Document 06JJ3wR33zE42pL44YN3qy44m

FILE NAME: Asbestos Information Association (AIA) DATE: DOC#: / DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:DZDDZZZZ D Barry Castleman's /17_J Asbestos Information Association File CD-ROM Document#AIA ~ DATE published article from journal published presentation from conference government report unpublished report or draft report unpublished presentation from conference newspaper article letter memorandum industry warning information v ' meeting minutes or conf report meeting or conf agenda and/or attendee list book excerpt Legal - Deposition Legal - Defendant Filing Legal - Plaintiff Filing Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 December 1973 Memoraqdum For: Subj~ct: MEMBERS Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting, December 6, 1973 Enclosed are the Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting held in Washington, D. c., December 6, 1973. Several members requested copies of the remarks presented by the Government Research Corporation team of a:-ialysts and by .Matt Swetonic of Hill and Knowlton. These have been briefed and incorporated into the Minutes. A second enclosure concerns the United Press Internation~l r.ews story of December 10 which reported in a letter of the C~nter For Science In The Public Interest to the Environmental Protection Asency requesting a ban on the use of asbestos cement pipe in dr'inking water systems. The Association was in contact with the Uniteq Press International reporter and provided the statement which was carried as an additional paragraph to the story. The Association further referred the repcrter to the Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers Associa- tion for the additional comment, as may be noted on the enclosure. Text of the letter to Russell Train of EPA, signed by Barry Castle~a~ and Albert Fritsch of the Center, was forwarded to members of the A/C Pipe Producers Association by that organization. Copies are available in the AIA office. It is of interest that neither this office nor the A/C Pipe Producers' office has received many queries as a result of the story, and no follow-up by other media has been noted thus far other than a brief report on CBS News the day of the story. It is believed that the story and the effort of Messrs. Castleman and Fritsch may be the source of embarrassment to EPA because of an apparent breach of confidence with regard to the J-M studies cited. The Associatic~s Information.kit was forwarded to the UPI reporter and to mer.~ers of The Congress whose names appeared on the Center's letter for copies. A regularly scheduled meeting of the EPA Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee, December 17-18, will be attended byrJ::l1e~A~~?~iation's 1.~;r p and executive director. f:'. ..: .. ~ ! --.-_.xllilllllt. ...c l : . -- _- ss Executive Director ,~ ~ 1 PLAINTIFF'S EXI-IIBIT u=- -?-" ~ j .. -~,_-., _- -_: :t;_. "-'J l- ., ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION/NORTH Ar.!.ERICA Board of Directors Meeting December 6, 1973 National Association of Home Builders' Building Washington, D. C. ' A meeting of the Board of Directors was held pursuant to notice on Decenber 6, 1973 at 10:00 a.m. at the National Association of Home Builders' Housing Center, Washington, D. C The following Directors were present: James Armstrong E. C. Bratt A.H. Fay .....- W. E. Gatewood T. Dougherty A. R. Hooker vJ H. Marsh C. G. Morgan J. L. Rainey William Thurber F. J. Solon, Jr. Martin Sendecki '--""i'.Joseph Hall G. Parry Weiss J. K. Whittaker (Proxy) Bendix Corporation H.K. Porter Company, Inc. National Gypsum Company .,,- Certain-teed Products Corp The Flintkote Company v Raybestos-Manhattan ~. North American Asbestos Corp. Amatex Corp. _. Union Carbide Corp. Johns-Manville Corp. Congoleum Industries, Inc. ,-GAF Corporation .....-Gar lock, Inc. Nicolet Industries, Inc. Also present: Frank Zimmerman, National Gypsum Company; Robert H. Mereness, Executive Director, AIA/NA; Carol W. Grant, AIA/NA; Jill Cummings, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; Theresa Seeley, Government Research Corporation; Susan Simons, Government Research Corporation; and Matthew M. Swetonic, Hill and Knowlton, Inc . Introductory Remarks In opening remarks, Mr. Marsh, President, announced the formation of the Association's Technical Committee under the chairmanship of Edmund M. Fenner of Johns-Manville. He said the list of nominations from me~ber companies would be reviewed in the next week, and a neeting of members of the Committee with OSHA officials would be held in early January. He stated that the Comrr.ittee, in addition to working on provisions for Federal and State regulations as regards the use of asbestos, would serve as an actvisory body to the president and the executive director in con~ection with technical matters concerning the asbestos industry. Mr. Marsh spoke of the need for a ~edical spokes~an for the Association. A discussion follO\.ed as to possible ca:-:.didates for such a position and the availability of personnel with current recognized knowledge in the field of possible ascestos-related diseases. The president welcomed representatives of two new member compan}es, Bendix and Garlock, and personnel providing legal and informational assistance to the headquarters staff. Minutes On motion, the Minut~s of the previous meeting, September 12, were approved as submitted. Report of the Executive Director