1. Asbestos Claims Based on Automotive Work
Edward M. Slaughter
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & YoungLLP
Atlanta • Austin • Charleston • Dallas Los Angeles • St. Louis • San Francisco 1

2. Epidemiological Studies Involving Auto Mechanics
Study
Evidence of Causation?
1) McDonald and McDonald (1980) NO
2) Petersen and Milham (1980)
3) Teta et al. (1983)
4) Spirtas et al. (1985)
5) Olsen and Jensen (1987)
6) Jarvholm and Brisman (1988)
7) Hansen (1989)
8) Gustavsson et al. (1990)
9) Woitowitz and Rodelsperger (1994)
10) Coggon et al. (1995)
11) Teschke et al. (1997)
12) Agudo et al. (2000)
13) Milham and Ossiander (2001)
14) National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) (2002)
15) Hansen and Meersohn (2003)
16) Hessel et al. (2004)
17) McElvenny et al. (2005)
18) Rolland et al. (2010)
19) Rake et al. (2010)
20) Aguilar-Madrid et al. (2010)
21) Merlo et al. (2010) 2

3. Funding for Epidemiological Studies Involving Auto Mechanics
Government, Universities and/or Medical Community
Industry
Car or Brake Manufacturers
Petersen (1980)
McDonald (1980)
Hessel (2004)
Teta (1983)
Gustavsson (1990)
Olsen and Jensen (1987)
Jarvholm and Brisman (1988)
Hansen (1989)
Spirtas (1985)
Woitowitz and Rodeslperger (1994)
Coggon (1995)
Teschke (1997)
Agudo (2000)
Milham and Ossiander (2001)
NIOSH (2002)
Hansen and Meersohn (2003)
McElvenny (2005)
Rake (2010)
Rolland (2010)
Aguilar-Madrid (2010)
Merlo (2010) 3

4. Sam Hammar:
“the epidemiology does not support evidence that chrysotile causes mesothelioma in brake mechanics.”
- Dr. Sam Hammar, Farag Depo, 11/02/10, 18:18-20 4

5. Sam Hammar:
“In terms of science the question of whether automotive mechanics and especially dedicated brake mechanics with protracted exposures to dust derived from grinding, shaping of new brake block linings have an increased risk of malignant mesothelioma remains unresolved and contentious”
- Dail, David H. and Samuel P. Hammar. Pulmonary Pathology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994 5

6. Changing Regulations Regarding Asbestos30 25
30 f/cc
ACGIH
12 f/cc
Walsh
Healy 20
f/cc 15
2 f/cc
OSHA
0.2 f/cc
OSHA
0.1 f/cc
OSHA 10
5 f/cc
OSHA 5 6

7. Exposure Studies – Automobiles/Light Trucks
Author
Sampling Year(s)
Affiliation
Approach
8-Hour TWA (f/cc)
Mean (Range)*
Hickish & Knight
1968
Ford UK
Analyzed personal samples for a mechanic cleaning 11 cars
0.68
Johnson
et al.
1976–77
NIOSH
Analyzed personal samples using PCM at 7 garages
0.066
( )
Roberts
1979
Analyzed personal samples for 1 mechanic using PCM
0.012
Analyzed personal samples for 2 mechanics using PCM
0.011
( )
Roberts & Zumwalde
Analyzed personal samples for 13 mechanics using PCM
0.069
( )
Rodelsperger et al.
1986
Germany Univ. Institute
Analyzed 31 personal samples using PCM
0.039
* Concentrations from authors or estimated from published data by Paustenbach et al. 2003 7

8. Exposure Studies – Automobiles/Light Trucks
Author
Sampling Year(s)
Affiliation
Approach
8-Hour TWA (f/cc)
Mean (Range)*
Plato et al.
Dept. of Occ. Health – Karolinska Hospital - Sweden
Analyzed 23 samples using PCM
0.1
( )
Moore
1988
Univ. of PA
Analyzed 35 samples
0.002
( )
Sheehy et al.
1986–87
NIOSH
Analyzed 83 personal samples
( )
Yeung et al.
1996
Worksafe Australia
Analyzed 4 personal samples using PCM
0.034
( )
* Concentrations from authors or estimated from published data by Paustenbach et al. 2003 8

9. Automobile Brake Mechanic 8-Hour TWA Exposure Studies
Prior OSHA Level 5.0
2.0 2
Mean or Single Value
Range
(no mean or single value reported)
ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION (f/cc) 1
0.2
0.1
0.68(1)
1970
(2)
1979
0.1(3)
1984
0.03(4)
1987
<0.002(5)
1988
0.012(6)
1990
0.034(7)
1996
(1) Hikish & Knight (1970); (2) Johnson (1979) NIOSH; (3) Nicholson (1984) NIOS 1979 Data; (4) Kauppinen (1987); (5) Moore (1988); (6) Federa Reg (1990) OSHA Data; (6) Yeung (1996) 9

