The amount of associated radiation 	exposure

Accessibility

Interpretation

Unexpected consequences, and

Cost

		The purpose of chest radiography and/or tomography in medical
surveillance of workers, as set forth in the proposed standard, is to
screen for silicosis.  Both chest CT scan and HRCT are likely to be
useful in the diagnosis of silicosis.  Their advisability for screening
is the question at hand.

		Radiation exposure is greater for chest CT scans than for chest x-ray.
 For chest x-ray, the average dose is 0.1 mSv.  For chest CT scan, the
dose varies depending on the size of the individual, with more radiation
being required for larger people.  The amount of radiation generally
ranges from 3 mSv to

8 mSv.

		Chest x-rays are readily accessible under most circumstances, whereas
availability of chest CT scanning is more limited, particularly in rural
areas.

		Interpretation of chest CT scan is best done by a trained radiologist.
 Presently, we don't have the analog of the NIOSH B reader for chest CT
scans, and presently there is no analog of the ILO system of
classification to guide and standardize interpretation of chest CT scans
for pneumoconiosis.

		Unexpected consequences of chest CT scans include the detection of
small non-calcified pulmonary nodules and/or other non-silica related
pulmonary abnormalities that then require medical follow-up.  While this
may prove beneficial to the employee, in the long run it has the
potential to expand the scope of medical surveillance, as set forth in
the standard, and will likely complicate the job of the PLHCP.

		Chest CT scans are more expensive than chest x-rays by orders of
magnitude.  LDCT is significantly less expensive than conventional CT
scans and is more sensitive in detecting interstitial lung disease than
chest x-ray.  It delivers less radiation than a conventional CT scan,
with a range of 0.5 mSv to 1.7 mSv.  However, LDCT comes with some of
the same unexpected consequences of conventional chest CT scans.

		Taking these mitigating factors into account, it is the Collegium
Ramazzini's position that at the present time, chest CT and HRCT scans
are not equivalent diagnostic studies for purposes of medical
surveillance for nonmalignant respiratory disease, pursuant to the
standard.

		The Collegium agrees with OSHA that the digital chest radiograph is an
equivalent diagnostic study.  NIOSH has examined digital radiography
with regard to accessibility, quality of digital images, and inter- and
intra-reader variability and compared the digital radiograph to the
conventional radiograph in the evaluation of workers at risk for
pneumoconiosis.

		NIOSH has published the NIOSH guideline application of digital
radiography for detection and classification of pneumoconiosis, NIOSH
Publication Number 2011-198.  In September 2012, NIOSH published final
regulations authorizing the use of digital radiography and the coworkers
health screening program, effective October 15th, 2012.

		Paragraph (2)(i)(B) of Section (h):  Pulmonary Function Testing.

		Occupational exposure to respiratory crystalline silica is an
important risk factor for the development of silicosis, COPD, and other
nonmalignant respiratory disease.  OSHA estimates expected excess deaths
from nonmalignant respiratory disease at 83 per 1,000 in workers exposed
at the current PEL of 0.1 mg/m3 and 43 per 1,000 workers exposed at the
proposed PEL of 0.05 mg/m3, summarized in Table VII-2 of the proposed
standard.

		Among the earliest changes in the development of obstructive lung
disease is a decrease in airflow in the small airways of the lungs,
forced expiratory volume at 75 percent of vital capacity.  These
abnormalities, as well as decrease in forced expiratory volume in one
second, or FEV1, may be detected in the absence of radiographic evidence
of silicosis.  Accordingly, pulmonary function testing plays a critical
role in medical surveillance of silica-exposed workers.

		The proposed standard requires pulmonary function testing in the form
of spirometry and requires that spirometry be performed by a
NIOSH-certified spirometry technician.  However, as previously noted,
the standard does not require standardization of the spirometric
equipment used to perform the test.

		The ATS and ESR have published detailed criteria both for the
standardization of spirometry and the interpretation of test results.
These apply to the spirometer itself and to test performance, and
include criteria for acceptability and reproducibility of test
maneuvers.

		Quality of test performance relates directly to the reliability of
test results and must be taken into account in test interpretation.
Failure of test results to meet criteria for acceptability or
reproducibility should be noted in the interpretation so that the person
who is reading the interpretation understands -- has some way to gauge
the quality of the testing that was done.  Such steps will provide for
spirometry, but the ILO system of classification and the NIOSH-certified
B reader provide for the chest x-ray.

		The importance of the quality of spirometry to the reliability of test
results is emphasized by Hnizdo and Wang and Petsonk, among others.

		Hnizdo cites the quality of spirometry as one of the factors affecting
within-person variability in FEV1 test results in longitudinal studies
of healthy working populations.

		Within-person variability must be taken into account in judging the
significance of change in lung function over time, both in the clinical
setting and in epidemiologic studies of working populations.

		Wang and Petsonk cite "equipment, technician training, and the various
technical considerations such as method of calculation, ambient and
equipment temperatures, and instrument calibration," as variables to be
considered along with age, gender, height, and race, in the selection of
appropriate referent groups and the interpretation of change in lung
function.  And in their case they looked at change in lung function over
a relatively short period of time, 6 to 12 months.

		The proposed standard is silent on the choice of reference standards.
The ATS/ERS have recommended the use in the United States of reference
standards derived from the Third National Health and Nutrition Survey
(NHANES III).  These standards were derived from 7,429 asymptomatic,
lifelong nonsmoking participants, age 8 to 80, living in 81 counties
across the United States.

		Participants belonged to three ethnic groups: Caucasian, African
American, and Mexican American.  These reference standards are more
representative of the population of workers covered under the proposed
standard, than other commonly used reference standards such as Morris,
1971, which the population upon which these standards were based was
Mormons living in semirural areas at low altitude, and Crapo, 1981,
Mormons in urban areas at high altitudes.

		Sood et al. had compared interpretation of spirometry using these
reference standards, the interpretation using the NHANES III standards,
and found differences in terms of determination of abnormality and
assessing severity of the abnormality.

		For employees covered under the proposed standard, consistency of
interpretation is very important, particularly for construction workers
who may have testing done at a number of different sites in different
parts of the country by different employers.

		The proposed standard does not require that the results of spirometry
performed at one point in time be compared to prior test results.  Such
comparisons are necessary to the early detection of declining lung
function.  They are required by OSHA's cotton dust standard, which
states, "A comparison shall be made between the current examination
results and those of previous examinations and the determination made by
the physician as to whether there has been a significant change."

		For monitoring lung function over time, the ATS/ERS task force
recommends the use of the FEV1 as "the most repeatable lung function
parameter and one that measures changes in both obstructive and
restrictive types of lung disease."

		Excessive loss of lung function may indicate early development of
silica-related disease, even in the absence of an abnormal test result.
So spirometry at one point in time may be normal, but compared to the
baseline of that individual, there may have been a decline.  So even
though the test result itself is normal, it doesn't mean that there is
not something going on with regard to that individual's lung function.

		In the clinical setting a year-to-year change of 15 percent or
greater, even in persons with relatively normal lungs, is considered
significant.

		Wang and Petsonk examined change in lung function over a 6- to
12-month period in a group of 389 white male coalminers and working
non-miners examined over a five-year period.

		Two groups were selected as referent groups:  stable without excessive
decline in FEV1 -- excessive decline being defined as greater than 90
mL per year over the five-year period -- and healthy, consisting of
nonsmoking subjects without development of bronchial hyporesponsiveness
or respiratory symptoms during the five-year period.

		In the total population only 0.6 percent of the 2,511 observations of
12-month changes in FEV1 were declines of 15 percent or greater.  For
the participants classified as stable and healthy, that is, the referent
groups in this particular study, 12-month declines in FEV1 of 8.1
percent or 330 mL and 7.4 percent or 320 mL, respectively, were in the
lower fifth percentile and therefore considered abnormal.

		The authors concluded that in a population of healthy male workers,
year-to-year declines of greater than 8 percent or 330 mL should not be
considered normal.

		The Collegium Ramazzini agrees with the Agency that requiring
performance of spirometry by a NIOSH-certified spirometry technician
increases the likelihood that administration of the test will be
consistent with ATS criteria.

		In order to further ensure the reliability of spirometry performed
pursuant to the standard, the Collegium recommends that, in addition,
the proposed silica standard requires the use of spirometric equipment
that is compliant with the ATS/ERS criteria.

		The Collegium recommends that OSHA require the use of NHANES III
reference standards for the interpretation of test results.

		The Collegium recommends that OSHA require a comparison of current
test results with prior test results to assess change in lung function
over time.

		A year-to-year decline in FEV1 of greater than 8 percent or 330 mL
should prompt referral to a pulmonary physician by the PLHCP, pursuant
to the proposed standard.

		There is precedent for this level of oversight of quality and accuracy
of laboratory testing in OSHA's lead standard.  This standard requires
that analysis of blood lead levels in exposed workers be accurate at a
95 percent confidence level within 15 percent or 6 µg per 100 mL,
whichever is greater.  Testing of blood samples is to be conducted by
laboratories licensed and approved by the CDC.

		Paragraph (2)(vi) of Section (h):  Any Other Testing Appropriate.

		The medical surveillance provisions provide for any other "tests
deemed appropriate by the PLHCP."

		Silica is a recognized human lung carcinogen.  Screening for lung
cancer is not addressed in the proposed standard.  Screening for lung
cancer is a timely issue.

		A randomized controlled trial of the use of LDCT versus chest x-ray to
screen for lung cancer was conducted by the National Institutes of
Health.  The outcome of interest was lung cancer mortality.  Results
showed a 20 percent decrease in lung cancer mortality in the group
screened with LDCT compared to the group screened with chest radiograph.
 In this study, risk was defined and subjects were chosen on the basis
of exposure to tobacco smoke.

		Since the completion of the NIH study -- I think the results were
reported in 2010 -- a number of professional organizations have
released position statements advising the use of LDCT to screen at-risk
populations for lung cancer.  These include the American Lung
Association, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American
Association for Thoracic Surgery, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force.

		All of these expert bodies define risk on the basis of cigarette
smoking.  Two of them, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the
American Association for Thoracic Surgery, also define risk on the basis
of cigarette smoking and a second risk factor such as occupational
exposure to a lung carcinogen.

		There are distinctions between the two groups with regard to
eligibility for screening; that is, the group whose only risk factor is
cigarette smoking and the group that has as risk factors cigarette
smoking plus one additional risk factor.

		For the most part, it has been recommended that lung cancer screening
with LDCT take place in healthcare institutions with experienced
radiologists and technicians and in the context of a primary care
physician-patient relationship.

		There are exceptions.  Dr. Steven Markowitz, a fellow of the
Collegium Ramazzini, and colleagues have investigated the use of LDCT
for lung cancer screening in populations of workers at risk for lung
cancer as a result of the exposures incurred during the course of their
work in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

		A description of methods and results with regard to screening for
nonmalignant asbestos-related lung disease has been published and
demonstrates that such a screening program is feasible.

		In the group of silica-exposed workers covered by the standard, there
are some who are at greater risk for the development of silica-related
lung cancer than others.  Risk depends on intensity and duration of
silica exposure, the presence of exposure-related nonmalignant
respiratory disease, and history of cigarette smoking.

		It is the position of the Collegium Ramazzini that the use of LDCT to
screen for lung cancer in workers covered by the proposed standard is
appropriate for those with more than 20 years of occupational exposure
to respirable crystalline silica in those with exposure-related,
nonmalignant respiratory disease, specifically silicosis and COPD, and
in those with a history of cigarette smoking.

		Longer durations of silica exposure are associated with greater lung
cancer risk.  Risk is higher in exposed workers with silicosis.  COPD is
an independent risk factor for lung cancer, as is cigarette smoking,
with data suggesting an interactive effect of exposure to both silica
and cigarette smoke that is greater than additive in a couple of
studies.  It appears to be multiplicative.

		The Collegium recommends that such screening be carried out, to the
extent feasible, in experienced multi-specialty institutions with the
full understanding of the employee and the active participation of the
PLHCP and/or the employee's primary care physician.

		Paragraph (3), Section (h):  Periodicity of Medical Examinations.

		The proposed standard requires that medical and occupational history,
physical examination, pulmonary function testing, and chest radiography
be obtained every three years or more frequently if recommended by the
PLHCP.

		For chest radiographs or their equivalent, this frequency is
appropriate, given the normally slow rate of radiographic progression of
silicosis.

		In the absence of new onset respiratory symptoms or significant change
in FEV1, physical examination on a tri-annual basis is appropriate.

		For medical and exposure history and pulmonary function testing, the
Collegium Ramazzini recommends annual examinations.

