Document JvEZQeNrdaxxr3jRmEenDeGkB

HARLEY W. DUANE. Ill DAVID L. HAUCK ALAN B. GNAPP CARL R. SCHWERTZ JUSTIN S. (SRAVATT Law Office Duane , Hauck & Gnapp, P.C. 10 East Franklin Street RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219-2106 TELEPHONE <804> 644-7400 X 108 FAX <804) 649-8329 EMAIL: OSCIIWERTZ@DUANEHAUCK.COM May 5, 2004 VIA UPS Hugh B. McCormick, III, Esq. PATTEN, W0RN0M, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C. Suite 300, 12350 Jefferson Avenue Newport News, Virginia 23602 Re: Garlock's Answers to Interrogatories Dear Hugh: We enclose Garlock's answers to the Interrogatories pursuant to the Court's Order from the hearing of April 6, 2004. We will send you the verification page signed by Garlock's representative next week. Please review and if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. CRS/kob Enclosure \  GARLOCK SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS IN RE: NEWPORT NEWS CIRCUIT COURT CL90-1OOOOW-01 ALL ASBESTOS CASES CL90-10000C-03 GARLOCK'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS Garlock poses the following general objections to plaintiffs' interrogatories and incoqx>rates each of these objections by reference to every answer provided hereafter. 1. The interrogatories request information going back many years and Garlock has found it difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct or retrieve much of the information requested. The answers given are based on the present facts known or believed by Garlock at the time of its answer. 2. The interrogatories are overly broad, burdensome, and in places, vague and ambiguous. In addition, the interrogatories are not sufficiently limited in time and use terms which do not refer to products manufactured by Garlock. 3. Garlock does not now manufacture or sell, and has never manufactured or sold, asbestoscontaining insulation products as that term is commonly used and understood in this litigation. Therefore, Garlock objects to any interrogatory referring to or assuming that such products are or have been manufactured by Garlock. Garlock presumes that questions referring to insulation products are thus not applicable to Garlock. 4. Garlock does not now manufacture or sell, and has never manufactured or sold, asbestoscontaining building products as that term is commonly used and understood in this litigation. Therefore, Garlock objects to any interrogatory referring to or assuming that such products are or have been manufactured by Garlock. Garlock presumes that questions referring to building products are thus not applicable to Garlock. 5. The interrogatories themselves are overly broad in that they tend to group together all of the defendants. There has never been any competent scientific or medical evidence or reason to believe that Garlock products, upon reasonable use, released asbestos fibers in sufficient 1 quantities, if any, to pose a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using said products. Garlock denies that the use of, or exposure to, its asbestos-containing products posed any health hazard. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged problems are not related to Garlock products. Interrogatories 5. If you currently have, or have had in the past, department, division, subdivision, branch or group responsible for the design, development, manufacture, testing and/or use of products containing or incorporating asbestos fibers, state the name of each such present or former corporate department, division, subdivision, branch or group and identify the person most knowledgeable about such department, division, subdivision, branch or group. ANSWER: - Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and for the further reason that the only products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that the design and/or development of new products and the improvement of existing Garlock products has been the responsibility of the technical staff involved in each particular project. Addition to Number 5: A Research and Development Department existed during most of the 1960's. The exact dates of its formation and termination are not available. A new Research and Development Department was established early in 1984 and functioned for approximately two years. In both instances, the Department worked on the development of new and/or improved products and processes. The Department never conducted any medical research, hi January 1999, the Research and Development Department was reinstated. James Heffron would be the person most knowledgeable of these facts. 6. Identify all products which contained any amount of asbestos which you designed, manufactured, processed, distributed, sold, relabeled, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce including: a. the trade, brand name and/or generic name of each type of such product; b. a specific description of the product, including: i. its nature, i.e., pipe insulation, asbestos cable, gasket, etc.; 2 ii. its physical appearance, .eg.shape, size, color, texture; iii. any logo or markings on the product; iv. its chemical composition; v. the type(s) and/or grade(s) of asbestos fiber contained vi. the quantitative percentage of the type(s) of asbestos fiber in it; vii. any change(s) in the quantitative percentages of the type(s) of asbestos fiber contained it over the course of time you were involved with it; viii. its recommended use(s); and ix. the name(s) and address(es) of the supplier(s) of the asbestos fiber used c. whether you designed, manufactured, processed, distributed, sold, relabeled and/or held a patent on the product; d. the inclusive date(s) that you first performed and last performed any of the activities described in subpart (c) on each such product; e. the name of the manufacturer of each such product if the product was not manufactured by you; and f. the identity of the person(s) most knowledgeable concerning the sales of each such product. g. the location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 6were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory for the reasons set forth in General Objections Nos. 1 and 2, and for the further reason that the only Garlock products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. To require Garlock to identify the hundreds of different products it has produced (or discontinued) over the years constitutes a request for masses of irrelevant information, is unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, which are made with respect to each subpart of this interrogatory, Garlock answers as follows: (a) All of its products, both those containing asbestos and those containing no asbestos, have always been sold under the GARLOCK name. In addition, the Calipers and Scale trademark was used with all of its products from about 1900 until approximately 1968. A number ofsecondary trademarks have also been used over the years. Principal marks which have been used in connection with asbestoscontaining products, as well as non-asbestos-containing products, have been BELMONT, GUARDIAN, CHEVRON, LATTICE BRAID, PALMYRA and PAPERPAK. (b) Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that since as early as 1907, it has produced and sold encapsulated asbestos-containing gasket and packing products which do not emit asbestos fibers into the air when in operation. Among the specific products which Garlock manufactured are asbestos gasket and asbestos sheet (from which the purchaser cuts gaskets), which do not emit fibers into the air when in operation. Garlock asbestos sheet is a mixture of asbestos fibers, curing agents, reinforcing fillers and elastomers (natural rubber or synthetic polymers having the 3 elastic qualities of rubber). Asbestos fibers are machine blended with the rest of the mixture until they are thoroughly coated. The entire compound is then heated and rolled into sheets and is continually compressed to form a tough, impermeable, homogeneous material that looks like linoleum. Other gasket materials were made from woven, long fiber, asbestos yam impregnated and encased in a rubberized coating. Other gaskets have had asbestos encased by layers of metal or encapsulated with a P.T.F.E. (polytetrafluoroethylene) resin envelope. Garlock asbestos packing materials consisted of woven asbestos encapsulated in either elastomeric compounds or metal foils and/or impregnated with lubricants. Garlock gasket materials are primarily used for static sealing of steam line flanges, cylinder heads of engines, compressors and refrigeration equipment, fluid conduits, etc. Garlock packing materials are primarily used for dynamic sealing of machinery. Finished compressed asbestos sheet is either cut into gaskets by Garlock or sold for use by others in cutting gaskets. Garlock's flexible and durable gasketing material is handled, installed and removed in all intended applications without releasing meaningful quantities, if any, of asbestos fibers into the air. Garlock's compressed asbestos sheets and gaskets are treated with an anti-stick releasing agent which reduces any tendency of the gaskets to adhere to pipe flanges during removal and replacement. This anti-stick agent facilitates the removal of old gaskets without generating dust. Other Garlock products come in specific sizes for application and do not generally require modification before or during application or use. Garlock objects to portions of this interrogatory until such time as proper orders are entered concerning the production of proprietary information. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, Garlock states that from 95% to 98% of its asbestos-containing products have been made only with clirysotile asbestos fibers and that the remaining 2% to 5% of such products were made with crocidolite asbestos fiber. Depending upon the type of product involved, the percentage of asbestos contained in these products has ranged from about 10% to about 85%. The form in which Garlock asbestos-containing products are shipped varies, depending upon the size and configuration of each item, the number of items called for by the customer's order and the customer's own desires. Among the containers used are burlap bags, cardboard boxes and wooden crates. In addition, asbestos sheet is occasionally shipped flat on wooden pallets. Garlock further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that its principal suppliers of raw asbestos have been Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Johns-Manville and Bell Asbestos Mines. (c) Garlock designed, manufactured, distributed and sold its asbestos-containing products. Garlock states that it has, from time to time, sold some of its products for resale under other labels. Some of these products contained asbestos, others contained no asbestos. Garlock has no record, knowledge or recollection of any written distribution or sales agreement concerning such products. There is no reason to believe that such products are germane to this litigation. 4 Oarlock holds no patents specific to asbestos-containing products. (d) Garlock no longer manufactures asbestos-containing products. Garlock believes its last asbestoscontaining packing sale was in approximately 1982. Garlock discontinued the manufacture of asbestos-containing gaskets in December 2000. Its last asbestos-containing gasket sale is believed to have been in early 2001. (e) hi past years, Garlock acquired four subsidiary companies which made and/or sold at least some asbestos-containing products. Those companies were the Belmont Packing & Rubber Company, Crandall Packing Company, Dealers' Steam Packing Company and U.S. Gasket Company. The only asbestos-containing products of which Garlock is aware that were made and/or sold by these companies were sealing products substantially equivalent to similar such products made and sold by Garlock. The Belmont Packing & Rubber Company was located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Crandall Packing Company and Dealers' Steam Packing Company were located in Palmyra, New York and U.S. Gasket Company was located in Camden, New Jersey. Ultimately, each of the four subsidiaries was merged or otherwise absorbed into Garlock, including all assets and liabilities. As far as Garlock is aware, all business records of these former subsidiaries were destroyed many years ago in accordance with Garlock's long-standing record retention and destruction program. In June, 1987, Garlock Inc acquired The Anchor Packing Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which has sold asbestos-containing gaskets, gasket materials and packing. Anchor discontinued its business operations in October of 1993. Garlock did not assume Anchor's liabilities. (0 James E. Heffron Senior Marketing Manager - Gasketing Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC 1666 Division Street Palmyra, New York 14522 (g) Garlock objects to this part of the interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and for the further reason that the only products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that the vast majority of its asbestos-containing sealing products have been designed, made and sold by its facilities in Palmyra, New York, formerly known as Garlock Mechanical Sealing Division, and now known as Garlock Sealing Technologies. See also the Garlock Asbestos-Containing Product List attached hereto as Exhibit 1 7. As to each product contained within your response to Interrogatory No.6, identify the following: a. any and all pertinent trademark that was applicable to the product during any time of 5 its sale; b. any and all patents that are applicable to the product; c. any and all blueprints and manufacturing specifications that were applicable to the product; d. the label on the packaging of that particular product for each year of its manufacture and/or sale; e. any and all sales catalogues, brochures, specification sheets, performance data or other promotional material, as well as any and all installation materials, data or brochures which would have accompanied or been distributed in connection with the sale, installation, application or use of each such product; f. the exact maimer in which the product was described in such catalogues, brochures, specification sheets or other promotional material for each year it appeared therein (as to this portion of the interrogatory, you may provide a copy of the document in lieu of describing the same); g. any and all photographs of the product for which you have knowledge; h. any and all samples of the product for which you have knowledge; and i. any and all packaging of the product for which you have knowledge. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, see Answer to Interrogatory Number 6. hi addition, the form in which Garlock asbestos-containing products were shipped varies, depending upon the size and configuration ofeach item, the number of items called for by the customer's order and the customer's own desires. Among the containers used were burlap bags, cardboard boxes and wooden crates. In addition, asbestos sheet was occasionally shipped flat on wooden pallets. All of its products, both those containing asbestos and those not containing asbestos, have always been sold under the GARLOCK name. In addition, the Calipers and Scale trademark was used with all of its products from about 1900 until approximately 1968. A number of secondary trademarks have also been used over the years. Principal marks which have been used in connection with asbestoscontaining products, as well as non-asbestos-containing products, have been BELMONT, GUARDIAN, CHEVRON, LATTICE BRAID, PALMYRA and PAPERPAK. Addition/New Answer to Number 7: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and for further reason that the only Garlock products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, which are made with respect to each subsection of this interrogatory, Galock answers as follows: Garlock refers to its answers to Interrogatory No.6. 6 (a) Garlock states that since at least as early as 1907, it has produced and sold asbestoscontaining gasketing and packing products. Garlock is not, and has never been a manufacturer or seller ofasbestos containing thermal insulation materials as that term is commonly used and understood in this litigation. All of its products, both those containing asbestos and those containing no asbestos, have always been sold under the GARLOCK name. In addition, the Calipers and Scale trademark was used with all of its products from about 1900 until approximately 1968. A number of secondary trademarks have also been used over the years. Principal marks which have been used in connection with asbestos-containing products, as well as non-asbestos-containing products, have been BELMONT, GUARDIAN, CHEVRON, LATTICE BRAID, PALMYRA and PAPERPAK. (b) Garlock holds no patents specific to asbestos-containing products. (c) Garlock is not presently aware of existence of any such blue prints on manufacturing specifications. * (d) See answers to Interrogatory 7 (e)-(i). (e, f, g, h) Garlock states that over the years it has prepared hundreds of writings, instruction sheets, brochures and the like regarding its products. The majority of said writings have long since been discarded. All relevant writings will be made available for inspection and copying, at plaintiffs expense, upon appropriate prior arrangements through Garlock's defense counsel. (i) The form in which Garlock asbestos-containing products were shipped varies, depending upon the size and configuration of each item, the number of items called for by the customer's order and the customer's own desires. Among the containers used were burlap bags, cardboard boxes and wooden crates. In addition, asbestos sheet was occasionally shipped flat on wooden pallets. Garlock further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it does not have records that would indicate when it started and/or stopped using any particular type or style of packaging. For probably at least 50 years, the dominant colors ofour packaging materials have been yellow, red and black. Sometimes black has predominated, and at other times, yellow has been the dominant color. However, the three colors have usually been used together. 9. Have you ever conducted, performed, funded, or participated in tests, investigations, and/or studies a. of ambient asbestos dust particles or fibers created during the manufacture, processing, assembling and/or end use of asbestos-containing products? b. to determine whether any type of protective mask, respirator, protective clothing, containment system, ventilator, and/or ventilation system would either eliminate or reduce the inhalation of asbestos by your employees and/or contractors your premises, their family members, and/or other third persons? 7 c. concerning asbestos-related diseases, asbestosis, mesothelioma, pulmonary disease or cancer? ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes the truth of matters in dispute in this litigation, specifically, that there are dangers associated with the use of Garlock products. Garlock further objects to any characterization as to the timing and/or purpose of any testing and or studies. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that there has never been any competent scientific or medical evidence or reason to believe that its asbestos- containing products, upon reasonable use, release asbestos fibers in sufficient quantities, if any, to pose a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using such products. Garlock denies that use of, or exposure to, its asbestos-containing products pose any health hazard or any significant possibility of inhalation ofasbestos fiber. * By way of further answer, Garlock states that it has had the following studies conducted for it by industrial hygienists: Mangold: 1) "The Actual Occupational Exposure to Airborne Asbestos Released by Garlock Spiral Wound, Braided and Encapsulated Gaskets" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (December 1982). 2) "The Actual Contribution of Garlock Asbestos Gasket Materials to the Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Workers" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (October 1982). 3) "Asbestos Fibers in the Ambient Air in the Greater San Francisco Area": by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (March 1983). 4) "The Actual Contribution of Asbestos Fiber Exposure During Gasket Removal from Pipe Flanges Aboard Ship" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (November 1983). 5) "The Actual Release of Asbestos Fibers from New, Used and Flanged Garlock Inc Asbestos Gasket Materials" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (September 1985). 6) "Garlock Inc Gasket Materials -A Comparison of the Tyndall Phenomena to the Actual Concentration of Asbestos Fibers in the Breathing Zone of Workers" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (July 1986). 7) "The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH (January 1989); eight separate sub-divisions titled as follows: Cutting Gaskets with a Circular Cutter 8  Gasket Cutting with Hand Shears Gasket Cutting with Ball Pien (sic) Hammer Scribing of Gasket Materials Opening of Old Flanges and Removal of Asbestos Gaskets Flange Face Scraping with Putty Knife Hand Wire Brushing of Asbestos Gasket Residual from Flanges Power Wire Brushing of Flange Faces 8) "The Actual Contribution of Asbestos Fibers from Removal and Installation of Asbestos Packing from Valves" by Carl A. Mangold, CIH and Robert L. Gay, Ph.D. (May 1991). McCrone: 1) Technical Report for Garlock Inc "Occupational Exposures During Processing, Handling, Installation and Removal of Garlock Asbestos-Containing Gaskets". McCrone Environmental Services, hie. - June 3, 1985. During the course of this litigation, Garlock has recently obtained results of additional air sampling data conducted by McCrone Environmental Services Inc., under a ftnne hood, in 1985. McCrone did not include these results in its June 1985 report on occupational exposures, but they are completely consistent with the conclusions of the McCrone report of June 1985. Neilson: 1) "Asbestos - fiber exposures related to the replacement of Garlock Style 7021 gaskets". Neilson Associates - May 1981. 2) "An industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the utilization of braided asbestos packing material (Garlock Inc - Style 5880)". Neilson Associates June 6, 1980. 3) "An industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the cutting of Garlock gasket material types 900 and 7021". Neilson Associates - June 6, 1980. 4) "An industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the utilization of Garlock gasket material - Style No. 7021". Neilson Associates - October 22, 1980. 5) "An evaluation of potential occupational exposure to airborne asbestos fibers encountered during installation and removal of asbestos containing gaskets - Gasket Type 604". Neilson Associates April 1, 1982. 