10. U.S. Government Warning - 1972
CAUTION
Contains Asbestos Fibers
Avoid Creating Dust
Breathing Asbestos Dust May Cause
Serious Bodily Harm 10
29 CFR 1910, § a(g)(2)(ii) (June 7, 1972)

11. Actual Brake Product Warning - 1973
Caution
Contains Asbestos Fibers
Avoid Creating Dust
Breathing Asbestos Dust May
Cause Serious Bodily Harm 11

12. U.S. Government Jobsite Warning Signs - 1972
Asbestos dust may
cause asbestosis, a
severe lung disease,
and is implicated in
the development of
certain cancers. Control
of exposure to
asbestos dust helps
protect against these
hazards. 12
29 CFR 1910, § a(e)(2) (January 12, 1972)

13. OSHA – Government Position:
Asbestos Is A Carcinogen 13

14. EPA “Gold Book” Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics (1986)14

15. Asbestos – A Carcinogen
Asbestos is 1 of over 130 occupational carcinogens listed by the U.S. Government 15
Source:

16. Peanut Butter – No Safe Level?
Q. And peanut butter has aflatoxin in it, right?
A. It's not supposed to, but they allow a certain amount of aflatoxin in peanut butter, yes, sir.
Q. Do you eat peanut butter?
A. Occasionally.
Q. Here's some peanut butter. Would you hold that up, please? That's peanut butter, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And based on your view, that there's no safe level of exposure to a known carcinogen, someone who eats peanut butter will put themselves at an increased risk of liver cancer? 16
Dr. Arthur Frank, Schwarber Depo, 09/10/07, 106:1-17

17. X Exposure Duration (work-years) Asbestos Concentration (fibers/cc)
Dose Calculation 101
Exposure Duration (work-years)
Asbestos Concentration (fibers/cc)
Cumulative Asbestos Exposure Dose (fiber/cc years) X 17

18. Cumulative Estimate of Brake Work in Work-Years
Plaintiff worked for 1 year doing brake work 25% of the time
Exposure duration = .25 (.25 x 1)
Plaintiff worked for 15 years doing brake work 25% of the time
Exposure duration = (.25 x 15)
Plaintiff worked for 40 years doing brake work 50% of the time
Exposure duration = 20 (.5 x 20) 18

19. Average Time Weighted Average for Mechanics = .04 f/cc
Estimated and measured 8-hour
TWAs for mechanics servicing automobiles
and light trucks range from:
<0.002 to 0.68 f/cc
Mean of 0.04 f/cc
Paustenbach et al. “An Evaluation of the Historical Exposures of Mechanics to Asbestos in Brake Dust.” Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 18: 786–804 (2003) 19

20. Example #1: Applying a 0.04 TWA
Plaintiff worked for 1 year doing brake work
25% of the time
Exposure duration = .25 (.25 x 1 year)
.25 x .04 =
.01 f/cc years
Plaintiff worked for 15 years doing brake work 25% of the time
Exposure duration = 3.75 (.25 x 15)
3.75 x .04 =
.15 f/cc years
Plaintiff worked for 40 years doing brake work 50% of the time
Exposure duration = 20 (.5 x 40)
20 x .04 =
.80 f/cc years 20

21. Example #2: TWA = 5.0 f/cc
Plaintiff worked for 1 year doing brake work
25% of the time
Exposure duration = .25 (.25 x 1 year) .
.25 x 5.0 =
1.25 f/cc years
Plaintiff worked for 15 years doing brake work 25% of the time
Exposure duration = 3.75 (.25 x 15)
3.75 x 5.0 =
18.75 f/cc years
Plaintiff worked for 40 years doing brake work 50% of the time
Exposure duration = 20 (.5 x 40)
20 x 5.0 =
100 f/cc years 21

22. Example #3: TWA = 0.68 f/cc Hickish & Knight (1968)
Plaintiff worked for 1 year doing brake work
25% of the time
Exposure duration = .25 (.25 x 1 year) .
.25 x 0.68 =
0.17 f/cc years
Plaintiff worked for 15 years doing brake work 25% of the time
Exposure duration = 3.75 (.25 x 15)
3.75 x 0.68 =
2.55 f/cc years
Plaintiff worked for 40 years doing brake work 50% of the time
Exposure duration = 20 (.5 x 40)
20 x 0.68 =
13.6 f/cc years 22

23. 40 x .5 x .04 = 0.80 f/cc years 40 x .5 x 5 = 100 f/cc years
Worst Case Scenario
Career auto mechanic does brake jobs for 4 hours each day for over 40 years
40 x .5 x .04 =
0.80 f/cc years
40 x .5 x 5 =
100 f/cc years 23

24. Ambient Lifetime Exposure Range
.0001
.001
.0001
.001
.00002
.00075
.0005
DEFENSE
NED HOLSTEIN
SUSAN RATERMAN
RICHARD HATFIELD 24