		Medical history is advised on an annual basis because symptoms of
cough, phlegm, wheeze and shortness of breath may be early signs of
silica-related airway inflammation and lung disease.

		Our own study of nonmalignant respiratory disease in 317 tunnel
construction workers exposed to silica revealed cough and phlegm
consistent with chronic bronchitis in 10.7 percent of study
participants, wheeze consistent with asthma in the absence of
physician-diagnosed asthma in 25.6 percent, and shortness of breath in
29 percent.  None of the participants had radiographic evidence of
silicosis.

		Bronchitis and asthma are diseases of the airways.  Latency for
certain diseases of the airways is short compared to the relatively long
latency period characteristic of silicosis.  For example, a two-year
history of cough and phlegm is sufficient for a diagnosis of chronic
bronchitis, and it is particularly these diseases with short latency
periods that require more frequent medical history.

		Exposure history reveals information about job- and task-specific
changes in silica exposure over time.  Some of these exposures may have
been temporary and short term, particularly in the construction
industry.  Episodic excessive exposure to silica may thus be forgotten
or otherwise missed if exposure history is obtained only every three
years.

		With regard to lung function testing, if FEV1 is declining at an
excessive rate, an interval of three years could allow a loss of close
to a liter in FEV1 before detection, using the data from Wang and
Petsonk.

		Further, analysis of longitudinal spirometric data from working
populations indicates that data precision and reliability depend not
only on the quality of spirometry, but also on the frequency of testing.
 Greater frequency improves stability and predictability for excessive
loss of lung function of the data.  The data become useful in predicting
excessive decline in the long term, only after the fourth or fifth year
of follow-up in a study that was carried out by Hnizdo et al.

		If spirometry is performed tri-annually on covered workers, at the end
of six years a given worker could have been tested only twice, which
does not give great reliability and stability to the longitudinal data.

		Paragraphs (5) and (6):  Employer Written Opinion.

		The proposed standard requires that the PLHCP provide to the employer
his or her written opinion within 30 days of the medical examination of
the employee.  This written opinion is to include "a description of the
employee's health condition as it relates to exposure to respirable
crystalline silica," and "any recommended limitations upon the
employee's exposure to respirable crystalline silica or on the use of
PPE such as respirators."

		Additional requirements include if the PLHCP determines that referral
to a pulmonary specialist is in order.

		The Collegium Ramazzini objects to the inclusion of information
related to the employee's health condition in the PLHCP's written
opinion, whether or not the details of the health condition are related
to asbestos exposure.

		And, parenthetically, the term "description" is ambiguous.  It's not
entirely clear what "description" means.

		Any details of the results of the medical examination should be
provided to the employee, not to the employer.  Specific details about
findings during the course of the medical examination by the PLHCP or by
the pulmonary specialist should be provided to the employer only with
the written consent of the employee.  Such protection of privileged
medical information respects and protects the privacy of the employee
and is consistent with the Federal Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

		Specific details about the health status of the employee are not
needed by the employer in order to make a decision about job placement.
What the employer needs to know is (a) whether there is a recommended
limitation on employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica and/or
the use of PPE, and (b) that a medical evaluation by a pulmonary
specialist is recommended, if that is the case.

		It is the position of the Collegium Ramazzini that information
regarding recommended workplace restrictions for a given employee should
be provided only in the context of medical removal protection.

		The Collegium Ramazzini further recommends that in addition to written
results of the medical examination, the employee be provided with his or
her chest x-ray on CD-ROM when digital radiography is used to obtain the
image.  This will allow the employee's medical records, including chest
x-ray, to travel with him or her and be available to a new medical team
in the event of a change of employer.  This is particularly important, I
think, for workers covered under the construction standard.

		The asbestos standard promulgated in 1994 established a PEL of 0.1
fibers per cubic centimeter and requires that the written opinion of the
PLHCP include "a statement that the employee has been informed by the
physician of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to cigarette
smoking and to the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure."

		The Collegium Ramazzini recommends that a similar provision be
included in the proposed silica standard, namely, that the employee has
been informed of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to
silica exposure, a risk that is compounded by exposure to cigarette
smoke.

		Paragraph 77 under Issues:  Appropriate Trigger for Medical
Surveillance.

		OSHA has proposed that medical surveillance conducted pursuant to the
standard be initiated or triggered by occupational exposure to
respirable crystalline silica at or above the PEL for 30 or more days
per year.

		It is the position of the Collegium that occupational exposure to
respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level for 30 or
more days per year is the appropriate trigger for medical monitoring.
This position is based upon the following:

		(1) There is significant risk for adverse health effects from
occupational exposure to silica at the proposed PEL.  In Section 16,
Summary and Explanation of the Standards -- the definitions -- the
Agency states that its "preliminary risk assessment indicates that
significant risk remains at the proposed PEL of 50 µg/m3."

		OSHA further notes that "at least one court has held that OSHA has
duty to impose additional requirements on employers to eliminate
remaining significant risk when those requirements will afford benefits
to workers and are feasible."

		OSHA preliminarily concludes in this section "that the action level
will result in a very real and necessary further reduction in the risk
beyond that provided by the PEL alone."

		The Collegium Ramazzini concurs with this assessment and believes that
using the action level of 0.25 mg/m3 to trigger medical monitoring will
benefit workers by increasing the likelihood of early detection of
disease.  And it is feasible by OSHA's own determination.

		(2) Economic benefit to employers who maintain silica exposure below
the action level is cited by OSHA as a rationale for the use of the
action level to trigger exposure monitoring.  The same logic applies to
medical monitoring.  The economic benefit will be even greater for
compliant employers, if both exposure and medical monitoring were
triggered by the action level, thus providing greater incentive to keep
exposures low.

		This economic benefit would derive from, among other things, lower
employee health costs in the short and the long term, decreased
absenteeism, and lower premiums for workers' compensation insurance.

		(3) Use of the action level to trigger medical monitoring is
consistent with previous OSHA standards.  Restricting medical
surveillance to workers exposed at or above the PEL is without precedent
in OSHA rulemaking.  Standards that establish an action level use that
level to trigger medical monitoring.  These standards include

chromium-6, methylene chloride, cadmium, lead, MDA, inorganic arsenic,
vinyl chloride, and laboratory workers exposed to hazardous chemicals.

		Paragraph Number 80 in the issues section:  Medical Removal
Protection.

		In this section, OSHA requests comments on whether the proposed
rulemaking should include a provision for temporary medical removal
protection and on the maximum duration of MRP benefits.

		In Section 16, Summary and Explanation of the Standards, Section (h):
Medical Surveillance, the Agency discusses the reasoning behind its
decision to omit MRP from the proposed standard.

		The primary reason given for including MRP in earlier standards is to
encourage employee participation in medical surveillance.  Other reasons
are to prevent new onset disease and prevent worsening of existing
disease.

		The basis of OSHA's decision in the present standard appears to be
that silica-related diseases are chronic and not likely to regress with
temporary removal from silica exposure.

		The Collegium Ramazzini believes that MRP is necessary to workers'
full participation in medical surveillance provided for in the proposed
standard, and that such participation is necessary to the early
detection of silica-related disease.

		Accordingly, the Collegium Ramazzini strongly urges the Agency to
include provisions for MRP in the proposed rule.  The bases for this
position are as follows:

		(1) There is nothing about this standard that is different from
previously promulgated standards with regard to worker reluctance to
participate in medical examinations that may result in job loss.  The
risk of job loss should a silica-related medical condition be discovered
is real and for many workers covered by the standard, not worth taking
without job and benefit protection.

		(2) Among the components of the medical examination, the medical
history is likely to be most affected by lack of MRP.  Workers must feel
free to discuss respiratory and other symptoms with the PLHCP.

		As noted earlier in this commentary and by the Agency itself in the
preamble, respiratory symptoms of cough, phlegm, shortness of breath and
wheeze may be the initial manifestation of early lung disease associated
with silica exposure.  These may occur in the absence of demonstrable
abnormalities on spirometry or chest radiograph.

		(3) Temporary removal of workers with silica-related lung disease is
advisable under certain circumstances.  Although silicosis is a chronic
disease, other silica-related nonmalignant respiratory disease, while
chronic, has periods of exacerbation that may benefit from temporary
removal from workplace exposure to silica.  These conditions include
bronchitis, airway hyporeactivity, and COPD.  Such exacerbations are
generally short term but may last for weeks and may require
hospitalization.

		Temporary removal is advisable in the case of an employee who is
referred to a pulmonary specialist for further medical evaluation as a
result of medical examination.  The benzene standard provides precedent
in this regard.  The standard provides for medical removal and
protection of benefits as follows:

		"When a physician makes a referral to a hematologist/internist, as
required under

Paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section, the employee shall be removed from
areas where exposures may exceed the action level, until such time as
the physician makes the determination under Paragraph (i)(a)(ii) of this
section."

		Section (i)(9)(ii) of the benzene standard provides for maintenance of
"current wage rate, seniority, and other benefits of the employee, as
though the employee had not been removed."

		There is precedent in previously promulgated standards for MRP for
work-related chronic disease and for medical conditions requiring
permanent removal.  These standards include asbestos, cotton dust, and
benzene.

		The asbestos standard states that no employee must be assigned to a
job that requires the use of a respirator if the examining physician has
determined that the employee is unable to wear a respirator.  The
standard provides that in this case, the employee must be assigned to
another job or position whose duties she or he can perform.  If such a
job or position is available, it must be with the same employer, in the
same geographic area, and with the same seniority, status, rate of pay
and other benefits.

		The cotton dust standard has similar provisions with regard to medical
removal based on ability to wear a respirator.  An employee working in
an area in which concentrations of cotton dust are in excess of the PEL,
who is unable to wear a respirator, must be given the opportunity to
transfer to a position available at that time or later, with retention
of rate of pay and other benefits.

		The benzene standard provides for MRP in the event that permanent
removal is recommended by a physician, stating that the employee "shall
be given the opportunity to transfer to another position which is
available, or later becomes available, for which the employee is
qualified or can be trained in a short period," and where benzene
exposure is at or below the action level.  "The employer shall assure
that such an employee suffers no reduction in current wage rate,
seniority, or other benefits as a result of the transfer."

		That concludes my comments.  The Collegium appreciates the opportunity
to be here today.  And I'm happy to take any questions.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you very much,

Dr. Oliver.

		At this point I'll open it up for questions.  Can I see a show of
hands from the audience, of people interested in questioning?  Two on
this side.

		Okay, Ms. Trahan.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Hi.  Thank you for testifying.  Chris Trahan with the
Building Trades.

		You know, in construction we have a little bit more difficulty than in
industries where it's the same employer dealing with the same worker
population over a long period of time.  And I found that your comments
regarding the need to compare the results of spirometry from year to
year demonstrate that there's going to be a challenge there in the
construction industry.

		But in your opinion, if the ATS guidelines on the standardization of
equipment test performance and interpretation are required in the OSHA
standard, could you see the results being portable and interpreted if
different licensed healthcare practitioners were being used over time
for an employee?

		DR. OLIVER:  Well, I think there are two issues there.  One is whether
the equipment is standardized or not.  And if the equipment is
standardized, then that provides a commonality and sort of guarantees
baseline reliability, which would apply in the construction trades and
general industry everywhere.  And that would be the purpose of requiring
standardization of the equipment and the interpretation.

		If you have the reference standard guiding the interpretation, then
you could expect that the interpretation received by one PLHCP should be
similar to that received by a PLHCP in another geographic area or with
another employer.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Um-hum.

		DR. OLIVER:  Now, with regard to being able to compare current test
results with prior test results, I think one way to deal with that
problem -- and I work with the construction trades, so I am familiar
with some of the issues -- would be to give the employee a copy, not
only of the details of his or her medical examination contained in a
written opinion but also, as I testified, their chest x-ray on a CD-ROM
if a digital image is obtained.

		And also you could give the employee a copy of his or her spirometric
results -- in the construction industry -- that they could then take
with them along with this other medical information.  And I'm sure there
must be ways to digitize this and make it more convenient for the worker
to keep and carry.

		So that would be one way to deal with it.  But at a minimum, even if
the worker were not able to carry the spirometric -- well, that's the
only way you can deal with the issue of comparing results over time,
unless there's a central database.  You know, maybe the unions could --
I don't know.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Yeah.

		DR. OLIVER:  But you either have to have a central database or you
have to give these test results to the employee to take with him or her
from one site to another.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay, thanks.  And then you talked a little bit about
your 2006 study of the tunnel workers.

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Over what years were those workers exposed to silica?
Was it in the 10 years prior to the study, 20 years or --

		DR. OLIVER:  No, it was either -- I can tell you exactly.  It was
either in 2000 or 2001, so relatively recently -- let's see -- because
I think it was in 2000.  It was in 2000.  Yeah, they were exposed in
2000 and we did the study in 2001.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Okay, thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Trahan.

