Document Edymz4VBY0B0wMqL8a9MrJm4R

FILE NAME: Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMS) DATE: 1979 Dec 4 DOC#: FMS058 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Meeting Minutes - Board of Directors w 1 FRICTION ISTERIA!/: ^57A11L/J>3 INSTITUTE, O C . , E-210 ROUTE 4 , PA2A1IDS, t f . j . 07652 '.X.iUTES or FETING of the BOARD OF DIRECTOHS Tuesday, December 4, 1570 at 9:30 AM at Jiarriott Cot e l, Saddle Brook, New Jersey DirrcTor*^ present P.. iUDalli, President F. E.. ilessier '!. Simon J . U. Greenen Stuart Conins G. a . C arri"an Raybestos-'anhattan, Inc. P? International Bendix Corporation Automotive Aftermarket Operations Brassbestos Manufacturing Corporation lluturn Corporation P. T. Brake Lining Company, Inc. S. K. 'Je1loan Corporation Don Ranly J . :J . Armstrong 3. J . Pigg Tin Hardy (AIA Counsel) E. M. Drislane P. Gornan (FMSI Counsel) /ex Corporation 3endix Corporation Asbestos Information Association Kirkland 6 E llis , Esquire Friction Materials Standards Institute Robert P. Goman, Esquire it is * * * Mr. " o a l l i , Chairman, opened the meeting at 0:30 AM. ixiutes or rrjviotfs jjeetincs The ;iinute3 o f the Meetings held June 12-13, 1979 had been distribu ted . .Jo corrections were suggested. Upon notion duly made, seconded and unanimously passed, i t v a s ' RESOLVED: That the "inutes of the June 12-13, 1079 Meetings be accepted as w ritten. ::i:njTES or t'V tzti:*''- ct THE LO-CD OF DIOvECTOOf' -3- 3e comber 4, 1979 INSTITUTE hZSPQASE TO EPA OFFICE OF TOUC SP3STA-TCES INITIATIVES ` Oil AE3EST0S III FRICTION MATERIALS : : While general questions on the use o asbestos In frictio n m aterials were addressed in the advanced notice of proposed rule-making, Hr. Guinond of the EPA proposed eleven sp e c ific questions that he would like answers to from frictio n m aterials manufacturers. Mr. Gulmond asked frictio n m aterials manufacturers to answer these questions. He also asked for a date by which the EPA would be advised as to whether manufacturers w ill answer these questions. At the meeting, the Secretary indicated that he would try to give .lr. Guinond an answer within three weeks but that i t would take at le a st eight to gather any such answers. A question was asked concerning the deadline for responses. In the Federal R egister notice the deadline was December 17, 1979. The Asbestos Information Association had asked for an extension for at le a st six ty days In order to gather the information needed. The EPA had Indicated that they would not extend the deadline for information. (It has subsequently developed that there w ill be a six ty day extension.) I t was stated that the EPA would consider any information they gathered whenever i t was received even i f i t did not h it the deadline. In review of the eleven questions, i t appears that the EPA needs more information before they can proceed with th eir rule-naklnp. It was suggested that they need more time to build th eir case. A Director questioned whether the EPA i s attempting to get th is information directly from the In stitu te . The Secretary suggested that the eleven questions were prepared for discussion November 16, 1979 at the ALA and they were not prepared sp e c ific a lly with the idea of the In stitu te making the response. This was discussed in Washington and i t was not decided whether the In stitu te would respond d irectly or whether i t would pass these questions on for individual re p lie s. It was suggested that the questions be redrafted in order to give the EPA relevant information beyond the areas questioned. A Director asked as to how and when we resolve any deadline for answering these questions. Should the In stitu te copy the eleven questions and send i t out to the '..embership right away? It was stated that the In stitu te should advise the EPA that a response Trill be made. In addition to answering the eleven questions, there should be information on '.."hat ere the real problems as seen by the industry, '.'hat pertinent questions have not been asked? There nay be the need for questions on the a v a ila b ility of su b stitu te s, tooling, and health questions on the su b stitu tes for asb estos. It was -suggested also that the In stitu te ask members to give an explanation as to what problems they see that have not been asked by these questions. It was asked i f the EPA questions are targeted only for automotive disc brake lin in g s. It was replied that