6) "An evaluation of potential occupational exposure to airborne asbestos during installation and removal of braided asbestos gasketing material (Braided Asbestos Type 150, 234, 644, 733, 5861 and 5876)." Neilson Associates - April 1, 1982. Boelter: 9 1) Fiber Release Study - Industrial Fittings - Flat Blade Scraper (10/9/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 2) Fiber Release Study - Industrial Fittings - Wire Brush (10/28/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 3) Fiber Release Study - Industrial Fittings - Making Gaskets With A Ball Peen Hammer (11/5/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 4) Fiber Release Study - Industrial Fittings - Power Wire Brush (11/11/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 5) Fiber Release Study - Industrial Fittings - Valve Packing Removal 911/19/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 6) Fiber Release Study - Maritime Fittings - Flat Blade Scraper (11/22/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 7) Fiber Release Study - Maritime Fittings - Wire Brush (12/1/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 8) Fiber Release Study - Maritime Fittings - Power Wire Brush (12/12/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 9) Fiber Release Study - Maritime Fittings - Making Gaskets With A Ball Peen Hammer (12/18/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 10) Fiber Release Study - Maritime Fittings - Valve packing Removal And Replacement (12/24/96). Boelter Environmental Consultants - BAI Project No. 1418A-4602. 11) Airborne Fiber Exposure Assessment of Dry Asbestos-Containing Gaskets and Packings Found in Intact Industrial and Maritime Fittings. Fred Boelter, AIHA Journal, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 732 740, 2002 Spencer: 1) Report of Findings: Exposure Assessment: An Evaluation of the Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers from the Fabrication of Gaskets; EPI Project No. 8489; Prepared By EPI - John W. Spencer, CIH, CSP; Prepared for Parrott and Donahue; 11 September 1998. Addition/New Answer to 9: Copies of the foregoing studies will be provided at plaintiffs counsel's expense. 10 11. When and how did you first become aware that any warnings were placed on any asbestos containing products? ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and for the further reason that the only Garlock products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiffalleges to have been exposed. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that even though all of its products were safe and exempt from OSHA labeling requirements, all Garlock asbestos-containing sealing products containing fully encapsulated asbestos fibers, carried warning labels since late 1977 - either on the product or on the package. The text of the label read: CAUTION: Contains Asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing Asbestos dust may cause Serious bodily harm. A similar warning notice was contained in product literature that described one or more asbestos-containing product, as published since 1977. Addition/New answer to 11: Garlock does not have any records or information which would enable it to respond to this interrogatory with any certainty. However, during the course of litigation, Garlock has become aware of warnings placed on products distributed by some other defendants. Garlock has no knowledge of whether warnings placed on its products were or were not the same as warnings placed on the products of other defendants. 12. If any of the asbestos-containing products you manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, contained any warning or caution concerning the health consequences of the use of the product or the breathing of asbestos dust particles or fibers: a. state the wording of each warning or caution, or any proposed drafts of a warning or caution; b. state the description of the size and location of each such printed warning or caution; c. state the method used to distribute the warning to persons who were likely to use the product; d. state the date each such warning was issued; 11 e. identify the person(s) who composed the warning; f. state whether any person recommended at any time that the warning or caution be amended, altered, or changed in any manner and, if so, identify the person(s); g. state whether the warning or caution was ever amended, altered, or changed in any manner and, if so, identify the person(s) doing so; h. identify each person(s) who was involved the decision to place the warning caution the product or to amend such warning or caution; i. identify each person(s) most knowledgeable about the warning or caution on the product; j. identify the custodian of the records containing such warning or caution; k. state whether any industrial psychologist or human factors engineers were consulted prior to utilizing such warnings or cautions; and l. identify and produce any special instructions provided with each product regarding its use or safety procedures to be employed by persons handling such product. ANSWER: - Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and assumes the truth of matters in dispute in this litigation, specifically that there are dangers associated with the use of Garlock products. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that even though all of its products were safe and exempt from OSHA labeling requirements, all Garlock asbestos-containing sealing products containing fully encapsulated asbestos fibers, carried warning labels since late 1977 - either on the product or on the package. The text of the label read: CAUTION: Contains Asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing Asbestos dust may cause Serious bodily harm. A similar warning notice was contained in product literature that described one or more asbestos-containing product, as published since 1977. Addition/New Answer to 12: (a) Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and assumes the truth of matters in dispute in this litigation, specifically that there are dangers associated with the use of Garlock products. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that even though all of its products were safe and exempt from OSHA labeling requirements, all Garlock asbestos-containing sealing products containing fully encapsulated asbestos fibers, carried warning labels since late 1977 - either on the product or on the package. The text of the label read: CAUTION: 12 Contains Asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing Asbestos dust may cause Serious bodily harm. A similar warning notice was contained in product literature that described one or more asbestos-containing product, as published since 1977. (b) The aforesaid warning comes in a variety of sizes depending on the size and style of the product to which it is attached. The aforesaid warning has a white background with black lettering. Usually, a warning has been displayed by way of an oval, stick-on label, appended to the product or package. In addition, compressed asbestos sheet material which carries the Garlock brand has the aforesaid warning statement printed on the face of the sheet at regular intervals. (c) The warning stated in (a) above has been applied to all Garlock asbestos-containing products since late 1977. In addition, answering defendant has issued advertising flyers and brochures for some of its asbestos-containing products. (d) All Garlock asbestos-containing products carried a warning label since late 1977. (e-k) John Guffey was among those who decided that warnings should be placed on all Garlock asbestos containing products in or about 1977. He and others at Garlock have agreed that warnings pursuant to OSHA should be given on non-encapsulated or non-treated asbestos containing products, and have so agreed since the early 1970's. No one holds the opinion, however, that such warning is a necessary health safeguard as to Garlock's encapsulated or treated products. Further, Garlock has found no records to suggest that any warning was altered and has no reason to believe that any alterations were recommended. (1) Garlock states that it has continually provided its customers with instructions as to the proper handling, installation and use of its products. Such instructions have been in various forms, including instruction sheets, advertising literature and user seminars. 13. Please identify the first twelve (1 2) proceedings wherein you were named as a defendant, respondent or other involuntary participant in a lawsuit, worker's compensation claim or other proceeding involving personal injury or wrongful death alleged to have resulted from exposure to airborne asbestos dust and fibers. Please be specific in your identification by stating: a. the date you received notice of the claim; b. the court or other forum in which it was filed; c. a description of the type of claim (i.e., worker's compensation, third party liability, etc.); d. the type of injury allegedly sustained; 13 c. the case number or identifying letters or name assigned to the action; f. identification each person claiming injury therein; g. copies of all interrogatories propounded to you and all of your answers to those interrogatories; and h. the custodian of all records that relate to the claim, e.g. depositions, expert reports, etc. (in lieu of answering the above question, you may attach copies of any and all such records). ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that the information sought is irrelevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Garlock further objects to the part of this interrogatory relating to the Workers' Compensation claim insofar as the plaintiff has never been a Garlock employee and does not allege ever visiting any Garlock facility. Addition/New Answer to 13: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in these cases and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that since 1975 it has been named a party in numerous cases involving user exposure to asbestos-containing products, along with numerous other defendants. No plaintiffhas ever presented competent scientific or medical evidence that Garlock asbestos-containing products, upon reasonable use, emit harmful levels, if any, of asbestos. In addition, see attached listing of Worker's Compensation Claims as Exhibit 2. 14. State separately as to the diseases asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma: a. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first knew or had reason to know that such disease can result from inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. b. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. c. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. d. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or it subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. e. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. f. Who is the custodian of such information. 14 g. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that the disease was caused by inhalation or asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for an expert medical opinion which Garlock is not qualified to give. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, some Garlock personnel have been aware for a number of years that excessive exposure to asbestos dust may be hazardous to one's health. Garlock is unable to pinpoint when or how such personnel first became aware of the possible health hazard. However, there has never been any competent scientific or medical evidence or reason to believe that Garlock products, through normal use, have caused or contributed to any hazardous condition, potential or otherwise, since they were bonded and/or encapsulated. Addition/New Answer to 14: This interrogatory is vague, overly broad, and unduly and unreasonable burdensome and oppressive and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, this defendant answers that although individual employees of Garlock Inc., through membership in various trade organizations, such as the Asbestos Textile Institute, may have been aware of the alleged dangers of exposure to asbestos dust, this defendant states that its knowledge of the alleged hazards of asbestos inhalation cannot be equated with any knowledge of an existence of a hazardous potential asbestos condition from the use of its products, since there has never been any evidence that its products have caused or contributed to any hazardous condition. Furthermore, since the asbestos fibers in Garlock's products are encapsulated and/or bonded and/or treated in such a manner as not to emit meaningful levels, if any, of asbestos fibers, the receipt of any such information of Garlock Inc would be inapplicable. Garlock has no records or any other way of establishing when it first knew that asbestos might cause any illness or disease. However, Garlock Inc has used raw asbestos and other fibers in its manufacturing processes and Garlock Inc employees knew by at least the mid to late 40's that exposure to dust through the use of such fibers in its manufacturing processes could possibly be harmful to its employees. The quantity of dust to which the employee was exposed was of prime importance as evidenced by the various hygiene standards which set limits for exposure. Evidently, the focus among industrial hygienists at that time was to reduce the levels of dust to which the workers were exposed in the manufacturing processes. As a responsible employer, Garlock Inc has always attempted to provide its employees with safe working conditions and to abide by applicable local, state and federal rules and standards. With regard to cancer, generally, Garlock has no record which would enable it to determine the date of its first knowledge of such a possible relationship. As to mesothelioma, it is believed that 15 Garlock's first knowledge of a possible link with asbestos fiber and dust came from its involvement in asbestos litigation beginning in the mid-1970's. 15. Do you have knowledge of any asbestos-related deaths or any diagnosis of asbestos-related lung disease or abnormality prior to 1986 among any of your employees or any of their family members. If so: a. identify each such employee or family member; b. provide the job description and years of employment of each such person; and if the person is a family member of an employee, identify the employee and state the employee's job description and years of employment or agency; c. identify all medical records that you received in relation to each such person; d. identify and produce reports of asbestos related disease or abnormality that you furnished to any state or federal governmental body or agency, and e. identify the date you first obtained knowledge-of this asbestos-related death, diagnosis, or abnormality. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The plaintiff has never been a Garlock employee and does not allege ever visiting any Garlock facility. The only relevant issues in this action pertain to finished asbestos-containing products after they have left the Garlock facilities. Garlock further objects on the grounds that it seeks information, which, if it exists, may be confidential. Additional/New answer to 15: In addition, see attached listing of Worker's Compensation Claims as Exhibit 2. 18. For each organization listed in response to the preceding Interrogatory, a. state the date(s) of membership; b. identify all persons attending any of the organization's meetings on your behalf; c. identify the name(s) and nature of any and all notes, reports, minutes, studies, publications and other writings submitted by you or received by you from such organizations associations relating to asbestos exposure, the sale, use, or handling of asbestos products, or any alleged health hazards associated with asbestos, any recommendation or discussion of warnings, caution labels, safety procedures, or testing for the asbestos products, any claims for compensation arising out of persons who alleged asbestos related death, disease, abnormality impairment. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, 16 irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, see Answer to Interrogatory Number 17. Additional/New answer to 18: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, Garlock states that it has been a member of five organizations which may have dealt with asbestos-containing products: (a) 1. The Fluid Sealing Association (formerly Mechanical Packing Association), 2017 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (member from 1933 to present). 2. Asbestos Textile Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 471, 131 North York Road, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090 (member from approximately 1966 to 1979 - Garlock acknowledges that a review of ATI minutes discloses an earlier membership period during the 1940's, but Garlock has no other record or infonnation as to such period.) 3. Asbestos Infonnation Association of North America, 1975 K Street, Washington, D.C. 20006 (member from approximately 1974 to 1980). 4. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (member from 1945 to present). 5. National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611 (member from 1922 to present). (b) See attached Asbestos Information Association (AIA) minutes and Asbestos Textile Institute (ATI) as Exhibits 3 and 4. (c) Garlock states that it is not in possession of any such minutes gathered in the ordinary course of its business. Rather, any minutes in Garlock's possession were gathered through litigation. In the unlikely event plaintiffs counsel is not currently in possession of them, they are available from a variety of sources within the public domain. 19. State, whether your Board of Directors, prior to 1986, at any time had any meetings which included discussion of or reference to installation, removal, asbestos exposure, the sale, use, or handling of asbestos products, or any alleged health hazards associated with asbestos, any recommendation or discussion of warnings, caution labels, safety procedures, or testing for the asbestos products, any claims for compensation arising out of persons who alleged asbestos related death, disease, abnormality impairment; and if so, (a)identify and produce all minutes of every meeting of your Board of Directors which makes reference to (directly or indirectly) these discussions or references; and (b) identify the location(s) and custodian(s) of such notes, reports, minutes, studies, publications and other writings. ANSWER: 17 Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additional/New answer to 19: In addition, Garlock also has certain Board of Directors Meeting Minutes which refer to asbestos related issues and said minutes are attached as Exhibit 5. 21. Has Defendant ever given medical examinations or chest x-rays to its employees who were exposed to airborne asbestos dust and fibers? If so, state: (a) When said examinations or chest x-rays were given; (b) The names and current addresses of the persons who conducted these examinations and/or chest x-rays; (c) Whether any employees who were found to have any asbestos-induced abnormality were so advised. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The plaintiff has never been a Garlock employee and does not allege ever visiting any Garlock facility. The only relevant issues in this action pertain to finished asbestos-containing products after they have left the Garlock facilities. Addition/New answer to 21: For many years, Garlock's practice has been to get a pre-employment physical. Since the late 1940's, employees who worked with asbestos fibers have received regular x-rays. From approximately 1948 to approximately 1970, such x-rays were biannual, becoming annual thereafter. In approximately 1980, vital capacity tests were administered as well. The x-rays are read by an independent "B" reader. The pre-employment physicals have generally been done by the retained physician although certain portions of the examination and/or tests may have been administered by other than those physicians including nurses and/or personnel at hospitals in the Palmyra, New York area. Until approximately 1979, x-rays were taken at the Clifton Hospital in Clifton Springs, New York, the Meyers Community Hospital in Sodus, New York, and/or the Newark Hospital in Newark, New York. In 1979, x-ray equipment was purchased for use in Garlock's infirmary. 18 Garlock has not employed, retained or otherwise engaged physicians, industrial hygienists or others to conduct medical research. Garlock has had part-time plant physicians since 1920. They are as follows: Name Dates of Service Dr. C. C. Nesbitt (deceased) 8/30/20 - 8/1/56 Dr. J. D. Bramer (deceased) 8/1/56 - 7/24/72 Dr. K. K. Kapur 1269 Pittsford Palmyra Road Macedon, New York 14502 10/23/72 - 8/14/79 Dr. William G. Fallon 602 7th Street Liverpool, New York 13088 10/31/79-3/1/88 Dr. B. Maureen Merritt P. O. Box 477 Celoron, New York 14720 9/15/88 - 8/28/90 Dr. Tillman F. Farley 3345 22nd Court Brighton, Colorado 80601 10/9/90 - 8/3/93 Dr. Alan Lorenz 2 Forest Knoll Pittsford, New York 14534 8/3/93 - 3/1/98 Dr. Carl M. Devore 3/3/98 - September 2000 Dr. David Carlson Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC 1666 Division Street Palmyra, New York 14522 July/Aug. 2002 - Present All of these physicians served on a part-time basis and were at Garlock primarily for incoming employee physicals, treatment of minor injuries, etc. 23. Have any person(s) testified on your behalf or provided information documents to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NIOSH), any U.S. Congressional committee 19 or sub-committee, or state or federal agency on a. the biological effects on human life from exposure to asbestos; b. the setting, modification, feasibility and acceptance of allegedly safe or proper levels of such exposure to asbestos and asbestos products; and/or c. the diagnostic criteria for asbestos-induced diseases. If so, d. identify each such person(s); e. produce all documents presented, utilized, submitted or concerning such testimony or submission of information; and f. state the date, place and circumstances of such testimony or submission of information. