which you see here on this slide, and
apologies for the formatting there, but it covers a broad range of
companies and associations in a varied set of industries.  I think we
have a very broad representation in our panel, many of whom are impacted
by the proposed rule.

		In addition to supporting the panel's comments and hearing testimony,
various members of ours have filed their own comments and provided, or
will be providing, testimony during this hearing process, as well.

		Getting to our presenters for today, the Silica Panel hearing
testimony began last week actually with one of our witnesses, Dr. Tony
Cox, who provided a critical analysis of OSHA's preliminary quantitative
risk assessment.

		Today, we will be providing the balance of our testimony with the
witnesses you see up here today.  And there's some actually in the
audience as well.

		We provided to the docket copies of the CVs of most of our experts, so
I will only briefly introduce our panel before turning it over to our
first speakers.

		To my right here, Neil King and Sam Boxerman will kick off our
testimony with a summary of the panel's positions on the major issues
raised in this rulemaking as set forth in the panel's comments submitted
to the docket last month.

		Neil King is a self-employed legal consultant, who has provided
support to the Crystalline Silica Panel for nearly 15 years.
Sam Boxerman is a partner at the law firm of Sidley Austin.

		Dr. Peter Morfeld, who is to my far right here, will follow with a
discussion of the epidemiological issues related to the proposed
rulemaking.  Dr. Morfeld is a noted epidemiologist based in Germany,
who's authored over 328 publications, a number of which directly
addressed silica, including several notable publications on the German
porcelain workers cohort, among others.

		He currently works at the Institute for Occupational Epidemiology and
Risk Assessment, a public-private partnership with Cologne University
and Evonik industries.

		After Dr. Morfeld's presentation, we will turn to the issue of
measurability.  And directly behind me is Paul Scott, who will provide
testimony on the adequacy of sampling and analytical methods for
measuring respirable crystalline silica at exposure levels of 25 and 50
µg/m3.  Paul's a qualified environmental professional in supervising
health scientists at Cardno ChemRisk, LLC.

		And then, behind me here are Kelly Bailey and Rich Lee, who will then
continue the discussion of measurability, focusing on the results of a
blinded laboratory performance study sponsored by the panel.

		Kelly is chair of the ACC's Crystalline Silica Panel and also the
Director of Safety, Health and Environmental matters in the corporate
office of Vulcan Materials Company.  He is also one of our founding
members.  And, again, we've been around for 25 years, so Kelly's been at
this for quite some time.

		Rich Lee is the CEO of RG Lee Group, which is a well-known scientific
consulting and lab facility headquartered in Monroeville, Pennsylvania.

		Finally, we will conclude with two presentations on economic
feasibility.  Our first expert, who is Jack Waggener, right there in the
audience, will be providing a discussion of OSHA's cost models for the
proposed standard, and an explanation of the modifications to those cost
models made by Jack and his colleagues at URS Corporation.

		Mr. Waggener, senior principal and engineering manager at URS, has
over 40 years of professional experience and is a recognized expert in
managing projects involving compliance with OSHA PELs.

		Finally, Stu Sessions is right here in the audience as well.  He will
conclude the panel's presentations with a detailed discussion of the
economic impact of the proposed rule, focusing in particular on impacts
to 19 sectors in general industry.

		Mr. Sessions is President of Environomics, Incorporated, an economic
consulting firm that provides analysis of the benefits, costs, economic
feasibility, economic impacts, and cost effectiveness of policies,
programs, regulations, and legislation involving the environment,
energy, and occupational safety and health.

		So, once again, we thank OSHA for this opportunity to present the
panel's positions on the proposed rule.  And I'll turn it over now to
Neil and Sam to begin our testimony.

		JUDGE SOLOMON:  Okay.  Mr. King, before you start, there was an
agreement off the record that the presentation would last about three
hours.  And then there would be questions.

		We were advised that there would be some extensive questions and that
OSHA has some questions.  So, hypothetically, we'll be able to be done
around 5:00 or 5:30.  Okay, thank you.

		I'm sorry, Mr. King.  Go ahead.

		MR. KING:  I'm going to just provide an overview of the Crystalline
Silica Panel's positions on the major issues in this proceeding, broken
down by significant risk, economic feasibility, and measurability.