while some of these questions pertain s p e c ific a lly to automotive disc brake lin in gs that the questions are general in nature and should apply to a l l automotive type fric tio n m aterials The emphasis on d isc brake m aterials can be inferred from some of the questions that were asked. It would appear that automotive disc brake m aterials are the f i r s t target of EPA, but they have not sp e c ific a lly said th at. It was stated that a case be made that disc brake pads are now in a tra n sitio n a l design stag e, and do not need EPA regulation. hTNUTES OF THE ZETIHG OF THE 30ABD O? DISECT0P5 -5- December 4 , 1979 I t was suggested that any information that members might have that would support a position in ooposition to this regulation should be sent to the EPA. The EPA w ill not be subpoenaing information opposing their plans for regulation. It was f e l t that a persuasive case can be developed for not getting asbestos out of frictio n m aterials in anything less than ten years. Any information supporting such a viewpoint should be submitted. I t rras stated that many of the individuals working on asbestos control at EPA are new to this fie ld . Hot.only are they new to the asbestos question but have l i t t l e background In fric tio n m aterials. It i s for th is reason that the lin es of communication should be kept open, and i t was suggested that one of the in dustry's jobs would be to educate EPA personnel. The In stitu te should provide them with data and work in a lo g ic a l controlled manner to arrive at any regulatory resu lts that are r e a lis t ic and achievable. tJhile the words ''spoon feed" were' used the point was made that information should be given which gives the complete story on asbestos in frictio n m aterials and th is may not n ecessarily be in the areas that EPA is questioning. It was suggested that with the p o litic a l r e a lit ie s in Washington, that the Office of Toxic Substances w ill do their best to ban asbestos in frictio n m aterials and probably in automotive d isc brake m aterials at f i r s t . A question was asked as to how the In stitu te or I ts members could get EPA personnel attuned to our problems. A suggestion was made that a tour of plant f a c i l i t i e s might be worthwhile as a f i r s t step in the education process. Perhaps plant v i s i t s could be scheduled with members from the Northeast. Questions were raised several times as to whether a ban on asbestos in automotive d isc brakes was a foregone conclusion. I t wa3 suggested that i f i t is a foregone conclusion the In stitu te should try to control i t or phase i t in in a lo g ica l manner with the le a st damage to the members. This would be a d ifferen t approach than opposing any such ban. hr. Armstrong asked whether the 3oard of Directors was in favor of these regulations which nay cone froa EPA. He asked whether an asbestos ban in fric tio n m aterials i s in evitable. Perhaps the In stitu te 's approach should be to figh t these expected EPA regulatory in itia tiv e s . hr. hardy indicated that i t was not automatic or a foregone conclusion that asbestos would be banned in fric tio n m aterials. There are several questions and burdens of nroof for which the EPA must develop answers. (1) Is there an unreasonable risk to the health and environment from asbestos in fric tio n m aterials? (2) Can the risk be reduced by other measures than an outright ban? (3) Is th is the le a st burdensome means of accomplishing Toxic Substances Control Act objectives? (4) Are the su b stitu te m aterials le ss adequate than the m aterials they w ill be replacing from a safety viewpoint? There i s doubt that nedical evidence would support the ban on asbestos in fric tio n m aterials. He suggested that the EPA w ill have a d iff ic u lt tine documenting such a ban. Hr. Armstrong suggested that i f the industry wished to make strong onposition toa ban i t would have to produce nedical evidence to refute the unreasonable risk allegatio n . It was indicated that there was no one at the reetin g in favor of regulations to ban asbestos in frictio n m aterials. It was suggested at the same time that for members, or the In stitu te , or others opposed to regulatory in itia tiv e s to ban asbestos in frictio n m aterials, that this did not in any way prevent us from cooperating with the EPA. I t was stated that i t i s important to keep channels of communica tion omen. MINUTES