		Ms. Seminario.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO.

		Good afternoon.  Dr. Oliver, thank you very much for your testimony
today and the contributions of your colleagues, as well.

		One of the issues that has been raised repeatedly in these
proceedings, and that a number of the industry groups have pointed to,
is data from the Centers for Disease Control that's compiled by NIOSH,
dealing with mortality information on silicosis as a disease.  And I
don't have a copy with me today, but there is a chart -- a graph that
is presented by NIOSH on its website -- showing over time that the
number of silicosis deaths that are reported has declined.  Are you
familiar with that information?

		DR. OLIVER:  Not in detail.  I'm aware of it.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  As a more general matter, for the mortality data, what
is the source of that information when NIOSH is reporting cases of
silicosis in its mortality data?

		DR. OLIVER:  Well, I think mortality data come from epidemiologic
studies of workers.  There is physician-based reporting of mortality.
There are hospital discharge data that are used.  So there are a number
of different sources for mortality data.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Dr. Oliver, could you pull that microphone on your
right a little closer?

		DR. OLIVER:  Oh, sure.  Yeah.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Either one.

		DR. OLIVER:  I mean, for example, in Massachusetts there is something
called a Sentinel Event Notification System Occupational Registry
system, or SENSOR, which is present in five states and physicians are
required to report cases of work-related disease.  And the Department of
Public Health, in working with NIOSH in Massachusetts, tracks both
incident cases or -- I guess, in the case of silicosis -- prevalent
cases and also looks at mortality.  So NIOSH gets a lot of its data from
these kinds of activities by departments of public health.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  In your testimony, a couple of the specific
issues that you spoke about, you made a recommendation with respect to
surveillance with the use of low-dose CT scans potentially being useful
for the early detection of lung cancer.  And I just wanted to ask you
just for a clarification on that.  It's on page 70 of your statement.

		It says "It is the position of the Collegium Ramazzini that the use of
low-dose CT to screen for lung cancer in workers covered by the proposed
standard is appropriate for those with more than 20 years of
occupational exposure to crystalline silica in those with
exposure-related NMRD, nonmalignant respiratory disease, specifically
silicosis and COPD, and in those with a history of cigarette smoking."

		On the issue of cigarette smoking, is that recommendation linked to
the recommendations that have come from the Preventive Services Task
Force for a certain amount of smoking, or would it be any cigarette
smoking with silica exposure?

		DR. OLIVER:  I think that would depend -- I think that depends.  I
don't know the answer to that question.  I think that's the kind of
thing that would need to be worked out by OSHA, because these
organizations -- for example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
was focused only on cigarette smoke.  And if there's a greater-than
additive or multiplicative effect between two agents, then certainly the
amount of smoking required to be eligible for screening, under some of
these guidelines -- for example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force -- might not apply.

		And as I stated earlier, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and
the American Association for Thoracic Surgeons have two sets of
eligibility criteria, depending on whether a given individual has more
than one risk factor for lung cancer.  For example, younger ages and
fewer packs of cigarette smoking are required for eligibility if there
are two risk factors as opposed to one.

		And so I really can't answer that question sitting here today.  I
think it's something that would need to be thought about and considered.
 But I think the criteria that apply when there's only one risk factor,
and that's tobacco smoke, probably would not apply here.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  And also on the issue of low-dose CT, your
recommendation is, is that for workers who have more than 20 years of
occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica.

		Dr. Steven Markowitz, who you mentioned also in your testimony, did
testify at these hearings.  I believe he was here last week, and he also
recommended the use of low-dose CT scans.  But he had an alternative
proposal, that instead of using specifically years of exposure, that a
criterion would be the worker's age.  I think it was for workers over
50.  And I think part of his rationale was sometimes it's difficult to
assess how many years of exposure where age is a clear criterion.

		Would age perhaps be an appropriate factor for use as a criterion
for --

		DR. OLIVER:  Well, I think you could use age or you could use duration
of work in the industry, you know, and without -- I think that's a good
point that you make about silica exposure.  And so you could use age.
You could also use how many years a person has worked in the industry,
the construction industry or in another industry where there's excessive
exposure to silica.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.  I believe when you were introducing
yourself you stated that you are still a practicing occupational
physician with a specialty in pulmonary medicine.  So you do see and
examine workers on somewhat of a regular basis; is that correct?

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes, I do.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  For occupational disease and occupational exposure
conditions?

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Is it your experience that workers who may be
experiencing an occupational disease due to their job may be reluctant
for any adverse health effects information to be shared with their
employer?

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes, yes.  I think that most definitely is the case
because there's a very real concern about their job and whether they
will be able to keep their job if certain information is shared.

		And I never -- well, I'm prohibited from sharing information by HIPAA
anyway, but I would never share medical information with an employer
without the written consent of the employee.  And I -- in addition to
seeing patients in a clinical setting -- have done screenings and
epidemiologic studies and those data I consider to be part of that
individual's medical record, and it's my practice not to share that
information with the employer without signed consent.  I don't believe
that I could.

		But the answer to your question is yes, there are often cases in which
an individual does not want information he or she has shared with me, or
information in the medical record, to be shared with his or her
employer.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So would there be -- absent a written consent by the
worker/patient, would any of the information from that visit or
diagnosis be shared with the employer?

		DR. OLIVER:  No.  In my clinical practice, no.  I screen Boston public
school custodians for asbestos-related disease.  I've been doing that
for quite some time.  And in that screening I submit an "employer's
written report," but all it says is that

-- it doesn't give any details of that person's medical history.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  What would be included in that report?

		DR. OLIVER:  The only thing that would be included in that report
would be whether this person is allowed to wear a respirator or not.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  That's the only information, okay.  I think those are
my only questions.  Thank you very much.

		DR. OLIVER:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Seminario.

		Any other questions from the audience?

		(No response.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Seeing no hands, I'll turn it over to the OSHA Panel.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, this is Bill Perry.  Thank you, Your Honor, we do
have a few questions.

		MS. GORSE:  Hi, Dr. Oliver.

		DR. OLIVER:  Hi.

		MS. GORSE:  My name is Joanna Gorse.  I just have one quick question.

		You mentioned that it's important for OSHA to develop a standardized
medical and exposure work history to add as an appendix.  Do you have
any specific suggestions of what that should include?  I know you
mentioned similar to the asbestos standard, but from a physician's
standpoint, what should it include?

		DR. OLIVER:  Well, I think it should include some of the questions
that are outlined in the preamble and I think, ideally, standardized
questions; that is, questions that are taken from preexisting
standardized questionnaires be used.  I think the asbestos questionnaire
is a good starting point.  I think it might -- and I think the asbestos
standard does a pretty good job of asking questions.  The questionnaire
does a pretty good job of asking questions about that person's
respiratory health.

		Questions about kidney disease are difficult.  It's probably worth
just -- because the symptoms are very nonspecific, you could just ask
about presence or absence of kidney disease in that person's past
medical history.

		Connective tissue disorders.  I think, for example, you could have a
list of various connective tissue disorders and ask if this individual
has a history of any of these.  You could ask questions about symptoms
of joint pains, skin changes, things like that.

		But I think the asbestos questionnaire is pretty good on respiratory.

		MS. GORSE:  Okay, great.  Thanks.

		MR. SCHAYER:  Hi, Dr. Oliver.  My name is Steve Schayer with OSHA.  I
just had a couple of questions on low-dose CAT scanning.

		DR. OLIVER:  Sure.

		MR. SCHAYER:  So the first was that you had mentioned that some of the
unexpected consequences include detection of small non-calcified
pulmonary nodules or other abnormalities.  So I was just wondering, from
your practice, if you have any information on how often these are
detected and ultimately turn out to be unconcerning.

		DR. OLIVER:  It's my recollection that, in studies that have been
done -- the NIH study and other studies looking at low-dose chest CT
scanning to screen for lung cancer -- I think the prevalence of these
small calcified pulmonary nodules is around 6 percent.

		MR. SCHAYER:  Okay.  Okay, great.  Thanks, that's very helpful.  And
the other question.  I was just wondering if the Collegium, at all, has
examined any quantitative estimates of radiation risk from LD CAT
scanning for occupational populations.

		DR. OLIVER:  No.

		MR. SCHAYER:  No, okay.  Thank you very much.  That's all I had.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, this is Bill Perry.  And Dr. Oliver, thank you so
much for coming today to testify and spending an afternoon with us.
It's been very informative.  I have a few questions for you.

		The Collegium is recommending that OSHA include -- if I understand
this -- an equipment requirement for pulmonary function testing, that
the equipment be compliant with ATS and European standards, is that --
that's correct.  I heard that, right?

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes.  Yes, that is correct.

		MR. PERRY:  And as you know, we proposed a requirement that the
spirometry be conducted by NIOSH-trained technicians.  How often does it
happen or how common is it that a NIOSH-certified technician would be
using equipment that does not conform to those specifications?  Is that
very common?

		DR. OLIVER:  I would expect that it would be uncommon.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.

		DR. OLIVER:  And so I think requiring a spirometry technician is --

		MR. PERRY:  Don't push your button.

		DR. OLIVER:  Oh.

		MR. PERRY:  That turns it off.

		DR. OLIVER:  Was a very good thing for OSHA to do.  But it could
happen that a NIOSH-certified spirometry technician is working with
equipment that doesn't meet these ATS/ERS criteria.  And if -- well, I
mean it could happen.  So that's our recommendation.  It's obviously a
decision that OSHA has to make.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay, which is fine.  I was just trying to get an idea of
how big a change this would be over what we proposed, and it sounds like
we're pretty close to being maybe where you would think we need to be
but just need to go that one little step further.

		DR. OLIVER:  I think probably not a big change.  I think you're right.
 I think --

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.

		DR. OLIVER:  -- a NIOSH-certified technician would most likely be
using standardized equipment.  On the other hand, the technician is not
the one who has control over what equipment is used.

		MR. PERRY:  A good point.  Thank you, I appreciate that.  Just a
clarification.  On page 7 of your written testimony, you say that --
this is in reference to low-dose CT scanning as a screen for lung
cancer.  And you say the Collegium recommends that such screening be
carried out, to the extent feasible, in experienced multi-specialty
institutions with the full understanding of the employee and active
participation of the PLHCP or a primary care physician.  So could you
talk a little bit about what is meant by experienced multi-specialty
institutions?

		DR. OLIVER:  Experienced multi-specialty institutions are hospitals
that have experienced radiologists, experienced pulmonary physicians,
experienced thoracic surgeons.  The studies that have been carried out,
looking at LDCT to screen for lung cancer, have been carried out by such
institutions.

		And this was one of the recommendations of the NIH following
completion of their study.  And I think it's a reasonable recommendation
because of the unintended consequences.  You know, you just want to make
sure that if somebody is found to have one or more non-calcified
pulmonary nodules that then need further evaluation, they're in good
hands for that further evaluation because the range of options is large
and some of those options don't always benefit the individual.

		An additional recommendation by other organizations looking at LDCT
screening is that, as I indicated in my testimony, it's important that
the individual employee have the option to discuss LDCT screening and
what it means, either with his or her primary care physician or with the
PLHCP.  You know, there needs to be a baseline physician involved in
this decision to undergo LDCT screening because most of the studies
indicate that it significantly reduces morbidity and mortality from lung
cancer.  But there are other issues that need to be considered when
someone makes the decision to go forward to LDCT screening.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay, thank you.  Very good.  Let's see.  You
mentioned -- and I think this might have been in response to a
question -- that you do work with construction workers who are exposed
to crystalline silica on the job.

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes.

		MR. PERRY:  Is it very often or very common that you see meaningful
declines in pulmonary function, even absent radiographic evidence of
silicosis?

		DR. OLIVER:  Yes, yes.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  So if there are criteria for medical removal based
on these declines in pulmonary function, is it important to know exactly
what the etiology of that pulmonary function decline is?  Or is medical
removal necessary even if the etiology is uncertain?

		DR. OLIVER:  I think it's important to understand what the etiology
is, to the best of one's ability to do so.  It's a little hard to answer
that question in the abstract, but I think it's important to understand
what's going on, because maybe there's a decline in lung function due to
some temporary lung condition that will then get better.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.

		DR. OLIVER:  And so then the question is, well, maybe you need medical
removal and then the question is for how long.  And that depends on --
it does depend on what the etiology is.  So yes, I think it is important
to understand that.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.