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Alexander Kuzmuk, then president of Garlock Mechanical Packing Division, testified on behalf ofthe Asbestos Textile Institute at the March 14, 1972 hearings of the U.S. Department of Labor on the proposed standard for exposure to asbestos dust. Addition/New Answer to 23: Without waiver of the foregoing objections and in addition Garlock states that the below matter may not necessarily be responsive to the interrogatory,in an effort to be complete, Garlock responds: See Kuzmuk speech regarding the Hearing on Proposed Standard For Exposure to Asbestos Dust Beginning on March 14, 1972, attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and internal memoranda regarding certain discussions with state regulatory agencies attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 24. Ifyou ever became aware that there was any recommended threshold limit value which applied to the dust created from the use of asbestos-containing products, state: a. when and how you first became aware of such a threshold limit value and if you passed this information to any customers, clients, employees and/or contractors; i. identify to whom this information was given; ii. the method by which the information was communicated; iii. the exact contents of the information; iv. the specific date such information was communicated to each such person; and v. the identity of any and all documents which contain this information. b. when and how you became aware that your asbestos product and/or any place where your employees used, installed, repaired, removed, or handled insulation products was/were within the threshold limit value, and, if ever; i. identify to whom this information was given; ii. the method by which the information was communicated; iii. the exact contents of the information; 20 iv. the specific date such information was communicated to each such person; v. any studies, reports, tests, etc upon which you rely in determining your product and/or job site was within threshold limit value; and vi. the identity of any and all documents which contain this information. ANSWER: For many years the safe level of asbestos exposure was expressed in terms of a threshold limit value (TLV) of 5,000,000 dust particles per cubic foot. That is, it was accepted that workers may safely be exposed to this level ofdust or fiber concentration in the ambient air for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for their working lives. In January 1961, the TLV received official U.S. Government sanction when it was made applicable to industries that were subject to the Federal Walsh-Healy Act. As technology improved, it was possible to identify individual asbestos fibers, and it was recommended that the TLV be expressed in terms of fibers as measured by the phase contract technique. Accordingly, in the late 1960's, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists changed its recommended standard to 12 fibers, greater than 5 microns in length, per cubic centimeter, roughly equivalent to two million particles per cubic foot as measured by older techniques. Under the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the government promulgated a TLV and adopted the prevailing standard of 12 fibers, greater than 5 microns in length, per cubic centimeter, which continued until June 7, 1972 when it was reduced to 5 fibers. That TLV continued until July 1, 1976 when it became 2 fibers and effective July 21, 1986, the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for an eight hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) was set at no greater than .2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. In August 1994, however that changed to Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for an eight hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) to be no greater than . 1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. Garlock's products have always been within the accepted level or standard. Garlock products have never released asbestos fibers in excess of the presently prevailing TLV. Addition/New answer to 24: Garlock states that it that it has no records that would enable it to definitively answer this interrogatory. Garlock further states that it is presently unaware ofany records on ways of establishing definitely when and how it became aware of the recommended TLV applicable to dust created from the use of asbestos containing products. However, upon infonnation and belief, Garlock became aware of the prevailing alleged TLV for asbestos containing products in the early or mid-1950's. Garlock states that its products have always been within the accepted level or standard. Garlock products have never released asbestos fibers in excess of the presently prevailing TLV. Also, Garlock relied upon the studies answered in interrogatory 9 above. Garlock is not currently in possession ofany records to suggest that those findings were sent to customers. 25. State the date, if ever, on which you began complying with any OSHA or other such state or federal regulations regarding asbestos. If you have complied with such regulation, for each regulation state: a. the regulation; b. the method implemented to comply with the regulation; 21 c. whether you were ever fined and/or admonished in any way for failing to comply with OSHA or other such state or federal regulations regarding asbestos, and if so, state i. the date and the government agency; ii. the basis of the citation; iii. any action taken by the agency involved; iv. the identity of all documents related to such citation and provide copies. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and assumes the truth of matters in dispute in this litigation, specifically that there are dangers associated with the use of Garlock products. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that even though all of its products were safe and exempt from OS HA labeling requirements, all Garlock asbestos-containing sealing products containing fully encapsulated asbestos fibers, carried warning labels since late 1977 - either oh the product or on the package. The text of the label read: CAUTION: Contains Asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing Asbestos dust may cause Serious bodily harm. A similar warning notice was contained in product literature that described one or more asbestos-containing product, as published since 1977. Addition/New answer to 25: Garlock has always complied with state and federal regulations regarding asbestos. Garlock has no record, knowledge or recollection of any such investigation or citation relative to any of its asbestos containing products. 26. Do you have a record or document "retention" policy, plan, or program? If so, please describe such plan. If the plan is different for separate categories of records, describe the plan for each category, including: a. identification of the custodian of the records; b. the length of time for which records are retained; c. identification of personnel responsible for determining the policy or plan from 1935 to the present; d. identification of the personnel responsible for 22 the removal and destruction of any records, pursuant to any such plans from 1935 to the present. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it does have a record retention policy, a description of which is attached as Exhibit 8. Garlock does not have records which would enable it to state when said policy, or its predecessors, went into effect. New/Additional Answer: Garlock is presently unaware of who designed and/or modified the current document retention policy. 27. Have you destroyed any documents, records writings pertaining to: a. health hazards of asbestos; b. workers compensation claims arising out of exposure to asbestos; c. cautions, caveats, warnings, or safety instructions relating to asbestos; d. funding of studies about health hazards of asbestos; e. the decision to install or remove asbestos from any property owned, rented or leased by you; f. lawsuits arising out of injuries alleged to having been caused by asbestos; g. sales of asbestos products; h. contracts to use, install, repair or remove asbestos products; i. medical records of your employees; and j. industrial hygiene reports including testing for asbestos dust on job sites or your premises. If so, list every such document destroyed by author, date and subject matter, and person most knowledgeable about document. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery ofadmissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, see Answer to Interrogatory Number 26. Additional/New answer to 27: 23 In addition, Garlock records are maintained, stored and destroyed by the operating organizational units of interest. Such records are in the custody of or available to such units, all in accord with the record retention policy of Garlock. 28. Do you contend that there is any difference in carcinogenicity between chrysotile fiber, amosite fiber, crocidolite fiber, and/or tremolite fiber in the development of(a) mesothelioma; and(b) lung cancer? If so, explain in detail your contention as to the distinction between or among fiber types in the development of each disease and the medical authority you rely on, including but not limited to the date you first became aware of the distinction, who brought the distinction to your attention, and any documents that support your contention. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks an expert medical opinion which Garlock is not qualified to give. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock reserves the right to offer expert testimony at the time of trial to address such issues. Addition/New answer to 28: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks an expert medical opinion which Garlock is not qualified to give and further that as posed, this interrogatory is a contention interrogatoiy and improper as asked. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, during the course ofthe litigation, Garlock has become aware if a substantial body of medical and scientific literature that it contends supports the contention that certain types of asbestos fibers differ in their ability to cause and/or contribute to the development of lung cancer and/or mesothelioma. Garlock reserves the right to offer expert testimony at the time oftrial to address such issues. 29. Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products; (b) The trade name affixed to those products; (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement;. (d) The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction; (e) The initial purchaser of the products; and (f) (The name, address and job title of each person having custody of any writings) or contracts those rebranding agreements. ANSWER: 24 Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and for the further reason that the only products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it has, from time to time, sold some of its products for resale under other labels. Some of these products contained asbestos, others contained no asbestos. Garlock has no record, knowledge or recollection of any written distribution or sales agreement concerning such products. There is no reason to believe that such products are germane to this litigation. Addition/New answer to 29: Garlock is not presently in possession of any records to further answer this interrogatory 30. State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to products containing asbestos that you mined, manufactured, marketed, sold or distributed. If so, state: (a) The location of such documents. (b) The name and address of the custodian of the documents. (c) The format in which the documents are kept, i.e., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. In what form the documents can be accessed, i.e., by state, by (d) product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it does not maintain separate compilations ofsales records for its asbestos-containing products or for sales in specific states or sub-divisions thereof. Addition/New answer to 30: Garlock states that it does not maintain separate compilations of sales records for it asbestos-containing products or for sales in specific states or sub-division thereof. Such older records as still exist are retained in Rochester, New York, in cardboard boxes, each containing several cartons of record. These records will be made available to plaintiff for inspection and copying at plaintiffs expense and upon appropriate arrangements. It is believed that the oldest such paper records generally date from approximately 1978. Upon receipt of specific information from the Plaintiffs as to the products to which they allege to have been exposed, the dates of the alleged exposure and the locations at issue, this Defendant will 25 attempt to identify whether or not it sold such asbestos-containing products to the locations specified, at the time periods in question. 34. When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos (sic) in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill (sic), No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W.C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person (s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without the risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 34 (e) above; (g) If your answer to 34 (e) is yes, when, was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole' or in part for the proposition stated in 34 (e) above? ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Garlock has no record, knowledge, or recollection ofobtaining the Fleischer Drinker Study ~ " A Health Survey ofPipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels." However, Garlock has learned from its counsel that tliis report dealt with thermal insulation products that Garlock did not manufacture or distribute. Addition/New answer to 34: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery ofadmissible evidence. Garlock has no record, knowledge, or recollection ofobtaining a copy of the article entitled "A Study ofAsbestos (sic) in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health Bill (sic), No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W.C. Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report"). 26 35. Identify which products manufactured, distributed or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant which qualified under any military specifications. For each asbestos-containing product manufactured, distributed, or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant that qualified under one or more of the military specifications: (a) State which military specification it satisfied; and (b) State the inclusive dates that the product was listed on the military qualified products list for that particular military specification. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and for the further reason that the only Garlock products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that a few of its products were developed to meet the requirements of various federal government specifications, especially ones for the military services. For the most part, those specifications were related to material content and performance and specific Garlock products were made to meet the requirements of those specifications. Addition/New answer to 35: Garlock assumes that sometime in the past there were communications with agencies or departments of the United States, but if, in fact, this is the case, the physical records have long since been discarded and Garlock has no present information as to the substance or personnel involved in any such communications. Attached as Exhibit 9 to these answers are copies of pages of an old Garlock Product Manual listing products that were submitted to the government and which were found to meet military and/or government specifications. Style numbers with the letter "A" below them were/are asbestos products, while those with the letters "NA" below them were/are non-asbestos products. Garlock has been unable to locate any documents listed in the "Qualification Reference" column and it is assumed that if any were ever in Garlock's possession, they were discarded in accordance with procedures normally applicable to old and no longer useful records. 36. Was the composition of any of the asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant intentionally different with regard to sales by Defendant of said products to the United States Government or any of its agencies as compared to asbestoscontaining products sold and/or distributed by Defendant for sale to non-governmental private industrial consumers? If so, state the following: (a) The type of asbestos-containing product in which the composition of the product was intentionally different with regard to sales by Defendant to the United States Government or any of its agencies as compared to sales to non governmental private industrial consumers; 27 (b) The trade name of any such produet; (c) The time period during which such intentional variation in the composition of said product(s) occurred; (d) Describe each such intentional variation; (e) Explain why each such intentional variation occurred; and (f) Identify the person or persons who are most knowledgeable concerning these intentional variations. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and for the further reason that the only Garlock products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Garlock is not aware of any safety standards, safety orders, regulations, laws, rules or design requirements of any of the entities listed which dealt with any of its asbestos-containing products at the time when those products were developed or at the time of the decision to manufacture or sell those products. A few products were developed to meet the requirements of various federal government specifications, especially ones for the military services. For the most part, those specifications were related to material content and performance, and specific Garlock products were made to meet the requirements of those specifications. Garlock believes that all of its products are, and have always been, in compliance with applicable federal, state and local standards, regulations, laws, rules and/or ordinances. Addition/New answer to 36: In addition, see answer to Interrogatory Number 35. 37. Was there any difference in the packaging of any asbestos-containing product manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant and sold to the United States Government or any of its agencies and sold by Defendant to non-governmental private industrial consumers? If so, state the following: (a) Identify the type of asbestos-containing product which was sold and/or distributed by Defendant to the United States Government or any of its agencies in packages that were substantially different from said products sold and/or distributed by Defendant to non-governmental private industrial consumers; (b) The trade name of any such product; (c) The time period during which such differences in packaging occurred; (d) If there was a reason for each such difference in packaging, state what each such reason was for each packaging variation; and (e) Identify and describe all variations in the packaging of asbestos-containing product(s) identified above that was sold to the United States Government which distinguished such packaging from the asbestos-containing product 28 that was sold to non-governmental private industrial consumers. ANSWER: See Answer to Interrogatory Number 36. Addition/New answer to 37: Garlock does not have those records that would be necessary for it to make a meaningful response to this interrogatory. Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it does not have records that would indicate when it started and/or stopped using any particular type or style of packaging. For probably at least 50 years, the dominant colors of our packaging materials have been yellow, red and black. Sometimes black has predominated, and at other times, yellow has been the dominant color. However, the three colors have usually been used together. 38. When, if at all, did Defendant first learn that the United States Government knew that the use or handling of asbestos-containing products without respiratory protection could foreseeably cause lung diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma? (a) How did Defendant first learn that information; (b) Identify the person or persons at Defendant who first learned this information; (c) Identify any documents which support Defendant's answer to this interrogatory; (d) Identify all persons who have knowledge concerning this interrogatory. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and for the further reason that the only Garlock products at issue in this case are those to which plaintiff alleges to have been exposed. Addition/New answer to 38: Garlock states that it is aware of the existence of medical opinion and literature indicating that there is an association between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancer. However, Garlock is unable to pinpoint when it first learned that the United States Government knew that the use or handling of asbestos-containing products without respiratory protection could foreseeably cause lung disease such as asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma. 39. With respect to any plants where Defendant produced asbestos-containing products, describe 29 in detail any changes Defendant made in work practices and/or equipment used and/or policies developed during the period of its production of such asbestos-containing products, concerning the safety of its plant employees with respect to their exposure to airborne asbestos dust and fibers (which would relate to safety procedures, ventilation systems, cleaning procedures, safety equipment, etc.). For any such changes, practices, or policies: (a) State the nature of each such change, practice, or policy; (b) State the approximate date of such change, practice, or policy; (c) State the reason the changes were made; and (d) Identify any documents in your possession which reflect such change, practice, or policy; and (e) Identify the custodian(s) of said documents. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery ofadmissible evidence. The plaintiffhas never been a Garlock employee and does not allege ever visiting any Garlock facility. The only relevant issues in this action pertain to finished asbestos-containing products after they have left the Garlock facilities. Addition/New answer to 39: With regard to Garlock's textile operation in Palmyra, New York, the following alterations have been documented: Pre-1928 Installed hoods over carting machines; installed exhaust fans. 1928 Piping connected to exhaust hoods. 1939 Further improvement to carding dust control. 1956 Altered pneumafil system (vacuum system) installed on spinning frames to bring dust levels down from 5 or 6 mppcf to 1 to 1.5 mppcf; dust hoods designed for looms. 1957 Collecting cyclones with outdoor exhaust installed. 1970- 1973 Studies regarding alterations to Palmyra plant to meet newest standards resulted in the decision that it was impractical to make the existing equipment meet the new standards. Garlock decided to build a new plant in Canada, equipped with all new machinery especially designed to meet the new standards. With regard to the compressed asbestos sheet operation in Palmyra, New York, Garlock purchased equipment consisting generally of an enclosed automatic bag opener and emptier, an enclosed fluffing devide, an enclosed bag handling apparatus, an enclosed conveyer apparatus for transferring asbestos to appropriate mixers and blenders, and associated dust collection equipment. This equipment was purchased in 1977. Further, in 1942, it is believed a hood enclosed was placed over the grinder and in the late 1960's or early 1970's that apparatus was removed from the interior plant site. 30 40. If Defendant has ever given any information to Defendant's employees concerning any potential hazards of exposure to asbestos, state: (a) The specific information given; (b) The date(s) on which said information was given; (c) The manner in which said information was given; (d) By whom was said information given (give names and current addresses); (e) To whom was said information given (give names and current addresses); (f) The name and current address of the custodian of any records concerning the information given. ANSWER: Garlock objects to tills interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The plaintiff has never been a Garlock employee and does not allege ever visiting any Garlock facility. The only relevant issues in this action pertain to finished asbestos-containing products alter they have left the Garlock facilities. Addition/New answer to 40: Since Garlock has used raw asbestos in various manufacturing processes since the early 1900's, upon information and belief, oral warnings and instructions regarding housekeeping have been given to employees since the 1940's. Respirators have been available and their use encouraged in dusty areas since the 1930's. Respirators became mandatory for all in dusty areas by the early 1970's, as did the wearing of disposable, then cloth coveralls. Warning signs advising workers of the hazard of inhaling asbestos fibers were placed at plant entrances in the early 1970's and per the OSHA requirement. Garlock no longer manufactures asbestos containing products. It believes that its last packing sale was in approximately 1982. Garlock discontinued the manufacture of asbestos-containing gaskets in December 2000. Its last asbestos-containing gasket sale is believed to have been in early 2001. 