OF THE S IT IN G OF THE BOATJD OF DIPZCTOF.S -7- December 4 , 1079 The m l " thread naming through the questions posed by the EPA concerns su b stitu tes for asbestos. There have been several a rtic le s in trade magazines concerning the replacement of asbestos. Mr. Guinond e a rlie r showed the Secretary an a rtic le from Automotive Industries in Hay 1979 which was headed "Age of Asbestos on Vehicle Parts Ending." This was based on information primarily sourced from Raybestos-IIaahattan. In addition, the EPA had a le tte r from General Motors in their docket concern ing th eir program, for non-asbestos fric tio n m aterials for brake systems. In that le tte r , which i s a public document, i t was noted that General Motors plans that a l l passenger car d isc brake applications w ill use non-asbesto3 frictio n m aterials by the 1983 model year. In addition i t made projections on drum brakes for 1985, with work on ligh t trucks and heavy trucks to follow. This i s the type of information that supports possible EPA plans to ban asbestos in automotive d isc brake m aterials. It was stated that while th is may be true for General Motors, on an original equipment b a s is , there would of n ecessity be a time lag for the replace ment market, for other domestic origin al equipment manufacturers, to say nothing of the Imported cars. A question was asked whether current sem i-m etallic General Motors d isc brake lin in gs use asbestos. I t was stated that th is was not known, but that some Delco-iloralne ads had indicated the use of non-asbestos m aterials. Further, i t vas stated that some of the sem i-m etallic m aterials used today have asbestos in the backing layer underneath the fric tio n m aterial. It was stated that the ZPA trill have d iffic u lty regulating non-asbestos fric tio n m aterials into some in d u strial application s. One Director indicated that there would be considerable d iffic u lty in adapting a non-asbestos fric tio n m aterial to certain systems used in overhead cranes. It was indicated that some of the m aterials that were used for replacing asbestos were iron powder and copper oewder. There i s a growing shortage of iron powders and copper powders used in frictio n m aterials. Another Director stated that there are many problems adapting non-asbestos type m aterials to applications such as truck disc brakes. It vas indicated that some of the non-asbestos types had d iffic u lty with cast iron rotors and that the brake package had to be almost completely redesigned to take ste e l rotors. It was suggested that another d iffic u lty might surface at a late r date and th is i s the carcinogenic properties of the m aterials being used as su b stitu tes for asb estos. Questions along these lin es were asked by ZPA in th eir advanced notice of rule-making. However, in many cases the su b stitu tes that are being used in non-asbestos fric tio n m aterials are fib ro u s,in nature. There has been a question raised concerning the pathogenicity of asbestos and whether i t was attribu table to i t s fiber shape rather than i t s chemical make-up. I f i t should be developed that fib er structure is the problem, i t may be that fib e rg lass and the metal fib ers that are used as su b stitu tes could act as carcinogens when inhaled. It i s unlikely that the nodical risk s involved with fib er su b stitu tes can be evaluated in the short term. ,,T.T'JTS OF TU- HEETIUG OF TUS BOARD OF DIRECTORS -9- December 4 , 1979 I t vas pointed out several tines that where the information requested by EPA is not provided, that they do have the rarer under the Toxic Substances Control Act to conpel delivery of th is inforoation. r*s regards requesting the information from the embership i t was suggested that i t s health and Environmental A ffairs Committee or a Task Force review these questions. It was suggested that in order to organize a response there might be need for net: s k i ll s on the Health and Environmental A ffairs Committee. I t was suggested that Public Relations s k i l l might be needed In presenting the I n stitu te 's problems to the EPA. I t was suggested that a program be outlined as the Committee needs direction. Let Che Committee review the request for information from EPA and add th eir own questions. Additional information should be provided beyond that which has been requested by EPA.. Any additional questions over those asked by EPA can be suggested by the