		DR. OLIVER:  And I presume that's the basis for the provision in the
proposed standard for referral to a pulmonary physician.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, in part.  And I suppose I was thinking more if it
appears that the pulmonary function decrement is more of a chronic
condition that is not -- one can rule out that it's temporary in the
sense that's due to lung infection or that kind of cause.  But whether
there would be a smoking history, exposure to other dusts, I mean, is it
important to know that the pulmonary function, in fact, is attributed to
the silica exposure, specifically?

		DR. OLIVER:  I think not necessarily, because if a person has
declining lung function from whatever cause, it probably is not a good
idea for that person to continue to be exposed to any vapors, gases,
dusts, and fumes, whether it's an obstructive defect or whether it's a
restrictive defect.

		And we understand a lot more now about airways disease, including COPD
and asthma, and its relationship to workplace exposures, through this
broad category of vapors, gases, dust, and fumes, than we did 10 years
ago.  And data demonstrate that there is an association between
workplace exposure and COPD.  Twenty years ago that was a lot less well
understood.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay, very good.  That's a helpful answer, thank you.  I
think I just have one more question.  Well, actually two, one real
simple one.  You cite, in your written submission, about a dozen or 20
or so references.  Do you know if you've provided those to the record?
Were those submitted with the written testimony or --

		DR. OLIVER:  No, but I would be happy to provide them.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  Yes, we would ask that.  There were certainly --
particularly updated studies on your list that I'm not completely
positive are in our record now, so that would be helpful.

		DR. OLIVER:  Okay, sure.  And as I was preparing for this testimony
today, I came across a couple of others, so I'll include all of them.

		MR. PERRY:  I would invite you to do that, absolutely.  Thank you.

		You mentioned a study by Hnizdo from a couple of years ago, that she
demonstrated that excessive declines in pulmonary function can be
detected or usually detected after the fourth or fifth round of testing.
 So if I understand, if one is conducting PFTs on an annual basis, then
you'll catch that in four or five years as opposed to, as you point out,
a dozen or more years before you see it.  Could you explain how that
works?

		DR. OLIVER:  Well, actually what her study showed was that increased
frequency of testing and the quality of the spirometry itself were
important to obtaining data that were robust enough to predict future
decline in lung function.  And what they found based on their study was
that after the fourth or fifth year of follow-up, the data appear to be
sufficiently robust that they could predict a future decline in lung
function.

		Now, in some of these people, obviously there was some decline in lung
function that was detected during the course of the follow-up.  But the
principal value, as I understood it, from this study was its usefulness
in predicting future excessive decline in lung function.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay, all right.  That explains it quite well and I
appreciate that.  That's all I have.

		Ms. Lindberg.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Hi, Dr. Oliver.

		DR. OLIVER:  Hi.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Kristen Lindberg from the Office of the Solicitor.  I
just had one question.

		In your written comments, you recommend that it's only in the presence
of medical removal protection provisions that information regarding
workplace limitations should be provided to an employer from the
healthcare provider.

		How would this recommendation change in the context of the proposal as
it's written, which doesn't provide for medical removal protection?
Would you then recommend that absolutely no information be conveyed from
the healthcare provider to the employer?

		DR. OLIVER:  I realize, from a practical point of view, that would be
very difficult to do.  I think it potentially is placing a worker at
risk.  And in order to -- so obviously MRP protects that worker and
makes him or her more willing to participate in medical surveillance.

		But I also understand the other side of the coin, that employers --
if an individual cannot wear a respirator and therefore is unable to
work in a silica exposure area, I think the employer needs to know that.

		But from the worker's point of view, it's better just not to
participate and better not to have lung function testing and better not
to find out than to lose his or her job.

		So it's a difficult question.  And so I think my answer would be, in
the absence of medical removal protection, it's better -- probably
better not to give that information over to the employer.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Okay, thank you.

		MR. PERRY:  That's all the questions we have, Your Honor.

		And, again, Dr. Oliver, thank you very much for appearing today.

		DR. OLIVER:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Dr. Oliver.

		Next on the agenda is HalenHardy, LLC.  I know Mr. Beaver is here.
Mr. Beaver, any companions with you?

		MR. BEAVER:  No.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay, so you're it.

		MR. BEAVER:  These are all my friends.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay, if you'll come up.  Let me ask you, do you have
a written copy of your testimony that you want to submit?

		MR. BEAVER:  I don't know if we've already provided it, but I can
afterwards.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  That's fine.

		MR. BEAVER:  Pretty much my statement adheres to what we already sent
in.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And are you going to be using any kind of PowerPoint?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.

		MR. BEAVER:  I'll bring that up.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And if you have a written copy of that -- a printed
copy, rather, I'll mark that as an exhibit and ask you, when you go
through it, if you will, just for the record, make sure you are
describing what's on the screen at any given time.  Thank you.

		Mr. Beaver, I was just handed -- I think it's a flash drive with a
video on it.  Would you describe for the record what that is?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yes.  The flash drive has a copy of the one-minute video
that we're going to be playing, showing a downdraft booth air shower in
operation.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  And I'll mark that as Hearing Exhibit 140, and
that will be admitted into evidence, as well.

(Whereupon, the object referred to as Hearing Exhibit 140 was marked and
received in evidence.)

		MR. BEAVER:  Thank you, thank you.  Well, thanks so much for allowing
us to testify.  I've learned a lot so far today.  I didn't know there
was a Chuck Gordon rule, so I actually had to go into the men's room and
close a stall door and check my clothes.

		My shirt and jacket are from Canada.  My watch is from Switzerland,
and my pants are from Honduras.  My shoes are an unknown source.  My
jockey shorts are made in Costa Rica, and the socks are made in North
Carolina.  My silk tie is made in Boulder, Colorado, and I can introduce
the tie as an exhibit, but my wife would kill me.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I don't think that's necessary.

		MR. BEAVER:  Okay.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you.

		MR. BEAVER:  So I now know the Chuck Gordon rule.

		But thanks for allowing us to testify.  My name is Don Beaver, and I'm
CEO of HalenHardy, LLC.  And regrettably I was the backup, and Bob
Glenn, who many of you know, our chief scientist, could not attend.  He
actually appeared here in the first week of testimony on behalf of the
brick association and he went to his son's house, fell down the steps,
slip, trip, and fall, and broke his leg.  He's in surgery as we speak.
It took him that long to get scheduled for plates.

		So Bob offers his regrets that he couldn't be here, and he especially
offers his regrets that I'm doing this instead of him.

		But with your indulgence, I'm going to read the testimony, which
generally follows our comment letter.  And that was dated on February
11th.  And then I'll be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

		Let me briefly describe HalenHardy's business.  We provide products
and services that help protect industrial workers from dangerous dust,
including respirable crystalline silica.  I'm going to refer to it as
RCS from here on out because I say it too many times.

		Our silicosis prevention advisors division provides consulting
services, including development of silicosis prevention programs; and
our equipment division, we address the need for worker clothing -- to
clean working clothing contaminated with RCS.

		We address that particular need with the downdraft booth that we call
MASH.  MASH is an acronym for mobile air shower by HalenHardy.  And as
you know, air showers have been used in various industries for quite
some time, back to the early 1950s, to the best of our knowledge.  And
our MASH unit is not only effective in cleaning worker clothing, but it
doesn't use compressed air.  And it was designed, rather than being
stationary, to be fully mobile.  That was our original mission with
this, was to eliminate compressed air and to be fully mobile.

		And the main reason is, we were called into action with our customers
in the hydraulic fracturing industry -- and they move every few
weeks -- and so we anchored to that challenge.  We soon discovered that
what we knew was true about construction, too, is they're always on the
move.  However, we designed it so it could be placed permanently, too,
and stationary, if you wish.

		And I'd like to show you a short 60-second video that demonstrates the
effectiveness of the MASH unit in removing dust from clothing.  And it
also will show you a time-lapse video of the standard method using a
HEPA vacuum cleaner.  We actually have two guys doing the process
because it's almost impossible to get your back by yourself if you're
using a HEPA vacuum -- and a lot of the dust resides on your shoulders
and back -- and so it can be resuspended easily.

		So we're showing two guys in the vacuuming side of the video and then
the air shower, side by side.

		So this is a worker entering the booth, pressing the button, and the
air is coming out.  You can see the dust blowing off.  This is happening
in about 12 seconds.  And then it goes through a HEPA filter and in
literally 20 seconds he's done.

		And so this is the time-lapse photography showing a MASH mobile air
shower on the left and two guys trying to get vacuumed off on the right
and the number of workers going through the cycle.  And what you'll see
is, in the time it takes both the workers to get done -- and this is
trying to be thorough.  We recognize that most people, especially most
guys on construction jobs, aren't thorough.

		But nonetheless, if we're going to follow the spirit of the idea that
perhaps contaminated clothing is a challenge, it's important that we
show the thorough ways of doing it based on the current recommendations.

		We understand that there are concerns from members of industry about
the overall cost of compliance with the OSHA proposal.  And as
demonstrated in the video, MASH can clean workers' contaminated clothing
in about 20 seconds.  We say less than 30, but it's about 20 seconds.

		So this can result in substantial time savings and increased worker
productivity.  And employers should actually experience a reduction in
overall costs using MASH for cleaning contaminated clothing versus HEPA
vacuuming, if they're doing the HEPA vacuuming correctly.  And we'll
talk a little bit more about that.

		But before getting any further into our testimony, let me briefly tell
you about who the key folks are in our business.

		HalenHardy's chief scientist, Bob Glenn, has spent more than 40 years
practicing in industrial hygiene, specializing in occupational lung
diseases and health effects of mineral dust exposure.  You probably know
Bob, and he testified earlier.  He served as director of the division of
respiratory diseases at NIOSH.  He also was president and CEO of the
National Industrial Sand Association.

		And while he was with NISA, Bob and the industrial sand industry
developed a silicosis prevention program that led to major reductions in
silicosis in the sand mining industry.  And this prevention program has
been well documented and recognized by OSHA, MSHA, and NIOSH as a very
successful industry intervention program.

		I, on the other hand, spent my career cleaning up crappy situations.
My industrial cleaning teams worked with high levels of exposure to
hazardous dust beginning in the '70s, and it includes silica, asbestos,
lead, cadmium, bismuth, hex-chrome.  You name it, we cleaned it up,
crawling around on crane rails to get it clean, so the crane electricity
wouldn't arc.

		But while working in these environments -- I live in a small town and
most of the folks I work for, I go to ballgames with their husbands and
have to deliver them home safe and sound and there's nowhere to hide.
So your employees are your friends and their wives are your wife's
friends.

		So we really took the hazards associated with our work very seriously.
 As it turns out, starting in the '80s, I shifted from being in the
cleaning business to developing effective tools to make my guys' jobs
easier, and it just turned out, a lot of other people wanted to buy it,
too.  So we've spent, since the early '80s, addressing worker health,
safety, and environmental concerns in every area, from spill cleanup to
this dust area.

		First and foremost, our testimony derives from that deep knowledge of
our team on dangerous dust and including respirable crystalline silica.
We also spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the existing OSHA
standards for the following hazardous dust: lead, asbestos, cadmium,
inorganic arsenic, and hex-chrome.  We looked at the provisions in those
standards that we thought would be applicable to and enhance the
protection of workers against RCS.

		Further, our testimony is based on various studies, including those
referenced in the three documents that I enclosed on the February 11th
comment letter.  And while our comment letter contains cites to these
studies where applicable, given the time limitations today, I'm
generally going to go discuss them in our testimony rather than
specifically.  But it's available.  You already have it and if you need
more, let me know.

		NIOSH, first of all, has made a substantial contribution to our
understanding of the health hazards associated with RCS.  They conducted
a study whereby it concluded that worker clothing is one of the eight
primary sources of RCS in hydraulic fracturing.

		They started out with seven.  And then

Eric Esswein, as we've discussed, as he started to progress -- I
mentioned the fact that I thought clothing would be a problem and that
we were able to find the Cicala study that pointed out that in the
mining industry it was indeed a problem.  So they added the eighth about
a year after they published the first seven for hydraulic fracturing.

		And as you know, inhalation is a primary route for harmful exposure to
RCS.  The problem is that dust from clothing can cause an exposure
hazard due to the resuspension of the dust into the air.

		The primary objective of the OSHA proposal is to reduce the average
amount of RCS that a worker is exposed to over the course of an
eight-hour day.  And whether you pick 50 µg or 25 µg, the objective is
to reduce it from where it is now.  And it will be accomplished, as
we've heard, by a whole lot of different methodologies, from just good
occupational health programs and engineering controls and administrative
controls, and perhaps the use of respirators and other protections for
the workers who are exposed.

		What is not generally understood or recognized is that according to
the Bureau of Mines study, which is now part of NIOSH -- cited in our
comment letter -- bagging machine operators in silica mining can
experience a tenfold increase in dust exposure over the workday when
they're exposed to resuspended crystalline silica on their contaminated
clothing.  The reason for this is that the resuspension of RCS often
occurs in the worker's breathing zone.

