ATLANTA Corporate Headquarters

3945 Lakefield Court Suwanee, GA 30024

(770) 866-3200 FAX (770) 866-3259

REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT

THE USE OF GARLOCK ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PACKING & SHEET

GASKETS ON INDUSTRIAL and MARINE FLANGES and VALVES

William E. Longo, Ph.D.

April 10, 2013

LOS ANGELES 3020 OL D RA NC H PARKWAY SUITE 3 00 SEAL BEACH, CA 9 0 740 (5 62 ) 799-55 30 FAX (562) 799 -553 1

WWW.MASTEST.COM

Table of Contents

1.0 Background

2.0 Lambertus Hesselink, Ph.D ., February 8, 2013 Expert Report

3.0 Kenneth Still, PhD., CIH, February 8, 2013 Expert Report

4.0 Environ International Corporation , February 2013 Expert Report

Front Cover Photograph: Portable pad insulation on a steam valve taken on the USS Lexington.

2

1.0 Background

I was requested to prepare an expert report related to potential worker exposures to airborne asbestos fibers from both the fabrication of new asbestos-containing Garlock gaskets as well as the removal of old asbestos-containing Garlock gaskets from elevated temperature and pressure flange systems. My expert report also described the potential exposures to airborne asbestos fibers from the removal and replacement of asbestos-containing Garlock packing materials. My initial Expert Report entitled "The Use of Garlock Asbestos-Containing Packing & Sheet Gaskets on Industrial and Marine Flanges and Valves was submitted on February 5, 2013, and is attached as a reference to this report. 1

I have reviewed three expert reports that were submitted on behalf of Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC: 1) a report by Dr. Lambertus Hesselink dated February 8, 2013, 2) a report by Dr. Kenneth R. Still dated February 8, 2013 and 3) a report by Environ dated February 2013.2.3.4

This Rebuttal Report responds to a number of assertions dealing with both exposure issues to thermal insulation and gaskets as well as stated misrepresentations concerning my research involving asbestos-containing gaskets. Also included in this rebuttal report is an extensive review of the Tyndall lighting and video camera system used in our Gasket Work Practice Studies in response to Dr. Hesselink's opinions.

I have also reviewed the February 7, 2013 John Henshaw Garlock report for this matter.5 My review and criticisms are not contained in this report since the various points that Mr. Henshaw has made were covered in my February 8, 2013 Expert Report and in this Rebuttal Report .

Dr. Lambertus Hesselink

In Dr. Hesselink's February 8, 2013 report, he states that the high intensity lighting (Tyndall) used in our studies cannot produce enough light scattering intensity from respirable asbestos fibers to the degree required to be recorded on

1 W. Long o, "The Use of Garlock Asbestos-Containing Packing & Sheet Gaskets on Industrial and Marine Flanges and Valves. Expert Report, February 5. 2013. 'L.H. Hassel ink; "Whether Respirable-Sized Asbestos Particles are Visible under Tyndall Lighting Recorded by an Off-The-Shelf Video Camera:, Expert Report. February 8, 2013. 3 K.R. Still, "Report for Estimation Hearing" Expert Report, February 8,2013. 4 F. Boelter, "Pipefitter Exposure Assessment" Expert Report, February 2013. 5 J.L. Henshaw, "Asbestos Exposure Assessment-Estimates of Exposure by Industry and Occupational Code for Gaskets and Packing Work and Bystander Exposure to Asbestos­Containing Insulation PrOducts".

3

the video cameras that we used in our studies. Dr. Hesselink bases his opinion on some calculations he did , and an "experiment" where he glued a single chrysotile bundle on a metal plate, and then recorded the amount of light scattered off of this fiber using either a laser light source, or a 100 watt light bulb.

Dr. Hesselink concludes the following from his own work:

1. The video equipment used in our studies is not sensitive enough to record any light scattering off of airborne respirable asbestos fibers that were released during our MAS Gasket IV Study.

2. What is actually depicted in the MAS Gasket IV Study video by the Tyndall lighting light scattering are particles that are in the size range of tens to hundreds of rnicrons in diameter.

These two key opinions by Dr. Hesselink are wrong based on the actual air data collected during the MAS Gasket IV study in conjunction with the use of Tyndall lighting and our video recording carneras. The reason that Dr. Hesselink's report is erroneous is as follows:

OSHA Respirable Asbestos Fibers

The first point to rnake is that Dr. Hesselink may be an eminent physicist, but he has no experience or expertise in the rneasurement and analysis of asbestos fibers, or airborne particulates as he testified to in a recent deposition 6 In that deposition , he stated that no breathable asbestos fibers can be seen in our videos under Tyndall lighting, and that I did not provide any evidence to suggest otherwise.

However, what Dr. Hesselink failed to do, was actually look at the air sample data collected during the MAS Gasket IV Study showing that all of the collected asbestos fibers were in the OSHA respirable size range. If Dr. Hesselink had examined the analytical data, he would have seen that the dust cloud visualized by the Tyndall lighting setup used in our MAS Gasket Study IV contained only "respirable" size range asbestos fibers .

Respirable fibers are defined here as the asbestos fiber size as deemed irnportant by OSHA for the determination of occupational exposures to asbestos. All of the chrysotile fibers measured by the NIOSH 7402 method (TEM) in the MAS Gasket IV Study meet this definition.

