Document 5kMgD9RogLRdGYD0OLov6oDkz

FILE NAME: Z//E DATE:K DOC#: /E DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:EZZ 'Z/:Dd/Z/Z,^ (o/--z,,~f'6) Asbestos distribution a global issue ByBARBARAOOOK Even as it is being sued by thousands of persons in this country who have contracted asbestosrelated diseases, the Johns-Manville Corp. reportedly continues to be involved in the same unhealthful production and distribution practices of asbestos products overseas, especially in Third World countries. In an article recently published in India in a weekly described by the Indian Consulate in New York City as a ''highly respected and reputable weekly magazine which covers economic and political issues," it was reported that Johns-Manville provides the raw materials for, and is "exclusive seller" of, asbestos products manufactured and distributed under conditions which are illegal and known to cause cancer in the Western world. The Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. of Ahmedabad produces 50,000 tons per year of asbestos-cement pipe sheet and its "foreign collaborator" is the Johns-Manville Corporation, the June 13 issue of Economic and Political Weekly states. Shree Digvijay has been a "steady customer" for Canadian asbestos fiber mined by Johns-Manville, according to the article, which goes on to describe how asbestos-laden solid wastes and process water are dumped outside of the Ahmedabad plant "in a completely wanton man- ner." "Children play on the waste dumps, And workers ae not informed of the lethal dangers of the dust," it continues. "Johns-Manville is the exclusive seller of Shree Digvijay products shipped to the Middle East and Africa. Ironically, these products bear no warning labels, yet JohnsManville is being sued for billions of dollars by thousands of American workers with cancer and asbestosis for not having affixed warning labels on products sold in the US until 1964," it says. It appears to be a tenuous situation for a company which is claiming prior lack of medical knowledge as a legal defense against pending asbestos litigation in this country. Johns-Manville notes in its own 1980 annual report that since the mid1970s, the company has sold asbestos fiber in the United States "only in pressure pack, block form or other similar condition, and not in loose form." Dennis Markusson, the company's assistant corporate counsel in charge of asbestos litigation, notes in Insight 81, J-M's quarterly publication for investors, that J-M's safety practices and warning labels since 1964 are a main defense against the suits. There is a long latency period betweeen exposure and manifestation of asbestos-related diseases, from 15 to 30 years, and Markusson says that a "vast majority" of the disease manifested in the 1970s was the result of exposure in the '40s and '50s, "before medical knowledge was advanced enough to alert industry to the scope of the problem." "If you condense all the legal theories, you end up with basically three: the foreseeability defense based upon the medical knowledge at the time of exposure, use of asbestos by 'sophisticated users,' and negligence by the plaintiff which is characteristic in cigarette smoking cases." "The state of medical knowledge theory boils down to the issue of foreseeability - that is, when was it reasonably foreseeable that asbestos irisulation products presented a hazard and therefore gave rise to a duty to warn. We know that J-M started to label all its insulation products in 1964, so that's not an issue." As to whether the company should have done so earlier, Markusson said that "because we believe it first became a duty in 1964 - and the medical literature supports that belief - J-M satisfied its duty and thus didn't, as a matter of Jaw, place a defective product on the market." Environmental consultant Barry Castleman, who co-authored the Indian article, in a telephone interview accused J-M of "selling asbestos without warning of risk, while knowing it full well." ''It's a continuing pattern,'' he added. "It's what they've always done. What they're doing in India is what they've always done in the United States." As most Americans now realize, and many local residents tragically know full well, breathing asbestos . fibers causes lung damage and may lead to cancer. Indeed, J-M is defendant or codefendant in nearly 6,000 asbestos lawsuits lawsuits brought by present or former insualation, shipyard and factory workers and other persons alleging damage to their health from exposure to dust from asbestos fibers or asbestos products manufatuered orsold by J-M and other defendants. Yet the overseas market is a profitable one. Despite fact t.hat J-M's net sales in 1980 were $10 millic lower than 1979 net sales, "for all ' 1980, net sales by overseas sul sidiaries were 18 percent higher tlul for 1979," according to compa.Il figures. "To avoid the cost of regulatior and lawsuits for damages, multirn tional finns have looked to develo1 ing nations as sanctuaries t manufacture cheaply, and as a 'lru frontier' for developing ne1 markets," the Economic an Political Weekly article explained. In a M~y 28 Insight interview wit: senior J-M vice president Ea1 Parker and Markusson regarding J M's defenses, Markusson discusse the "sophisticated user theory,' which focuses on the knowlege of thi employer at the time of exposure. "In terms of warnings, there i: nothing about asbestos that Johns Manville could have tol< sophisticated maunfacturers bacl then that they didn't already know.' Regarding punitive damages fo1 the future, Markusson said: "If the notion is to punish, then a some point it goes beyond punisbini and becomes an abuse of due procesl or at least nonsensical.Hit's