		And Chuck did a great job of describing it, but watch somebody taking
a respirator off sometime.  With a 90 percent reliability, it happens
the same way all the time.  It drops down usually near a shoulder or
right in front.  Every once in a while they'll spin it around backwards,
but most of the time it drops down here.  The second thing they do is
this, and the lightest weight stuff goes up into that 12-inch breathing
zone.  I found myself doing it baling hay last summer.  I took the
respirator off and did the same thing.

		So we call it the drop-and-slap method, and as Chuck pointed out, the
inside of the respirator is now contaminated, too, and then you put it
back on.

		If clothing contaminated with RCS is not effectively cleaned, the
increased exposure -- according to NIOSH, up to tenfold -- can
constitute a large percentage of the cumulative amount of RCS that a
worker can be exposed to during the work shift.  In fact, some of the
exposure levels in the study, which is included, would say that in the
course of a day you can get a week's worth of overexposure if you're not
careful.

		So in cases where contaminated clothing are not dealt with correctly,
it's highly likely that the combination of contaminated clothing,
together with the worker's other exposures during the work shift, will
cause the average exposure to exceed not only the current PEL but
especially any one of the new PEL proposals.  The effect of failing to
correctly deal with contaminated clothing can undermine other control
measures to reduce workers' exposure to RCS.

		Given the critical importance of dealing correctly with contaminated
clothing, I'd like to wind up with three key points.

		First, the words "grossly" or "excessive" should be eliminated as
qualifiers of the level of contamination.  And here's why:  The words
"grossly" and "excessive" should be eliminated because, given up to a
tenfold increase in exposure from contaminated clothing, it must be
addressed under any circumstances.

		Please note that the studies cited in our comment letter do not
distinguish among levels of clothing contamination.

		The second reason why the words "grossly" or "excessive" should be
eliminated is that they appear under the regulated area and access
control section.  Inherent in the definition of the regulated area or
access control is the fact that the employee's exposure to RCS exceeds
or can reasonably be expected to exceed the PEL.  So by the very
definition, you're working in an area where there's stuff floating
around and getting on your clothes.  Levels of silica dust in excess of
PEL are already deemed dangerous to worker health.  Thus, workers should
be required to clean their clothing upon exiting these areas.

		And the third reason why "grossly" and "excessive" should be
eliminated is they are ambiguous.  There's no definition of "grossly" or
"excessive" contained anywhere in the proposal and the use of these
words creates a loophole in the proposal.  Employers can avoid requiring
workers to clean their clothing by taking the position that contaminated
levels were not gross or excessive, thereby shifting the burden for OSHA
to prove otherwise.

		So that's our first point.  Our second point is that cleaning of
worker clothing -- is that the OSHA proposal should specify vacuuming
and a downdraft booth air shower for cleaning worker clothing.

		When it comes to cleaning contaminated clothing, the proposal simply
requires employers to use "Any other means to remove excessive silica
dust from contaminated clothing that minimizes employee exposure to
RCS," and employers must ensure that such clothing is cleaned upon
exiting the regulated area and before respiratory protection is removed.

		We don't believe that that language is sufficient and will basically
be inadequate for protecting workers.

		In addition to the addition of specific dust removal methods in the
proposal, such as requiring the use of a HEPA filter downdraft booth or
HEPA vacuuming, would help ensure that workers do not exit regulated
areas or access control zones with potentially dangerous amounts of RCS
on their clothing.

		The existing OSHA standards for five other hazardous dusts -- lead,
asbestos, cadmium, inorganic arsenic, and hex-chrome -- all specify
means for dust removal of worker clothing.

		In fact, OSHA's lead standard specifically lists vacuuming and
downdraft booths as suggested means for lead dust removal.  So we
believe that OSHA's approach on lead is correct and should be adopted
when it comes to RCS.

		Third is on the cleaning of worker clothing.  The OSHA proposal should
go on to prohibit dangerous means of dust removal from clothing.  It's
important to prohibit the types of cleaning that are very dangerous to
workers, such as blowing it off.  We actually saw guys using leaf
blowers on a frack site to blow each other off while a guy was standing
right behind them without his respirator on.  We weren't allowed to take
pictures.

		These methods resuspend the silica dust back into the air and they're
currently used on a daily basis around both the construction industry
and the fracking industry, that we're familiar with.

		OSHA's standards for other hazardous dust -- lead, asbestos, arsenic,
cadmium, hex-chrome -- currently contain similar language.

		And then I just have a little parenthetical here.  Please note that
OSHA regulations already provide that compressed air shall not be used
for cleaning purposes, except where reduced to less than 30 psi, which,
with compressed air is problematic, because who measures it?  How do you
know that for sure?  And only then with chip guarding.

		We wondered what chip guarding was and we looked into it and we
realized that compressed air mostly goes through black iron piping.  And
in the process of doing it, the moisture in the air starts to rust the
inside of the pipes, which creates little rust chips which could go into
your eye.  So that's what chip guarding was meant to do.  And you should
wear your personal protective equipment.

		So compressed air, other than being totally regulated under 30 psi --
and we'd submit that the intention of that wasn't to blow it off in an
open environment.  You should be somewhere where you're isolated when
doing that.

		Having addressed the cleaning of contaminated work clothing, I have
just one more item to add, which is the warning signage around the
regulated areas and access control zones.

		We believe that employers should be required to prominently post
specific signage around regulated areas and access control zones that
warn of the health hazards of respirable crystalline silica.  I won't
repeat the words.  We really aren't specifying any particular words as
much.

		But given the serious risks associated with RCS which are going to be
addressed in Section (i) of the OSHA proposal -- the section is
entitled "Communication of Respirable Crystalline Silica Hazards to
Employees" -- workers should be reminded of the hazards when they enter
the regulated area and access control zones.

		The merits of this suggestion are supported by OSHA standards, again,
in lead, asbestos, cadmium, arsenic, all of which have sections
requiring employers to post specific signage warning of applicable
health hazards.

		And I would suggest that since RCS is in a highly mobile workforce --
over 80 percent of people with RCS exposure, according to the studies,
are in mobile industries.  They're moving all the time.  I would suggest
that -- Chuck used the word "stanchion," but some form of easy to move
barricade systems for demarcation, I think, would be a very helpful
thing.

		We counted in the comments on the docket at least nine different other
organizations that have said the same thing, urging OSHA to require
warning signage, as well.

		This concludes my testimony.  We did attach our written comment to
Exhibit 1, and this followed pretty darn closely.  We also sent in a
redline version of the OSHA proposal, setting forth how this language
might be incorporated.

		I appreciate very much your time today and I'm ready to entertain any
questions.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you very much,

Mr. Beaver.

		Let me see a show of hands in the audience, people with questions.
One.  Mr. Gordon.  Let me know ahead of time if it has to do with
clothing.

		MR. GORDON:  Yes.  Mr. Beaver, how much --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Please identify yourself for the record.

		MR. GORDON:  Oh.  Chuck Gordon, just representing myself.

		Mr. Beaver, how much do your portable booths cost, approximately?

		MR. BEAVER:  Our preliminary studies have it down to -- basically,
we've entered into exclusive agreements with certain customers, so we're
not at liberty to share the exact numbers.  But it works out to
somewhere around -- between $1 and $4 a worker a day, based on an
eight-hour shift, to deploy it for 20 or more workers on a job site.

		MR. GORDON:  Oh, you rent them out; is that right?

		MR. BEAVER:  Right, sort of like a Porta-Potty on steroids.

		(Laughter.)

		MR. GORDON:  Now, the construction industry is very large, so if
medium-sized employers wanted to purchase it, would you be in a position
to manufacturer them?

		MR. BEAVER:  We are, we are.  You know, we've been manufacturers for
the last 30 years and have a good team on the lean side of things.

		MR. GORDON:  I think the OSHA economists would like to know some rough
idea, if they include your requirement, a rough figure of how much this
would cost an employer.

		MR. BEAVER:  We're currently conducting two sets of studies, one with
Dr. Jeremy Slagely at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania.  He came
out of the hex-chrome program as a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force,
and he's doing studies right now that really is nailing that number
down.  And then Dr. Jose Palacios, an aeronautical engineer Ph.D. at
Penn State.  So we're really nailing those numbers down as we speak.

		MR. GORDON:  Okay.  If you get them before the close of the comment
period, it would probably be helpful to OSHA if you would submit them.

		Secondly, what about worker acceptance of air showers as opposed to
vacuuming at the end of a shift, how does it compare?

		MR. BEAVER:  Excuse me just a second, I'll write down what you just
said.

		The comparison of workers' acceptance so far has been extremely high,
because -- I'm not sure if it's a novelty factor, the fact that it just
works, but it takes seconds and it's very simple.  So we're seeing
almost instant acceptance.

		Where we're seeing pushback is at the employer level.  The employers
are saying, if I put this in, I'm admitting I have a problem and we're
going to go to work on the engineering controls and we're going to wait
until the RCS standards are done.  We're going to wait until somebody
tells us we have to do this.

		So actually, employees love it.  If you pull up to a frack hotel where
workers come out of a job van, 15 of them pour out and they've all be
sitting on their respirators, bouncing down the road in Texas.  They
come out of the frack hotel, they jump right in one of these because it
cools them instantly while it cleans them off.  And so workers like it.

		MR. GORDON:  Thank you very much.

		MR. BEAVER:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

		Any further questions from the audience?

		Ms. Nadeau.

		MS. NADEAU:  Liz Nadeau, International Union of Operating Engineers.

		When you had the booths up and then you compared it to the shower, you
said that it was 20 seconds to go through the booth, and I guess you had
18 people go through the showers?

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, it took two guys to vacuum off thoroughly.  It's
like a 9:1 ratio.

		MS. NADEAU:  So how much time actually is it to go through a shower
thoroughly?

		MR. BEAVER:  The air shower, thoroughly, is about 20 seconds.  The
vacuum is nine times that much, so 180 seconds.  About three minutes to
go through the vacuuming process where you get your front and then
somebody gets your back and then they turn around and you get their
back.

		MS. NADEAU:  And how many times during the course of a day does an
employee need to have his or her clothes cleaned?

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, it depends on the level of exposure.  But the
biggest challenge that we see is the current practices.  Whether it's
abrasive blasting of lead paint on bridges, whether it's the frack
industry, whether it's construction, most people aren't doing it the
currently accepted right way without the vacuuming.  They're basically
taking their mask off.  If they're real dusty up here, they're dropping
their -- if they have a work coverall, they're dropping the work
coverall, tying it around their waist if it's a hot day, which billows
more stuff in their face.

		So it's really hard to get a comparative of how many times people are
doing it or should do it.  Our recommendation is, since it takes less
than 30 seconds, why not do it every time you take a break?  You know, a
midmorning break, a noon break, a mid-afternoon break, and end of shift.
 It's really less than two minutes a day.

		MS. NADEAU:  So you're talking about four or five times a day?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah, four or five times.  In the fracking industry it
might be -- they're working 12-hour days, you know, 14 days on and 7
off.  So in that industry, they might go through five or six times a
day.

		MS. NADEAU:  So, potentially, it could be 15 minutes per day per
employee, in terms of time saved as compared to --

		MR. BEAVER:  Right, that's a very good -- about a quarter-hour a day
saved.

		MS. NADEAU:  Thank you.

		MR. BEAVER:  You're welcome.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Nadeau.

		Any further questions from the audience?

		(No response.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I'll turn it over to OSHA, then.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, thank you.  This is

Bill Perry.

		Mr. Beaver, thank you very much for appearing today.  This is very
interesting.  We do have some questions for you, starting with
Dr. Coble.

		DR. COBLE:  Yes, good afternoon.

		MR. BEAVER:  How are you?

		DR. COBLE:  Thank you very much for coming here today.  And we're very
interested in your technology there.

		Have you seen these in operation at a construction site?  Have you
sold these to construction --

		MR. BEAVER:  You know, currently, we started totally focused on
fracturing --

		DR. COBLE:  Yeah.

		MR. BEAVER:  -- on the hydraulic fracturing.  And because of a little
slower adoption than we wanted, we joined ABC and we started working
with their large contractors, many of whom also own quarries, so they
were aware of the fact, as highway builders and handling lots of
concrete and sand and gravel.  So we've had it out on probably 30
different job sites around -- between fracturing and construction.
Just now at this point --

		DR. COBLE:  Just fracturing and construction, then?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah, yeah.  So construction.  In construction the
highest use right now seems to be around blasting lead paint off of iron
and steel bridges.  And we happen to live in the state with the most
iron and steel bridges, Pennsylvania.  In the world, actually.  And of
course, Pittsburgh Steelers.  So we're finding a lot of adoption at the
end of the spectrum.