• Deposition of Lambertus Hesselink, February 27, 2013; Rose-Marie Grigg and Martin Grigg v. Allied Packing & Supply, et a/., In Ihe Superior Court of the State of California in and for the Counly of Alameda.

4

Our air sampling data collected during the MAS Gasket IV study analyzed by the NIOSH 7402 method (TEM) showed an average chrysotile fiber length of approximately 8 to 10 microns long and 0.6 to 0.8 microns wide. All of the chrysotile fibers measured by the NIOSH 7402 method (TEM) in the MAS Gasket IV Study met this criterion.

Total Particulate Size Distribution

Dr. Hesselink's opinion that in our MAS Gasket Study IV, the particulate high intensity light scattering (Tyndall effect) recorded by our video cameras could only have been caused by an airborne particulate size distribution that was "tens to hundreds of microns in size" is wrong. This opinion by Dr. Hesselink is rebutted by actual air sample data collected during the MAS Gasket IV Study. This data consisted of a total airborne particulate analysis measurement from three midget impinger air samples collected during the gasket removal activity that were analyzed by an independent lab. This data had always been contained in our Gasket IV Study, and could have been easily reviewed by Dr. Hesselink.

The air sampling total particulate analysis results for the MAS Gasket IV Study showed that 99% of the airborne particles in the Tyndall video recorded dust cloud were less than or equal to 10 microns in size. No more than 0.1 % of the particles were greater than 15 microns. The number of particles greater than 20 microns and less than 80 microns was only 0.03%. No particles were found in the air samples greater than 80 micrometers in diameter. The "tens to hundreds of microns" particle size distribution predicted by Dr. Hesselink did not exist in the dust cloud shown on our video recordings of the high intensity light scattering. Therefore, his bench experiment conclusions and calculations must be wrong.

Without actually duplicating Dr. Hesselink's bench experiment, a thorough critique on why his data produced erroneous results cannot be done. However, looking at the differences between his experiment and our actual study may shed some light on the problem with Dr. Hesselink's results.

First, it is unclear how a single chrysotile bundle glued to a metal surface actually relates to the Tyndall lighting setup in our Eel, and to the actual concentrations of asbestos fibers released into the air during the MAS Gasket IV Study. Dr. Hesselink used only one 100 watt light bulb in his bench top experiment, while our MAS Gasket IV Study used three 750 watt tungsten halogen high intensity lamps to illuminate (light scatter) the airborne asbestos gasket particles in the dust cloud caused by the gasket removal process.

5

Second, Dr. Hesselink performed his light scattering measurements with only one stationary chrysotile fiber, and the total amount of airborne asbestos released in the ECl during the gasket removal process can be conservatively estimated to be within a range of 75 to 150 million asbestos fibers. This meets the OSHA respirable fiber size criteria. This fiber concentration data from the Gasket IV Study was from gasket removal performed by either hand wire brushing or power grinding.

These differences in Dr. Hesselink's bench top experiment (single 100 watt light bulb & single chrysotile bundle) compared to what actually happened in our Gasket IV Study (three 750 watt lamps and many millions of chrysotile bundles) may account for Dr. Hesselink's erroneous conclusions.

Pouring of Raw Chrysotile

If Dr. Hesselink's opinion is correct, that no breathable chrysotile bundles in our Gasket IV Study can cause enough light scattering (Tyndall effect) to be recorded by our video cameras, then a dust cloud containing no larger than OSHA size respirable chrysotile bundles should be invisible with our Tyndall lighting/video camera setup. According to Dr. Hesselink, if there is any light scattering recorded by our video cameras from only chrysotile asbestos, then the measured size distribution of chrysotile fibers in the dust cloud must be in the tens to hundreds of microns.

An easy way to test Dr. Hesselink's theory is to generate a dust cloud with only 7M chrysotile in our ECl while using the MAS Tyndall lighting setup and recording with the same types of video cameras used in our Gasket IV Study. Also, during this study if air samples are collected and analyzed by the NIOSH 7400 (PCM) and 7402 (TEM) methods, then the chrysotile fiber size distribution data can be correlated with Tyndall light scattering.

One such study was done by MAS in September of 2005 entitled the "Pouring of Raw Chrysotile Fiber Work Practice Study,,7 For this study, we poured 50 pounds of 7M chrysotile (GAF) into a large container. This work activity produced a visible dust cloud that was recorded with our video cameras under Tyndall lighting. The air samples were analyzed by the NIOSH 7400 (PCM) and NIOSH 7402 (TEM). For the 7402 TEM method, the size of the chrysotile fibers were recorded which showed an average length of approximately 8 to 10 microns long and 0.8 to 1.0 microns wide. Also, all measured chrysotile fibers were in the size range that OSHA deems important for occupation exposure assessments to asbestos.

7 MAS Work Practice Study "Pouring of Raw Chrysotile Fiber", Sept. 2005, study and video.

6

Since all of the measured airborne chrysotile fibers were in the OSHA respirable (breathable) size range, and there were no other materials except raw chrysotile being used for this study, it is obvious that Dr. Hesselink's opinions are again wrong due to the fact that the Tyndall airborne dust cloud is clearly visible on the images taken by our video cameras, and the chrysotile fiber size distributions are all in the defined OSHA respirable range.