Mr. Mereness advised the move of the Association's office from New York to Washington ~as completed on October 1. He discussed the volume of office work resulting from increased activJty of Federal and State governments and public interest groups:regarding the asbestos-health issue. Mereness reviewed the objectiyes of the Association, commented on efforts to complete ~e~bership opportunities, and voiced his appreciation of the cooperation-.of members with the Association's staff. He spoke of close working relationships with asbestos trade associations and with the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association and the British Asbestos Information Committee. He said that actions were beinq taken to forrnallv recognize these groups as affiliated ~e:-:iliers of the AIA/NA. He mentioned that a paper-back book was being considered as an Association publication which would "tell the asbestos story" and serve as an informational as well as a promotional "hand-out" for the industry. Federal Government Affairs Terry Seeley and Sue Simons of Government Research Corporation reported on Federal Governmental activities affecting the asbestos industry. A. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) The early 1973 OSHA decision to re-open the asbestos standard and appoint an "outside" advisory co::-.::;ittee was reversed in October when OSHA Administrator John Stender announced the procedure for reviewing the standard. The procedure calls for developing a new standard within OSHA, which will be subr.iitted to "outside" consultants for review, possibly in January 1974. Subsequently, OSHA will conduct in-plant tours to determine feasibility of proposals. By July 1974, OSHA ex?ects to be ready to prepare its new standard. It is expected that the new standard will emphasize work practices and engineering controls at the sane time r~taining the numerical exposure level requirements of the present standard. B. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) T~e Food and Drug Administration proposed Septe~ber 28 that asbestos filters be banned in the manufacture of pa~enteral drugs. FDA would allow asbestos filters to be used if followed by use of a non-asbestos filter. If a manufacturer could prove that the safety or efficacy of the drug would be compronised by the use of a non- asbestos filter, he would be permitted to use an asbestos filter. The corr~ent period on the proposed regulation runs through Dece~ber 1973. To date, FDA has received no co:.ments on the regulation. However, the Environmental Defense Fund, which, along with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has petitioned FDA to ban asbestos filters altogether, is clearly dissatisfied with the proposed regulation and can be expected to criticize the proposal. C. Minino Enforcement and Safetv Administration (MESA) The Mining Enforcenent and Safety Administration caihe into being during a re-organization of the Interior Departmeni last Spring. It assumed from the Bureau of Hines responsibility fpr mine health and safety. Two standards that affect the asbestos industry are currently under consideration in MESA. One proposal would change the particulate standard nm1 used in metal and nonmetallic mines to a five-fiber standard. The cor.~ent period on the proposed rule ended in mid-October. No action has been taken. A MESA advisory committee met in October and wili meet again in January to consider a definition of asbestos. Final action will not come before that meeting. The second MESA proposal applies to asbestos useage in coal mines. In Noverrber 1972, it was proposed that the current particulate standard be changed to a two-fiber standard. No action has been taken on this proposal because MESA officials do not want a two-fiber standard; they would prefer that the OSHA standard be adopted for coal Mines. However, NIOSH, which does research for MESA, insists on the two-fiber standard. The BitUIT'.inous Coal Operators Association has demanded a hearing on the proposal. It appears likely that the hearing will be granted and that, consequently, final action on the standard will be postponed several months. D. Workmen's Cornoensation Major legislation to reform the workmen's co~pensation system is pending in Congress. The major bills have been sponsored by Senators Williams and Javitts and by Rep~esentatives Perkins and Daniels. Separate bills sponsored by Senators Hu~phrey and Taft and by Rep. Frelinghuysen take a rrore linited approach to reform of workmen's compensation by providing Federal benefits for specific occupational respiratory diseases. Although these bills are unlikely to be enacted, they will generate publicity and thereby increase the der:Iand for reform of the "work-cor:1p" systen. Of major i~portance in bills is the provision to re-define "ari5ing out of or in the course of" to mean that work-related causes r.mst be a contributing cause of injury or illness. Hearings on workmen's compensation, including a hearing to be held in Man~ille, N. J.,,are planned in 1974. Final actions will not occur until at least 1975. Industry position should be formulated now. Environmental Protection EPA's hazardous asbestos air pollution standa~ds were set in final form in March 1973. They consist pri~arily of perfornance standards vice numerical standards, calling essentially for no visible emissions from a number of asbestos-related operations and imposing restrictions on demolition operations