		DR. COBLE:  Um-hum.

		MR. BEAVER:  More so than the sand folks right now.

		DR. COBLE:  And we've had some testimony this week that reflect your
comments regarding confusion on what constitutes contaminated clothing.

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  And we, in the preamble summex (ph.), tried to provide
some guidance.

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  You said there was no --

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, yeah.

		DR. COBLE:  -- definition in there, but I think we have tried to make
it clear that these provisions for contaminated clothing wouldn't apply
to any possible contamination.  In other words, just entering a
regulated area, if your clothes don't visibly get any dust on them, you
would not be expected to vacuum yourself off upon entering that area.
Only if there was some substantial accumulation, such that there would
be release of dust moved around.

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  Does that sound consistent with what you would expect
to --

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, not quite, because I wish I had brought my gallon
jar with frack sand in it and show you the Coanda or the light
refraction effect.  I can't remember the exact name of it.

		But essentially, you can shake the jar with a few ounces of sand in
it, which is a 20/40/100 mesh blend.  When you shake it up and hold it
up, no one in this room can see the dust until you turn a light on --
turn the lights off and put a flashlight through it and then you see the
suspended invisible stuff.

		So I would suspect it's the lightest stuff that hurts you and it's the
stuff you can't see that hurts you.  And it's just like pollen.  I would
liken it to pollen, in the size of the stuff.  So I think a visual
inspection is not a good standard, whatsoever.

		DR. COBLE:  So what would be?  If you're not going to go on visual
evidence, how would you determine whether clothing are contaminated?

		MR. BEAVER:  You set up your regulated area based on your
recommendations.  You enter that area and when you come out you get
cleaned.

		DR. COBLE:  Regardless of the duration?

		MR. BEAVER:  Regardless of the duration.

		DR. COBLE:  At construction sites a lot of workers get dirty and their
clothes are dirty all of the time.

		MR. BEAVER:  Um-hum.

		DR. COBLE:  And so how would that work in terms of whether you were
working on a highway crew that had a written access control plan?

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  How are they supposed to know whether it's silica dust or
some other kind of dust?

		MR. BEAVER:  It's like a hard hat, almost.  You know, the more places
that you can assure that you're helping the workers be more comfortable
and get cleaned up, when they go grab a bite to eat, whether it's silica
or not, there's an advantage to showing your workers you care.  And to
treat it like a habitual thing is the best way to get adoption.  If you
start to segregate people -- and actually it will drive the cost down,
because the more people that use it, the lower cost per use.  So I would
say that when in doubt, take a 20-second shower.

		DR. COBLE:  Um-hum.  But there would have to be some sort of
significant risk in order to impose that requirement.

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, I think it goes back to the regulated area.  If you
work in a regulated area and you've determined that that's at an action
level, then you just assume that they should go through it.  If you work
outside the regulated area, don't worry about it.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay, that sounds reasonable.  You have a lot of
experience implementing dust controls.  I mean, you did it for a living
and you've cleaned up --

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  -- hazardous dust.

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  What's your overall feeling regarding the effectiveness of
engineering controls for short-term maintenance tasks?

		We've had a lot of testimony regarding flexibility.  You know, there's
the hierarchy where you would use all feasible controls.  But when
you're into a situation in which you are required to use respirators,
it's because the controls couldn't get you there.

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		DR. COBLE:  Has that been your experience, that you just can't get low
enough using controls?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah.  In the frack industry, the guy who is the belt
maintenance mechanic, the conveyer belt -- it's moving 40,000 pounds of
frack sand a minute.  When one of those belts break, just the spillage
alone, just to crawl underneath and start unbolting things, I mean, you
get grossly contaminated there.  Changing out filters in bag houses.
Changing out seals on pneumatic hoses.

		There are series on frack sites where the maintenance folks will
always be exposed, in my opinion, because it's almost like grinding
equipment and stuff.  You can talk about it a lot, but there's still a
lot.  You know, there's always stuff at that point of impact and the
maintenance guys get the worst.

		DR. COBLE:  And what is a frack house?  You said bag house.

		MR. BEAVER:  I'm sorry.

		DR. COBLE:  No, no.  You said something about the workers coming out
of a frack hotel.

		MR. BEAVER:  Oh, a frack hotel.

		DR. COBLE:  Yeah, what is a frack hotel?

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, basically, they're cropping up in these oil boom
areas like around Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, where a group of investors
got together and said we're not going to cater to traveling salesmen,
we're not going to cater to oil and gas executives.  We're going to
cater to oil and gas workers.

		And so what they've done is they've dedicated two or three rooms on
the first floor for decontamination and laundry.  You know, basically,
before you walk in and traipse through their hotel, you can -- a locker
room -- so you can actually get changed and get showered, throw your
stuff in the laundry.  They have 24-hour food service in a Hampton Inn,
which is unheard of, but because of the way the shifts operate.  So they
call them frack hotels because they've grown up wherever oil and gas is
growing.

		DR. COBLE:  Thank you for that clarification.

		MR. BEAVER:  Sure.

		DR. COBLE:  That's it.

		MR. PERRY:  This is Bill Perry.

		Just one clarification, when you were talking before about your
recommendation for our regulatory language.  And I appreciate you
submitting the redline --

		MR. BEAVER:  Okay.

		MR. PERRY:  -- suggestions on our regulatory text.  You talked about
or recommended to us that we require vacuuming and use of a downdraft
booth.  But it's either/or, correct?

		MR. BEAVER:  And or.  Yes, either/or.  Yeah.

		MR. PERRY:  That's what I'm reading here.  I just wanted to make sure.

		MR. BEAVER:  That they carry an equal level of efficacy and then let
the employer decide which one provides a better value.

		MR. PERRY:  Certainly, okay.  All right, thank you.  I just wanted
to --

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah.

		MR. PERRY:  -- clear that up for the record.

		MR. BEAVER:  Thank you.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Hello.  My name is

Greg Kuczura.  I believe Chuck Gordon actually asked a couple of the
questions that I was going to and I just wanted to go over it real
quick.

		Is it currently that they're only for rent, the use of the showers?

		MR. BEAVER:  Currently, yes.  Yes, we wanted to control the
maintenance and use.  We wanted to study the filter cycle times.

		MR. KUCZURA:  So the maintenance, is that paid for with the rental fee
or --

		MR. BEAVER:  Right, right.  It's built in.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Okay.  So if you were to have a cost of the product when
you sell it, then you'd be able to give a percentage of the maintenance
each

year --

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		MR. KUCZURA:  -- that it costs to run it?

		MR. BEAVER:  Right, right.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Okay, that would be a consideration that would be
helpful.

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah.  And that's part of what we're working on with
Dr. Slagley at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.  This summer, one of
his master's students is doing a paper on just this whole idea of what's
the long-term cost of running this.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Okay.  Okay, great.  Yeah, that's my other question.
Besides that, you mentioned that per worker it was -- you had a price
per worker?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah.  I mean right now, again, this is preliminarily.
We're narrowing down on it.  But if you have about 20 workers going
through it four times a day, it works out to about four bucks a worker a
day.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Oh.

		MR. BEAVER:  If you had 50 workers, it's almost cut in half.  And if
you had 100 workers, it's a little less than a buck a day a worker.  And
that includes electricity you consume.  That includes filter changes.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Oh, it does include the filters?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah, that includes the filter changes, based on our
current knowledge of how often we have to change the filters, based on
about an ounce of dust on each worker going through the process.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Okay, thank you very much.

		MR. BEAVER:  You're welcome.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Hi, Mr. Beaver.

		MR. BEAVER:  Hi, Kris.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Just a couple of questions from me.  Have you done
exposure monitoring to evaluate the levels of silica exposure that are
caused by contaminated clothing?

		MR. BEAVER:  We're relying on the NIOSH study that was done in --
it's attached to our comments.  Dr. Slagley.  That's what he is doing
right now.  So we're comparing not doing anything, vacuuming, and using
an air shower.  And he's doing it with the Air Force, in conjunction
with the hexavalent chromium study.

		But we're able to -- based on the amount of dust and the size of the
particles, we're able to draw some pretty decent conclusions about a
full range of respirable dust.  So we'll have that done this summer.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Okay.  And that should have some information about
silica in it?

		MR. BEAVER:  Yes, yes.  We think that one challenge with the NIOSH
study was they took a pair of work overalls, cotton and polyester work
overalls, and they smeared it with limestone dust and then they weighed
it, and then put it through an air shower and a vacuum system and they
weighed it again.

		Well, the weight of the actual garment was so great compared to this
almost weightless dust that it didn't provide the kind of data that we
feel would be reliable.  So we're doing it.  We're literally counting
particles and measuring it the whole way through, independent of the
weight of the clothing.  So we should be able to provide some really
strong data by the end of summer.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Okay, thank you.  And then just one more.  Does your
company do, or have access to, exposure monitoring data for silica, sort
of generally?

		MR. BEAVER:  Well, Bob Glenn has been involved in doing this for 40
years and we currently are engaged with a number of companies on a
proprietary basis, helping them monitor.  But there's a database being
built and if Bob were here he could speak to it.  API, I believe, is
building a big database.  And the granite folks, perhaps.  And I'm not
sure about NISA.

		But there's a mass -- the National STEPS Network, Rick Ingram at BP,
and the fracking industry, they've been trying to get everybody to put
the data into a blind pool, and it's sponsored by API.  You have to be
an oil and gas producer or a frack company to participate, which we're
not.  Only participants get to see the data.  But for the good of the
order, you know, that would be a good resource because they've been
accumulating it since late last summer.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Okay, I think API is testifying tomorrow.

		MR. BEAVER:  Okay.

		MS. LINDBERG:  So maybe we can ask them.

		MR. BEAVER:  Yeah, I would ask them about -- it's the National STEPS,
S-T-E-P-S, Network.

		MS. LINDBERG:  Okay, thanks a lot.

		MR. BEAVER:  Surely.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes.  In fact, OSHA does participate with that
organization, too.

		MR. BEAVER:  On the standout.

		MR. PERRY:  The steps, yeah.

		MR. BEAVER:  Right.

		MR. PERRY:  I think that's all we have, Your Honor.

		And thank you again, Mr. Beaver, for appearing this afternoon.

		MR. BEAVER:  Thanks for having me.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Beaver.

		Next on the agenda is John Schweitzer from the American Composite
Manufacturers Association.

You're representing the American Composite Manufacturers Association.

		Mr. Schweitzer, you gave me a copy of your testimony before we
started.  I've marked that as Hearing Exhibit 141, and I'll admit that
into the record.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing Exhibit 141 was marked
and received in evidence.)

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Thank you, Your Honor.  I am John Schweitzer, Vice
President of Government Affairs of the American Composite Manufacturers
Association.  ACMA and its members very much appreciate this and other
opportunities to work with OSHA to improve workplace health and safety
in our industry.

		Compared to the previous two speakers, my presentation is very light
on data and long on policy, but mercifully, it's a short presentation.
So don't get too upset.

		ACMA precipitated formal comments to the docket for the respirable
crystalline silica or silica rule back in September.  And I'm going to
take this opportunity to highlight a few of the critical issues we
identified in the formal comments, and briefly describe a composites
industry initiative that we hope will help our industry's many small
companies affordably provide effective protection for their employees.

		The first concern I'd like to address is the proposed exposure limit
and that the proposed exposure limit and action level appear to be near
or below the limit of detection for the analytical procedure.

		If the objective is worker health protection and not just compliance,
it concerns us that it may take several exposure tests to determine with
a reasonable level of confidence that actual exposures are below the 50
µg/m3 work level that meets OSHA's reasonable risk level without having
to take further control or protective action.

		For the many small businesses manufacturing, in my industry, highly
silica-filled polymer products such as utility vaults and engineered
stones, there's often only one employee in the company who is
potentially exposed to silica.  This is the employee who takes the bags
of sand and pours them into the mixing vessel, and at that point liquid
resin is added in.  And until there's -- you know, often that's the
only silica exposure in the plant and there's one employee.

		So the proposal talks about having an industrial hygienist come in and
do five tests at once.  That often is not going to be the case here.
We've got one employee.

		So compared with the uncertainty in the exposure testing and the fact
that the small businesses may only have one employee who's exposed, this
can be an expensive and uncertain proposition for business owners.

		Our second concern today is the proposed requirement to install
engineering controls.  OSHA's approach, as everybody knows, would allow
employers to have employees use respirators to meet the PEL only when
engineering controls have been shown to be infeasible.

