Document 2RRkO9yNddvLKQRELM9wZQYrb

FILE NAME: Pfizer (PFIZ) DATE: 1972 Oct 20 DOC#: PFIZ028 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Kilnoise a. 11 II I October 20 1072 I tOi non* SUBJECT l H. N. Stephenson jA '. e. m a t Kllnolse This memo la to record ay present thinkIn? on tha aobject of Kllnolse and to explore poaalbla future actions relating to tbla product. Because of 05HA regulations concerning use of ashestoe. the Gibaonburg plant can no longar cake Kllnolse. They should not be asked to Bake any mors asbestos-bearing Kllnolse and. In fact, they would refuse to do so if such a request were oade. The xilnolsa situation should be considered as e two pert problem. The first part is a natter of making e new formula Kllnolse for reguler architectural purposes. The second part is developing a new f o m u l a daaigned for sound deadening in subway tunnel. R t 0 it now engaged in e product development project with both parts of the problem in nind. The m e d i a t e future of Kllnolse depends on the outcome of noise reduction coefficient tests of five trial formulas. The taste era scheduled for the first week of Novaabar. If tha NBC test results on any of the trials meat the m i n i m a of O.S, we can proceed with the Toronto tunnel job with soma degree of confidence. But. even if the NBC tests ere good. X would hesitate to offer any new Kllnolse formula for architec tural purposes without further testing under actual or simulated end use conditions. Perhaps Lepley and Plants could devise such a test. Z would bo concerned with NBC test value with e socalled standard mounting and at various thicknesses and surface textures. Covarage (lbs. per sq. ft.) should be determined. All of these data would ba required to develop suitable promo tional material and tech data sheets. 1 would also be concerned with color stability and material durability over a long period of tlmm. 3ftarl " S.s S s | c 5-I 8 J53| a> --^s lJ!I *l 2 o O o M CO SAMPLE 15842 'BRANT IT 505 009C8/O, .//-'As m mX I i ' ! II I I I r i v. M. Stephenson October 20 1972 Pegs 2 Cost of manufactors will bo a factor in both cases. Tbs cost will go up and a now pricing schedule will have to be determined. Accurate cost information is not yet available bat indications are that the increase may be in the order of S2S per ton. Bow this will affect price and the future market are matters to consider. Zn view of the time and expanse in developing and testing an improved architectural Xilnoisa and considering the apparent small market one must at least consider the idea of dropping the produet. Zf the NRC test results of the forthcoming tests are below minimum, we will have to hurriedly decide on the next move to be made regarding the material to be used on eunnel jobs. Z would eertainly oppose its use in Toronto unless the KRC speci fication was lowered to meet that of our new product. Apparently the Toronto contractor has certain time coral m e a t s , and if the NRC test results are low. it will create somewhat of a crisis, we nay be forced into considering the dropping of the development project unless s time extension of ssverel months is granted. Zf we are forced (or choose) to drop out of the Toronto job, it would then be prudent for us to reevaluate the entire situation to decids if further development is justified. iim 0. S. Brent dm ooo ro co SAMPLE 1564 505 00909 i