Cigarette Smoke

To further determine if the MAS Tyndall effect can cause light to scatter off of respirable size particulates with enough intensity to be recorded by our video cameras, we generated cigarette smoke/vapor in our ECl under Tyndall lighting and recorded the smoke/vapor with our video camera setup. This study was specifically done to further resolve if Dr. Hesselink's MAS Tyndall lighting Garlock opinions have any merit.

Respirable cigarette smoke typically has an average particulate size that is less than one micron in diameter by definition. According to Dr. Hesselink, this size range of airborne particulates should not scatter enough light under our Tyndall lighting setup to be recorded on our video cameras. Our MAS cigarette smoke/vapor Tyndall lighting study proved otherwiseB In this study, both a conventional cigarette and an electronic cigarette (non-smoke vapor) were smoked in the ECl under both normal and Tyndall lighting, video tape recorded, and the released smoke/vapor particles produced were measured at the same time with an AeroTrack Handheld Airborne Particle Counter (Model 9306 particle analyzer). The average particle size measured for the conventional cigarette was 1.0 microns, and for the electronic cigarette the size was 0.5 microns.

The study and video attached to this report again clearly showed that respirable particulates with average particle sizes of 0.5 to 1.0 microns can produce significant amounts of light scattering to be visible and recorded by our video cameras.

The chrysotile fiber size distribution and the total particulate size distribution analysis in the MAS Gasket IV Study, the MAS Pouring of Raw Chrysotile Study, and the MAS Cigarette SmokeNapor Particle Size Study, all demonstrate that Dr. Hesselink's opinions are wrong concerning the MAS Tyndall lighting in conjunction with our video recordings taken during our gasket work practice studies.

8 G.H. Pineda, M.D. Mount and W.E. Longo "The Visual Assessment and Video Confirmation of Aerosols Produced from Cigarette Smoke using Tyndall Light Scattering Techniques", March 28, 2013

7

Dr. Kenneth R. Still

Thermal Insulation Exposure

Dr. Still's Garlock report provided opinions concerning the potential exposures to airborne asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing thermal inSUlation to pipefitters and machinists in maritime (Navy) work environments. As stated in my expert report, there is a potential for some thermal insulation exposure by Navy pipefitters and machinists, but not nearly to the extent and magnitude stated by Dr. Still.

The thermal insulation studies referenced by Dr. Still in his report are good indicators to what asbestos levels typical insulators are exposed, but not to Navy pipefitters and machinists, since it was not their job to perform thermal insulation installation, or removal work activities. This type of extensive thermal insulation tear out work was usually only performed by either shipyard or contractor insulators, and usually during overhauls.

One of the main points that Dr. Still made in his report is that pipefitters and machinists would routinely have to remove multi-layer, hard thermal insulation that would completely cover the high temperature valves, and therefore would have had asbestos exposures similar to insulators. This opinion by Dr. Still is not credible, and should be disregarded for the following reasons:

As stated in my February 2013 Expert Report, I have reviewed numerous depositions of Navy pipefitters and machinists who have testified under oath about job duties while in the Navy. None of these pipefitters ever testified that they were required to perform large scale, thermal insulation tear-out and replacement to any degree that would have produced airborne exposure levels as reported in the various studies citied by Dr. Still, as well as the Boelter 2013 study.

Also, I do not recall one instance where a pipefitter or machinist ever testified that he had to use a ball-peen hammer to remove asbestos-containing, multi-layer, thermal insulation materials from any valve while aboard a Navy ship while at sea. They typically stated that to get access to a valve on a Navy ship, they would only have to remove a prefabricated pad around the valve by either cutting wires or by removing the grommets holding the pad on the valve.

Since the late 1950's to the very early 1960's, the Navy replaced the multi-layer thermal insulation around the valves with what are called portable prefabricated padding. With these portable insulation pads, the machinists and pipefitters

8

would only have to cut the wires holding the pad in place, and then remove the pad to gain access to the valve. The potential asbestos exposure during this work procedure would be expected to be very low, as compared to the removal of hard insulation, as in the Boelter study. Examples of these portable pads can be seen in the attached photographs to this report that were taken by my group during our visit to the USS Lexington aircraft carrier in 2010 9 Every insulated valve that I observed on that ship was covered with these types of portable pads.

I have had a recent conversation with Roger Beckett, former head of the Industrial Hygiene Branch, Occupational Environmental Health Services, NRMC Bremerton Shipyard on March 19, 2013 concerning the use of portable valve coverings at this shipyard facility. Mr. Beckett told me that from the very early 1960's, all elevated temperature valves on Navy ships were insulated with these portable pads that were secured around the valve with either grommets or wires. What he called hard lagging (multi-layer, thermal insulation materials) was never used on valves after that time frame.

Mr. Beckett also told me that the reason the Navy changed from the hard lagging valve insulation to portable pads was for the ease of access to the valves, thereby eliminating the large amount of dust and debris associated with removal of hard thermal insulation materials (block and insulating cements). Mr. Beckett further stated that it was only on some WWII era vessels where you might find some of these multi-layer, thermal insulation systems on the valves, but this was not a common occurrence at the shipyard.