		As I believe it's been made clear earlier in the proceedings, OSHA has
to make three showings to support a reduction in the permissible
exposure limit, that is the PEL, for crystalline silica:

		First, showing that there's a significant risk of material health
impairment at the current PEL that would be substantially reduced by
reducing that level to the proposed PEL.

		Secondly, that the standard would be technologically and economically
feasible in all affected industry sectors.

		And, thirdly, that exposures can be reliably measured with an
acceptable degree of accuracy and precision at the levels of the
proposed and action level.

		Beginning with significant risk, as has been pointed out earlier in
these hearings, there has been a dramatic reduction in silica-related
mortality and morbidity in the four decades since OSHA's current PEL was
adopted.  That includes more than a 90 percent reduction in silicosis
mortality rate from 1968 to 2010.  Similar reductions in silicosis
morbidity, and a 99.5 percent decline in annual average silicosis
respiratory tuberculosis deaths from the five-year period 1968 to '72 to
the five-year period 2002 to 2006.

		Now, some people at the hearings have suggested that silicosis
mortality may be underreported.  I don't know that that's correct, but
even if it is correct, it would not alter the dramatically declining
trend for silicosis mortality over these last 40 years because any
underreporting that may have occurred presumably would have been at
least as prevalent in the earlier years of this period as in recent
years.

		People have noted that cases of silicosis continue to be observed.  We
don't deny that, but we believe they're attributable to two factors.
First, the over-exposures to crystalline silica that occurred decades
ago and are now manifesting after the latency period of 20 to 30 years
or more, as has been indicated earlier in these proceedings.  Most of
the workers diagnosed with silicosis in the last 10 years or so were
first exposed before OSHA's current PELs were adopted.

		The second factor is that there are continuing exceedances of the
current PELs, often by very large margins.  These occur at a rate of
about 30 percent or more year after year, as evidenced by OSHA's
compliance sampling results, and by its current estimates of worker
exposures in this rulemaking.

		OSHA's finding of significant risk is based on estimates of mortality
from lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory disease, that is NMRD, and
nonmalignant renal disease, as well as cases of silicosis morbidity, as
these things arise after a continuous 45-year occupational exposure to
the respirable crystalline silica levels of 100 µg/m3 and 50 µg/m3.

		Those, however, are not the correct long-term exposure levels to
evaluate in assessing potential risks under permissible exposure limits
of 150 µg/m3.  OSHA, as it noted earlier in these proceedings, applies
its PELs on a daily basis.  So an employer is deemed to be out of
compliance with the standard if his employees are exposed above the PEL
on any given day.

		In order to be 95 percent confident that the PEL will not be exceeded
on any given day, an employer must maintain the long-term average
exposure level in his workplace at a fraction of the PEL.  That fraction
likely would be less than 50 percent of the PEL in many workplaces
characterized by typical exposure variability.

 		With that in mind, one can see that to ensure compliance with a PEL
of 100 µg/m3, long-term average exposures in many workplaces would
probably be maintained at a level below 50 µg/m3.  And to assure
compliance with a PEL of 50 µg/m3, as OSHA has proposed, the long-term
average exposures in many workplaces probably would have to be
maintained at a level below 25 µg/m3.

		In fact, they'd probably have to be maintained at a level below 20
µg/m3 because OSHA switching from the old ACGIH sampling protocol to
the new ISO/CEN sampling protocol will mean that about 20 percent more
respirable dust or respirable silica is collected than would've been the
case under OSHA's current sampling model.

		OSHA's risk assessments for all four of these endpoints did not
evaluate potential silica-related risks at these long-term average
exposure levels.  So its conclusions regarding risks under alternative
PELs of 100 µg/m3 and 50 µg/m3 are based on an evaluation of the wrong
long-term exposures.

		Apart from evaluating the wrong long-term exposures, the risk
assessments on which OSHA's conclusions regarding significant risks are
based suffer from a variety of serious shortcomings.  These are
discussed at length in the comments that the ACC Crystalline Silica
Panel and its various consultants filed on February 11, 2014.
Highlights are discussed in the testimony that Dr. Tony Cox presented
last week and in the testimony that Dr. Peter Morfeld will present
later this afternoon.

		Among the shortcomings in OSHA's risk assessment are the following: