Document ByV9NqOLowO5JY7gwY9Gw7LY4

December 13, 1077 X'Zt/o/? U.S. Reportedly Agrees in Asbestos Suit To Pay Portion of $20 Million Settlement+ NOT COMEFROM PPG FILES A wixj. Strut jouual .Vm AatuttUr In an unusual move, tbe federal govern* ment has agreed to chip in 0.7 million as part of a Sd> million secret settlement of consolidated suits by 44S Tyler, Texas, as* bestos workers. Despite a gag order by U.S. district court on all parties involved, informed sources say that the workers, who sued the federal government and several private companies in 1974. were secretly offered a cash settle ment in September. The suits allege public and private negligence that allowed workers to be exposed innocently to cancercausing ' asbestos, specifically a type called amosite. Tbe settlement, which allows conclusion of the suits without specific blame being placed with anyone, was sealed until at least Thursday. Tbe Tyler workers sued the companies that owned the plant since its opening in 1954 until it closed in 1972 as well as asbes tos suppliers. The defendants include Pitts burgh Coming Corp.. a company jointly owned by PPG Industries Inc. and Coming Glass Works that operated the Tyler plant from 1962 until 1972, These three companies will pay workers about ill million, sources said. Other defendants Include Union Asbestos k Rubber Co., of Chicago, which will pay Si million. The British holding eomany of Cape Industries Ltd. and its subsidiaries were also sued and will pay &2 million. Cape OWIIS uh--fng tmmr\g concerns ih Africa, London, and the U.S. sources said. The federal government's share of the settlement totals 8.7 million. The payout was arrived at as the result of charges of withholding health information on workplace conditions. Specifically, federal authorities were charged with enuring into a secret agree ment with the plant's management to with hold from workers findings of high asbestos levels in the air. Sources said that the agreement was enured into by the Public Health Service, which thought it wouldn't otherwise be allowed right of entry to in spect the workplace in 1964 as part of a sur vey of 39 plants. However, another charge against the government was that as the plant was operating under federal contract it fell within the realm of the walsh-Healy Act. which requires the government to en sure that workers for a federal contractor have a safe workplace. The plant made as bestos insulation to supply Navy vessels. Sources said that some asbestos used at the plant came from federal stockpiles in unmarked-sacks, Sources said that federal officials made depositions that to the Government Services Administration's sale of unmarked asbestos up to two years ago, and said GSA still sells asfaesua.. although it -is properly labeled. The suits were brought after Tyler work ers became concerned about unhealthy work conditions. Sources said that 2$ deaths have been directly attributed to the workplace conditions, and that about to to 80 asbesto- sls. or lung disease, cases have been docu mented over the last few years. Also, un usually high numbers of a rare Uing cancer called mesothelioma has continued to show up among former plant worker*. PPG industries declined comment on the proposed settlement and other defendants weren't available for comment. Although he darimeo on whether a settlement had been reached, one attorney for numerous plaintiffs said that the case's outcome "won't be of preceden | BB 0000826 J tial value elsewhere... It doesn't mean the government will necessarily be held liable anywhere else." 01 1273 t e <s , UJqU Jtt-tef UArfU AUAS Drastic Cut in Asbestos Exposure Urged > ' By Federal Agency for 250,000 Workers - ' -- By Gail Bhokson research of the British* Occupational Has. MM! HtpTttr af Tub Wiu. Utiiwt Joowim. glens Society, which evaluated 200 workers Federal nuirdun in urging a drastic In ea asbeaters factory. Baaed on that work, reduction In tbs occupetlnnsl .exposure of the institute concluded that a two-millioo-Q*. mora than' 290,000 workers ter asbestos, a bars limit would prevent asheetoeta. ' known carcinogen, to one-tenth of th cur However, when the British plant was ree> rant federal standard. <5orclnoxsna ara can- tudied in 1972, it was found that thsra was a car producing or Inciting agents. greater incidence of aabcatoala than the In an unpubUsbed report, the National lib British standard warranted- In fact, MW of stitute tor Occupational Safety and Health tha workers exposed for 10 years to 19 years