Committee. It was suggested that the Committee, when preparing questions, ask that members answer every question and that they Indicate th eir reasons for not answering such as don't know, proprietary, or th : lik e . I t was suggested that the questions might be broken down into d ifferen t categories of fric tio n m aterials such as disc brake lin in g s, drum brake lin in g s, brake blocks, clutch facing3, in d u strial segments, e tc. A Director indicated that while th is nay or may not be of value, th is i s a question that should be considered by the Committee when i t makes i t s recommendations. A Director suggested that i t would be worthwhile i f the Committee or a Task Force meet with the EPA. In p a rtic u lar, he suggested that a group meet with '.hr. Cuinond and others in the Office of Toxic Substances who have direct resp o n sib ility for rule-making on asbestos fric tio n m aterials. There could be an informal meeting with the EPA and an In stitu te Task Force for c la rific a tio n of the questions submitted by EPA. This would indicate that the In stitu te is anxious to cooperate and i t would be helpful i f the EPA could be more d efin itiv e and sp e c ific on some of the questions. In addition th is may also buy some time where the members can .a working on the questions and perhaps gathering some preliminary data. It was stated that the questions asked ere broad questions and they should be more d efin itiv e or ask sp e c ific a lly what they are looking for. Fhile a meeting is being worked out with the EPA, the members would be advised on what is going on so they could sta r t gathering information. It was suggested that any meeting might best be held in the Hashington area. I!r. Pigg suggested that i t would bo " e l l to have the meeting at the EPA o ffic e s . An In stitu te Task Force to be organized by Hr. Armstrong could discu ss the technical questions that are involved. They could also get some input to those in the EPA responsible for regulations. In other words, the meeting .with the EPA might not ju s t be for c la rific a tio n of the questions but i t could also be for raisin g issu es and indication of industry problems with a ban. The questions to be answered in response to the EPA request w ill depend upon the answers that the Task Force gets from EPA. Hr. H oalli indicated that he would pursue th is further with Hr. Armstrong, Chairman of the Health and Environmental A ffairs Committee, to get the Task Force in operation. I t was agreed that tha In stitu te would continue working with the Asbestos Information A ssociation and in p a rticu lar with it3 ad-hoc Committee. Correspondence ,Tould continue to be interchanged between asso ciatio n s. Hr. Pigg noted that the Asbestos Information Association has given presentations to the EPA. One wa3 on the consumption of asbestos and the other was on medical information as regards asbestos related d is a b il it i e s . MINUTES OF THE ' NETING OF THE 20ATD OF DIHECTORS -11- December 4 , 1979 4. The Health and Environmental A ffairs Committee w ill review and recommend wording for the questions to be asked the Membership. 5. The questions a fte r review by Counsel w ill then be sent to the Membership for preparation of an In stitu te response. I t i s again suggested that in phrasing the questions that the Committee advise i f the questions pertain to the broad range of fric tio n products or to sp e cific product lin es. INSTITUTE RESPONSE TO EPA OH POPULATION EXPOSURE AND FOUTES, DURATION AND FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE The Health and Environmental A ffairs Committee drafted a le tte r to the Environmental Protection Arency concerning th eir suggested regulations on asb estos. This response was patterned a fte r information gathered to refute an e a r lie r IIT research In stitu te report which pointed at asbestos fric tio n m aterials a3 having an extremely high population exposed at high exposure ra te s. This document T'a3 prepared by the Committee and revised by the Chairman and wa3 ready for d istribu tion to the EPA. The Directors stated that th is le tte r to the EPA should f i r s t be reviewed and approved by Counsel. Then with Counsel review and possible revision of the le t t e r , i t must be approved by the 3oard of Directors before release. FEDERAL ACTIVITY - .EBZSTOS HEALTH HAZARDS COIJENSAll ON ACT The Secretary advised that he had written to Senator Gary