Document JrwMVpR5O9Kdz4nmKMrNk52jO

FILE NAME: Asbestos Information Association (AIA) DATE: 1974-1977 DOC#: AIA012 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letters - Nicolet GUY G. GABRIELSON. JR. Chairman of th * Board \ NICOLET, INC. Executive Offices 25 Skippack Pike (Brood A x tj Ambler, Penna. 19002 UC.U u 1 December 20, 1976 H.D.S. Hardie Turner & Newall Ltd. 77 Fountain S t . Manchester M2 2EA . England ' - - Dear Harry: I am quite certain that I have a very poor understanding, indeed, of the difficulties which you must have faced in preparing a' sub- mission to the Advisory Committee on Asbestos. The Terms of Reference of the Committee, I now see, were so broad and generalized fihat you have faced the same kinds of uncertainties which we now face in our effort to respond to an OSHA regulation of asbestos exposures in- construction, when the text of that regulation has not yet been , published. . ' Your ACA submission has been returned to the AIA files in Washington, so I do not have it before me for reference. I think that I might have felt more comfortable, however, if, in discussing the costs of establishing and maintaining an airborne fiber concen tration of less than 2 per cc TWA, you had added some qualifying language such as "if such lesser concentration should prove to be feasible technologically". We still do not believe that we can achieve 2 fibers/ml. TWA at all work stations in any major asbestos manufacturing process, using best available technology. And when we discuss the cost of going to the proposed 0.5 fiber standard, we always stress our conviction that such a standard remains today infeasible. It is my concern that, without such a qualification in your discussion of the cost of achieving 1 fiber/ml. TWA, OSHA may read the T & N submission to constitute a tacit acknowledgement by a major manufacturer that a 1 fiber exposure level actually is achievable with current technology. Since I have not heard any of your people say that 1 fiber/ml. is feasible, I assume that you share our belief that the engineering technology for such a standard remains to be developed and that that development may be difficult and perhaps impossible. I would consider myself presumptuous if I were to write to criticize your submission, so criticism is not my purpose. I know, however, that you share my conviction that developments^Ln the politics A 22400 H. D. S. Hardie December 20, 1976 Page 2 of the asbestos/health issue in one country inevitably have their repercussions in other countries. We in AIA intend to try to bear in mind, whenever we act, the effects that our activities in the USA may have upon the industry in other countries. Realistically, we must^ expect that there will be occasions when our individual national interests may have to take precedence over the interests of the industry in other countries, but we hope that those occasions will be few. I have no.doubt that the AIC intends to conduct its affairs in similar fashion. Given a little good luck, a prudent coordination of the positions which we take in individual countries may yet turn the tide. I am heartened to learn that you are endeavoring, in your dis- ' cussions, to defend a 2 fiber criterion by limiting years of exposure. A concession of this kind would seem to be less inconsistent with the posture which we have assumed and therefore preferable from the AIA point of view. I have just received a Christmas card from A1 Fay, an ex-president of AIA who recently retired from National Gypsum Co.. On t,,he bottom of the. card A1 wrote "Keep 'em flying!" I'm not sure whether he meant "keen -th^ companies in existence and profitable" or "JLeep the enemies of the asbestos industry In "flight" ; but, in either or both senses, t repeat the exhortation, - TURNER & . NEWALL LIMITED Registered O ffice 77 Fountain Street Manchester M2 2EA Telephone 061-236 9381 Telex 667664 Telegrams Tumerall Manchester M r. Guy G. G ab rielso n , Jr., Nic<ilet I n c ., ; 25 Skippack P ik e , (Broad Axe), A m bler, Pennsylvania 19002, United States of A m e ric a .. . 