I also had a recent conversation with Mr. Jim Shoemaker who started working at the Newport News Shipyard in 1961 .'0 Mr. Shoemaker was assigned to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in 1977, and then in 1988 he was promoted to Production Superintendent of the Shipyard Pipe Shop (1200 employees). He was responsible for all nuclear and non-nuclear pipe fitting, pipe testing and pipe insulation performed by the shipyard . Mr. Shoemaker told me that from the time he started in Newport News in 1961 , he never saw a ship that had this multi­layer, hard thermal insulation on any valves. He only saw portable pads used to insulate the high temperature valves.

In our discussion about the portable valve inSUlation pads, Mr. Shoemaker went on to describe how the pads themselves were big enough to cover 4" or so of the pipe that was flanged up to the valve . He said that this eliminated the need to run the pipe covering all the way up to the flange on the pipe itself since it was covered by the pad. When the machinist or pipefitter removed the portable

9 Photographs from the USS Lexing ton Aircraft Carrier showing portable pads around steam valves. 10 James H. Shoemaker Resume

9

valve pad, the flange bolts holding the valve in place could be removed without disturbing any of the thermal insulation.

As with Mr. Beckett, Mr. Shoemaker stated that the reason the Navy quit using the hard lagging around the valves was for ease of access to the valve, and to eliminate the problem of the dust and debris associated with removal of the hard lagging. These statements by both Mr. Beckett and Mr. Shoemaker concerning the use of the portable valve insulation pads is consistent with the testimony of the many Naval pipefitters and machinists that I have reviewed in the past.

Mr. Shoemaker also told me that every pipefitter at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard carried a powered grinder in their tool box for gasket removal. Mr. Shoemaker stated that the use of a wire brush grinder to remove gaskets did not damage the flange surface.

It is interesting that Dr. Still never once mentioned the use of these portable valve coverings anywhere in his expert report. As an industrial hygienist at the Bremerton shipyard from the 1970's, he would have been fully aware of the widespread use of portable valve covering pads as stated to me by Mr. Roger Beckett.

This awareness by Dr. Still of the use of portable pad valve insulation can be graphically shown in a report that he authored with Roger Beckett in 1979 entitled "Sampling of Airborne Asbestos Fibers", published in a U.S. Navy Medicine Journal. 11 On the cover of that journal is a full page photograph taken during the removal of asbestos thermal insulation from the USS Ainsworth at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. In the photograph , the top left-hand corner shows one of these types of portable pads around a steam valve.

Dr. Still seems to have "forgotten" that all high temperature valve systems in any Naval ships built from the late 1950's to the early1960's and on would only have been insulated with these portable pads, and NOT with the multi-layer hard thermal insulation, that he described in his expert report.

Certainly before the 1960's, pipefitters and machinists may have had to deal with the multi-layer thermal insulation valve coverings that would have caused them significant asbestos exposures. However, for Navy ships built or overhauled from the late 1950's to early 1960's and on, the pipefitters and machinists would have been mostly removing these portable pads to gain access to the high temperature valves and equipment.

11 K.R. Still and R.R. Beckett "Sampling for Air borne Asbestos Fibers" U.S. Navy Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 5, May, 1979.

10

Another important point in the Still U.S. Navy document cover photograph is the use of industrial hygiene controls (wetting, point source vacuums and dust masks) during the removal of the thermal insulation. It is my understanding from personal discussions with Roger Beckett that by the early 1960's, dust controls were used during thermal insulation removal at Bremerton. Using wetting procedures, point source vacuums and a dust mask would certainly reduce the asbestos fiber exposures to workers to levels much lower in concentrations than the asbestos levels reported by Dr. Still in his expert report.

Dr. Still neglected to describe any of these IH controls for the removal of thermal insulation in the 1970's when he started working at Bremerton. Clearly, he was aware of this practice since they were described and photographed in his 1979 U.S. Navy Medicine publication.

To recap, my opinion that Dr. Still's Expert Report is not credible concerning asbestos insulation exposure to pipefitters and machinists is as follows:

1. He cited a number of studies showing what typical insulators' exposures were to airborne asbestos fibers concentrations, not to what typical machinists and pipefitters are exposed.

2. He provided no description of the portable insulation valve pads used by the Navy to insulate valves by the early 1960's, which eliminated the use of multi-layer, hard valve insulation material.

3. He omitted any description of the industrial hygiene dust controls used at the Bremerton Shipyard for thermal insulation removal since 1960, and that have been adopted by the Navy in many of their shipyards around the country.

Improper Use of 1 MPPCF to 6 fibers/cc Conversion Factor by Dr. Still

Dr. Still cited a number of thermal insulation studies from the 1960's (Still Report, Table 5) that reported asbestos exposure results in million particles per cubic foot (MPPCF). Dr. Still converted the MPPCF data to fiberslcc using a conversion of 1 MPPCF = 6 flcc ratio. This conversion ratio used by Dr. Still was in error. This error led him to report a gross overestimation of the actual asbestos flcc exposure concentrations in those thermal insulation studies.

