Document 5LLvBgMar2jXG0BjDV27Oa5Oe

Hinutes of the I`.eeCin,, of the Board of Directors - 10 - June 17, 19 75 Upon notion duly trade, seconded and unanimously passed it was RESOLVED: That the report of the Quality Control Sub-Committee be accepted as written. ASBESTOS STUDY COIBIITTEE DEPORT ,'ir. Drislane read the report for the Chairman, Hr. I. H. 'leaver. Please refer to Exhibit 9. Hr. Heaver's report expressed concern on the accusations that have been pressed against the industry concerning the asbestos standards. He reviewed some of the activities of the regulatory agencies over the past year. The last four para graphs in ?lr. Heaver's report aroused some controversy. One director suggested that the last four paragraphs be deleted. There is a serious question as to whether the OSHA 2 fiber per cc Unit (which is to be effective July 1, 1976) can be met by friction material manufacturers. *Ir. Heaver indicated in his report that installers of friction material are now cooing under the surveillance of Dr. Selikoff and other proponents of stronger regulation. Several ceobers brought up the point that even with the regulations there is a great difficulty in getting labor to help in coopliance. Even when it is written into the law and instructions are placed in the work place the working people do not cooperate. Counsel was questioned as to the contents of this report where !lr. Ueaver indicated that he did not see any justification for a change in the attitude of the regulatory agencies. It was stated that this was !Jr. Heaver's viewpoint. Legal Counsel stated that this is not a legal matter and does not expose the Institute. It was questioned whether sections of this report as written could in any way ham the Institute. Legal Counsel indicated that this was not the case. Upon notion duly made, seconded and passed, with five affirmative and r-ro negative, it was RESOLVED: To accept the report of the Asbestos Study Connittee as written. At the `.larch 13, 1975 Heetinc of the Beard of Directors, the Secretary was advised to contact the Asbestos Information Association (ALA) with the idea of discussing possible financial assistance to the Association. !!r. Drislane wrote Hr. `..arer.ess, Secretary of AIA after the meeting and had just received a reply. In Hr. H.erer.ess: reply he indicated his appreciation and that of his Executive Corralttee for the offer by the Institute. However, the Association felt the test way to support the A.IA was by individual members becoming members of the Asbestos Information Association. He indicated the general fee structure for rentershic in the AIA.. Hr. Hcaili stated that the AIA. was of treat help to iur incustrv. He indicated that Esybestcs -'as considering a survey or. the healr history of workers in one cf their plants. They, as an individual company were sponsoring and paying for a surrey which couic be a help to ail industry, lie indicated that it would be better if industry participated in the activities of the Asbestos Information A.ssociaricn tc support similar types cf work. He fa .t that the Assocaition did need the support of our members. ~i ,z