13th D ecem ber 1976 D ear Guy, T hank you fo r y o u r le tte r of 2nd D ecem b er. I am so rry that you feel that T&N has m ade little effort to oppose a re d u c tio n of th e UK e x p o su re s ta n d a rd fro m 2 f ib r e s /m l TW A. We thought we had m ade our position fairly clear at the bottom of page 3 and at the top of page 4 of the Introduction w here we state that j for a period of y ears th e re have been no asb esto s-related disease in two departm ents which have w orked consistently at or below the 2 fibres standard and we thereby cam e to the conclusion that it would be p re m a tu re to depart from c u rre n t standards. O ur difficulty in fram ing a subm ission for considera tion by the A dvisory C om m ittee on A sbestos w as the fact that the C om m ittee's T e rm s of R eference w ere wide open, th ere being no draft revised standard on the table for consideration and in this re sp e c t the A C A 's T e rm s of R eferen ce a re v e ry different from those of OSHA. The actu al T e rm s of R eferen c e a re : "To review the risk s to health arisin g from exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos including: - persons exposed at work; - m e m b e rs of the public exposed to asb esto s generated from work activities; - m e m b e rs of the public exposed to a sb esto s from consum er products and from asbestos waste; To m ake recom m endations as to whether any further protection is required. " S h'm 2240 We felt that we ought to bring to the attention of the C om m ittee som e of the cost im plications of operating to a 2 fib re sta n d a rd (p. 68) and of lo w e rin g th e sta n d a rd to so m e o th e r fig u re. F o r this purpose, we decided on a totally a rb itra ry basis to use n n w n c o c in R91. P o w e r c o s t s a r e a v e r y ro M r. Guy G. G a b rie lso n , J r . 13th D e ce m b e r 1976 s e n s itiv e ite m in UK eco n o m ic thinking today and an o p e ra tin g c o st w hich goes up by o v e r a m illio n pounds p u re ly on a cc o u n t of d u st c o n tro l was, we thought, a point worth making. The projected capital expen diture of v irtu ally 4m, which does nothing to productivity, plus the additional lm on operating costs, has clear p rice im plications. The selling p ric e s of our p roducts a re controlled by G overnm ent and, again, we thought that the inclusion of th e se fig u res would have an im p act. I think that our task would have been significantly e a sie r if we had had in front of us a specific p ro p o sal to arg u e against. A s you know, the proceedings of the ACA a re confidential until such tim e as the C om m ittee decides to re le a s e inform ation to the public. I am th erefo re circ u m sc rib e d in what I say regarding our proceedings. However, there has been so much talk about standards that I think it is fair to re c o rd that cu rren t m edical opinion am ongst those who a re m e m b e rs of the A dvisory C om m ittee and those close to Sir R ichard Doll in O xford and the MRC P neum oconiosis Unit at P e n a rth s u g g e sts th at the r e - e x a m in a tio n of the TBA d ata w ill e s ta b lis h a 75 fib re y e a r th re sh o ld in p la c e of the 100 fib re y e a r th re s h o ld on which we hav been w orking fo r the p a st six o r seven y e a rs. M ath em atically , of c o u rse , th is would w o rk out at a T L V of 1. 5 f i b r e s / m l . H o w e v e r, it is a threshold for asbestosis only and does not encom pass carcinogenic risk s. My f e a r is th a t if a 1. 5 f i b r e f i g u r e i i s p r o m u l g a t e d fo r a s b e s t o s i s th e pundits would say that as th e re is no quantitative dose resp o n se re la tio n ship for m e so th e lio m a the TLV should be so m eth in g lo w e r than 1. 5, p e r h a p s 1. 00 o r 0. 5 o r e v e n 0. 2, w h ic h i s l i k e l y to b e th e p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e if lay decision tak ers a re im p resse d by the argum ent that the dangers from all types of a sb esto s a re p re c ise ly the sam e. We a re trying to influence opinion h e re on the b a sis th at even if BOHS does re v is e the ex p o su re b a s is to 75 f ib r e y e a r s , th is should be a c h ie v e d by re ta in in g the 2 fibre standard for control purposes with the concom itant obligation on em ployers to e n su re th at em ploym ent in a s b e s to s dust e x p o su re co n d itio n s be l i m i t e d to 35 y e a r s . T he B ritish T ra d e s Union C o n g ress have adopted the th esis which Selikoff put forw ard in Oslo and have proposed an im m ediate red u c tion in the s ta n d a rd to 0. 