There are three studies done by Balzer & Cooper, McDonald, and Gibbs that provides a more valid conversion factor for thermal insulation (Balzer), and a

11

discussion about the problem of using a universal MPPCF to flcc conversion factor as done by Dr. Still (McDonald & Gibbs).'2,'3,'4

The 1968 Balzer and Cooper study compared air sampling data for both MPPCF to flcc for the same type of insulator job classifications. The Balzer data from their study (Tables V & VI) are shown as a comparison in our Table 1. From the Balzer data, we calculated the conversion ratio for MPPCF to flcc which is also included in our Table 1.

Table 1

MPPCF Impinger data vs. Membrane Filter flee Data

Job Classification Avg. MPPCF Avg. Fibers/cc Conversion Factor

N.

of 1 MPPCF to F/CC Prefabrication 6.5 8.5 1.3

Application 3.3 6.4 2.0 Finishing 2.6 2.7 1.0

Tearin~ out 5.2 8.9 1.7 Mixing 9.1 2.6 0.3

In another study by Johns-Manville in 1969, they also compared midget impinger (MPPCF) to filter media (f/cc) during one of their manufacturing operations. '5 The J-M data is shown in Table 2. From the J-M data, we calculated the conversion ratio for MPPCF to flcc which is also included in our Table 2.

Table 2

MPPCF Impinger data vs. Membrane Filter flee Data

Manufacturing Fiberslcc MPPCF Conversion Factor Process of 1 MPPCF to F/CC Willow 5.7 7.9 0.7

N. of Gaugers 2.5 3.5 0.7 Lathe 2.6 4.5 0.6

S. of Bayard Lathe 2.6 4.9 0.5 Wet Saw 3.7 6.8 0.5

12 J. L. Balzer and W. Clark Cooper "The Work Environment of Insulating Workers", AI.H.A. Journal, May-June 1968. 13 J. Corbett McDonald, "Linear Extrapolation for Risk Estimates at Low Level Exposures: The Asbestos Example". 14 G.W. Gibbs & M. LaChance "Dust-Fiber Relationships in the Quebec Chrysotile Industry" Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 28, February 1974. 15 J-M Wauxegan Transite Pipes Air Sample Analysis, July 28, 1969.

12

When the average conversion factor was calculated, the asbestos-containing thermal insulation work reported by Balzer showed that this ratio was 1 MPPCF = 1.3 f/cc . For the J-M data, the average conversion ratio was 1 MPPCF = 0.6 f/cc .

This conversion ratio for thermal insulation work is 4.6 times less than the ratio used by Dr. Still (1 MPPCF = 6 f/cc) in Table 5 of his report, and the J-M data was 10 times less than what Dr. Still used.

In the report by McDonald, he discusses the problem of using a universal conversion factor of MPPCF to flcc in the case of a chrysotile mining operation. McDonald stated the following:

"Conversion All the available exposure-response data from occupational cohorts are based on total respirable dust measurements. Determination of the equivalence of these measurements in terms of fibers (>5 microns long) per milliliter (flm/) is a difficult and dubious operation. Even in chrysoti/e mining, the range of conversion ratios is at least 40-fold."

The publication by Gibbs and LaChance in 1974 compared 87 side-by-side impinger (MPPCF) to membrane filter (f/cc) air samples that were collected at a Quebec chrysotile mine. McDonald, Gibbs and LaChance concluded that the correlation was poor, and no single conversion factor was justified for chrysotile mining work.

These four publications and reports, as well as our own research (which will be discussed later in this section), demonstrated that Dr. Still was in error when he used a 1 MPPCF to 6 fiberslcc conversion ratio. What Dr. Still must not realize is that each type of asbestos-containing material (fabric, brakes, gaskets, thermal insulation, etc.) will have its own specific MPPCF to flcc conversion factor, depending on the dustiness of the material being disturbed. Therefore, using 1 MPPCF to 6 flcc as a universal conversion factor, (as did Dr. Still), will lead to erroneous conclusions.

To determine a more valid conversion factor, you must test the type of asbestos-containing product in which you are interested with side-by-side air sampling using both midget impinger (MPPCF) air sampling and phase contrast microscopy (f/cc).

In that respect, we have performed a number of side-by-side air sampling studies during the use of different thermal insulation materials that include asbestos-containing 85% magnesia and calcium silicate thermal insulation.

13

Our results showed that the actual measured conversion factor for these two types of thermal insulation materials was approximately 1 MPPCF =: 0.5 f/cc. For Unibestos (65% amosite), the conversion factor was 1 MPPCF =: 2 flcc. Our insulating cement studies also showed an average conversion factor of 1 MPPCF =: 0.5 flcc.

The overall average conversion factor ratio for these various thermal insulation studies was 1 MPPCF to 1 flec . Our MAS thermal insulation study findings were in close agreement to the Balzer's thermal insulation work (1 MPPCF =: 1.3 f/cc ).

MAS Gasket Removal Studies

Dr. Still provided a number of criticisms of our MAS gasket studies, but he specifically targeted our MAS Gasket II & III studies published in a peer-reviewed Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene Journal. All of his criticisms are without merit, in my opinion, and a number of points that Dr. Still makes are actually false.