Hart who was to be the sponsor in the Senate of an Asbestos Health Hazards Compensation Act. It \:sz stated that the Fenwick 3111 as drawn up e a rlie r was dead. It was indicated that th is b i l l TTas never given seious consideration from the onset but i t was a stepping stone towards a p ractical conoensation b i l l . Senator Hart' o reply indicated that there was no action being taken cn a Senate T ill at thi3 tine. hr. advised that he had ju st received a copy of some draft le g isla tio n for a compensation act. He had only recieved th is d raft the day prior to our meeting. The recommendation of the Health and Environmental A ffairs S.nn-i was that no action be taken on an asbestos health hazards compensation act u n til the Committee was able to review the content, hr. Pigg gave th is d raft to the Secretary who w ill send i t to the Committee for th eir consideration and comments. HEALTH AlrD ENVIRON!HINTAL AFFAIRS CO!SUTTEE REPORT hr. Armstrong, Chairman of the Health and Environmental A ffairs Committee, reorganized th is Committee and expanded the ' enbership to include new members from H.11. Porter Company, Thiokol and Nutum. Nr. Armstrong indicated that there was no charter or direction for the Committee as such and that the Committee was draftin g a charter which he was now reviewing. The Committee recommended that with no known action in the area of an asbestos compensation act that no action should be taken at th is time. The Committee w ill continue to noaitor any ac tiv ity in this area. UNITIES o r tt:e t z t iit g of THE BOARD OF DIRE CTO?.: - 13" December 4, 1979 A question was raised about Virginia Friction Products in Virginia run by the Carreras family. The Secretary indicated that he had written to Hr. 3 i l l Axlerod at Krasne over a year ago concerning no3sib le Heaber3hip in the In stitu te . He had also written to Hr. Carreras of Virginia Friction Products. ITo rep lies were received. One of the problems Tilth the Virginia Friction Products operation was discussed at the June 12, 1979 meeting. The Secretary at that time was directed to write to Virginia Friction Products which he did. He also called Hr. Joe Goodreau at Hidco in "iddletown, Connecticut concerning Virginia Friction Products. A question was asked as regards non-member use of copyrights and whether lack of enforcement of a copyright night be a path to lo ss of the copy righ t. Counsel indicated that he was not conoletely versed on copyright law but tnat he helieved th is to be so. The Secretary suggested that before he w rites concerning Hembership in the In stitu te and copyright infringement that he have some evidence on these manufacturers' use of the r.S I numbers. It was stated that the following would be a urogram for correspondence and follcw-up: 1. Send a le tte r to the manufacturer suggesting ' nbershin and advising on use of the I n stitu te 's copyrights and trademarks. 2. After su ffic ie n t tine has lapsed, write a follow-uo le tte r and at the sane time write to the Hembership asking for any evidence of that manufacturer's use of the I n s titu te 's copyrights or trademarks. 3. I f evidence is available from the Membership on the use of the I n stitu te 's copyrights and trademarks write another follow-up le tte r . 4. I f there has been no reply to the follow-up le tte r (a fte r proof has been provided) the question w ill be referred to Legal Counsel for his follow-uD. iDEimriCAiio:: or : ztallic type lutings The Secretary indicated that at the June 1979 Board of Directors Meeting they referred a question concerning n e ta llic linings in In stitu te Catalogs to the Data 3ook and Technical Connitteee. Two members had suggested that there be sp e c ific id en tificatio n of sem i-m etallic or m etallic type linings in the I n s titu te 's catalogs. At the October 23, 1979 meeting of the Data Book and Technical Comoittee the Committee adopted a resolution against listin g n e ta llic type frictio n m aterials in the In stitu te 's Catalogs. They resolved that the o rigin al equipment m etallic or other formulation of fric tio n m aterials not be shown in b u lletin s or catalogs and supported that resolution with these five items: 1. M etallic composition information is not readily availab le. Original Equipment manufacturers may consider th is in for mation p rivileged . 2. The In stitu te should not make recommendations or in fer recommendations on formulations for brakes.