42. Has Defendant ever sent any advisory letter or memorandum to any of its customers (specifically including without limitation, any of the plaintiffs employers) which attempts to advise them of any health hazard that may be associated with the use of asbestoscontaining products and/or any safety precautions or procedures which should have been followed when handling or using asbestos-containing products. If so, (a) Identify the author of each such advisory letter or memorandum; (b) State the content of each such advisory letter or memorandum; (c) Identify the person(s) to whom each such letter or memorandum was sent; (d) State the date on which each such letter was sent; and 31 (e) Identify the custodian of all such advisory letters or memoranda. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes the truth of matters in dispute in this litigation, specifically that there are dangers associated with the use of Garlock products. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, Garlock states that there has never been any competent scientific or medical evidence or reason to believe that its asbestos-containing products, upon reasonable use, release asbestos fibers in sufficient quantities, if any, to posed a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using such products. Garlock denies that use of, or exposure to, its asbestos-containing products posed any health hazard or any significant possibility of inhalation of asbestos fiber. Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that the information sought is irrelevant to this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it has no knowledge of any such "advisory letters or memoranda". Garlock states, however, that it has continually provided its customers with instructions as to the proper handling, installation and use of its products. Such instructions have been in various forms, including instruction sheets, advertising literature and user seminars. Addition/New answer to 42: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and assumes the truth of matters in dispute in this litigation, specifically that there are dangers associated with the use of Garlock products. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that even though all of its products were safe and exempt from OSHA labeling requirements, all Garlock asbestos-containing sealing products containing fully encapsulated asbestos fibers, carried warning labels since late 1977 either on the product or on the package. The text of the label read: CAUTION: Contains Asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing Asbestos dust may cause Serious bodily harm. A similar warning notice was contained in product literature that described one or more asbestos-containing product, as published since 1977. 43. Does Defendant contend that its representative, salesmen or other agents or employees verbally communicated any information to any of its customers, or any agency of the United States Government, and/or plaintiffs employers which attempted to advise them of any health hazard that may be associated with the use of asbestos-containing products or which 32 attempted to advise them of any safety precautions or procedures which should be followed when handling or using asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed by Defendant? If so, identify each such customer or employer and for each such customer or employer: (a) Identify the Defendant representative who made each such verbal communication; (b) State the content of each such verbal communication; (c) Identify the person or persons to whom such verbal communication was made; (d) State the date on which each such verbal communication was made; and (e) Identify the custodian of any document(s) which concerns, confirms, related to any such verbal communication. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, Garlock states that there has never been any competent scientific or medical evidence or reason to believe that its asbestoscontaining products, upon reasonable use, release asbestos fibers in sufficient quantities, if any, to posed a health hazard, potential or otherwise, to persons using such products. Garlock denies that use of, or exposure to, its asbestos-containing products posed any health hazard or any significant possibility of inhalation of asbestos fiber. Garlock states that it sponsors, from time to time, sales training programs for its sales personnel and those of its distributors. These meetings were conducted by Garlock marketing and training personnel and ifquestions relative to asbestos and its health implications were raised, the subject was discussed. Garlock states that it has continually provided its customers with instructions as to the proper handling, installation and use of its products. Such instructions have been in various forms, including instruction sheets, advertising literature and user seminars. Addition/New answer to 43: Garlock has no records documenting any customer seminars in the State of Virginia in general and specifically, in the city of Newport News, which may dealt with the use of asbestos containing products. 46. Has Defendant sold and/or supplied any asbestos-containing products to persons in the State of Virginia between 1940 and 1986? If your answer to this interrogatory is affirmative, state: (a) Whether said products were manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant directly or through a distributor, intermediary, agent, subsidiary, or other company; (b) The name of the business entity, if any, to which products containing 33 asbestos were sold for distribution to persons in the State of Virginia; (c) The dates that said products were sold and/or distributed to persons in the State of Virginia; (d) The trade name of said product(s) sold and/or distributed to persons in the State of Virginia; (e) The quantity of said product(s) distributed; (t) The names and current addresses of any individuals employed by you or formerly employed by you who have knowledge of the sale(s); (g) Whether there are records inexistence reflecting the sale or distribution of said products to persons in the State of Virginia; and (h) Who currently has possession of such records. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery ofadmissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that it does not maintain separate compilations ofsales records for its asbestos-containing products or for sales in specific states or sub-divisions thereof. Addition/New answer to 46: Upon receipt of specific information from the Plaintiffs as to the products to which they allege to have been exposed, the dates of the alleged exposure and the locations at issue, this Defendant will attempt to identify whether or not it sold such asbestos-containing products to the locations specified, at the time periods in question. Further investigation is continuing as to employees who may have been involved in the sales of Garlock products. 48. For the time period 1998 to the present, identify each of your current or former employees who have provided deposition testimony and/or trial testimony in any lawsuit in any state or federal court or any workers' compensation proceeding involving personal injury or wrongful death allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos products that were manufactured, sold, processed or distributed by you, and for each such witness, state: (a) the name of such witness; (b) the date on which such witness testified; (c) the case name, jurisdiction, and civil action number where such testimony was given; (d) the subject matter of such testimony; (e) any and all exhibits that were referenced in such testimony. ANSWER: 34 Garlock object to this interrogatory in the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and that the information sought is irrelevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Garlock further objects to the part ofthis interrogatory relating to any Workers' Compensation claim insofar as there is no known allegation that any plaintiff was and/or is a Garlock employee or ever visited any Garlock facility. The only relevant issues in this action pertain to finished asbestos-containing products after they have left the Garlock facilities. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that James E. Hefffon and Roy Whittaker have testified at deposition and/or trial on a number of occasions since 1998. Garlock further states that it is not presently in possession of a complete set of records necessary to answer this interrogatory further. Garlock, however, is undertaking a search of the records it does possess, and reserves the right to supplement this answer with any relevant information that may be discovered. Addition/New answer to 48: See attached Exhibit 10 entitled "Deposition and Trial Testimony Given on Behalfof Garlock". * INTERROGATORY NUMBER 49: For the time period 1998 to the present, identify each person who has testified as an expert for you at trial or provided a deposition to Plaintiff's Counsel in response to having been designated as an expert by you in any lawsuit in any state or federal court or any workers' compensation proceeding involving personal injury or wrongful death allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos products that were manufactured, sold, processed or distributed by you, and for each such expert, state: (a) the name of such witness; (b) the date on which such witness testified; the case name, jurisdiction, and civil action number where such testimony was given; (d) the subject matter of such testimony; (e) any and all exhibits that were referenced in such testimony. ANSWER: Garlock objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, please see Garlock's listing of expert witnesses, which is attached as Exhibit 11. Garlock is not presently in possession of a complete set of records necessary to answer this interrogatory further. INTERROGATORY NUMBER 50: Produce all documents which relate, directly or indirectly, to your answers to any and all interrogatories above, including all subparts of each such interrogatory. 35 ANSWER: Garlock objects to the form of this interrogatory, as it is duplicative and unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Garlock states that where applicable, it has referred to its relevant business records. Where such documents and/or records have provided specific information contained in these answers, those documents and/or records are identified within the answer to which they refer. < 36 EXHIBIT 1 GARLOCK ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT LIST STYLE PRODUCT ASBESTOS PERCENTAGE TYPE ASBESTOS BINDER TYPE 7021 7705 900T 901 902 903 8038 850 1000W 7003 7006 7008 7009 7021T 7022 7028 70___ 7226 7228 7405 7735 7738 7819 7844 8746 8748 8053 Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet with Wire Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Crocidolite Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 75-85 85-86 85 75-85 76-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR Neoprene Neoprene SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR Dec. 2000 1983 Dec. 2000 Dec. 2000 Dec. 2000 1991 1991 Dec. 2000 Dec. 2000 2000 2000 2000 1988 Dec. 2000 1957 1991 1991 1988 Dec. 2000 2000 1992 1991 1991 1981 2000 Dec. 2000 1991 STYLE PRODUCT 8057 8058 9531 9532 9533 950 961 1674 7098 7772 270 300 400 200 424 425L 450 459W1 480 480L 4101 4102 4121 4122 4124 1202 1400 7085 8800 7070 7278 Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet ASBESTOS TYPE PERCENTAGE ASBESTOS BINDER TYPE Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 .75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR SBR Neoprene SBR Nitrite SBR Nitrite SBR SBR SBR Neoprene SBR SBR . . SBR SBR Nitrite Nitrite Nitrite Nitrite SBR SBR SBR ? Nitrite ? -Pane 2 of 9 CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR 2000 1991 2000 2000 2000 Dec. 2000 Dec. 2000 2000 1974 1986 2000 2000 1991 1991 1991 1996 1991 1991 1996 1996 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1991 1960 2000 1962 1991 1956 STYLE PRODUCT ASBESTOS TYPE PERCENTAGE ASBESTOS BINDER TYPE 7346 7486 7640 7647 7860 (red) 7651 7679 8500 8554 8614 8688 9529 9582 8806 8388 8553 9151 Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Compress Asb, Direct Chrysotile Compress Asb. Direct Chrysotile Compress Asb. Direct Chrysotile Compress Asb. Direct Chrysotile Compress Asb. Direct / Gasket Chrysotile 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 Polacrylate ? SBR SBR SBR SBR ? Natural Poly neoprene ? SBR ? Neoprene Neoprene SBR SBR SBR CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR 1991 1991 1956 1956 1991 1991 1956 1972 1991 1956 1951 2000 1991 1980 1991 1959 1956 9164 9731 9055 9209 9256 8082 8090 8126 8285 (red) 804 8400 Compress Asb. Direct / Gasket Chrysotile Unaured Style 7021 Compressed Sheet Chrysotile SW Cane Treated Sheet Chrysotile Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Compressed Sheet / Gasket Chrysotile Compressed Sheet Chrysotile Compressed Sheet Chrysotile 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 75-85 Compressed Sheet / Gasket Flue Duct Expansion Joint Chrysotile Chrysotile 75-85 75 SBR Neoprene SBR Natural SBR SBR SBR SBR 1991 1960 2000 1962 1958 2000 1956 1979 1956 SBR UNK. 1991 1980 Dona Q nf O STYLE PRODUCT 7904 8940 8157 555 Chevron Packing Chevron Packing Chevron Packing Spiral Wound Gasket ASBESTOS TYPE PERCENTAGE ASBESTOS BINDER TYPE Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 40-50 40-50 40-50 10 Teflon Teflon Teflon Paper CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR 1981 1981 1981 1988 STYLE 17 87 111 114 115 116 117 127 144 150 161 163 166 176 220 221 222 230 PRODUCT Alabostine Packing Extra Diagonal Packing ASBESTOS PERCENTAGE TYPE ASBESTOS Chrysotile 87 Chrysotile Unk. Rubber Pump Valves Wire Wound Coil Packing Chrysotile 25 Chrysotile 17 Beaver Packing Round Wire Wound Ring Packing Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile 20 Beaver Packing Round Compressor Packing Palmyra Coil Packing Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 42 51 Unk. High Pressure Spiral Packing Chrysotile Unk. Molded Valve Ring Molded Valve Ring Molded Valve Ring Hot Oil Packing Chrysotile 32 Chrysotile 64 Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile 79 Compressor Coil Packing Chrysotile Unk. Compressor Spiral Packing Chrysotile Unk. Compressor Spiral Packing Chrysotile Unk. Square Braided Packing Crocidolite 55-69 BINDER/ LUBRICANT CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR Natural Rubber 1980 Petrolatum Wax & Graphite 1980 Natural Rubber 1981 SBR, Paraffin & Graphite 1961 Petrolatum & Graphite 1957 SBR, Paraffin & Graphite 1957 Graphite 1965 SBR 1980 Natural Rubber & Glycerin 1980 Natural Rubber, SBR, Glycerin & Graphite 1980 Paraffin & Graphite 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Nitrite & Graphite 1983 Natural Rubber & Graphite 1980 Natural Rubber 1976 Natural Rubber 1976 Natural Rubber 1976 Petrolatum 1980 STYLE PRODUCT 231 Square Braided Ring 233 Derby Coil Packing 234 Rolopac Coil Packing 235 Derby Ring Packing 237 Thorndyke Coil Packing 238 Thorndyke Coil Packing 239 Rolopac Coil Packing 243 Derby Coil Packing Round 244 Rolopac Coil Packing 245 Derby Ring Packing 248 Mill Coil Packing 249 Rolopac Ring Packing Wire 251 Mill Ring Packing 252 Furnace Door Packing 256 Expansion Joint Packing 257 Cold Oil Packing 258 Blue Asbestos Packing 266 Rolopac Packing 356 "O" Center Forged Packing Coil ASBESTOS PERCENTAGE TYPE ASBESTOS Crocidolite 55-69 Chrysotile Chrysotile 55-69 57 Chrysotile Chrysotile 55-60 47-50 Chrysotile 47-50 Chrysotile 54 Chrysotile 56 Chrysotile 55 Chrysotile 56 Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile Unk. Unk. Unk. 85 75 Chrysotile Chrysotile Unk. 75 Chrysotile 60-72 Chrysotile Unk. BINDER/ LUBRICANT & Graphite CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Petrolatum 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Petrolatum 1980 Glycerin & Graphite 1980 Glycerin & Graphite 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1958 Petrolatum & Graphite 1968 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1958 Copper Wire 1959 Petrolatum 1957 Copper Wire 1958 Copper Wire 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Glycerin 1957 Vegetable Lubricant & Graphite 1962 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 SBR & Glycerin 1965 357 "O" Center Forged Packing Chrysotile Unk. SBR, Graphite & Glycerin 1965 STYLE 358 377 530 531 605 610 612 625 644 730 731 732 733 734 736 813 PRODUCT "O" Center Forged Packing Metal Marine Packing Chevron Packing Chevron Packing Woven Asbestos Sheet Packing Asbestos Gasketing Tubular Asbestos Tape Autoline Sheet Packing Pacific Semi Metallic Coil Packing Lattice Braided Packing Lattice Braided Packing Lattice Braided Packing Lattice Braided Packing Lattice Braided Packing Lattice Braid Blue Asbestos Packing Molded Cups Power Rules Gears ASBESTOS PERCENTAGE TYPE ASBESTOS Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile 45-50 Chrysotile Chrysotile 45-50 Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile 85 Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Crocidolite Unk. Unk. Chrysotile 45-50 BINDER/ LUBRICANT CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR SBR & Glycerin 1965 SBR & Graphite 1980 SBR & Mineral Oil 1974 Neoprene 1974 Natural Rubber 1981 Natural Rubber 1980 Natural Rubber & Graphite 1981 Natural Rubber & Graphite (Wire?) 1981 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Vegetable Lubricant & Graphite 1980 Vegetable Lubricant & Graphite 1980 Vegetable Oil & Graphite 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1980 Glycerin 1980 Petrolatum & Graphite 1965 SBR 1980 813-a 900 Molded Cups--Power Reverse Gears Compressed Asbestos Sheet Packing Chrysotile Chrysotile 45-50 85 Neoprene 1980 SBR 1980 STYLE 908 909 910 917 918 926 927 928 930 931 1200 1700 2200 5008 5246 5336 PRODUCT Dry Plastic Packing Dry Plastic Packing Dry Plastic Packing Pleated Lead Foil Lead Fill Packing Asbestos Cord Plastallic Packing Plastallic Packing Plastallic Packing Plastallic Packing Plastallic Packing Power Reverse Gear Cyl Locomotive Cob Look Packing Locomotive Air Pump Packing Gas Generator Door Packing Furnace Door Packing Braided Lead Foil Packing ASBESTOS PERCENTAGE TYPE ASBESTOS Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile 8 Chrysotile 28 Chrysotile Chrysotile 28 Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Chrysotile Unk. Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Chrysotile 42 Unk. Chrysotile 14 BINDER/ LUBRICANT CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR Neoprene & 1980 SBR Neoprene & 1980 SBR Neoprene & 1980 SBR Vegetable Oil, Graphite & Lead Foil 1980 Vegetable Oil & Graphite Lead Foil 1980 Petrolatum 1980 Vegetable Oil 1980 Vegetable Oil 1980 Vegetable Oil 1980 SBR 1961 Molded Rubber & Graphite 1964 Graphite 1980 Natural Rubber Graphite Jacket of Braided Copper Graphite 1979 1980 1980 1972 5861 | 7051 "Teflon" Treated Asbestos Packing Asbestos Gasketing Wire Insured Chrysotile 64 Chrysotile Unk. Teflon 1980 Natural Rubber & Graphite 1991 STYLE 7085 8035 7130 7228 7815 7954 8240 8380 8525 5298 5299 5880 5884 PRODUCT Compressed Sheet / Gasket Compressed Sheet / Gasket Chlorine Valve Ring Packing Neoprene Compressed Asbestos Sheet Packing Chevron Packing Asbestos Tinning Machine Brushes Neoprene Asbestos Gasketing Neoprene Asbestos Tinning Machine Neoprene Asbestos Tinning Machine Brushes Asbestos Packing Asbestos Packing Asbestos Packing Asbestos Packing ASBESTOS PERCENTAGE TYPE ASBESTOS Chrysotile Chrysotile Chrysotile 75-85 75-85 Unk. Chrysotile 8 Chrysotile 40-50 Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Chrysotile Unk. Crocidolite 60 Crocidolite 50 Crocidolite 60 Crocidolite 50 BINDER/ LUBRICANT SBR CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING YEAR 2000 SBR 1974 SBR, Beeswax Graphite 1981 Neoprene Dec. 2000 Natural Rubber None 1991 1975 Neoprene 1980 None 1970 None 1980 Teflon Lube 1980 Teflon Lube 1980 Teflon 1980 Teflon Lube 1980 R:\Garlock Product List r______r\ _ C A EXHIBIT 2 Worker's Compensation Claims SBBBI i PgfUjWSSSM Clemons, Vera Baylord, Grace Bacon, Clara Bohner. Elsie Honore, Martin D. Bills. Arthur Nichols, Charles Zabliski, Raymond A. Bailey, Omar H. Sr. West, Sam * Thurley, David * Garnsey, Catherine Collins. Robert 11/26/1946 11/14/1957 1/20/1971 6/7/1973 3/13/1980 Pulmonary Fibrosis; Asbestosis Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pulmonary Asbestosis Asbestosis Secondary Asbestosis Thickened Pleura 6/4/1982 7/24/1985 2/22/1989 11/26/1992 Asbestosis; Pulmonary Fibrosis Asbestosis; Emphysema; Pulmonary Fibrosis; Heart Disease Silicosis (disputed) Lung Cancer 9/18/1996 Mesothelioma 2/18/1997 Mesothelioma 7/1/1999 Lung Cancer 2001 Lung Cancer $ 6,086.15 Textile Dept. $ 2,400.00 Textile Dept. $ 18,000.00 No Payment Textile Dept. Braiding Dept. 1918-1943 (Intermittent Total 13-14 Yrs) 1923-1957 (Employment Intermittent Total 22 years) 1943-1970 1951-1973 $ 6,753.00 $ 105.00 . per week since 6/7/82 $ 9,754.85 & $271.38/wk to widow No Records Probably misc. duties in San Francisco Ware house & Gasket Shop Textile Dept. Cut Gasket Dept Textile Dept. Braiding Yard In Litigation Shipping Dept. 1959-1960 1950-1970 1970-1982 1947-1972 1972-1973 1973-1983 1959-1984 ! $ 10,000.00 Compression Packing Supervisor Currently denied Metal Parts Finisher In Litigation Graphiter, Hyd/Mech Press Operator Exp. Jt. Builder Sheeter Oper. Currently denied Maint. Yard Scrap In Litigation Fibre Prep Mach Oper Sander-washer Oper Metal Parts Finisher $249,000 Spinning Frame Op. iInsp. Packer Shipper Parts Coordinator Rubber Belt Finisher None at this time Unknown 1056-1984 ; 1973-1993 1968-1096 1974-1984 1950's | Dieffenderfer, Wilson E. * 1/11/2002 Mesothelioma Currently in Litigation Klozures 1940-1942 1945-1975 l Worker's Compensation Claims In addition, the following employees have made claims for conditions apparently relating to respiratory problems, but not documented or diagnosed to be related to exposure to asbestos fibers: HHPBSMHMBillWl0llfiii I2^vAv.2f:'*y*'>>>;*>v<*>>> Beadle, Harold 9/22/1975 Metastatic Carcinomatosis No Payment non-work related illness Gross, William Brown, Harold DiStefano, Angelo 5/22/1979 Unknown $ 2/26/1980 4/11/1980 j First Bronchitis due to asbestos inhalation. Later - no evidence of asbestosis Unknown $ 47,500.00 (Settlement) No Payment 25,000.00 (Settlement) ms Sundries Dept. Quality Control Dept. Textile Dept. Plastics Div. Molding Dept. High Pressure Sheet Finisher 1938-1961 1962-1965 1965-1977 1956-1977 1979-1980 Plastics Div Spiral Wound Gasket Dept, '1947-1079 EXHIBIT 3 GARLOCK INC ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION (ALA) MINUTES Discovery response used in Texas: N. McDonald (95) (1 page - FYI) AIA Minutes of December 6,1973 (8 pages) AIA Minutes of June 10,1976 (8 pages) Note: AIA Minutes of 12/6/73 & 06/10/76 were produced in Texas, in Bilder & Walsh (`95). 