The most important point of note is that this study was peer-reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious industrial hygiene journals in this country.16 In fact , when it became known to Garlock in October of 2001 that the paper was going to be published in early 2002 in that journal , Garlock hired one of their experts Larry Liukonen to try to stop the publication. 17 Mr. Liukonen testified that he personally contacted Dr. Pierce, the editor of that journal , to try to convince him not to publish our paper. Mr. Liukonen further stated that he provided all of the usual Garlock expert criticisms to Dr. Pierce, now reiterated once again by Dr. Still. Another Garlock expert, Carl Mangold, also tried to stop the publication by sending to Dr. Pierce a letter detailing all of the same criticisms of our study on December 12, 2001. 18 Mr. Mangold went as far as to send Dr. Pierce a copy of the Lamar County ruling issued in July of 2005.

In the end, Dr. Pierce did not follow any of Garlock's expert's advice, and allowed our publication to go forward, based on the scientific merit of the research.

16 W.E. Longo, W.B. Egeland , R.L . Hatfield and L.R. Newton "Fiber Release During the removal of Asbestos-Containing Gaskets: A Work Practice Simulation" Applied Occupational & Environmental Hygiene, Vol. 17(2) 55-62, 2002. 17 Deposition of Larry Liukonen, Jan. 21,2002 Robert Maney and Dorothy Maney v. AC&S, Inc., et al., in the District Court of Orange County, Texas, 128 'h Judicial District. ,. December 12, 2001 Carl Mangold letter to Mr. J. Thomas Pierce, Editor in Chief Applied Occupational & Environmental Hyg iene.

14

As a scientist, it is inexcusable to me that legal counsel for Garlock (Ray Harris, according to the sworn testimony by Mr. Liukonen) would try to interfere with the scientific peer-review publication process. As stated by Mr. Liukonen, one of the reasons for this interference was that our publication went against Garlock's vested interest in defending their gasket exposure cases.

Garlock did not offer Larry Liukonen as an expert in this matter before the courts, even though he routinely testified for Garlock in the past as an expert on gasket exposure issues, and was the first author of the Bremerton gasket study. Therefore, the testimony concerning Garlock's reprehensible behavior on this issue can only be provided through Liukonen's deposition testimony.

Since the publication of our paper in January 2002, not one letter to the editor of this journal was ever sent by anyone criticizing our published gasket removal studies. The experts even hired by Garlock, both in the past or the present, never sent any criticisms or comments about our studies.

The following is a rebuttal of Dr. Still's specific points stated in his expert report concerning our gasket exposure studies.

1. Dr. Still stated that background air samples in our MAS Gasket II & III studies exceeded the OSHA PEL, and therefore, he could not take our publication seriously. This is a false statement by Dr. Still. In these two studies, the actual fiber concentration for the background air sample range was from <0.002 to <0.01 flcc as measured by the NIOSH 7400 (PCM) and the NIOSH 7402 (TEM) method. This range of fiber levels are not above any OSHA PEL limits. Accordingly, Dr. Still is wrong to state otherwise.

2. Contrary to Dr. Still's statement, there is no requirement in either the NIOSH 7400 or 7402 method that an AIHA-accredited laboratory has to be used for the analysis of these types of air samples. Our laboratory at the time was a participant in the AIHA Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) round robins for fiber analysis, and has always been 100% proficient.

3. Dr. Still's statement that we did not comply with quality control requirements for the MAS II & III studies is false. All quality control (QC) requirements were completed for these studies more than a decade ago, and met the NIOSH 7400 QC criteria.

4. Another criticism by Dr. Still was that we did not report air samples as "probably biased" because of filter fiber loadings that exceeded 1300 f/mm2 This issue was addressed in my February 5, 2013 Expert Report.

15

However, it is interesting to note that Dr. Still did not have the same criticism for the Boelter 2013 thermal insulation removal study on which he relied, where many of air samples were above the 1300 f/mm2 concentrations. I was unable to find any "probably biased" statements contained in the Boelter study concerning the air sample results that exceeded 1300 f/mm2 for his thermal insulation study.

5. Dr. Still states that our MAS Gasket IV & V Studies were performed to fix this "so called" quality assurance problem from the Gasket II & III Studies. This statement by Dr. Still is incorrect. The reasons we performed the MAS Gasket IV & V studies was to have a journeyman pipefitter remove the gaskets, and to invite gasket defense experts to participate in the studies. As I pointed out in my February Expert Report, not one of the defense experts came to MAS for those gasket removal studies.

Other Gasket Exposure Publications and Reports

Dr. Still referenced a number of gasket exposure studies that he relied on that primarily involve published papers from Garlock experts. He did not reference any company IH reports (Garlock, Dow, Newport News, Shell, Hobby, etc.) that have gasket exposure data that are contrary to his opinions about low exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. These IH studies involved both gasket fabrication and gasket removal from flanges.

All of these reports were written by company or shipyard industrial hygienists, and were not in response to any litigation. In my opinion, Dr. Still should have included all of them in his Expert Report so the courts could consider all of the pertinent information involving asbestos exposure data from gasket removal and fabrication studies. It would have been completely reasonable for Dr. Still to express disagreements with any of this exposure data, but he should have at least presented this contrary gasket exposure study information in his own opinions for a fair evaluation of the studies that are available to the experts in this field.

One of the former Garlock expert studies that Dr. Still does cite is the 2006 Mangold publication that shows very low levels of asbestos exposure during the removal of flanged gaskets. The problems with this publication are well discussed in my February Expert Report.