2 f i b r e s /m l. T h e y have a lso re c o m m e n d e d that G overnm ent in sist that asbestos will be replaced in all products over the next ten y ears. The TUC is m eant to be v ery close to the Labour G overnm ent. We have th e re fo re a m a jo r p ro b le m on our hands in try ing to win the m in d s of o u r opponents and it s e e m s lik e ly th a t in the com in g w eeks we will need to c o n ce n tra te on the p o ten tial th re a t to jobs which is im plicit in trad e union arg u m en ts. - 3M r. Guy G. G a b rie lso n , J r . 13th D e c e m b e r 1976 A s I h a v e s a id ab o v e, we did not r e a d p a g e 69 of o u r s u b m ission as implying that a one fibre standard was desirable or even w orkable. In re tro s p e c t, I can se e th at an o utside re a d e r m ight m ake sucl^ an in feren ce and I am s o r r y that we did not ex p re ss o u rse lv es with greater clarity. I also enjoyed m eetin g you in H am burg. If th e re is to be a m eeting of the M anaging B o ard of the IAIC in A p ril and you a r e coming a c ro ss for it, I hope that you will also have tim e to visit us in M anchester, as we would very m uch like to see you here. With best w ishes, Yours sincerely, H. D. S. H a rd ie HDSH/AW N ic o l e t In d u s t r i e s . In c . Executive Offices Wi s s a m i c k o n Av e n u e A m ble r . Pennsylvania 19002 s i s - e-4e - 4 0 0 0 TELEX 3 4 0 - 4 0 6 J u ly 19, 1974 Ra y b ^ s t o s -Ha nha t t a n 205 Middle S tr e e t Bridgeport, Connecticut 06603 A t t e n t i o n : Mr. W i l l i a m Sim pson, P r e s i d e n t Dear B ill: As you may know, t h e A s b e s t o s T e x t i l e I n s t i t u t e h a s b e e n named a d e f e n d a n t i n two s u i t s a g a i n s t P i t t s b u r g h C o r n in g C o r p . for damages to the h e a lth o f employees a lle g e d ly su ffered w h ile they were working in a T yler, Texas p la n t. Although courtsel for ATI b e l i e v e s t h a t a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e ATI a s a d e f e n d a n t may be g r a n te d , th e T y le r , Texas c a s e s c o u ld have f a r - r e a c h i n g e ffe c ts , touching a l l manufacturers in the asb estos industry as w e l l a s m a n u f a c t u r e r s who may n o t u s e a s b e s t o s at-, a l l . I f n o r properly defended, the d e c isio n s in these cases might hold: . (1) that the reputed health hazards involved in the use of a s b e s t o s were known lon g b e f o r e t h a t a c t u a l l y could have b een the case. (2) that the technology required to control or elim inate fa c to r y a s b e sto s d u st was a v a ila b le to in d u str y long b e fo r e i t a c t u a lly was ( i f , in d eed , i t i s a v a ila b le even to d a y ), (3) that an employer has an affirm a tiv e duty to employees of hazards inherent in the use of m aterials may h a n d le , no m a t t e r how s l i g h t th e haza rd may be o r the ev id e n c e o f d an ger, and warn h is which they how tenuous (4) that an emolover i s charged with knovledoe of hazards involved in handling m aterials in h is olan t even though, in fa c t, h e has no such knowledge and p u b l i c a t i o n o f th e data and c o n c l u s i o n s may h a v e b e e n c o n f i n e d t o a s e l e c t a r o u o o f s c i e n t i f i c sp e c ia lists. 2243 Y N ic o l c t In d u s t r ie s . In c . - 2- J u l y 19, 1974 . I t i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t w o r k m e n ' s c o n r a e n s a t i o n la,ws i n many s t a t e s do not f u l l y p r o t e c t em ployers a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l or - c l a s s a c t i o n s for i n j u r i e s to h e a lt h s u ffe r e d on the job. That b ein g the c a se , i t should be obviou s th a t any d e c is io n in the - T y l e r c a s e s w h ich i n c l u d e s f i n d i n g s o f t h e s o r t l i s t e d a b o v e may '' s e t j u d i c i a l p r e c e d e n t s w h i c h c o u l d e x p o s e a s b e s t o s (and o t h e r ) m a n u fa c tu r e r s to summary judgm ents i n f u t u r e c a s e s , judgments which .a lig h t c o s t l i t e r a l l y m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s . The s t a k e s a re h ig h . As lo n g a s th e ATI rem a in s a d e f e n d a n t i n th e T y le r c a s e s , t i n t e n d s t o make e v e r y e f f o r t , w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f i t s b u d g e t, to see th a t th e co u rt record and the d e c is io n s are as i a v o r a b l e t o m a n u f a c t u r e r s a s p o s s i b l e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , b e c a u s e * m i t h e r i s k o f s u b s t a n t i a l l i a b i l i t y to i t s e l f and i t s members (ATI i s a