1 AIA INFORMATION AS PER: NORMAN MCDONALD CASE, TX - 1995 F : \DATA\WP 51 \MCDONALD . ROG The Asbestos Information Association: This Defendant does not have a complete record of minutes or correspondence from this organization which would allow it to answer this request. Those records that are available indicated that Garlock had representatives or employees attend the following meetings: 6/7/73 12/6/73 6/10/76 A. Kuzmuk and S.G. Dixit. G. Perry Weiss attended this conference as a Garlock employee. Robert B. Pilmer attended this conference as an employee of Garlock. F: \DATA\WP 51 \AIA. MTG 1 ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION/NORTH AMz.PICA ` Board of Directors Meeting December 6, 1973 .National Association of Home Builders' 3uilding Washington, D, C. A meeting of the Board of Directors was held pursuant to notice on December 6, 1973 at 10:00 a.m. at the National Association of-Home Builders' Housing Center, Washington, D, C. . The following Directors were present: James Armstrong . E, C. Bratt . A. E. Fay 'W. E. Gatewood T. Dougherty A. R. Hooker J. H. Marsh C. G. Morgan J- L Rainey William Thurber F. J. Solon, Jr. Martin Sendecki (Proxy) Joseph Hall * G- Parry Weiss J. K. Whittaker Eendix Corporation H. K. Porter Company, Inc. National Gypsum Company Certain-teed Products Corp. The Flintkote Company Rayb e s to s-Manha11an North American Asbestos Corn Amatex Corp. ' . Union Carbide Corp. Johns-Manvi lie Corp, Cong oleum Industries, Inc. GAF Corporation Gar lock, Inc. Nicolet Industries, Inc. Also present: Frank Zimmerman, National Gypsum Company; Robert H. Mereness, Executive Director, AIA/NA; Carol W. Grant, AIA/NA; Jill Cummings, Caawalader, Wickersham & Taft; Theresa Seeley, Government Research Corporation; Susan Simons, Govern ment Research Corporation; and Matthew M. Swetonic, Hill and Knowlton, Inc.. __ ___ _ _ __ Introductory' Remarks In opening remarks, Mr. Marsh, President, announced the formation of the Association's Technical Committee under the chairmanship of Edmund M. Fenner of Johns-Manvi lie. Ee said the list' of nominations from member companies would be re viewed in. the next week, and a meeting of members of the. Committee with OSHA officials would be held in early January. He srated that the Committee, in addition to working on provisions for Federal and State regulations as regards the i5^i5-cs( w:':iq serve as an advisory body to the president _nd the executive director in connection with technical matters concerning the asbestos industry. Mr. Marsh SDoke of the need for a medical spokesman for the Association. A discussion followed as to possible candidates for such a position and the availability of personnel with current recognized knowledge in the field of possible asbestos-related diseases. The president'welcomed representatives of two new member companies, 3endix and Gar lock, and personnel providing legal and informational assistance to the headquarters staff. ' _________Minutes On motion, the Minutes of the previous meeting, September 12, were approved as submitted. _______________________ Report^ of the Executive Director __ _ _ _ Mr. Mereness advised the move of the Association's office from New York to Washington was completed on October 1. He discussed the volume of office work resulting from increased activity of Federal and State governments and public interest groups regarding the asbestos-health issue. Mereness reviewed the objectives of the Association, commented on efforts to complete membership opportunities, and voiced his appreciation of the cooperation of members with the Association's staff. He spoke of close working relationships with asbestos trade associations and with the Quebec __Asbestos Mining Association and the British Asbestos Information __ ___Committee.. He .said that actions were beino taken to formally recocnize these groups as affiliated members of the AIA/NA. He mentioned that a paper-back book was being considered as an Association publication which would "tell the asbestos story" and serve as an informational as well as a promotional "hand-out" for the industry. ___ . ____ ,, Federal Government Affairs . Terry Seeley and Sue Simons of Government Research Corporation reported on Federal Governmental activities affecting the asbestos industry. A. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSKA) _ The early 197 3 03HA decision to re-open the asbestos standard and appoint an "outside" advisory committee was reversed in October when C3HA Administrator John Stender announced the procedure for reviewing the standard. The procedure calls for developing a r.sv standard within OSHA, which will be submitted to "outside" con sultants - for review, possibly in January 1974. Sursequentl OSSA will "conduct in-plant tours to determine feasibility o cropcsels. - By July 197 4 , OSHA expects to be ready to prepare its EXHIBIT 4 GARLOCK INC ASBESTOS TEXTILE INSTITUTE (ATI) List of Garlock delegates who attended various meetings sponsored by the ATI (2 pages) (prepared by TPH - 3/15/95) ATI Minutes of March 7,1956 (4 pages) [Note: ... were produced in TX: Walsh (`95)] mmmBSmmmmm Asbestos Textile Institute Date 06/19/46 03/08/56 10/17/65 02/11/66 06/09/66 10/05/66 06/09/67 10/06/67 01/68 02/08/68 02/09/68 02/07/69 06/20/69 10/10/69 02/06/70 06/12/70 Garlack Delegates In Attendance At General Meetinq Garlack Delegatee In Attendance At Air Hvcriene Meeting G. Abbot G.E. Houghton, attended as a guest N.L.A- Martucci, attended as a guest G.E. Houghton & N.L.A. Martucci G.E. Houghton & Mr. Olson G.E. Houghton G.E- Houghton N.L.A. Martucci 6 G-P. Weiss G.E. Houghton, N.L.A. Martucci, G.P. Weiss & A. Kuzmuk A. Ky ztnuk G.E. Houghton,' N.L.A. Martucci & A. Kuzmuk None None Mr. Langlois, attended as a guest None None None None None G.E. Houghton, R.E. Moore None G. E. Houghton, S. G. Dixit & E. W. Fisher (guest speaker) G, E. Houghton, S- G-Dixit G A. Kuzmuk G. E- Houghton, S. G. Dixit & A. Kuzmuk G. E. Houghton, S. G. Dixit & G. P. Weiss S. G. Dixit None None None Garlack was a member of the Asbestos Textile Institute from approximately 1966 to 1979. Garlock acknowledges that a review of ati minutes discloses an earlier membership period during the 1940's, but Garlock has no other record or information as to such Date 10/09/70 06/10/71 10/08/71 02/03/72 06/08/72 09/20/72 02/09/73 06/07/73 10/05/73 02/08/74 06/07/74 09/27/74 02/75 10/03/75 10/8/76 Garlock Delegatee In Attendance At General Meeting G, E, Houghton, S. G- Dixit A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit W. G. Brainerd S. G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit S. Kuzrauk S. G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk S- G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit & A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk A. Kuzmuk 6c P. S. Hanke A. Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit 6c A- Kuzmuk S. G. Dixit A. Kuzmuk R- B. Pilmer A. Kuzmuk R. B. Pilmer P. S. Hanke Garlock Delegatee In Attendance At Air Hvcrien Meeting G. E. Houghton W. G. Brainerd . None S- G. Dixit S. G, Dixit S. G. Dixit S. G. Dixit S. G. Dixit S. G. Dixit S. G. Dixit A_I KIC-!_!: COi JU.T l lx. I-^iiinC Ksrch 7, 1956 'I ATTS*QArIC5 V/ERS: u IQ53S D. P., Holmes H. K- Jadcson Smith J. Usher ; 3. h. Luttanoerger __ '. ` GUESTS Frank T. Gatks, Asbestos Textile Co,, Inc Chicago, 111Ianis Jlr. .Housktac*. fSzrlacfc Palling Corapy E2z^prs.j Hew York ' Dr, Kenneth Sr-ith, uadical Director Jahns-Hzulie Corp, Keif York, Hew York U. D Shoemaker, American ftutual Liability Insurance Co. ` Philadelphia, Fauna, The agenda lor this meeting was as follo'wai . i, AS3ESTGSIS A1D CAMCE3, - A* discussion relative to compensation, I * * , Dr. Kenneth Sstith, medical Director of Jyhns-aanrilYe Corp,, .requested to ba present at this meeting because of recent developments ih the compensation tele regarding Asbestosis and Cancer, Dr, S^iith ijifomed us that in his opinion, have an epidemic of Lung Cancer in the world today, ' Death statistics are as follows: * . . Heart,*..'}!% . Cancer.,,.,.................................*16% llervoua System, .......... t .11# All other Cheat Diseases Less than . He also advised that tha current rate of progress in Cancer shews three out of every 100 case? is Lung Cancer,- One of his major reasons for asking .to address us was that there has caen a case decided by the Pennsylvania State Compensation Board in which there was a decision against the 0ampany involved. The finding by tha.referee in this case tras Asbestos-Cancer, The referee in this case quoted in his decision Dr. .Kasper1 s writings iron the Public Health i-bnegraph Lro. jo U. S. Public Health Service, In this publication he ties, together Asbestosis and Cancer throughout - creating a new ward for the iiedical Dictionary such as Asbestosis--Cancar* . Dr*. Kueoer claims that Asbestosis-Cancer can be found after exposure of fi months to L2 years in ages of people from 2% to 65 years. Ke also has a nan definition of Asbestosis such as ,:Gne particle of asbestos with the physical con- ltier surrounding it can be diagnosed as Asbestosis1*. According to him all workers * this industry are susceptible. He states further that a minimum of 170,000 :st particles per cubic litre is recognized for the development of Asbestosis- Cancer in man. Among his remarks Dr. Kueper says that Asbestosis.is compensable in. Csaury and notable ir. England and bales. --------- ------------- " Dr, Kuepzr also infers that Asoestoois-Carcer may be determined in, ^ autopsy performsd or. persons living in the area of a plant, He says that any occupational relationship to Cancer should be con sidered in the determination of a Cancer case. He also states that outside factors such as snaking, etc,, should r.ot be considered. Dr* Smith rrcacuends very strongly that this Institute begin a study of the relationship of Dung Cancer to Ashes tosis in our industry, Hg recansends that this should be done through tha Industrial Hygiene Foundation in Pittsburght Dr* Smith indicates that he has no evidence that there is r.ot a relationship b etc'sen. Ashes tosis and Cancer, He advised the Air Hygiene Committee that it would be advisable for the industry if me were to institute such a study or sur vey within our plants, hospitals, physicians, etc. This would only be a prelimin ary fact-finding survey such as is now under proposal for tha Q.A ll.A. Dr*- Smith advised that this proposal should be undertaken in conjunction, with, the Q.Ad:.A. proposal in order that we could procure infamatior. which would ccn> bat current derogatory literature now beans circulated throughout the United States and Canada, ' - - Dr, Smith also advised that there is other damaging information, being circu lated, written by the sane Dr. U. C, Hueper, who is Chief of the Environmental Cancer section of the national Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, Bethesaa, Keryland, such as a reprint of an article in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology entitled MSilicosis, Asbestosis, and Cancer of the Lung, '"sprints of this article t;ay be obtained from the Patla 02! Cancer- Institute, -jational Institute of H-alth, Bethasda, lxaryland, - Public Health Konograph 5*36 entitled nA quest into the environmental causes of Cancer ot tha Lung'1, can be obtained from tha U, S.'Department of Health Education ar.d VJelfare, Public Health Service, Uatior.al Institute of Health, Betnas da, 1U, iiarylaaa, ~2. A21 EHIAHATIOsI OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE HiuGSTPliL HIGGLE FOimmOX. This proposal as approved at tha last meeting was for an environmental' dust survey for dealers of the Asbestos Textile Institute,- This survey would _. include dust counts, inspection of the plants regarding dust elimination methods and reccmuendatlons for improvements of dust control engineering* The Industrial Hygiene Foundation would collect samples and make dust counts for all the plants involved, basing its suggestions and recommendations an the results of their own study, The Impinger apparatus would be used along with the accepted counting method used for counting Silica dust. It has also been suggested that included in this proposal should be the counting of the number of fibre3 prasent along with, the dust sampling counts. This request has been made to the foundation. The estimated cost of this survey is Jy6,CQQ,GQ to v7j500.CQ plus travel eoper.se. As this price covers approximately six or seven plants. It is reasonable to assume that the cost would oc .jl,GCQ,QO per plant, plus traveling -Oper.oe for this survey, Tha Comittse decided that the preliminary survey cn A.sbestosis-Car.cer should take preference over the dust survey proposal* oi Air Kygiene Cormittce Pass 3 i-:3. FIEUE CORDITTCKmiG DISCU5SIOM This discussion was divided into 2 parts: 1* Hsthods 2> Health There ere several different methods of spraying being used throughout .--the industry,. such- as the Spcnccr-Iead Oiler, Spray^Eeads used under pressure/ such types as Sprayco, monarchy etc, The Spencer iype^ af which each msuber at tending, was giver, a blue print, is the type in which there is a brush mounted above the stool!, which causes crops of ail to drop onto the stock as it uasses below the spraying stack. This type seems to be the best installation possible, due to the fact, first it is totally enclosed and second, it is comparatively trouble free,^ *. In- both, o? the above mentioned types of spraying methods a nineral based- conditioning oil is used. This oil may 03 purchased iroa any of the large oil compares, such as Sun Oil, Zssa and Gulk, This Spencer type oiler is now being used by the Garlock Packing Company and has been in use for sixteen years and the brush has only bean replaced once* They are now using Gulf Oil and Sun Oil #538*' This system according to iirr Houghton, Superintendent, is very- satisfactory, and above all never clogs up* . . . Concerning the second problem of spraying with oils, namely health, a have detaminsd to date that the type of mineral oil used by most members of che Institute is comparatively harmless. Tills determination has been made after contacting several Research Departments of the major oil companies, also through medical Opinions from diversified sources, However, Hugh Jackson vrill bring us - further information on the toxic a_ualities of mineral oils' only,, as this is the visual type of oil used in fibre conditioning in our industry* Some time ago it was suggested that someone make a trial, such as spraying short fibres on weekends, when these fibres are being cleaned and then adding this - sprayed material to the mixings throughout the production period^ Some of us rd.ll . attempt to try this method sometime during the next few nonths_. In the discussion of the use of oils as a apray, the humidity factor was . discussed* hr* Houghton advised that at Carlock they spray their stock regardless of the humidity* He states that they can run normally With. 55%> relative humidity at the Spinners and Cards without apparent trouble* . GEKHRAL IHFORulTTOH . Hr, Houghton 01 Garlock, reports that in their Heave Hoorna they have'dust counts ranging from 1 to 3 million particles per cubic foot* Card Room counts range frer, 3 to 5 million- Their dust control system at the looms consist of. a tubular section. built into tha top of the read with, slots along.the read length for air nd dust intake* The air is removed by tha use of flexible tubing at the ends of eke reed*. These flexible hoses can be lifted out of the way when it is necessary, itr, Houghton reports that prior to the installation of tills dust removal system or. their loom, they had counts in their Heave Room up to $ million particles par cubic foot* tiZXT iSTIS3 AQE-SA V Page i 1, Continue discussion of the uses of ail in the conditioning of fibres. 2_ Review of proposal of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation regarding Asoestosis and Cancer* 3-, Review the proposal iron the I.H-F, Eutironiaental Dust Survey, ' hi Report on general improvements and the elimination of dust by whatever means. ' PROPOSAL ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS: At the Board of Governors * ueeting, Hatch 7j 1?;>Q, an approval ?ras givan to the Air Hygiene Cocsnittaa for the preliminary fact-finding surrey on. the study of Asbe3tasis-Css.ee? relationship in conjunction with the Q,A*H.A, survey, This authorisation was given with the understanding that the cost of this survey would not exceed -/Lj000.00 including travalir.g expenses.' This' surrey would be rade by tha Industrial nygiena Foundation, at Pittsburgh, Pa -* The Chairman, and Hr, H. H. Jackson till contact Dr, tfolmer at the Industrial gier.s Foundation in Pittsburgh, in order to expedite the receipt of a-proposal on than as soon as possible, ; _ ' . ' 1- - . H, R, Holmes Chairman Air Kygiena CounLtteo Asbestos Textile Institute EXHIBIT 5 SRCLijj*l Meeting of the______ Board nf Dlrnctorju held at.................. .......Palmyra....... on the. day of-------------- ...s?.fl,PtlgJUUflJC:190&, at.XjLt&Q_________________________o'clock--A _ M. I Q, J. Q-arlock Presiding. Present, the following: Resolved, that the President be authorized to execute contraa with H. W. Johns-Hanville Co, for the purchase of Asbestos goods 4 from said ^Company .for a period of five years from Jan 1, 1907.. Further resolved, that the Secretary be authorized to affix the cor porate seal to 3aid Instrument. . igjgjgWj ___ _--Sp-acifth held nc.PjilEiyEiv day of- Preseat, the foDovidzig: -Meeting of- the__B.oand_^fillirctaxa.--------- -------- ............................... ............................................................i, on the___lfl ..th. 4.190 & at ______.12.__o'clock--------------M. O.J.Garlock ______Presiding. The Gar lock Packing Co.agreed to advance flOOCjtpO for experimental purpoeea in connection frith a Rubber and Aobeetor Paaking With the . understanding that they could have two fifths of the stock in a company : to be formed for manufacturing such sheet if successful' . Meeting of the- Eoe-rd of Directors beld at~---------- Palmyra....' . ...................................................on the. day of. . August------------------------------------ 190 7* *t.______9-.0Q..--o'clock,-------- A .if. 28th _ Q-4.J-G-arlock .i Present, the following : ..............................................................-----------------Presiding, t --Baanlxad*. To move the building now used for storage and the manufacture of Asbestos (baskets to a location East of Factory ^ajjBHgBBgMgg A. regular meeting of the Board of Directors of The Oarlock Packing Company was hold at the homo office of the Company, U02 East Main Street, Palmyra, New fork, Tuesday, March 1$, 1935. a* 10:30 A..M. eactem standard time. . . The gross profit ratio of Snyder has Been amout It is anticipated that this can he eomewhat increased hy diverting production to the Oarlock factory. There will also he same indirect advantage in the usage of additional quantities of ache8 to a yam from the textile deportment. p A luncheon meeting of the executive committee of the board of directors was held at'the Genesee Talley Club in Rochester, K. Y. coi .mencing at 12:20 p.n. on Friday, July 15, I960. Kr. Kcl'iullen stated that he had expected to bring before the meeting a recommen dation for purchase from 3, F. Goodrich of used equipment for manufacture of compressed asbestos sheet, which Goodrich is discontinuing; and reported that final exploration of the Canadian market, usage of the equipment for which by Tale at Kincardine had been intended, will not support the project. He indicated that therefore the recommendation will not be submitted. z' . . A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held at the office of the Corporation. Division Street, Palmyra, New York, on Wednesday, August 3 I960 at 11:00 o'clock a.m., e.d.t. . z. - - . - . y - The President reported that a study is being made of ways to increase our direct sales of asbestos textiles to achieve fuller utilization of our present loom capacity required for internal use of Woven asbestos, Uio Organization meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. vas held at the principal office of the Corporation, Division Street, Palmyra, Nev York, on Wednesday, April 3, 1963, at 1:30 p.m., e.s.t. "Appropriation llae President requested approval of the Board for the ex penditure of the sum of $46,000 for the purpose of rebuilding certain asbestos textile equipment which had been in use continuously over a period of many years. Hois approval, he stated, was required in accordance with an informal policy requiring approval of the Board for expenditures in excess of $23,000. After discussion of the need for the proposed expenditure, upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried the President was authorized to expend $46,000 far the purposes stated above. Asbestos Textiles . A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company, 1250 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York, on Friday, March 2, 1973 at 10:00 A.M. , EST. It was pointed out that the E.R.I.C.A. product line included asbestos textiles. A general dis cussion was held on the measures taken in the asbestos textile department of the Mechanical Rubber Division plant in Palmyra, New York, to meet the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The question was raised as to what possibilities might exist for expanding ERICA'S facilities to augment the production capabilities in Palmyra for asbestos textiles. . --' ^ ^ Asbestos Products A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Conference Room of Marine Midland Bank, 1 Marine Midland Plaza# Rochester, New York on Wednesday April 25, 1973 at 10:30 A.M., EST. At the request of the Chairman, G. P. Wiess reported that management was looking into the possibility of building a new asbestos textile mill in Quebec# Canada. Canadian Federal Government grants and a Quebec Government loan would be available for such a project. The estimated project cost to Garlock would be about $1,500,000. * A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman' at the Executive Offices of the Company, 1250 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York, on Wednesday, May 30, 197 3 at 10:00 A.M., EDT. Quebec Project At the Chairman's request, Mr. Wiess reported that he is working on the proposed asbestos plant project in Quebec and has sent an application for a govern ment grant. Asbestos Manufacturing za,YorK, an Wcaneoaay, novemocr j. / j at iu;w A.M. EST. Th Chairman Jed a discussion of Mr. cook* a back ground memorandum to the Board dated November 1G, 