However, one additional comment on the Mangold paper is that the Navy flanges that Mangold used in his gasket removal study were obtained from the USS Gypsy, and are not representative of typical Navy ships. Because the USS Gypsy was a diesel-powered barge that had only one low pressure

16

·.~ ... .... ~ • • w­\ ."~.

boiler for hot water, it is my opinion the flanges that Mangold removed from that ship would not have been representative of the high temperature and pressure steam flanged systems typically found on steam-powered Navy ships such as destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.

Bremerton Gasket Study

Dr. Still discussed in his Expert Report the May 1978 Bremerton Gasket Study, which is one of the primary reasons for his opinions that asbestos­containing gasket work practices do not produce significant asbestos fiber exposures. My opinions on why the Bremerton gasket study is not reliable are discussed in my February Expert Report. No in-depth discussion will be put forth in this rebuttal report other than referring to my discussions with Roger Beckett (senior author) about this study.

As I stated earlier in this Rebuttal Report, I had a recent conversation with Mr. Roger Beckett concerning industrial hygiene issues at the Bremerton Shipyard. One of the items we discussed was the Bremerton Gasket Study. Mr. Beckett stated that the Bremerton Gasket Study could not be used as an indicator of all potential asbestos exposure gasket removal projects at Bremerton. Mr. Beckett said this was especially true of the Bremerton Gasket Study, since it was done under abnormal conditions because of the presence of a number of senior personnel who were observing the study, a shipyard photographer documenting the study, and house keeping controls utilized during the study.

Mr. Beckett stated that the exposures to airborne asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing gasket removal were highly dependent on how tightly the gaskets stuck to the flange, which was caused by elevated temperature and pressure (steam lines). The more tightly they adhered, the more work activity was required for removal, and the higher the asbestos exposure levels.

This propensity for gaskets to tightly adhere to high temperature and high pressure steam lines was well known to Garlock, and led to their development of the flange free gaskets in 2009. A video by Garlock showed their testing that demonstrated how the flange fre,e gaskets would not stick to the flange, and how gaskets that did not have the flange free coating would tightly adhere. 19 The non-flange free gaskets were placed in a test flange, and then placed in an oven at 400 FO for only 48 hours. To remove these gaskets off test flanges, they had to be forcibly removed with a hammer and chisel.

19 Garlock Flange Free Video

17

When Mr. Beckett reviewed our various gasket removal studies , he was in agreement with our asbestos exposure data. He reiterated when these types of gaskets were used, that no single gasket removal study like the Bremerton report can cover all of the gasket adherence conditions that pipefitters and machinists face when removing asbestos-containing gaskets during their careers.

Environ 2013 Boelter Report

The Environ 2013 Boelter report purports to show typical airborne asbestos exposures to pipefitters, steamfitters and millwrights, or other non-insulators at maritime or industrial job sites. Their work practice study was very elaborate, and certainly demonstrated that insulators at job sites who perform tear-out of thermal insulation, can have very significant exposures to airborne asbestos fibers. However, in my opinion, this study is not reliable for the determination of thermal insulation exposures to non-insulator workers such as pipefitters or steamfitters, since they are not insulators.

Also , looking at Boelter's results, show that the peak asbestos exposures reported are just as high, or higher, than is reported in the literature for Navy ship overhauls , in either the engine or boiler rooms, both of which can be classified as a confined space. , Boelter also reported extremely high 8 hr. PEL's of 86 flcc in his. study. I am not aware of any type of published or unpublished study showing insulator's asbestos exposures of this magnitude.

Unless a pipefitter or steamfitter was working in a confined space such as a boiler or engine room on a ship that was undergoing extensive thermal insulation removal , he would not be expected to ever have exposures to airborne asbestos fibers of this magnitude.

In Boelter's study , they insulated a number of valves with a multi-layer, hard asbestos lagging. Their removal work procedure involved beating the thermal insulation off the valve body with ball-peen hammers. As expected, this work activity produced very significant exposures to their workers . The problem with this study is that this type of work practice was not common for pipefitters or steamfitters , so Boelter's report cannot be used as an exposure benchmark for all pipefitters or steamfitters whose job activities included the removal of asbestos-containing gaskets , and not as insulators.

As stated in my rebuttal section of Dr. Still in this report, Navy pipefitters and machinists would not routinely encounter the valve multi-layer, thermal insulation system such as Boelter used for his tear-out study from the late 1950's to early 1960's and onward in time. These workers would only have to

18

remove the portable pads to get access to the valve, which would have greatly reduced their potential exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.

It is unclear why the Boelter study would expend so much effort on pipefitters ' and machinists' thermal insulation tear out exposure issues that did not exist after approximately 1960.

Also, many Naval shipyards starting in the early1960's, were using IH controls to reduce dust levels during the thermal insulation removal process. These Navy shipyard IH practices for thermal insulation removal were never discussed in the Boelter report.

For industrial (non-maritime) work sites, pipefitters ' and steamfitters' job classifications did not include the installation and removal of thermal insulation . That was the job function of insulators. At many of the industrial facilities, job classification was controlled by the unions, and therefore, pipefitters and steamfitters were not allowed to participate in the application or removal of thermal insulation. Only insulators could do that job.