recommends that worker exposure to air- had some kind of chest abnormality, and the borne asbestos be limited to 100,000 fibers rate of abnormalities Increased' with the per cubic meter at air In eight bourn. In ad rate of sabcstoc exposure. dition, the researchers want peak concentre* Other studies show-an Increased mortal Ooostof exposure limited to 900,000 fibers ity rate from cancer among workers ex par cubic meter of air based on lb-minute posed to sabeetne. says John Dement, an in *urr><"F ptriodie stitute industrial hygienist. A British study Current federal standards limit asbestos - published this year showed that workers ex to two million fibers per cubic meter of air. posed to eehsetoo from 1932 to 1990 had 14 This standard was promulgated by the Oc Umi m niirh oC biQ| cupational Safety and Health Administration In 1972, at which time Industry was given (our years to comply. Plants were required to`set up improved ventilation systems. In cancer as tha expected number of causer eases In the general population. Mr. DeCheat, adda that British eedentlsta found that In worker* employed up to IS yean beyond Q C/3 ~r uJ O thq interim period, an "emergency*' expo 1990. during a period when industry im sure standard remained in force alter it was set by 08HA under pressure from the AFLCIO. The Institute recommendations In 1972 to proved ita engineertng controls and technol ogy for plant environment, the excess can- car case etstlaUca conilimed tt>aw UP- ' `Excess of Cancer Bisk* '-r, CD ,v.: OSHA were well below those actually car In a South Dakota gold-mine study pub ried out. "Our 1972 recommendations were lished this year, researchers touul that Uw designed to protect workers from aabcatoala; 440 workers had three times as many eases or chronic lung disease," says Verne rose, of respiratory discsas as expected, based on O institute director for criteria documentation. the state mortality rates. These workers "but not neccaearily from cancer. We are were exposed to leas than 290,000 fibers per now suggesting the least detectable expo cubic meter tn eight hours. sure level in the workplace. The reason is "We're saying reduce exposures (to as : w that am don't know what could possibly be a bestos) to a bare minimum because we safe level of exposure over the working life can't tell you how low you have to ge to s time without adverse health effects." Lethal Quality Perutussled The lethal quality of tiny asbestos fibers that lodge in the lungs (s well documented. If the exposure to asbeloe duet in the work place is slashed. Industries that use the ma eliminate a cancer risk," says Mr. Dement "All nidlea have shown an exceaa of confer risk at all levels of exposure to asbestos." The reason for OSHA reevaluating the anbearns standard stems from a 1974 nut by 'the AFTsQO's industrial union department .V --v- -o terial such as construction and oil refining, against the Department of Labor pit- may come under Increased pressure to sub- ing about several points in tha 1972 exposure aUtut* rumtoxic materials. Asbestos Is used standard. The A7L-CIO petitioned (or tn fireproof textiles, shingle insulation, and 1 changes to be made In the required medical thermal piping, among other products. records that employers maintain on work . "It's not possible to establish a safe expw- ers. and it requested that the timetable for surf level (or the carcinogenic activity of as lowering asbestos exposure limits be bestos," says Dr. John F. Finklea, director Stepped up. of the Institute. "Therefore, emphasis should The federal court of appeals In Washing be placed on prohibiting the occupational ton. D.C., directed OSHA to reoonalder tboee use of asbestos In other than completely two provisions of the standard. At that tins, closed operations, and on substituting other the enforcement agency decided the stan products whenever ponlble." dard possibly wasn't protective ranngh ef The lira Institute recommendations on asbestos workers' health and It decided to | L3B 0000827 aboalos to OSHA were based in part on the repropoee the entire-standard, beyond the court directive, says sa OSHA spokesman. OSHA enlisted the aid of the National In stitute for Occupational Safety and Health ln the ra-evaluatieu to study new research de velopmenu and explore advances In prelaw' Uve technology ea they related to aibacmc exposure. The OSHA spokesman said the agency will hold public hearing* early next D1 1274yeer on proposed revised standards before promulgating the finel rule. J