1973 concerning the corporation's problems and piano relative to the manufacture of asbestos products in the United States (at Palmyra, New York), Mexico (at Mexico City). Spain (at Barcelona), and Canada (at Toronto, and planned for Sherbrooke in Quebec Province). The Chairman explained the Overall situation in the following terms. The corporation manufactures four asbestos products, compressed sheet, braid, yarn, and cloth- The manufacture of two of these products, compressed sheet and braid, does not involve to a substantial degree the re lease of particles of asbestos fiber, and hence does not create a potential problem of compliance with existing or anticipated governmental standards for the release of such particles to the atmosphere. By contrast, the manufacture of yarn and cloth does create a potential problem of compliance. At present the corporation in ite manufacture of asbestos products outside the United States - that is, in Mexico, Spain, and Canada - is in compliance with the environmental standards in effect in those countries. Those standards are now leas stringent than those in effect in the United States but are expected to b brought over a period of several years to levels approximating those in effect now in the United States. The corporation intends to make from time to time any changes to its foreign manufacturing facilities required in order to stay ahead of anticipated changes in foreign environ mental standards. As to its United States facilities, at Palmyra, the corporation is in compliance with the Federal standards promulgated under the Occupa tional Safety and Health Act and the corresponding New York State standards with respect to compressed sheet and braid, and by virtue of agreements in the nature of waivers obtained from state and federal safety authorities will be in compliance until . June 30, 1975 with respect to yam and cloth. The corporation has two choices regarding the manufacture of yarn and cloth at Palmyra; either to make the substantial investment neces sary to bring the Palmyra facilities to full compliance by June 30, 1975, or to discontinue manufacture of yarn and cloth at Palmyra by that date. Management plans to make the latter choice and to transfer Palmyra's manufacture of yam and cloth to the proposed new plant in Quebec, assuming that the corporation's application for a grant to assist in construction of the plant is acted upon favorably. New facilities can be equipped with the required safety features more economically than can long-existing facilities such as those at Palmyra. The Board then raised questions about the health of employees working with asbestos at Palmyra. Mr. Wiens stated that liability against the corporation has recently been found in one workmen's compen sation case of total disability of a Palmyra ex employee caused by asbestos and that two other such alleged caoee are pending. In the case Where liability has been found, payments of some $25,000 over five years will bo due to the ex-employee for the corporation's account, and the ultimate total cost to the corporation including possible premium increases may he from $80,000 to $100,000. After discussion, the Chairman stated that the health procedures and tests administered for many years by the company doctor at Palmyra, by personnel of the Clifton Springs Hospital and Newark Medical Center, and by our insurance carrier. Employers Mutual Insurance Company Of Wausau, for screening of new employees and monitoring of exposure to asbestos dust of present employees are con stantly reexamined and are believed to be adequate. ni A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. vaa held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the company, 1250 Midtpwn Tower, Rochester, New York on Wednesday, December 19, 1973 at 10:00 A.M. (EST) Asbestos Manufacturing The Chairman reported that management was reexamining the health procedures and tests administered at Palmyra relative to screening of new employees and monitoring of present employees working with asbestos products. A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company, 1250 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York on Friday, January 25, 1974 at 10:00 A.M. Suit Against Asbestos Textile Institute The Chairman stated that the Corporation, which is a member of a trade association named the Asbestos Textile Institute, had received a letter dated January 18, 1974 from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, counsel to the Institute. A copy of the letter was given to each director present. The letter stated that on January 2, 1974 seven individuals who either had worked at Pittsburgh Corning Corporation *s formerly operative asbestos plant at Tyler, Texas, or were spouses of such workers had brought a class action in the Federal District Court in that city against that company, its parents PPG Industries, Inc. and Corning Glass Works, Incorporated, the Industrial Health Foundation, Inc. and the Institute. The complaint charged, among other things, that the Institute impeded the flow of information con cerning the health hazards involved in asbestos manufacture and thereby contributed toward the pulmonary diseases and, in some cases, deaths of workers at the plant. The Chairman stated that there was no indication at present that Garlock can or will he brought into the suit in any way. A meeting of the Board of Directora of Garlock Inc. waa held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company, 1250 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York, on Friday, March 1, 1974 at 10:00 A.M. At the Chairman's request, Mr. Wiess reported that the Canadian Government had offered a grant of $182,400 outright and $276,000 as a subsidy for 92 jobs at $3,000 each, for a total of $458,000, to facilitate the company's proposed asbestos plant in Quebec, and that he would shortly meet with the company's consulting engineers to discuss plans. Mr. Abell suggested that an additional grant be sought from the Province of Quebec.and indicated the availability of an interest subsidy for certain loans. The Chairman stated that the conditions attached to the offered grant were being studied and that the project was under active consideration A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Conference Room of Marine Midland Bank, 1 Marine Midland Plaza, Rochester, New York on Wednesday, April 24, 1974 at 10:30 A.M. v/ Suit against The Chairman referred to his "statement at the Asbestos Textile January 25# 197 4 meeting of the Board that there Institute was no indication at present that the Company could or would be brought in any way into the class action lawsuit brought on January 2, 1974 by former workers or spouses thereof at the formerly operative asbestos plant of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation at Taylor, Texas against various defendants, including the Asbestos Textile Association, a trade association of which the Company is a member# The Institute is . charged with impeding the flow of information <x> n~ cerning the health hazards involved in asbestos manufacture. The Chairman stated that Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, counsel to the Institute, had now sent the Institute's members, including the Company, a letter dated March 7# 1974, setting forth tentative views as to the possible legal exposure of the individual member companies in the event that the Institute is found liable in the lawsuit. Each director was given a copy of the letter. At the Chairman's request# Mr. Hanks commented that the C-C two points that are uncertain at present and that concern the Company are: (1) Did the Institute commit wrongful acts, and (2) If so, did the Company authorize or ratify the Institute's unlawful acts? The Chairman stated that the Board would be kept informed of any developments in the lawsuit that might affect the Company. Quebec Project A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company, 1250 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York, on Wednesday, May 29, 1974 at 10:00 A.M. The Chairman stated that the proposed asbestos plant project in Quebec was rapidly coming to the point of decision and that the Canadian Government had in creased the size of its grant offered to the Company under the terms of a law expiring June 30, 1974 from 15% to 25% of the total capital cost. Mr. Abell stated that the Government of the Province of Quebec had funds to invest in commercial enterprises and that, if the project went forward, it might be ap propriate later in the summer to discuss with the provincial Government the possibility of its taking an equity position in the project, with the Company obtaining contracts to manage the project and to market the products. The Chairman stated that management was completing a report on the economics of the project and that he would like to convene a special meeting of the Board to consider the report and to decide whether to accept, the offered grants and, proceed with the project. After a discussion, the meeting was set for Monday, June 17,' 1974 *.at 10:30 A.M. . Quebec Project /! A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company# 1250 Midtown Tower# Rochester# Now York, on Monday# June 17# 1974 at 10:30 A.M. The Chairman discussed the report entitled ''Asbestos Textile Facility' - Sherbrooke# Quebec, " dated June 10# 1974# of which a copy had been forwarded to each director prior to the meeting. Mr. Cook stated that the Company's objective was to build the best and cleanest asbestos-processing plant in the world. Mr. Gearhart recommended that a long-term contract be negotiated with an asbestos mine company to ensure the continued availability of raw material? Mr. Waggershauser stated that there was no shortage of raw material that would justify such a contract. In response to a question from Mr. Wells# Mr. McMullen stated that there was little prospect that asbestos packing would become obsolescent. Mr. McMullen stated that management favored establishing the ..as -a.'separate' CQ,^parat,ian '5339$ of `the equity to the'#ibvlnce *< ~ Mr. Grady discussed financing of the project, the advisability of seeking long-term fuel and electricity contracts, and the possibility of obtaining approval for remission of import duty that would normally be charged on the machinery on order from West Germany. In. summary# on behalf of management Mr* McMullen proposed to the Board that it approve the project as presented# epee if ically, that it approve (1) acceptance of the development incentives grant offered by the Canadian Government as explained at the May 29# 1974 Board meeting? (2) investment by the Company in the project of $1#761# 000 of new money plus . about $400,000 in working capital to be transferred from Palmyra upon the dlosing of asbestos textile operations "'there in mid-1975; (3) cancellation of R/A No. 21-11,438 for DM 1,454,513 (about $576,000)# approved by the Board on April 24, 1974, for certain equipment for E.R.I.C.A., because this equipment will now be diverted to the Quebec project and its cost is included in the $1,761,000 of new money proposed to be invested in the Quebec * project; and (4) negotiation with officials of the Province of Quebec and other appropriate governmental officials to seek additional development incentives and the sale of up to 50% of the equity to the Province. After discussion, the Board unanimously approved the Quebec proiect as presented. . Quebec Project A meeting of the Board! of Directors of Gar lock Inc was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Oak Hill Country' Club/ Rochester, New York/ on Friday, July 26, 1974 at 10:30 A.M. The Chairman reported that pursuant to the dis cussion at the previous Board meeting Garlock of Canada Ltd, had formally accepted the development incentives grant offered by the Canadian Governraent in the estimated amount of $Cdn 894,250 to assist the proposed asbestos processing venture in Sherbrooke, Quebec. Mr. Wiess reported that oral discussions with officials of the Province of Quebec regarding further incentives and investment were proceeding favorably. (ttjjcwwso^r . " Quebec Project A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Holiday Inn in Longview, Texas, on Tuesday, October 1, 1974 at 8:30 A.M. The Chairman stated that the Quebec project was proceeding as summarized in his memorandum to the Board of September 16, 1974, with a few changes in detail. He stated that Robert Pilraer, President of Garlock of Canada Ltd., would also be president of the new company/ arid that Mr. Pilmer together with Mr. Wiess planned to attend a ground-breaking ceremony at the site of the proposed factory in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on October 8, 1974, at which time Mr. St. Pierre, Quebec Minister of Business and Industry, would announce the project. Quebec Project . A meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company at Rochester, New York, on Friday, October 25, 1974 at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Cook stated that the company that is to own and operate an asbestos textile factory in Sherbrooke, Quebec, as previously approved by . the Board has been incorporated under Quebec law as Araiante de Sherbrooke Limitee. He stated that, as anticipated in Mr- McMullen's memorandum to the Board of September 16, 1974, the Quebec Industrial Development Corporation has now, by a letter of October 18, 1974 to the new company, offered to pay $576,000 for a 48% equity interest in the company and to provide an interest subsidy of up to $360,000 for a $1.2 million loan to be obtained by the company from a Canadian bank, probably the Bank of Nova Scotia. He stated the QIDC offer is subject to execution of a detailed agreement. The consensus of the Board was that the project should proceed as previously approved, with Garlock of Canada Ltd. obtaining in due coursesequity interest in the company and private Canadian in vestors obtaining the remaining 2% equity interest. / h meeting of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Company at Rochester# New York# on Friday# November 22# 1974 at 10:00 A.M. Amiante de Sherbrooke Liraitee Mr. Cook reported that the steel for erection of the factory with 39#000 square feet at Sherbrooke# Quebec planned for Amiante de Sherbrooke Liraitee was due to be delivered on December 9, 1974# the factory was scheduled to be completed in the summer of 1975# and the Bank of Nova Scotia had offered to make the loan of $1.2 million that the new company re quired. The Directors were advised by Mr. McMullen that the new equipment to be installed in this plant has been investigated worldwide and found to be the best equipment and of the latest design and reflects the substantial research made by Garlock's engineers in determining the most suitable equipment to meet environmental and health problems. Mr. Gearhart stated that he , still approved of the project but he wished to emphasize that he saw two dangers: the-danger- ` that the new company might lack access to raw asbestos fiber# Which he recommended be alleviated by long-term arrangements with asbestos producers; and the danger that the directors might be exposed to personal liability to the community and employees for contamination by asbestos fibers that might be released by the new factory# Which he recommended be alleviated by insurance. Mr. Hanke responded to the latter point by stating that (1) Marsh & McLennan had advised him that there was yet no indication that in Quebec employees injured on the job could circumvent the workmen's compensation laws limiting their recovery to insured statutory benefits# (2) the new company's forthcoming status as an affiliate# rather than a subsidiary# of a subsidiary of Garlock Inc.# as well as, its status as a company to be 48%-owned by an arm of the Quebec government# would tend to limit exposure of Garlock Inc.'s directors to liability for actions of the new company# and (3) he would ask K. W. Smith to contact our insurors to determine what special protection i might be obtained against the risks mentioned by Mr. Gearhart. . Quebec Project A moating of the Board of Directors of Garlock Inc, was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive offices of the Company, 1250 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York on Friday, January 24, 1975 at 10:00 A.M. The Chairman reported that construction of the factory for Amiante de Sherbrooke Limitee in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, was approximately on schedule. A meeting of the Board of Directors of Gar lock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices of the Corporation in Rochester, New York, on Friday, July 25, 1975 at 10;00 A. M. Amiante de Sherbrooke Limitee The Chairman reminded the Board that at the October 25, 1974 meeting approval had been given for Garlock of Canada Ltd. to obtain a 50% interest in the company, named Amiante de Sherbrooke Limitee, that was to own and operate an asbestos textile factory in Sherbrooke, Quebec and for Amiante to borrow $1.2 million from a Canadian bank, probably The Bank of Nova Scotia. Ne stated that said Bank had indicated willingness to make the loan, provided that Gar lock Inc., as the parent of Amiante1 s 50% owner, would indicate its approval of the loan and would agree (a) to arrange any addi tional financing that Amiante might require to complete the construction, equipping, and bringing into operation of the Sherbrooke factory and (b) pending receipt by Amiante of a Canadian government grant of approximately $900,000, to advance, directly or through a subsidiary, the funds (approximately $500,000) for purchase of equipment and the funds (approximately $400,000) for working capital required by Amiante (all amounts in Canadian dollars). After a discus-1 sion, the Board approved the acceptance by Garlock Inc. of said conditions imposed by said Bank. S3 A meeting of the Board of Directors of Gar lock Inc. was held pursuant to call of the Chairman at the Executive Offices in Rochester, N. Y.,on Tuesday, September 30, 1975 at 10:00 A.M. Requests for Appropriations After discussion, the Board approved these requests for appropriations: 3,, Three R/A*s of Garlock Philippines Inc. (60% owned by Garlock Overseas Corporation), Nos. GPIi-75-l,~2, and -3, for, respectively, $162,400 for asbestos sheet machinery, $248,000 for braided products machinery, and $94,650 for equipment ancillary thereto. Possible Acquisition The Chairman stated that- a letter of intent had been signed for the possible acquisition of the assets of Sacomo Sierra Inc*, a manufacturer and reseller of braided asbestos packings and other products, located in Carson City, Nevada, for 60,000 shares of the Corporation* After a discussion, the Chairman stated that if a detailed agreement is negotiated it will be brought to the Board or the Executive Committee for decision* The Chairman also discussed the status of. discussions with principals of Russell, Birdsall & Ward Inc., 'which had been mentioned at a previous Board meeting, and McIntosh Corporation, a manufacturer of heavy stamp metal parts and leaf springs. reviewing the standard. The procedure calls for developing a new standard within CSKA, which will be submitted to "outside" con sultants - for review,, possibly in January 197 4 . Subsequently, OS HA will conduct in-plant tours to determine feasibility of proposalsBy July 1974 , OSHA. expects to be ready to prepare its new standard. It is expected that the new standard will emphasize work practices and engineering controls at the same time retaining the numerical exposure level requirements of the present standard. B. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) * "l The Food and Drug Administration proposed September 2 8 that asbestos filters be banned in the manufacture of parenteral drugs. FDA would allow asbestos filters to be used if followed by use of a non-asbestos filter. If a manufacturer could prove that the safety cr efficacy of the drug would be compromised by the use of a non asbestos filter, he would be permitted to use an asbestos filter. The comment period on the proposed regulation runs through December 1973. To' date, FDA has received no comments on the regulation. However, the Environmental Defense Fund, which, along with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has petitioned FDA to ban asbestos filters altogether,-is clearly dissatisfied with the proposed regulation and can be expected to criticize the .proposal, ' C. Minina Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA) The Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration came info . being during a re-organization of the Interior Department last Spring. It assumed from the Bureau of Mines responsibility for mine health and safety. Two standards that affect the asbestos industry are currently under consideration in MESA. One proposal would change the particulate standard now used in metal and ncn- metallic mines to a five-fiber standard. The comment' period on the proposed rule ended in mid-October. No action has been taken. A MESA advisory committee met in October and will meet again in January to consider a definition of asbestos. Final action will not come before that meeting. The second MESA, proposal applies to asbestos useage in coal mines. In November 1972, it was proposed "that the current particulate standard be changed to a two-fiber standard. No action has been taken on this proposal because MESA officials do not want a two-fiber standard; they would prefer that the OSEA standard be'adopted for coaJL mines. However, NIOSE, which does research for MESA, insists on the two-fiber standard. The Bituminous Coal Operators Association has demanded a hearing on the proposal. It appears likely that the hearing will be granted and that, consequently, final action on the standard will be postponed several months. * D. Workmen1s Compensation 'Major legislation to reform the workmen's compensation system is pending in Congress. The major bills have been sponsored by Senators Williams and Javitts ana bv Representatives Perkins and Daniels. Separate bills sponsored by Senators Humphrey and Taft and by R=o. Frelinghuysen take a more limited approach to reform of workmen's compensation by providing Federal benefits for specific occupational respiratory diseases. Although these bills are unlikely to be enacted, they will generate publicity and thereby increase the demand for reform of the "work-comp" system. Of major importance in bills is the provision to re-aefine "arising out of or in the course of" to mean that work-related, causes must be a contributing cause of injury or illness. Hearings on work men's compensation', including a hearing to be held in Kanvilie., N. J., are planned in 1974. Final actions will not occur untii at least 19 75. Industry position 'should be formulated now. . " __ ' ' Environmental Protection _ .. EPA's hazardous asbestos air pollution standards were set in final form in March 1973. They consist primarily of performance standards vice numerical standards, calling essentially for no visible emissions from a number of asbestos-related operations and imposing restrictions on demolition operations and asbestos content in spraying compounds. The Environmental Defense Fund has objected to these standards as being inadequate and relying on OSEA and MESA enforcement as sufficient for protecting the "environment" outside the workplace. EPA is now considering im posing additional controls on--asbestos waste disposal sites and ' controls on additional fabrication operations where asbestos parti cles may be emitted into the air. EPA has taken air samples "from a number of plants for evaluation by the Battalle laboratories. Results can not be expected before February 1974, therefore proposals for additional air controls on asbestos-related operations are not expected before Spring of next year. EPA proposed a standard for water pollution controls for asbestos manufacturing plants on October 30. The standards have to do with seven asbestos product categories, but primarily asbestos-cement products, paper products, millboard, roofing and floor tile. Reaction has been unspectacular. Significant chances - to the standards are not predicted. Publication date is planned for February 1974. EPA has moved into the second phase oftheasbestos water effluent program. The firm of Sverdrup and Parcel began six weeks ago to develop water pollution standards for textile products, caskets, etc. not covered by the October 3 0 standards. The final development of these standards will- not likely be completed until next April- It will be several months before these standards can be officially proposed. _ Reserve Mining Trial People following asbestos events knew standards were coming. but. hich levels of asbestos in Duluth drinking water discovered lest Soring resulted in a landmark environmental trial built around" the issue of izicssted asbestos and intense public pressure on the Federal environmental agency's entire asbestos control program that could not be anticipated. About 19 weeks have been consumed by the trial. Issues remain fuzzy. Tha asbestos issue was a late addition to the water pollution dispute between Reserve and the Government. Tha first phase of the trial -- still under way --- has been devoted to "the public health' issue -- that is, ingested asbestos .