and asbestos content in spraying compounds. The Environmental Defense Fund has objected to these standards as teing inadequate and relying on OSHA and MESA enforcement as sufficient for protecting the "environment" outside the workpla~e. EPA is now conside:iring imposing additional controls on asbestos waste disposal si~es and controls on additional fabrication operations where asbe~tos particles may be emitted into the air. EPA has taken air samples from a number of plants for evaluation by the Battalle laboratorie,,s. Results can not be expected before February 1974, therefore . proposals for additional air controls on asbestos-related operations are not expected before Spring of next year. EPA proposed a standard for water pollution controls for asbestos manufacturing plants on October 30. The standards have to do with seven asbestos product categories, but primarily asbestos-cement products, paper products, nillboard, roofing and floor tile. Reaction has been unspectacular. Significant changes to the standards are not predicted. Publication date is planned for February 1974. EPA has moved into the second phase of the asbestos water effluent program. The firm of Sverdrup and Parcel began six weeks ago to develop water pollution standards for textile products, gaskets, etc. not covered by the October 30 standards. The final development of these standards will not likely be completed until next April. It will be several months before these standards can be officially proposed. Reserve Mining Trial People following asbestos events knew standards were coming, 5 but high levels of asbestos in Duluth drinking water discovered last Spring resulted in a land~ark environr.ental trial built around the issue of ingested asbestos and intense public pressure on the Federal enviro~~ental agency's entire asbestos control program that could not be anticipated. About 19 weeks have been consumed by the trial. Issues remain fuzzy. The asbestos issue was a late addition to the water pollution dispute between Reserve and the Government. The first phase of the trial -- still underway -- has been devoted to the public health issue -- that is, ingested asbestos -- and the issue of whether to close the plant imrned}ately. From the start of the trial on August 1 until midSeptember, the Government -- that is, EPA and the Justice Dept. plus assorted environ~ental groups -- argued their positions on the type of asbestos allegedly found in Lake Superior; its source, namely, Reserve, rather than tributary strew.'.s; and the movement of asbestos around the Lake. In late Septe~ber, the Mt. Sinai scientists and others presented testimony on fiber counts in air and water, and repeated their frightening co~.ments on the health of asbestos workers. Dr. Selikoff has not presented adequate data on tissue analyses from diseased Duluth residents. The midNovember Durham conference on ingested asbestos failed to add significant data. Without solid data, the presiding judge felt unable to support a decision to close the plant. The t~ial moved on to Reserve's witnesses, who have been testifying since early October. Reserve was slow in putting its medical witnetses on the stand, but several have testified, and several more,will continue to refute the contention that the Duluth problem po2es a significant health hazard via the water supply and that there is no x-ray evidence to show adverse health effects. As it stands, the judge is disinclined to close the plant based on what he has heard. He plans to let the trial run through most of December and into the next phase of the case -that is, the economic phase. This will allow determination of the economic consequence of requiring Reserve to either close down or to change its disposal operations. While this has been happening in Minneapolis, EPA has been attempting to draft drinking water guidelines in response to a request from the Minnesota governor and the mayors of the various communities affected by Reserve's discharge. These communities don't know if they are in the midst of a health crisis or not -they need official advice. EPA produced, in October, a recommendation that the asbestos levels in Lake Superior water supplies be reduced to levels technically achievable and more co~mensurate with levels found in water systems in other parts of the state. Technically, the reco~mendation must come from the President's Council on Environmental Quality. It must be assumed we are one step closer to a drinking water standard on asbestos. This could have great impact on the asbestos industry, particularly on A/C pipe, if it can be shown to contribute asbestos fibers to the water. EPA admits that they don't have enough data to support a numerical asbestos water sta~dard, but they are basing the Lake Superior re:comr.1endatior. on "prudence", and it is likely that corru~unities outside Minnesota will become jittery about water supplies if asbestos particles are found. Environmentalists are planning to sue EPA for not immediately treating asbestos as a toxic water pollutant which EPA can regulate, just as it regulates asbestos as an air pollutant. EPA believes it doei not have enough data to support an asbestos standard, but the environmentalist's main argu.