intend ed to deter, then that wouldn't applJ in asbstos cases because in mos1 cases fr.e products aren't manufac tured anymore." Except overseas, where the profi1 is still to be made and life apparentl) is still cheap. For, as the Indian article points out, "Even in the apparent vacuum of government regulation, it is appalling that these giant asbestos companies conduct business under such conditions in India and elsewhere.'' PAGE a-SOMERSET MESSENGER-GAZETTE-OCTOBER 22, 1981 J-M tells its Indian affiliate to improve health standards ByBARBARACOOK DE NVE R - I n response to "a great deal of incorrect infonnation" about JohnsManville's involvement in an Indian asbestos cement plant printed in an Indian magazine which servedasthebasisforan article in last week's Gazette, J-M . officials one-seventh of the plant's asbestos in 1980. J ohos-Manville has less than a 10 percent ownership in the company, he said, dating from the early 1960s, when J-M was consultant to companies around the world which were building asbestos plants. Shree Digvijay was one opened their records this week to present a more complete picture of the situation. James Reis, director of asbestos policy at J- of them. The plant was sold to the Indian company in 1960 or 1961 with the highest technical stan- dards and equipment of M's Denver corportate headquarters, said en- vironmentalist Barry Castleman's report on conditions at the Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Lt d . pla nt in AQmedabad, India, carried in the June 13 issue of Economic and Polle- the time, he said. The under 10 percent ownership came about as partial payment for the technology. But J-M has no one on the board of directors and the nature of the ownership "does not entail day-today operations," Reis taicl Weekly, "is not factual, and we have repeatedly pointed that out to him that." The Shree Digvijay said. Reis asserts that J-M adheres to established safety standards while doing business overseas. plant is described in the "Every bag of raw article as a classic ex- fiber that J-M ships to Ina mp 1e of want o n dia has a warning label disregard of asbestos on it in six languages," safety standards. J-M, he said. the article stated, is the While it is true that the -'exclusive seU~r~ .. ft .fin.hhe.d asb-ettus Shree Digvijay products c.mielit products do n0t shipped to the Middle have warning labels, East and Africa. Fur- there is no requirement ther, asbestos products of that, even in the distributed by JM United States, Reis said, display no warning since products in which labels, the article said. the asbestos fiber is Yet Reis said the link bound are excluded. between the two com- "The danger is from the panies is not nearly as raw fiber which can get complete as the article into the lungs," Reis would suggest. said. "We have never been Although Castleman and are not now the ex- has appeared in Man- clusive seller," he said, ville with slides showing with J-M providing only unhealthy handling of i~~u:~:r::ii'i~~,~,~{f!t~~~' -~ the raw asbestos fiber by Sltree Digvijay workers, J-M records indicate that the company has consistently prodded their Indian affiliate to improve health stan- dards. "We are concerned with the way asbestos products are use,d around the world which are giving asbestos a bad image," Reis stated. After a J-M team visited the Shree Digvi- jay plant in September 1977, they wrote in a JM memorandum: "The plant currently has a very severe dust problem with asbstos fiber as well as cement. Most of the fiber handling and usage is done by hand and with shovels without dust control of any kind. Further, the Indian Government Environ- ment Division has been recently tightening dust emissions (standards) and Shree Digvijay has been told to either shape up or close down, With their management llilble fdrjailsentenees." ' 1 J-M offered technical assitance for the plani to plant," according to an October 1979 letter. But in August 1980 Johns-Manville senior vice presidnet Monroe Harris wrote to Indian officials "to draw your attention to a number of recent events which could have a profound influence upon the future of the asbestos cement industry in India." The letter describes J- M's efforts "both in determining the causal factors" leading to as best o s-r e 1ate d diseases and in developing techology to "assure that asbestos can be mined, milled, shipped and manufactured into a finished product in a safe manner." The letter called for a timetable for cleanup completion at Shree Digvijay. In November 1980, a JM environmental control engineering team visited Shree Digvijay and issued four pages of detailed , reeonunendation for c~eanup. A December 1980 followup viSit and letter indicated that steps had thsese projects the highest prioritt possi- ble." Reis contends that the record shows J-M's con- sistent efforts to exercise what limited influence they have with -Shree Digvijay. "Yes, we do have a policy, but our policy is not a slamming of the door,'' he said. He noted that if J-M quits selling asbestos to India, other countries will quickly fill the gap. from Shree Digvijy. says they followed J-M's recommendations, con tacted dust control experts and had, in fact, "already entrusted certain jobs to them." J-M followed up the next year with a compilation of asbestos and health materials which the Indian plant managment promised to disseminate ''to all concerned people in my tions. and that further steps were underway; with safety equipment ordered. ; According records from another visit on March 12, the ~hree Digvijay had "made prgress" cleaning up and that "most of the equipment which we recommended has at least been ordered." Shree Digvijay was again urged "to give