--- and the isSue of whether to close the plant immediately. From the start of the trial on August 1 until midSeptember, the Government -- that is, EPA and the Justice Dept, plus assarted environmental groups -- argued their positions an the type of asbestos allegedly found in Lake Superior; its source, namely, Reserve, rather than tributary streams; and the movement of asbestos around the Lake. In late September, the Mt. Sinai scientists and others presented testimony on fiber counts in air and water, and repeated their .frightening comments on the health of asbestos workers. Dr. Selikoff has not presented adequate data on tissue analyses from diseased Duluth residents. The midNovember Durham conference on ingested asbestos failed to add significant data. Without solid data, the. presiding judge felt unable to support a decision to close the plant. The trial moved on to Reserve's witnesses, who have been testifying since early October. Reserve was slow in putting its'medical witnesses on the stand, but several have testified, and several more will continue to refute the contention that the Duluth problem poses a significant health hazard via the water supply and that there is no x-ray evidence to show adverse health effects. As it stands, the judge is disinclined to close the plant based on what he has heard. Es plans to let the trial run through most of December and into the next phase of the case -- that is, the economic phase. This will allow determination of the economic consequence of requiring Reserve to either close down or to change its disposal operations. While this has been happening in Minneapolis, EPA has been attempting to craft drinking water guidelines in response to a request from the Minnesota governor and the mayors of the various communities affected by Reserve's discharge. These communities don't know if they are in the midst of a health crisis or not -- they need official advice. EPA produced, in October, a recommen dation that the asbestos levels in Lake Superior water supplies' be reduced to levels technically achievable and more commensurate with levels found in water systems in other parts of the state. Technically, the recommendation must come from the President's Council on Environmental Quality. __ It must be assumed we are one stem closer to a drinking water standard on asbestos. This could have areat imcact on the asbestc asbastes'fibers to the water. " EPA admits that they don't >av= enough data to support a numerical asbestos water standard, but they are hasincr the Lake Superior r a commence tion on "prudar.ee" , and it is likely that communities outside Minnesota will become jittery about water supplies if asbestos particles are found. Environmentalists are planning to sue EPA for not immediately treating asbestos as a toxic water pollutant which EPA can regulate just as it regulates asbestos as- an air pollutant. EPA believes it does not have enough data to support an asbestos. standard, but the environmentalists main arguments are that asbestos is a known carcinogen and that no intentional or avoidable contribution of asbestos to the water environment should be allowed. This argument could end.up in court. In sum, the asbestos industry faces five environmental policie: existing air pollution standards on asbestos; soon-to-be-finalized water pollution standards on asbestos manufacturers; a socr.-tc-be announced recommendation that asbestos be removed from drinking water in Minnesota; a likely asbestos.drinking water standard; and a possible asbestos toxic water pollutant standard. Whether or * not the industry will have to meet water standards in addition to air standards now depends on Ht. Sinai's ability to produce defini tive ingested health effects evidence. ________iThe..Image of _the ^Industry"___________________________________ ________ Mr. Swetonic, past executive secretary of AIA/NA and presently an account executive for the public relations firm, Eill and Know Itc Inc. , said that "from the press point of view, the asbestos industry as a result of national attention to the asbestos-health issue, has news value only in the negative sense-'* That is, an industry in the present climate that can be criticized for alleged disregard for the welfare of its workmen and the general public. Sweicnic said results of the AJA/NA Public Awareness Study show that the average man has little concern with or awareness of the health problems being associated with asbestos. He emphasized that it is unlikely that the tone and content of future national press articles on asbestos will be greatly improved by efforts of the AIA/NA but that the stories could become "even worse" if the Association does nothing to tell its story. A continuing active public relations program is necessary, he said, and the Association should plan its public relations program not only to be responsive but in creative and imaginative terms as veil. Swetonic suggested a oublic relation: program -that would center within the Association nto take individual companies off the hook"; provide for wide dissemination of timely, constructive news releases and articles; carefully select responses to editors as a result of "damaging, irresponsible stories"; conduct advertising in the trade press; respond publicly to Government decisions affecting asbestos; assure appropriate representation and actions at Government hearings end curiae meetings concerned with the asbestos issue; establish a priority list cf target auciences for its public relations efforts. - Luncheon Soeakar Dr. Floyd Van Atta, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Division of Health Standards, OSEA, spoke at the noon luncheon. Van Atta talked of the "newness" of OSEA and the problem of establishing standards, setting regulations, approving state programs, and carry ing out compliance. He talked of the "state of the art" in moni toring methodology and the importance of reasonable workplace procedures. He urged industry assistance in the development of procedures and practices, noting that NIGSH has funds for research, not OSEA. Van Atta-said ten state occupational and health programs have been approved to date. (It is believed the figure should be 20) . He also said OSEA would not increase the currant number of Federal compliance officers. (OSEA's *74 budget requests 6 4 additional compliance officers and the Labor-HEW appropriations bill approved by joint House-Senate Conference Committee provides' for.an increase of 245 compliance officers) . Individual Companies in Meeting the Asbestos-Health Issue`1 Mr. Whittaker stated that AIA membership implies compliance with all laws and regulations pertaining to asbestos- Ee said that if members do not respect the intent and purpose of occupa tional safety and health regulations, they are doing a disservice to the Association and the industry. Ee suggested a program of company visits -- to see hew the other fellow is meeting problems iix common. He said there was information and "know-how" within the member companies that would be beneficial to the entire industry. There was no objection to his proposal which could be worked out on a company-to-company basis. Ee also suggested ex change of company safety and health technicians to increase methodology and techniques in compliance procedures, Mr. Fay made a motion that data on investment, employment, and other information which might be helpful in preparing an "industry profile" be provided to the Executive Director. A questionnaire to member companies would be prepared by the Executive Director and input from individual companies received by February 15, 1974. The motion was approved and so ordered. Mr. Armstrong urged that the Association come up with recommendations for changes' to the OSHA regulations. Mr. Marsh pointed out this was one of the purposes of creating the Technical Committee. A_ motion was made and approved for the Technical Committee to cbt2.m all data necessary "to preparation of incustry standards and procedures from member companies, including travel and visits, as necessary. __ Financial Report The Association's financial report was distributed. Mr. Karsh commented on extra-ordinary expenses involved in the move of the office from New York to Washington. He said the Association financial status was sound but the Association did not have current funding leverage to permit any unusual expenses over and above ' those provided for in the 197 4 budget. *_____, New Business The date for the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors was set for March-7, 197 4 in Washington, D. C., commencing at 10:00 a.m.. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05p.m.. . Executive Secretary December 13, 1973 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETING June 10/ 1970 Stourfer's National Center Hotel Arlington, Virginia Pursuant to notice, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held June 10, 1976, in Stouffer's National Center Hotel, Arling ton, VA. . The following Directors were present: John Autry (for Dimitry Poutiatine) George Barge Joseph M. ciskowski William Clark Thomas A. Dougherty Dennis E. Eldred William Fassuliotis A. H. Fay Clarence A Herbst, Sr. John W. Hollingsworth A. R. Hooker C. G. Morgan .. Robert B. Pilmer J- L. Rainey Kurt Schwarz Martin J- Sendecki D. Tijumelis . (for T. K. Lindquist) C. Fred Workman Johns-rManvilie Corp. Atlas Asbestos Company (Montreal) Jim Walter Research Corn. Asten-Hill Ltd. Certain-teed Corporation Vermont Asbestos Group GAF Corporation . . Nation'll Gypsum Co. Resinoid Engineering Corp. Dresser Ind. .(Magcobar Div,) The Flintkote Company North American Asbestos Corp. Garlock of Canada, Ltd. Amatex Corp- Supradur Manufacturing Co. Congoleum Industries, Inc. Borg Warner.Corp. (Borg & Beck Div.) Nicolet, Inc. Also present: Guy G- Gabrielson, Jr., Nicolet, Inc., Chairman, Asbestos Regulation *Task Force; William*B: Hoffman;, National Gypsum Company; C. F. Wilson, Esq., Jim Walter Research Corp-; Joseph A. Artabane, Esq., Cadwalader, Wickersham 6 Taft; R. H.: Mereness, Executive Director, AIA/NA; and B. J. Pigg, Administrative Assistant, AI.A/NA. - Introduction The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A-M. Mr. Dougherty stated that Hr. Noel W. Hendry, Johns-Manvilie Corp.,_had advised his assignment to General Manager, Mining Division, a position that would preclude his further active service on the joard. On motion,. Mr. Dimitry Poutiatine was elected to succeed Hr. Hendry as the Johns-Manville representative. Mr. Dougherty expressed appreciation for the outstanding contribution. Mr. Hendry had made to the Association- Minutes - - On motion, minutes' fo the preceeding meeting, March 26, 1976 were-approved as submitted. -- Financial* Report Mr. Barge reviewed the financial report Nominating Committee ' # Hr. Dougherty explained the requirement for election of Association officers_at the annual meeting in September. The following were appointed to serve on the nominating committee: George Barge (chairman) , W. H, Beasley, J. L. Rainey, and Kurt Schwarz. Remarks of the Executive Director The physical layout of the new Association headquarters were described noting that adequate space was now available for meetings' of 15-20 people and that there was significant work and storage space for present and anticipated, needs. Attention was invited to the Court order in folders dis missing the Association as a defendant in the. case of Shoup vs. Johns-Manville Products Corn, et al. - s- v_y c.7iC C-UUUUU.C ijuuc-v- o u uu y J-O SUpDOTu OI tr.S ASOCl~ ation's response to OSHA on the proposed asbestos standard, proposed they be retained on a consulting (minimum contract) basis at a cost of 8,000 per annum. The Executive Committee at a meeting May 25, 1976 considered and declined this proposal. Weston has been so advised - The CONSAD Research Carp's Inflationary Impact Statement (IIS) on the proposed revision to the asbestos standard.has yet to be submitted in final form to OSHA. Submission is due in 2-3^; weeks. "Best information" now indicates public hearing on the standard will not be before September. Contract for necessary IIS on forthcoming proposed asbestos standard for construction industry has not been.let by OSHA. CONSAD has submitted a pre liminary work statement. A report was given of an EPA news conference held April 30 concerning asbestos in drinking water of selected U.S. cities in study conducted by McCrone Associates. A listing of all federal government contracts for asbestos-health studies is being prepared. Among on-going special projects mentioned were: revision of "Asbestos and Health" booklet; development of a recommended work practices booklet on asbestos containing sealants and caskets; revision of the pamphlet, "Asbestos.- and Brake Linings * ; and publi cation of J-M prepared "Recommended Safety Practices for Handling Asbestos Fiber" and "Asbestos Occupational Eealth Guide" under . AIA/NA signature. Directors were encouraged to make use of the pamphlets and other informational/educational materials available from the Association, including recently prepared excerpts (for warding letter, summary and recommendations, and medical statement) from the Association's response to OSHA on the proposed revision to the asbestos standard. All are available in quantity. _ Several news clippings were brought to the attention of Directors as examples of continuing adverse reporting on asbestos usage. Mention was made of the recently announced merger pro posal fo the National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamher of Commerce. AIA/NA enjoys good working relationships with these organizations. ' . Ratification of Actions Mr. Dougherty stated the ballot response of members to the proposed establishment of an AIA/NA sponsored program for legal assistance (hereinafter known as Legal/Medical Research Program) in defense of litigation alleging injury because of exposure to asbestos fiber as presented to Directors at meeting March 26 was highly favorable. In addition, he set forth the reasons for increased office space requirements -for the Association and unat the Executive Director had negotiated a five-year lease 1 active as of June 1 with his approval- He explained the necessity for ratification of these actions and read the '-oilowing statement: "Resolved that all the actions of the officers, agents and attorneys far the corporation with the date hereof are ratified and confirmed in all res pects regarding the following: the formation of a program to develop a legal and medical bank of information for use of the membership and the authorization of the Executive Committee to form a Legal/Medical Research Committee to oversee the program and, secondly, to execute the lease for the new office premises." Comments and/or questions were invited. On motion, the above resolution was approved. Mr. Dougherty announced that the following had agreed to serve on the Legal/Medical Research Committee: Guy G. Gabrielson, Jr. , Ricolet, Xnc, Chairman Dennis H. Markuson, Johns-Manville Corn. C. F. Wilson, Jim Walter Corn. Wolfgang A. Guenther, Raybestos-Manhattan, Xnc. John H. Chidester, Brunswick Fabricators, Inc. C. J. Pontz, Certain--teed -Corn. Legal/Medical' Research Program Hr. Gabrielson noted title "Legal/Medical Research Program* better defined the work and objectives for this effort than "Legal Assistance Program" as originally identified. Ee re ferred to the sequence of events leading to formalization of this program with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft find stated iMr. Gabrielson siid Philip E- Enterline, Ph.D., Professor of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, had agreed to wgrk on .this project. Dr. Enterline has recommended 'Ian T. T. Higgins, M.D._of the University of Michigan as a parti cipant and stated that -a doctoral candidate at the University of Pittsburgh would be available to assist- Mr. Gabrielson said Dr. Weill concurred in the Enterline-Higgins team. Dr. Enterline estimated completion of the paper by year end at cost of about 5orQ0D. Estimated cost of the overall program remains at 50,000. A discussion period followed. __Kr. Gabrielson' said it would facilitate the work of Mr. Alcorn  Hr. Douchearty expressed appreciation to Hr. Gabrielson^ for his outstanding contribution to the development and establishment* 0 -this important program of the Association. Report on Meeting of Asbestos Subgroup, OSHA Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, June 2-3 f 1976 - ' San Diego, CA~ In addition to an Association team of Hr. Gabrielson, Dr. Weill and Dr. Rhodes, a team from Johns-Manville including Dr. Kotin, Dr. Chase, Milt Trosper, and Dick Carter attended the meeting and made presentations. Reporting on the meeting, Hr. Gabrielson said we can not afford to ignore what happens in the construction industry; there is a need for a uniform asbestos standard for both manufacturing and construction industries. The need has world-wide implications. He commented on the identity of the subgroup members and OSEA representatives. The methodology used by the subgroup was to review the proposed general industry standard item by item and attempt to ascertain applicability to the construction industry in conjunction with their recommendations as submitted to OSHA of September last. The subgroup reaffirmed their position that a 2--fiber p/cc asbestos standard should -be established tor the construction industry and "tailored'1 or eliminated sections of the 'general standard that were thought unrealistic for the con struction industry. The subgroup will present its recommendations to the full OSHA Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health which in turn will formally submit to the Ass't Sec'y of Labor (OSHA). Meeting of full committee to hear subgroup, report was announced in Federal Register of June 11 to be held June 29 30, Washington, D. C. AIA/NA memo dated June 14 refers. .' 4 *- . Hr. Gabrielson said he considered the greatest opportunity for an impact on an asbestos' standard for the construction in- austry would^not come until a formal proposal is issued by OSHA Shou?/^^? *** Cancaittee report. He said the-Association hadrfS??nSe PlanninS *n this connection, he menu o?^n ^ k d^^e-eXeCUtVe comniitt- approved establish- of nr ft Ft nu oirmn-ttee for Construction under co-chairmans hip commit Hhoaes- Dr. Rhodes is authorized to seek additional Committee ^ consult:atlon with the Standards & Technical m^nd fill 7 r-- e2cPerts in the construction industry, and recom- DouahoSi *Qmmi^ae membership to the Executive Committee. Hr. thegATA/Ma "oinl?at:Lons froro directors for membership on . e AIA/NA Ad Hoc Committee for Construction. was the consensus fo the group that the addition of classes t' membership would be beneficial to industry interests and the yell being of the Association. formal consideration of possible changes to the By-Laws could be made at the meeting of members in September. Activity Area Reports * _ A. Education and Training - The Executive Director encouraged utilization of the new J-M film, "Working with Asbestos" and^ the distribution of other materials available from the Association. B- Standards & Technical - Next meeting of the Standards & Technical Committee is June 23-24-in the Association office. C. Financial Affairs - Mr. Barge referred to previous decisions which resulted in significant changes to the 1976 budget. At the Association's meeting, February 4, 1976, an addition `In view of above fiscal changes, a-revised budget for 1976 to so reflect was proposed and auproved by motion. (Copy of revised 1976. budget is attached.) D. .Membership -- Mr. Workman reported the current Association membership is 33- Two companies have resigned within last month; One is due to misunderstanding of dues structure and is a candidate for associate membership, and the other resigned for personal-business reasons. The latter was current in cuss payment and has contributed - toward AIA/NA expenses in . responding to the proposed revision to the asbestos standard- Revision to Asbestos- Standard Mr. Gabrielson reviewed development to date and current status of OSHA's proposed revision to the asbestos standard- ga pointed out that AIA/NA had recommended deferral of issuance of the general industry standard until promulgation of a regu lation for the construction standard- OSHA officials have in dicated that this is not politically feasible- He said the issue--.,- of seeking an injunction against-OSHA to force a delay of the . general industry standard until a regulation for the construction industry is promulgated had been raised by Johns-Manville Corp. The Executive Committee had concluded that AXA/NA would not seek, such injunction, the consensus being that uncertainties confronting the general industry should be resolved as soon as possible be cause of the adverse effect now taking place in customer relations and the length of time which would undoubtedly be required for legal proceedings. A legal challenge could be made subsequent to issuance of the general industry standard- Association decision and reasons therefore will be transmitted to Johns-Manville by Mr. Gabrielson. # * Hr. Gabrielson also addressed public hearing technicalities and Association planning. Several persons were mentioned, in addition to Mr; Gabrielson, as possible participants to include Drs. Kotin and Weill, 0.K- experts, Dr. Gerald R. Chase and Dr. - H. B. Rhodes. Ee will coordinate with Dr- Katin in the develop ment of a presentation to avoid duplication- .Mr'". Gahrielson - made reference to an important meeting with Mr. H-D.S- Eardie,' Chairman, Asbestos Information Committee (U.K.) for June 21 in Washington, D. C. as it pertains to the hearing presentation. Hr. Dougherty added that the Executive Committee was of the opinion that the industry should strive to present a responsible impression at the hearing and demonstrate concern for the well-being of both employees and customers. . - . Association Membership/Ey-Laws Mr. Dougherty said the Executive Committee had given consideration to possible revision of the Association By-Laws in order that associate and affiliate memberships could be authorized if desired by Directors. As a first step in providing this authorization, a modification to the Certificate of Incorporation of file in the State of Delaware to provide for more than one class of membership is required. - In addition, he explained that the statement of purpose in'the "Certificate of Incorporation is in need of updating- Mr. Artabane outline . .' i -^ was the 'consensus fo the group that the addition of classes roembershio would be beneficial to industry interests and the veil being of the Association. formal consideration of possible changes to the By-Laws could v>e made at the meeting of members in September. Activity Area Reports * . A. Education and Training - The Executive Director encouraged utilization of the new J-M film, "Working with Asbestos" and the distribution of other materials available from the Association. 