n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a s s o c i a t i o n ) , t h e ATI m u s t make e v e r y e ffo r t to be d ism isse d from the a c t i o n . And, i f th a t should h a p p e n , th e r e th en w i l l be no one a p a r t y t o th e p r o c e e d in g s who v l l have an i n c e n t i v e to a d v o c a te a l l t h o s e p o s i t i o n s o f f a c t and o f law w hich may be o f g r e a t im p o r ta n c e to yo u r company and m in e . { F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e p r i m a r y d e f e n d a n t s , P i t t s b u r a h Corning-, PPG and C o m i n g , may w is h t o a r g u e t h a t d u s t c o n d i t i o n s a t T y le r vfere n o t . s e v e r e , w hereas o t h e r a s b e s t o s m a n u fa c tu r e r s may w is h th e r e c o r d "to s h o w , i f s u c h w e r e t h e c a s e , t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n a t T y l e r w a s d e p lo r a b le so t h a t , i n th e f u t u r e , c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e i r p la n ts , may , . be distinguished). I am w r i t i n g t h i s l e t t e r t o t h e c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s o f se v e r a l companies which produce or use a sb e sto s fib er to su ggest . t h a t , i f and when ATI i s d i s m i s s e d from t h e T y le r s u i t s , a grou p o f c o m p a n ie s i n t h e i n d u s t r y may w i s h t o move q u i c k l y t o form a sp e cia l incorporated a s so c ia tio n -to intervene in the Tyler cases a s th ir d p a r ty d efen d a n t or am icus c u r i a e . Of c o u r s e , our ad m ission to the s u it would be d is c r e tio n a r y w ith the court, but . I b e lie v e th a t, because o f the p o t e n t ia l im pact on our b u s in e s s , . we should have a reason ab le chance o f bein g a d m itted . I t would be p r e f e r a b l e to be a d m itte d a s a t h ir d p a r t y d e fe n d a n t so t h a t we th en may c ro s s -e x a m in e , p r e se n t e v id en ce and o th e r w is e endeavor to i n f l u e n c e th e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a s w e l l a s o f law; b u t we s t i l l , i n my o p i n i o n , s h o u ld s e e k t o a p p e a r a s a m ic u s c u r i a e t o a r g u e p o i n t s o f la w o n l y , i f t h a t i s a l l t h a t t h e c o u r t w i l l p e r m i t . The c o r p o r a te form o f th e s p e c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n should p r o t e c t i t s members a g a in st p o te n tia l l i a b i l i t y ; and, i f enouah companies p a r tic io a te , th e c o st to each one should be e a s il y j u s t i f i a b l e . 2 2 4 3o 0 et industries. In c . -3- Julv 19, 1974 P l e a s e g i v e t h i s i d e a some t h o u g h t and l e t me h a v e v o u r v i e w s ; s o t h a t v;e may move p r o m p t l y t o form o u r a s s o c i a t i o n , i f c i r c u m stances should in d ica te the d e s ir a b ilit y of takina that ste o . I a ls o su ggest that you have your counsel fo llo w the progress o f the T yler c a se s so th a t he can a d v is e you o f t h e i r p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i cance . Jr GGG/jed GUY G GABRIEISON, JR. Chairman of the Board * NICOLET, INC. Executive Offices 25 Skippack Pike (Broad Axe) Ambler, Penna. 19002 February 9, 1977 > f ' Dr. Harrison B. Rhodes Technology Manager Union Carbide Corp. Mining & Metals Division P.0. Box 579 - Niagra Falls, NY 14302 Dear Harry: Here is our first run at the Ad Hoc Committee working document. We are in the process of making a new set with larger type in the "Rationale" column. g -4 Some pertinent comments : . (1) Cost of medical surveillance - delete Alt. #2 for Ad Hoc Committee discussion - AIA would have to agree to Alt. #2 before disclosure to contractors. ' (2) Add "Certified fabrication installation or removal methods" as an item to be encompassed by employee training. (3) I used AIA respirator table, believing that that had been our decision. Milt must have a different recollection - he used California table. (4) As you can see (and as we surmised) Mike Utijian and Clark Cooper would not go for no medical surveillance. Mike proposed an additional exam between 5 and 10 years and a ' bi-annual exam between 10 and 15 years. I adopted the latter but omitted the exam between 5 and 10 to be consistent with out last presentation. ` Where do we go from here? Do we have a Committee meeting scheduled? Regards, I GGG ;m s Enc .