		For small business owners, however, the design and installation of
effective control equipment can itself be, again, a very uncertain and
expensive proposition.  These are companies without in-house engineering
staffs and without the resources or even the knowledge necessary to find
and hire a qualified engineer with experience in designing ventilation
systems.  I'm talking here about the exposures where wet cutting or
something else isn't going to do it and where ventilation will be
required as the best option.

		In fact, regulatory requirements for ventilation are often translated
into installed equipment by local HVAC contractors.  These are not folks
typically, in our experience, who are good at getting dust out of the
air.  That's simply not what they do.  And often this installed
equipment proves either to be ineffective in reaching the target level
or, frankly, is a much bigger, more powerful system than they need.

		And so not only is the upfront cost higher, but it draws a lot more
air into the device and out of the plant, meaning that the electricity
costs are higher and the heating cost for the makeup air during the
winter is higher as well.  So this is a risky business for small
business owners.

		So these employers who find themselves with test results indicating
exposures above the PEL may have no certain path to compliance.  The
employer may have no choice but to install a ventilation system and hope
subsequent silica exposure tests show it to be effective in achieving
the PEL.

		In these cases we suggest that the effectiveness and reliability of
respiratory control may be superior.  OSHA's proposed approach, as I
mentioned, would allow respirators if engineering control can be shown
to be infeasible.  But at what point does the employer attempt to show
lack of feasibility, and how would they do this?

		In our view, we're concerned that the proposed exposure test --
install control, exposure test again, maybe install more control,
exposure test again, et cetera -- approach may be, just from the outset
and by definition, infeasible or certainly stress the feasibility for
smaller companies.

		And if you'll forgive a brief aside here, we recall OSHA's recent
proposal to modify its enforcement policy for noise hazards, which
again, in our view, would have established a similar highly uncertain
feasibility test before employers could use personal protective
equipment instead of engineering controls.

		Now, on a different hazard, one of my member companies reported to me
recently having to spend $100,000 for a ventilation system for a
temporary field construction project because OSHA would not allow the
use of respirators to meet the PEL for the volatile organic compounds in
use at his site.

		At the same time many of our companies with longstanding requirements
for all employees in process areas to use respirators report that they
are reliable and effective in protecting workers against excessive
exposures.  For small business, OSHA's implementation of its hierarchy
of control policy seems highly unreasonable and, frankly, often lessens
the willingness of employers to work with OSHA on the shared objective
of protecting employee health and safety.

		And I would like to suggest that, apart from its silica rulemaking,
the Agency consider an effort to work with stakeholders to reassess this
feasibility of control issue and how it's implemented.  And we would
certainly be very willing to participate in that.

		But despite these and other concerns, our industry wants to provide a
constructive response to the potential for silica exposures to impact
the health of our employees.

		Consequently, ACMA has just begun to develop what we call a silica
toolkit that our smaller composites manufacturers can use to affordably
and reliably provide the appropriate workplace protections and hopefully
comply with the final OSHA requirements.  We are now reviewing the
limited silica exposure data already that we have in our industry, and
it is very limited.  And through the balance of this year we're going to
conduct a number of worst-case exposure tests at typical composites
plants.

		So the fellow that I described emptying the bags of sand into the
mixer will inquire to the plant owner -- you know, what if you were
running all out?  How many bags will you do a day -- and try to
replicate the highest exposure and make sure that we know what those
exposure results are.

		The results of our first round of tests will reveal any hotspots for
silica exposure among our typical operations, and we will conduct
additional exposure tests at these sites using control options that we
have come to believe should be affordable and effective, such as wet
cutting of cultured stone slabs or ventilation control where that
appears to be the best option.  We're going to provide OSHA with
frequent updates on our test program and all of the resulting test
reports from the IH consultants and the resulting analysis by our
engineer.

		We anticipate or we are planning that the completed toolkit will
contain exposure factors that our smaller companies will be able to use
as objective data, as allowed under OSHA's proposed approach, to prepare
reliably conservative exposure estimates, thereby avoiding expensive and
uncertain exposure tests.

		So I may have 250 plants in our industry where somebody dumps bags of
sand into a mix vessel.  We're hoping to show that there's no reason for
all of them to do exposure tests if we have data to show that there's a
band of exposures for that operation -- and it is reasonably
conservative -- that they can use to estimate emissions.

		For those operations found in our testing to result in excessive
exposures, the toolkit will describe the controls, demonstrated through
our testing, to reliably provide sufficient exposure reductions.

		So if again using my example of the employee emptying bags of sand, if
we find that an airflow of -- I'm making this up -- 50 feet per minute
through the breathing zone is sufficient to keep the exposures below,
that information will be provided in our toolkit and will give the
business owner a head start in putting in ventilation control or wet
cutting of engineered slabs, et cetera.

		Our silica toolkit will reduce compliance burdens for many smaller
composites manufacturers and, compared to OSHA's proposed approach,
increase workplace protection for employees.

		And I think this is a point -- and I mentioned this earlier -- that
bears repeating.  In our experience, small business owners are much more
likely to embrace and fully implement a health protection and compliance
program that promises at the outset to provide a reliable path to
affordable protection for employees.  To a very large extent, these are
employers and business owners who really want to provide safe workplaces
and they're much happier if the OSHA approach is workable, protective,
and protects against compliance difficulties.  And if that approach
appears not to be workable, then it's hard for them to get past that and
to get on to the other things that they need to do.

		So, in summary, we appreciate the willingness of OSHA to work with us
in the development of our silica compliance toolkit and for the Agency's
flexibility in considering a cost-effective approach to protecting the
employees of smaller companies.

		And I do thank you very much for this opportunity to provide these
comments.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you very much,

Mr. Schweitzer.

		I'll open it up to the audience for questions.  Let's see a show of
hands.  Anyone have any questions?

		(No response.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the OSHA Panel.

		MR. PERRY:  Thank you, Your Honor.

		And, Mr. Schweitzer, thank you very much for appearing today and
testifying.  So, yes, we do have a few questions for you.

		MR. KUCZURA:  My name is Greg Kuczura.  I just have one question.

		You mentioned that you're reviewing the objective data that you
received from companies.  Have you noticed any occurrence in this where
the exposures are above the current PEL?

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Again, it's very limited data, it's from a small
handful of plants, and I can't even attest to the quality of the
sampling because we were not involved in that.  One of the things we
want to do with our test program is to have supervision on the site of
the collection samples, et cetera, to make sure that the procedure is
being done.

		Most of the exposures are considerably below 50 µg/m3, but we have a
few cases that I've seen where just on a casual review it seems that if
this plant was running full out and this employee was doing this for an
eight-hour shift, we would be in danger of crossing that 50 µg/m3 line.
 But again, it's such a small set of data that I have no idea how
representative that is across our industry.

		Many of the composite products, like what we call polymer concrete,
are highly filled with sand and/or crushed quartz and they're often
ground or cut as part of the fabrication process.  So we're aware of the
potential for airborne silica in these facilities and we want to make
sure we get the right answers.

		MR. KUCZURA:  All right, thank you.

		DR. COBLE:  This is Joe Coble.  And I very much appreciate the
testimony you submitted.  You gave a nice description of your process
and your manufacturing involved with silica.  You talked a little bit
about fillers and that would be the --

		(Crosstalk.)

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Well, there's a -- right, there are a number of
composite products.  Typically, a composite is a reinforcing fiberglass
or carbon and an engineered polymer system, epoxy, polyester,
polyurethane, thermoplastic polymers.  In many applications it makes
sense to add an inorganic filler.  Aluminum trihydrate provides fire
resistance.

		For a lot of applications that are not truly structural applications,
like residential tub/showers, you don't need the strength that you do in
a highway bridge beam, for example, and you can essentially bulk out the
resin with a filler.  It could be calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate.
Some of the calcium carbonates that are available, which is limestone,
really do contain up to 5 percent crystalline silica just as a natural
presence in the limestone formation.

		And so again, we want to make sure that -- and something like a
typical tub/shower unit that you would buy to remodel your bathroom, the
formula for that is up to 50 percent filler.  It helps with the fire
retardants for a residential installment.  And so there's a fair amount
of filler; calcium carbonate in this case, possibly, or calcium sulfate.
 And if it has 5 percent -- if that would have 5 percent crystalline
silica in it and the plant is using quite a bit of that material, again,
we want to be -- we want to make sure we know whether or not that 5
percent silica contamination level in the filler can trigger an exposure
concern.

		In other cases I mentioned, the filler itself is a silica material,
like sand or crushed quartz, and a lot of these materials are used
interchangeably, depending on the needs of the customer.  It's not
unusual to find a plant that today is making vanity tops for bathrooms
and they're using all kinds of special fillers to provide an aesthetic
appearance, and then the next week they'll be making utility vaults that
are going to go underground for phone line junctions and that kind of
thing.  And that's almost always sand and there are really no aesthetic
requirements for that at all.

		You know, there are a lot of different combinations of materials that
we want to be concerned about and make sure that we understand.  We
don't want to be in the position of implying to our industry that
something is not a concern only because we haven't tested it.  So we
want to be careful that we identify at least most of the potential
silica exposure scenarios in our plant and provide a reasonably
exhaustive set of data, a comprehensive set of data, so business owners
have some certainty that if they rely on it, that it's reliable.

		DR. COBLE:  And did I understand that it was your intention, once that
data is compiled, to submit for the record what the results were?

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Yes, I anticipate that at the end of phase one, where
we're going to test our -- try to find and test worst-case scenarios,
then we're going to come in and sit down with the Agency and go over
that.  First of all, it's to make sure that before we go out and do more
testing, that we're not missing some opportunities that you could help
us identify to make sure that we're providing a reasonably complete
product.  I don't know if that's going to be in time for it to be on the
record, technically, but we'll -- you know, it just takes a while to
get these things going.

		I do have at this point a list of about a dozen facilities that have
volunteered to participate.  I have a consultant on board who is
starting to set up.  They're all over the country, so he's got to find
IH people locally and try to qualify them to make sure that they can do
the testing properly, et cetera, and then get in to do the testing and
everything.  It just is going to take a while.

		DR. COBLE:  Oh, sure.  And it's mostly for your own purposes, not so
much to support the rulemaking at all.  You just want to know what those
levels are and you're doing that to dig a base that your members --

		(Crosstalk.)

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Correct, correct.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay, thank you.  What types of dust controls are
currently in place in these operations?  I mean, you mentioned a bagging
operation where they're dumping.  And is that a ventilated --

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  We do, for a lot of our products, grinding and
cutting of the molded product and there's a lot of dust.  So it's not
uncommon to have a ventilation system, either a grinding booth with a
bag house attached to it or a general ventilation system.

		But frankly, that's been more from a housekeeping perspective than an
employee health protection perspective.  So I don't know -- we don't
know at this point to what extent those would protect against, you know,
the 50 µg/m3 silica level.

		DR. COBLE:  Um-hum.  And you indicated that there is some use of
respirators now.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  We use a lot of respirators for organic vapor
protection.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  We have not used them except, again, as sort of to
protect against nuisance dust -- for dusts -- and that it would be
just the paper mask filters that the employees would want to use just
for their own comfort at this point.

		DR. COBLE:  And what about the downstream users of these products.
Countertops, I think, come to mind in terms of a contractor drills that.
 Have you evaluated the potential for exposures there from those?

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  No, but some of that happens in our manufacturing
plants and that will be part of our testing.  So we will have data about
that.

		You know, the dust from the grinding and sanding of the molded product
is also combustible.  We've already started to get in the habit of
talking to our customers about combustible dust hazards, and if it turns
out that there's a silica exposure hazard, then we'll get on board with
that, as well.

		Most of our products, to the extent that they're mechanically worked
downstream, it's on a job site.  You know, the contractor will come in
with a countertop and he'll have to drill a hole in it for the soap
dispenser.  It's not an assembly line thing where there's going to be a
lot of dust generated over a period of time, so hopefully those
exposures will be low enough that we don't need to be concerned about
that.  But we're going to try to find out.

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

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, this Bill Perry.  I do have a few questions for you.

		I think in your written testimony you say that you have 200 -- there
are 200 establishments that make the kinds of products that you are
talking about.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  I think I said there were 200 that made what we call
highly filled cast polymer, like engineered stone.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, yes.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  And then there's another 100 that make, like,
tub/shower units that are fiberglass laminates with a high filler
content.  So there would be 300 facilities in the country, to our
knowledge, that are likely to use, in one way or another,
silica-containing materials.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  And those are all members of your association?

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Oh, no.

		MR. PERRY:  No, they're not.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Looking at, when we've been able to do so, the
customer lists of some of our supplier companies, we estimate that there
are 3,000 business locations that are in the business of making
composites.  There are probably a lot more than that when you think that
a lot of large plants have a fiberglass shot-back to do repairs and that
kind of thing, but they're not in the business of making a composite
product.