In addition to Navy pipefitters and machinists, I have reviewed countless depositions of industrial pipefitters and steamfitters in the past that have testified regarding this very point. That is, that they were not insulators, and it was the insulator's job to remove thermal insulation. They would state that if a particular area required thermal insulation removal for their work, the insulators would first remove that insulation before a pipefitter or steamfitter would get started on their work.

At these industrial sites, the valves and pumps on which the pipefitters and steamfitters worked were usually covered with an insulating blanket, or did not have any insulation at all . The removal and replacement of an insulating blanket around a valve or pump, would not produce asbestos exposure levels nearly as high as found in Boelter's study.

I have read depositions from a number of cases where pipefitters and steamfitters would testify that sometimes they would "cut-back" approximately 6" to 12" of the pipe insulation from a flange so they could remove the bolts on the flange, valve, or pump. This would usually be done when the pipefitters or steamfitters were in a time constraint, and could not wait for the insulators to remove the small amount of thermal insulation material.

The cut back procedure would usually involve a knife of some sort or a small saw was used to cut the hard insulation all the way around the insulation and

19

down to the pipe. A horizontal cut was then made along the pipe insulation seam, then the two pipe insulation halves were peeled back and removed .

MAS Work Practice Study: "Thermal Insulation Removal for Valve Repair"

There are no previous published studies, or an unpublished report that has measured the potential asbestos exposure to a thermal insulation cut back removal work procedure that I could find to include in this Rebuttal Report. Therefore, a MAS thermal insulation cut-back study Was done specifically for this rebuttal report. A description of the MAS study is as follows:

In our Kaylo III Study, we insulated a small run of pipe with 3" Kaylo pipe covering to determine the potential exposure to airborne asbestos fibers from this work activity20 The pipe with the Kaylo covering was retained by MAS after the study was completed.

In May of 2012, we set the pipe/Kaylo back in our Eel, and covered the Kaylo insulation with asbestos-containing Acme insulating cement (90% chrysotile). The insulating cement was allowed to dry in the Eel for a period of 60 days, and then the pipe/Kaylo/insulating cement was stored at MAS for future use.

On March 6, 2013, we again put the pipe/Kaylo/insulating system into our Eel for the thermal insulation cut-back study.

To simulate a pipefitter removing pipe insulation back from a valve to expose the flange bolts (cut-back), the MAS investigator used a typical box knife to make an initial complete circular cut around and through the insulation at the center of the pipe. Two additional cuts were made, each 6" off each side of the center cut, in the same manner. Then, two horizontal cuts were made along the seam of the 6" cut pipe insulation sections. After these two horizontal cuts were made, the two pieces of thermal insulation were simply peeled off the pipe and laid on the work table.

Both personal and area air samples were collected during the study, and were analyzed by the NIOSH 7400 and 7402 methods. Our results showed that the investigator had an asbestos exposure range of 0.2 f/cc to 0.8 f/cc . The complete study is attached to this Rebuttal Report.21 A summary of all the test data for our thermal insulation cut-back study is shown in Table 3.

20 MAS Work Practice Study: Kaylo III, October, 2006, study and video. 21 MAS Work Practice Study: Thermal Insulation Removal for Valve Repair, March 201 3, study & video.

20

Sample Type

Background

Worker

Area

Table 3

MAS Study

Thermal Insulation Removal for Valve Repair

No. of Air

Samples PCM NIOSH 7402

Analyzed Range (f/cc) % Asbestos

4 <0002 0.0

4 0.2 to 0.8 60 to 100

4 <0.05 to 0.4 o to 84

The level of exposures found in this study can be attributed to the outer coating of insulating cement that reduced the need to handle the surface of the dusty Kaylo pipe insulation. If the pipefitter or steamfitter is cutting back thermal insulation that is not coated with insulating cement, then higher exposure levels would be expected. It is my opinion, these types of exposures would fall into the 1 flcc to 5 flcc range.

Our findings of less than 1 flcc for this common industrial pipefitter or steamfitter thermal insulation work practice is in sharp contrast to the extraordinarily high exposure levels reported in the Boelter study.

This thermal insulation cut-back procedure is the most common type of work that both pipefitters and steamfitters have described in the past when speaking about thermal insulation work practices. Since pipefitters and steamfitters do not routinely discuss using ball-peen hammers for thermal insulation tear-out work, this invalidates the Boelter study as an indicator for general thermal insulation exposures to this class of workers.

As with Dr. Still, the Boelter report mistakenly uses the 1 MPPCF to 6 flcc conversion factor. This conversion factor artificially inflates all of the converted MPPCF thermal insulation data found in the Conclusion Section of his report. The reason that a 1 MPPCF = 6 flcc cannot be used for thermal insulation has been already discussed in the Dr. Still section of this Rebuttal Report.

21

Conclusions

Having reviewed the various Garlock expert reports, I can state that the opinions they have presented here are nothing new, with the exception that the Boelter report seems to want to reinvent the history and use of the valve multi-layer, hard thermal insulation system.

These same opinions have been presented by both Garlock and John Crane for many years now in court rooms across the country, and again here in this pending matter.

All of the opinions I have expressed in this Rebuttal Report are held within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, and I reserve the right to modify this expert report if additional information becomes available.

~

0, Ph.D.

22