25. Comparing Ambient to Working Hours
Ambient (Background):
24 hours/day
X 365 days/year
X 40 years
Total = 350,400 hours
Working Life:
40 hours/week
X 50 weeks/year
X 40 years
Total = 80,000 hours
Ambient Hours
350,400
Work Hours
80,000
= 4.38 25

26. Calculating Ambient Lifetime Dose
Age
X Ambient Range
X 4.38
Cumulative Lifetime Dose 60
X [ ]
X 4.38
Range – 0.262 26

27. Example of Friction Exposure
Exposure Duration (work-years)
Asbestos Concentration
(f/cc)
Cumulative Asbestos Exposure Dose
(f/cc-years)
Low
High
Cumulative Estimate of Vehicular Brake or
Friction Work
<0.25
Average TWA = 0.04
<0.01
Ambient Lifetime Exposure
49-year lifetime equivalent
0.0001
0.001
0.021
0.21
Exposure Estimate at Current OSHA PEL 40
0.1
4.0 27

28. Auto Mechanic With Mesothelioma
What’s the true
source of exposure? 28

29. 29

30. The toxicity level of the different types of asbestos is as follows:
Toxicity of Asbestos
Hodgson and Darnton (2000)
The toxicity level of the different types of asbestos is as follows:
Crocidolite : Amosite : Chrysotile =
500 : 100 : 1 30

31. Sources for Searching for Alternative Exposure
Social Security Records
EPA Superfund Website
ASTDR Website
Bankruptcy Trust Websites
WR Grace Website
OSHA Website
Environmental Working Group Website
USGS Asbestos Survey Maps
FOIA Requests
Local Newspaper Searches 31

32. Example: Work At Asbestos Mill
Auto mechanic alleging brake products caused his mesothelioma
Through investigation, discovered plaintiff worked at Amercoat Plant, an asbestos mill in Oklahoma
At site inspection, discovered raw crocidolite still located plant where plaintiff worked
Cause of mesothelioma Crocidolite 32

33. Newspaper Article: The Daily Ardmoreite
“The firm has grown to the extent that Amercoat is now synonymous with corrosion control…”
“Growth plans have expanded the plant’s operations into four other areas- filament wound fiberglass reinforced plastic pipe, custom fabricated fiberglass reinforced plastic products, asbestos mats, and inorganic coatings” 33

34. Example of Hammer Mill Exposure
Exposure Duration (work-years)
Asbestos Concentration
(f/cc)
Cumulative Asbestos Exposure Dose
(f/cc-years)
Low
High
Cumulative Estimate of Hammer Mill Work
<0.50
Average TWA = 50.0
<25.0
Ambient Lifetime Exposure
49-year lifetime equivalent
0.0001
0.001
0.021
0.21
Exposure Estimate at Current OSHA PEL 40
0.1
4.0 34

35. What’s the Difference in Risk?
Cumulative Estimate of Brake Work
Cumulative Estimate of Hammer Mill Work
<0.01 f/cc
X (Chrysotile) 1
0.01
25 f/cc
X (Crocidolite) 500
12,500 35

36. Case Example: Grew Up In West Bank, Louisiana
Auto mechanic alleging brake products caused his mesothelioma
Grew up in West Bank - identified address through deposition or discovery
Admitted to playing with scraps from Johns-Manville plant at deposition
Compared home addresses to EPA Remediation Documents
Cause of mesothelioma Crocidolite 36

37. Marrero, Louisiana Plaintiff’s Residences JM Plant 37 0.5 miles 1 mile

38. EPA Asbestos Removal Area – Marrero, LA
Plaintiff’s Residences
School 38

39. Case Example: Egypt
Auto mechanic alleging brake products caused his mesothelioma
Plaintiff grew up in Cairo, Egypt where several asbestos cement factories are located, including ones that used crocidolite
Investigate plaintiff’s prior addresses and compare to map of crocidolite factories – have plaintiff verify map at deposition
Cause of mesothelioma Crocidolite 39

40. Cairo, Egypt Plaintiff Attended elementary school and lived in North
Went to University
in Helwan
Asbestos Factories 40

41. Mesothelioma Epidemic in Egypt
Plaintiff lived within a mile and a half of the Siegwart facility, an asbestos cement factory
Epidemiological studies have shown that the closer people lived to the factory, the higher the risk of mesothelioma
There were also 14 other asbestos factories within the vicinity of Plaintiff’s home and school in Cairo 41

42. Mesothelioma Epidemic in Egypt
Several articles have been written about the mesothelioma epidemic in Egypt
This epidemic is due, in large part, to neighborhood exposures 42

43. Industrial Hygiene Alternative Exposure Conclusion
Work with asbestos-containing
brakes does not cause mesothelioma
Epidemiology
Industrial Hygiene
Alternative Exposure 43