~e~ts are that asbestos is a known carcinogen and that no intentional or avoidable contribution of asbestos to the water environment should be allowed. This argur:-.ent could end.up in court. In sum, the asbestos industry faces five environnental policies: existing air pollution standards on asbestos; soon-to-be-finalized water pollution standards on asbestos manufacturers; a soon-to-be. announced reco~mendation that asbestos be removed from drinking water in Minnesota; a likely asbestos drinking water standard; and a possible asbestos toxic water pollutant standard. Whether or not the industry will have to meet water standards in addition to air standards now depends on Mt. Sinai's ability to produce defini~ tive ingested health effects evide~ce. ' The Image of the Industry" Mr. Swetonic, past executive secretary of AIA/NA and pr~sently an account executive for the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton Inc., said that "from the press point of view, the asbestos industry, as a result of national attention to the asbestos-health issue, has news value only in the negative sense.'' That is, an industry in the present climate that can be criticized for alleged desregard for the welfare of its workmen and the general public. Swetonic said results of the AIA/NA Public Awareness Study show that the average man has little concern with or awareness of the health problems being associated with asbestos. He emphasized that it is unlikely that the tone and content of future national press articles on asbestos will be greatly improved by efforts of the AIA/NA but that the stories could become "even worse" if the Association does nothing to tell its story. A continuing active public relations program is necessary, he said, and the Association should plan its public relations program not only to be responsive but in creative and imaginative terms as well. Swetonic suggested a public relations program that would center within the Association "to take individual companies off the hook"; provide for wide dissemination of ti~ely, constructive news releases and articles; carefully select responses to editors as a result of "damaging, irresponsible stories"; conduct advertising in the trade press; respond publicly to Government decisions affecting asbestos; assure appropriate representation and actions at Government hearings and public meetings concerned with the asbestos issue; establish a priority list of target audiences for its public relations efforts. Luncheon Speaker Dr. Floyd Van Atta, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Division of Health Standards, OSHA, spoke at the noon luncheon. Van Atta talked of the "newness" of OSHA and the problen of establishing standarps, setting regulations, approvin? state programs, and carrying out compliance. He talked of the "state of the art" in monitoring methodology and the importance of reasonable workplace procedures. He urged industry assistance in the develop~ent of procedures and practices, noting that NIOSH has funds for research, not OSHA. Van Atta said ten state occupational and health programs have been approved to date. (It is believed the figure should be 20). He also said OSHA would not increase the current number of Federal compliance officers. (OSHA's '74 budget requests 64 additional compliance officers and the Labor-HEW ap?ropriations bill approved by joint House-Senate Conference Corr.mittee provides for an increase of 245 compliance officers). "Role of Individual Companies in Meeting the Asbestos-He.q.lth Issue" J Mr. Whittaker stated that AIA membership implies compliance with all laws and regulations pertaining to asbestos. He said that if members do not respect the intent and purpose of occupational safety and health regulations, they are doing a disservice to the Association and the industry. He suggested a program of company visits -- to see how the other fellow is.meeting problems in common. He said there was information and "know-how" within the member companies that would be beneficial to the entire industry. There was no objection to his proposal which could be worked out on a company-to-company basis. He also suggested exchange of company safety and health technicians to increase methodology and techniques in compliance procedures. Mr. Fay made a motion that data on investment, employment, and other information which might be helpful in preparing an "industry profile" be provided to the Executive Director. A questionnaire to member companies would be prepared by the Executive Director and input from individual companies received by February 15, 1974. The motion was approved and so ordered. Mr. Armstrong urged that the Association come up with recommendations for changes to the OSHA regulations. Mr. Marsh pointed out this was one of the purposes of creating the Technical Committee. A motion was made and approved for the Technical '' . Committee to obtain all data necessary to preparation of industry standards and procedures from member companies, including travel and visits, as necessary. Financial Report The Association's financial report was distributed. Mr. Marsh co:nmented on extra-ordinary expenses involved in the move of the office from New York to Kashington. He said the Association financial status was sound but the Association did not have current funding leverage to permit any unusual expenses over and above those provided for in the 1974 budget. New Business The date for the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors was set for March 7, 1974 in Washington, D. c., commencing at 10:00 a.rn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m J H. Mereness Executive Secretary December 13, 1973