		So 3,000 companies and 3,000 business locations.  So there are 3,000
facilities.  And we have about 500 member companies.  So we've got

maybe --

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  -- one-sixth, which I'd have to say, as an
association staffer, that's pretty good.

		MR. PERRY:  Agree.  Okay, thank you.  And so all of these companies
are using a variety of different fillers.  You mentioned calcium
carbonate, was it?

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Yes.

		MR. PERRY:  That's one of the common --

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Right, calcium carbonate, which is limestone.  Many
of the limestone formations have crystalline silica naturally occurring
in them.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  Do they all use what I would consider to be high
quartz-containing materials like sand or --

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  No, no.  The companies that use a lot of sand are for
applications such as utility vaults and engineered stone products more
for industrial applications.  You're not likely to make a vanity top
highly filled with sand.  It's not going to look pretty.  So there's
probably a small fraction of those 200 highly filled cast polymer
companies that use sand.

		The trick is, though, that a company that's making vanity tops with a
non-silica containing filler can have somebody wander in and say, hey,
can you make 100 of these utility vaults for me?  He's got all the
process equipment and he knows how to make the system work and he could
be in the sand processing business in a couple of weeks.  You know, it's
hard to say specifically which plants do this and which don't.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  All right.  So you're doing this exposure study now
for your members.  So it sounds like you found your members to be pretty
receptive to ACMA kind of coordinating the study --

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Yes.

		MR. PERRY:  -- and collecting all of the data --

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Right.

		MR. PERRY:  -- through a database to be used by the members.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  One of the things that we try to do for our industry
that's primarily comprised of small companies is to be their EH and S
resource to the extent that we can.  So we have an ANSI standard that
allows companies to estimate their output smokestack emissions of many
of the substances.  And we put that together and then our small
companies can use that to file -- to apply for air permits or their TRI
reports or whatever.

		And so I think for a couple of decades we've been in the business and
our industry has come to appreciate that.  So yes, I think there's a
high degree of acceptance of us being in that role.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay, very good.  Let's see.  Do you know if any of your
members have used OSHA's consultation program to address --

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Yes, yes.

		MR. PERRY:  -- silica exposures?

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Oh, for silica exposures.

		MR. PERRY:  I mean for silica specifically.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  No, I doubt it, because I think, frankly, aside from
the handful of companies that are, on a regular basis, processors of
sand and crushed quartz, that none of them have ever thought about
silica exposures before now.

		MR. PERRY:  Right.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  So I'd be surprised to find that to be the case.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.  The last thing I'll ask you to think about -- you
know, I don't expect that you would want to give me an answer right now.
 But one thing that OSHA will typically consider at this stage in our
rulemaking -- and we've heard it from a few other people during these
proceedings -- is the use of a phase-in for the engineering control
requirement.

		OSHA has often done that in past standards so that you don't have to
have your engineering controls in, in 90 days.  I think we proposed one
year.  We've heard from a few people that in some situations that may
not be enough time.

		So I would just ask you maybe to give that some thought and check with
your members and we would invite you to comment on, in post-hearing
comments, what kind of a phase-in you think would be helpful.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  I will.  You know, because we have experience both
with ventilation and respirator control because of organic vapors, our
employers know that ventilation control, where it's practical and
feasible, is preferable.  You come in and you turn the switch on and
then you don't -- you know, you've got to change the filters and check
the airflow, et cetera, but it's fairly reliable.  And even with the
most understanding and willing workforce, keeping a respiratory
protection program going is a job.

		You know, I made a pitch for allowing us to use respiratory
protection.  I'm not saying that would be easy for us to do and not a
big pain, but I'm saying that's likely to be more effective for
protecting employees than throwing the business owner in this possibly
no-win situation of taking a guess and installing ventilation control
that may or may not work at great expense.

		MR. PERRY:  Okay.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  We will talk about the phased-in approach, too.
Thank you.

		MR. PERRY:  Yes, that would be helpful to us.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Yes.

		MR. PERRY:  So I think that's all we have, Your Honor.

		And thank you again, Mr. Schweitzer, for testifying today.

		MR. SCHWEITZER:  Thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Schweitzer.

		Next on the agenda is the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association -- Angus Crane.  Mr. Crane.  Thank you.  And, Mr. Crane,
I'll ask you to introduce yourself and your colleague.

		MR. CRANE:  Your Honor, OSHA Panel, and ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Angus Crane.  I'm Executive Vice President and General Counsel for
the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, or NAIMA.  And
with me is Steve Aldridge from Knauf Insulation, one of NAIMA's members.
 And Steve is Knauf's Regional Environmental Health And Safety Manager
for all of Knauf's U.S. facilities.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Crane.  And do you have a PowerPoint
presentation associated with your presentation?

		MR. CRANE:  No.  No, Your Honor.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Whenever you're ready, you may proceed.

		MR. CRANE:  Okay.  And you received my comments, correct?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Yes, I did.

		MR. CRANE:  Or my testimony.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  In fact, I've marked that as Hearing Exhibit 142, and
that will be admitted into the record.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing Exhibit 142 was marked
and received in evidence.)

		MR. CRANE:  Okay, thank you.  We greatly appreciate the opportunity to
present this testimony before OSHA, and to tell specific issues that
this industry has with the proposed crystalline silica exposure
standard.  We also recognize that this is a unique opportunity that not
all federal agencies allow.  And so OSHA, we're particularly grateful
that we have the opportunity not only to submit written comments but to
then present this testimony.

		We are here on behalf of NAIMA's fiberglass insulation manufacturers
and that includes CertainTeed, Guardian Building Products, Knauf
Insulation, Johns Manville, and Owens Corning.  And we also are here on
behalf of our rock and slag wool insulation manufacturers, which include
Armstrong World Industries, Industrial Insulation Group, Johns Manville,
Rockwell Manufacturing, Roxul, Thermafiber, Owens Corning, and USG
Interiors.

		Essentially, I'm going to, during this presentation, make six main
points and our first point is that the mineral wool industry cannot
reduce all worker exposure levels through engineering and work practice
controls.  And this is based on our thorough analysis of the industry
and our collection of silica exposure data.

		We want to point out that when OSHA did analyze the mineral wool
industry, they did not actually have any data that was directly from
this industry, but instead they included our industry within a general
glass industry category which was not representative of the mineral wool
industry.

		Fiberglass insulation manufacture workers are potentially exposed to
crystalline silica in two different ways.  First, we use a silica sand,
which is an essential raw material to make glass.  So that's the first
potential exposure.  And the second is the infrequent rebuilding of
melters and furnaces with refractories that may contain varying amounts
of crystalline silica.

		And as detailed in NAIMA's written comments, the industry has already
implemented many of OSHA's identified engineering controls and work
practices that are feasible, but yet still have some workers with
short-term infrequent exposures above the proposed PEL.

		I want to talk about two different categories of potential exposures
and specifically the proposals that OSHA has made.

		One is with what I would call our typical manufacturing process.  In
that category, OSHA has identified various engineering controls and work
practices, including one using clean larger rounded grain sand
containing fewer fine particles.  A second is enclosing and ventilating
all sand conveyers and transfer points, and third, installing pneumatic
sand conveyance systems instead of conveyer belts.

		With regards to the second category where there is potential exposure,
which is the furnace rebuilds, OSHA identifies various engineering
controls and work practices, including substitution of high silica
refractories with low silica-content refractory materials and precast
refractory shapes.  And I'd like to address those specific proposals.

		From our perspective, none of these identified controls are actually
technologically feasible and OSHA has presented no evidence to the
contrary.

		First, the industry already purchases washed sand and has evaluated
the optimal grain size and shape necessary to efficiently and safely
operate and correctly manufacture specific products.  So our perspective
is that the industry has been at this for 80 years and we know what kind
of sand we have to use in order to make our different products.  And
we're not really in a position to substitute.  What we're using is the
best we can do and it's for a specific purpose.

		With regards to the other proposal on enclosing conveyers and transfer
points that transport batch raw materials from unloading to the furnace,
facilities needing to add ventilation to these conveying systems will
actually trigger environmental permitting requirements for point-source
emissions and this requires significant lead time for engineering
design, procurement, and regulatory permitting.  And so in addition to
that, we've got many of our facilities that are already using that kind
of enclosure.

		Third, with regards to installation of the pneumatic conveyance
systems, the conveyance systems

-- the pneumatic conveyance systems are not necessarily a superior or
even feasible alternative to the enclosed mechanical conveyance systems.
 In fact, while some of our companies do use them, we had one facility,
who was using them, actually remove the pneumatic conveyance systems
because of a variety of performance problems.

		I'm going to ask Mr. Aldridge to share that experience with you on
the pneumatic system.

		MR. ALDRIDGE:  Just a few points to make.  Mechanical systems --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And for the record, this is Mr. Aldridge speaking.

		MR. ALDRIDGE:  Just relative to mechanical conveyance systems, they're
more reliable when compared to a pneumatic system, where there would be
a higher frequency of maintenance, which potentially would have a higher
frequency of exposure due to the maintenance activities.

		Pneumatic conveying causes size segregation and then, therefore,
material segregation.  As the material is moving through the system,
smaller and lighter gets separate from larger and heavier.  A

non-homogeneous batch delivered to the furnace drastically impacts
quality and chemistry of the glass.

		Over the last years, large investment has been made in more efficient
modern mechanical conveyance batch houses.  Modern mechanical batch
houses have dust control at the material transfer points.  And while
pneumatic systems aren't necessarily more costly to install, they are
significantly more expensive to operate due to the high use of
compressed air, meaning more energy, and there higher maintenance costs
due to the transfer pipe erosion and so on -- and reliability, as
mentioned.

		MR. CRANE:  Thank you, Steve.

		And the comments that Steve has just shared with you will be included
in our post-hearing comments and we'll give those details.

		With regards to the other item that we were talking about in
connection with the furnace rebuild, we would like to point out that
OSHA actually lacks the legal authority to require mandatory
substitution of universally used high silica refractories with low
silica refractories.

		Refractories vary as to their chrome and silica content, and for a
reason.  Refractories are designed to withstand high temperature and the
corrosive nature of the glass melt.  And thus, the refractories used in
furnace channel and four-hearth construction are based on their ability
to withstand this harsh environment and for longevity of use.  And this
ultimately protects workers from an outbreak of molten glass.  And in
some instances that will mean the refractory is almost entirely chrome
and others may be a combination of chrome and silica.

		But the content of the refractories cannot be modified without
compromising their intended function, which is containing a molten glass
and protecting the workers.

		And, again, this is something that we've been at for 80 years and
we've worked it out so that we know what the refractories need to
contain.

		So what we're asking on these specific things that we've just
addressed is that OSHA recognizes that we have done everything that we
can, and the sand and the refractories and these other things that we're
talking about, we have gotten it down to a science and it can't be
tampered with.  So we ask that OSHA forego imposing any of these
additional engineering controls and recognize that what we're doing is
very effective.

		Also we would like to point out that the respirable crystalline silica
exposure for some tasks that occur infrequently and are of short
duration -- and that's maintenance tasks and furnace rebuilds -- have
not been eliminated and cannot be feasibly eliminated with further
engineering controls.  And for these operations, respiratory protection
and work practices are necessary in order to protect the workers.  So
that's our first point.

		Our second point is with regards to the requirement to implement
engineering and work practices controls.  And this I'm going to do in
two different phases.

		What we would like -- because we have these short-term tasks and
infrequent jobs, we'd like for there to be, for our industry, a 30-day
trigger; that if the job or the work doesn't go beyond 30 days, that
there is no need to implement the engineering controls.  We would use
respiratory protection and other work practices for these non-routine or
infrequent jobs such as maintenance work.

		Now, in November of last year, NAIMA began the creation of a database
for collection of respirable silica exposure for the fiberglass and rock
and slag wool industry, and thus far NAIMA has collected -- we say in
this several hundred, but this is an ongoing process.  We're up to over
500 and we will continue to grow this database.  And it shows the
varying durations and dating back more than 10 years in complying with
this database.

		Now, NAIMA members' exposure monitoring demonstrates that certain
non-routine and infrequent job functions and tasks involve exposures to
crystalline silica that exceed the proposed action level and PEL.  And a
preliminary review of the samples approved for database inclusion
indicates that, on average, exposures for routine day-to-day
manufacturing operations are below the proposed PEL, and that certain
non-routine and infrequent jobs and tasks have exposures which may
exceed the proposed PEL.

		And there are also some routine jobs of limited duration that may
exceed the PEL, such as batch house maintenance and specific repairs and