4 * B- Standards & Technical - Next meeting of the Standards & Technical Committee is June 23-24-in the Association office. C- Financial Affairs -- Hr. Barge referred to previous decisions which resulted in significant changes to the 1976 budget. At the Association's meeting, February 4# 1976, an addition 5 In view of above fiscal changes, a~revised budget for 1976 to so reflect was proposed and auproved by motion. (Copy of revised 1976, budget is attached.) D. .Membership -- Hr. Workman reported the current Association membership is 33. Two companies have resigned within last month; One is due to misunderstanding of dues structure and is a candidate for associate membership, and the other resigned for personal-business reasons. The latter was current in cuss payment and has contributed - toward AIA/NA expenses in responding to the proposed revision to the asbestos standard. A total of . had been contributed to this effort to cate. He encouraged Directors to assist in recruitment of new members in the Association. . E. Kedical/Stending Committee, International Asbestos Information Conference - Mr. Marsh was not present due to has attendance as Association representative at a meeting of the Standing Committee, International Asbestos Information Conference. The Executive Director read a statement received from Hr. Harsh by telephone on June 8^concerning the current adverse publicity against the industry in the United Kingdom; F. Labor Relations - . Hr. Dougherty said he had nothing new to report except to raise the matter of labor attendance at the up coming annual Industry-Government Conference. He and the Executive Director will call on Hr.' John H. Sheehan, AFL-CIO, and explore the possibility of his attendance and participation. Hr. Roy J. Steinfurth, International Association of Heat $ Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers will also be invited. G Industry Economics and Technology - Hr. Fay said he has been, in contact with Mr. Thurber and suggested inclusion of certain, technological items in the agenda for the. conference in September. A listing of manufacturers of dust control equipment continues in preparation and will be available for distribution in the near future. * Third Annual -Industry - Government . Conference, Sept.' 8-9, 19 76 Mr. Dougherty presented a proposed program format which would include: dust control, monitoring, industrial hygiene, European view of the industry, marketing forecast, asbestoshealth update, AIA/NA Legal/Medical Research program. Dr. Com (OSHA) and Hr. Train (ERA) will be invited as luncheon speakers. Plant Physicians Conference Hr. Dougherty said the Association continues to plan for this conference. He explained that work on responding to the proposed revision to the asbestos standard had delayed its scheduling, however, a time and place would 'be determined following public hearing on the standard- . * Adj oummsnt There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 P.H. Next regular meeting of directors is 'scheduled for September t0 ke followed by the annual meeting and the Third annual ndusv.ry--Government Comerence at Stouffer`s National Center Hotel, Arlington, Virginia A. H. Mereness Executive Director June 16, 1976 I EXHIBIT 6 GARLOCK INC KUZMUK SPEECH Re: Hearing on Proposed Standard For Exposure To Asbestos Dust Beginning on March 14,1972 (6 pages) March 13. 1972 Mr. Arthur K. Goldberg Hearing Examiner U. S. Department of Labor Office of the Under Secretary V7ashington, D. C. 20210 Re: Hearing on Proposed Standard For Exposure To Asbestos Dust Beginning on March 14, 1972 Dear Mr. Goldberg: My name is Alex Kuzmuk. I am a member of the Board of Governors of the Asbestos Textile Institute. I am here today to officially represent and state the position of the Asbestos Textile Institute and its member companies. We are in opposition to the proposed asbestos dust standards as published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, January 12, 1972. We are also opposed to recommendations proposed in the NIOSH criteria package, and by the Asbestos Advisory Committee. The asbestos textile industry, which this association represents, includes over 4000 job opportunities in manufacturing, plus approximately 35,000 job opportunities in related product fabri cation and sales. The gross business volume for manufacturing alone is over $g0 million per year. The gross volume for related fabrication and sales is, therefore, many times this amount. Although this is not the largest segment of the asbestos industry, it is a very important one. Our product lines include the manu- FaCC- 2 facture of safety garments, insulations, clutch IcCl-iiC_ S , -rcf.e linings, paoer dryer felts, mechanical packings and gaskets, laminated plastics, and many other commodities essential to today's technological progress. in many instances, there are no known substitutes for asbestos textile materials. Subsequent to the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the threshold limit value for asbestos dust was reduced from 5 million particles per cubic foot of air to 12 fibres per milliliter, 5 microns or greater in length. We, in the asbestos textile industry, made every possible effort to meet the 12 fibre threshold limit value by re-engineering dust hoods and dust collection equipment on cards, spinners, looms, and many other types of equipment. In addition, many of us initiated wet weaving and made extensive additional changes in processes and materials. When the further reduction to the threshold limit value for asbestos dust was published on December 7r 1971, we began all over again to study plans for revising equipment, processes, and materials, for which we had just spent thousands of dollars to install to meet the 12 fibre level. Many of us have not, and cannot, reduce our dust levels to the emergency and proposed 5 fibre threshold limit value. If engineering to a 5 fibre level were feasible on the complex types of machinery" and equipment used in the textile industry, the cost of implementation would make it extremely doubtful that this industry could survive economically. We are presently being pressed to the wall by our competitors. The cost of a Page- - oroaram to meet the proposed asbestos dust standards could be the determining factor for removing American-made asbestos textiles from the market place. The competition to which I refer will not be required to make extensive capital investments to change processes, provide protective clothing, provide medical examinations, and monitor ing. This competition is primarily from foreign imports. I, therefore, take this opportunity to ask this Federal agency whether it will take the responsibility of recommending equitable tariffs to prevent this economic disaster, if the proposed Asbestos Dust Standards become effective. Beyond the proposed asbestos dust standards published in the January 12, 1972 FEDERAL REGISTER, there are recommendations by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Asbestos Advisory Committee. These recommend further reduc tion of the asbestos dust threshold limit value to 2 fibres per milliliter, plus many additional requirements concerning respirator equipment, protective clothing, monitoring, and others. With the problems we are encountering in attempting to reach the present Emergency Asbestos Standard, it is unrealistic to even consider the feasibility of a 2 fibre standard. i would like to point out that Mr. Clifford L. Sheckler, Chairman of the Asbestos Textile Institute Enviromaental Health Committee, took the initiative in 1964 to request Dr. Lewis Cralley of the United States Public Health Service to conduct an epidemiological study of our asbestos textile industry. We recognized then that a potential health problem existed and, therefore, we wanted expert advice and assistance to help us solve it. We have neither received the advice nor the assistance which we had hoped for. We opened our plants to the United States Public Health Service personnel for environmental studies, review of our records, and physical examinations of our people. Our member companies urged employee participation in the study, and a substantial represent ative group of workers were involved. We continually requested the United States Public Health Service to increase their efforts and provide interim progress reports. The Pablic Health Service Asbestos Study of which I speak has not been completed. A recent report, which is a primary factor in the recommendations by NIOSH and the Advisory Committee, was based on this incomplete study. The information provided in the report was based on opinion and speculation, rather than fact. Had the United States Public Health Service Asbestos Epidemiological Study been completed as continually requested by the Asbestos Textile Institute, we might now be in a position of having factual information as to what the safe threshold limit for asbestos dust really should be. One factor is pertinent to this point. The asbestos related disease involvement in the asbestos textile industry is being related to asbestos dust exposure levels as they presently exist rather than at the time the disease was incurred 25-30 years ago. Such a comparison is invalid. All of the past monitoring for asbestos dust in American textile plants has been done using the impinger method for sampling. Today's proposed standards are based on a fibre level using the Milapore filter method for sampling. There is no-accurate correlation of impinger counts versus Milapore filter counts established to date. There has been some work done by the United States Public Health Service, but the results are incomplete. This is but one area that dem onstrates the need for further health research studies and eval uations before unnecessarily creating an unrealistic standard that can be the demise of this industry and its related job opportunities. We respectfully urge the Secretary of Labor to: (1) Reconsider the establishment of asbestos standards; (2) reinstate the thres hold limit value for asbestos dust at 12 fibres per milliliter, 5 microns or greater in length for an interim period pending a comprehensive epidemiological study of the entire asbestos in dustry in the United States. I would like to point out that many comparisons have been made between the British and United States asbestos textile industry concerning health problems. The vast differences in materials, equipment and processes make ouch comparisons unrealistic. (3) Provide for representation of the Asbestos Textile Institute on future advisory and study c committees. I would also like to point out that while many detailed reauire ments are induced in the proposed standard, it is absolutely mute on the very important medically substantiated problem of cigarette smoking as associated with exposure to asbestos fibre We, of the Asbestos Textile Industry, have the greatest desire to prevent injury to our employees. We believe this can be accomplished without destroying the asbestos textile industry Thank you for the privilege of appearing at this hearing today. \7m--rr frillv VnlirS. 1 r Member of Board of Governors for the Asbestos Textile Institute ak s jc EXHIBIT 7 A/i / t X XJA-* L'LLaL'LKJ FROM: Law Department (470/256) RE: OSHA.State Dept, of Textile Operations Asbestos Dust, etc. LP 170:1:5 Labor Control cc: ar uaaecta AN Dayton GP Wiess 25 February 1974 (Diet. 21 Feb.) On Wednesday, 20 February, a conference was held in Parry Wiess's conference room in Palmyra to discuss the status of our Petition for a Variance in the order of the Board of Standards and Appeals (State Labor Dept.) relating to cleaning up our asbestos textile operations to eliminate hazardous dust conditions. There was present at this conference: Dr. William E. Seymour, Deputy Commissioner of the State Dept, of Commerce in the Division of Industrial Sciences & Technologies in Albany; Art Dadetta, A1 Dayton, Alex Kuzmuk, Jack Lynn and GP Wiess. We had requested some help from the Dept, of Commerce in the consideration of our Petition for a Variance and Dr. Seymour was sent for that purpose. This memo will summarize the matters discussed and decisions made at that conference and action taken thereafter by-us. 1. Conference 2/20/74 - 3:00-4:15 p.m., Palmyra, N. Y. - Dr. Seymour got the background of this matter from Art Dadetta and A1 Dayton, including information on the histc cy of our relations with the Dept, of Labor over the past ten years or so. He was given copies of the important documents in our file. At the conclusion of the conference it was decided that we should learn immediately of the status of our petition and should ask for a copy of the record in this case with the idea in mind of presenting supplemental information or documentation in support of our request, if the file lacks it. Lynn was given the assignment of contacting Mr. Colucci, the Hearing Officer who presided at the meeting in Syracuse on 6 February as soon as possible. Additional detail on the discussion at this conference will be found in the handwritten notes in this file. 2. Phone Conversation with Mr. Colucci - 2/21/74 - Lynn called Colucci in the morning of 2/21. He was most cooperative and quite informative although he requested that the information he gave me be treated as "unofficial". He told me this; a. He had completed the record of the evidence we gave him at the hearing and forwarded the entire file with his recommendation to Carl Thurnau Principal Industrial Engineer Board of Standards & Appels 11 N. Pearl St., Albany, N. Y. 12207 EXHIBIT 8 SCHEDULE OF RECORDS RETENTION ESCRIPTION (CATEGORY OF RECORDS) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) All Departments Correspondence (General, Sales Related, etc.) ** 2 ** - Correspondence (Quality Control, Engi neering, etc.-related to specifications, Reliability, Product Assurance,etc.)** 5 ** Advertising Advertising Contracts 10 Purchasing Purchase Orders 3 Purchase Requisitions * _ 3- Contracts 5 counting .) Inquiries - 2 Time Cards (incl. Press Cards) 2' Labor Distribution Cards 2 Bonus Sheets-Form #3841 2 Work Order Runs - 5* Closed R/A Summaries Permanent Employee Expense Reports-Top 25 men (including all Officers) 5* Payroll Registers (Gross & Net Payroll) Salary Payroll Registers (Gross & Net Payroll) Wage Branch Office Personnel Rate Change Letters Time Slips Employee Withholding Exemption Certificates Expired - YEAR(S) TO BE DESTROYED COMMENTS '82 ** Hold for Asbestos <79 ** Hold for Asbestos '74 *81 '81 . '79 - '82 '82 '82 '82 '79 * Hold for Tax Audit *79 * Hold for Tax Audit '77 '81 '79 '82 '80 description r'.C l C-t i iui< PERIOD (YEARS) 1 C--UV V -J / BE DESTROYED V-/ COMMENTS ccounting - Cont'd Earning Records (Individual) Gross Earnings and Tax Deductions 7 Wage Payroll Quarterly Earnings List 7 Salary Payroll Annual Earnings List 7 WIP Listings 3 Controllable Expense Reports 3 Monthly Inventory Listings 3* Physical Inventory Listings ' 3* Sales by Shipping Point 5* Detail Sales Listing 2 Quarterly Sales * ' ea Qtr. 1 last Qtr. SC-920-1 Product Cost Rev. Analysis Standard Cost Cards 2 2* 1A-D Standard Cost Listings 3* Miscellaneous Invoices 3* . Purchase Price Variance Report A AT-150 Division Expense Ledger Listings Permanent General Ledgers and Journals Permanent Journal Vouchers Permanent Descending Dollar Report SA-480-1,-2 5 Voucher Registers 7* Salesmen Commissions - SA-380 . 7* '77 '77 '77 '81 '81 '81 * '81 * '79 * '82 '82 '77 '82 * '82 * '81 * '81 * '80 '79 '77 * '77 * Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit * Hold for Tax Audit Hold . for Tax Audit Sales & Use Tax Returns (With accompanying papers) Source 7 & 8, AT-990-1, 990-2 Summary Books (Payroll and Tax data for returns) Weekly Labor Analysis 6 7* A 3 '78 '77 * '80 '81 Hold for Tax Audit DESCRIPTION (CATEGORY OF RECORDS Accounting - Coat'd State and Local Personal Property Tax Returns (Including Worksheets) Bank Statements Check Registers Cancelled Checks (Other than dividends) Dally Record of Cash Receipts List of Deposits (Tabulation of D.R.C.R. *s) Law Department Leases (After expiration) Personnel Department Save-at-Shop Records Assignments & Garnishee Records Group Disability Records Claims (After settlement) N.Y.S. Disability Insurance Records (Exclusive of DB 450 claim) N.Y.S. Disability Insurance Claim File Workmen1s Compensation Records (Premium Calculation) Tax Exempt Sick Pay Records Tuition Refund Records Employee Census Reports Personnel Files - Terminated (Except Kardex) Personnel Kardex File Letters Summarizing Weekly Change Rate Change Letters Workmen's Compensation Claim File Hospital Records (Daily Record of Tn1ir4oc \ RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) 4 3 6 6 3 1 5 2 2 8 10 3 6 1. 4 1 2 6 Permanent 1 7 Permanent YEAR(S) BE DESTROYED '80 '81 '78 '78 '80 '83 '79 '82 '82 '76 '74 '81 '78 '83 '80 '83 '82 '78 '83 '77 COMKENTS DESCRIPTION (CATEGORY OF RECORDS) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR(S) TO BE DESTROYED _________ COMMENTS Persoanel Department - Coat'd Individual F.O.A.Bi Claims 6 *78 NOTE: Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title I, sub-title B, Part I, Section 107 - Retention of Records states that the policyholder or employer must keep all pertinent data relating to calculation of certified documents, plan descriptions or reports that must be filed with the GovernmentFar Garlock Inc Kech. Pack-, these records are: Pension Cards Annuity Taxable Runs Bradford Thrift Plan Tapes & Reports (Mo.) Employee's Kardex Payroll Deduction Registers All materials related to retirement plans such as vouchers, worksheets and receipts. Other Benefit Records currently-in storage. Safety Department Fire Inspection Reports 6 78 Accident Reports ` 6 78 Occupational Safety & Health Act: OSHA Form #100 - Log-of-Occupational Injuries and Illness 6(5 from end.-of physical year) '78 OSHA Form #101 - Supplementary Record 6(5 from end of Of Occupational Injuries & Illness physical year) '78 Personnel Department - Cont'd NOTE: EEOC Rules and Regulations 1602.12 Preservation of Records Made or Kept (a) Any persoanel or employment record made or kept by an employer (Including but not necessarily limited to application forms sub mitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticehsip) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of 6 months 1+ from the date of the making of the record or the per sonnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of 6 months-H- DESCRIPTION (CATEGORY OF RECORDS) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR(S) TO BE DESTROYED COMMENTS All Profit Centers - Coat'd Sales Summary Sheets ' 3 `81 General Ledgers and Journals _ Journal Vouchers Voucher Registers Permanent Permanent 7* . '77* Hold for Tax Audit Accounts Receivable Records (other than year-end) (AR340-1 and/or Ledger Cards) 3* '81* Hold for Tax Audit Accounts Receivable AR.340-1 (Year-End Report oaly) . Accounts Payable - Paid Bills Branch Office Personnel Rate Change Letters Time Slips * 6* 6* 5 2 '78* '>8* '79 '82 Hold for Tax Audit Hold for Tax Audit Employee Withholding Exemption Certificates Expired 4 '80 General Sales - Domestic Correspondence - District Office - General Miscellaneous Correspondence - Numbered Files H0. Sales Orders Customers' Contract Files 2** 10** 3** 3** 82** '74** '81** *81** Hold for Asbestos Hold for Asbestos Hold for Asbestos Hold for Asbestos Transportation & Warehouse (Shipping) Branch Stock Orders or Stock Transfers Bills of Lading Express Receipts Freight Bills 1 3 3 3 '83 '81 ' '81 '81 Production Control Pull Tickets 2 Months DESCRIPTION (CATEGORY OF RECORDS) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR(S) TO BE DESTROYED _________ COMMENTS Sales Offices, Warehouses, etc. Correspondence with Customers 2** *82** Hold for Asbestos Customer Orders * 3 '81 Office Orders Disbursements Records 5 1. '79 '83 Invoice and Credit Tissues (U.S.) 3 '81 Inactive Past-Due Accounts Reports 5 '79 Journal-Vouchers 1 '83 Tax Certificates 'Permanent Copies of Purchase Invoices & Monthly Service Bills Bills of Lading and Express Receipts Petty Cash Vouchers - 1 3 1 '83 '81 '83 Customers Check Vouchers and/or Remittance Statements (Canada only) 1Month * - Not to be discarded prior to IRS audit -- must be labeled "Do not Destroy without Tax Section approval". As of 4/1/83, records being retained for IRS audit purposes and no longer needed for the calendar year 1979 and prior. * - Domestic Locations: Material in this category pertaining to asbestos containing products is not to be destroyed. Mark "Do Not Destroy Consult Law Department". If you do not wish to segregate asbestos and non-asbestos records, then save all materials. 1/24/79 RECORDS RETENTION AREAS 6-1 ANNEX - industrial packing Marketing Accounting Manufacturing Compression Packing Construction Products Hydraulic Components International Division Controllers Department Engineering Department Systems Department Personnel Department Gasket products Specialty Rubber Friction products Rows 4-13 14 RECEi m? , 0.4:.' C O /-AW 0_ - . , CARLOCK 1 13A 16 17 13C & 13D 4-13 15 18'Sections C &. D 18 Sections A & G 18 Section B 18 Section E 18 Section F >. I 2/1/79 Revision V LI RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE - i /- DESCRIPTION * Mechanical Packing FED 1 '79 LAW Cl GA-hL". All Departments Correspondence +1 (General, Sales Re la ted e tc .) ++ Correspondence (Quality Control, Engineering, etc.-related to specifications. Reliability, Product Assurance etc.) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR (S) TO BE DESTROYED 76 '73 Advertising Advertising Contracts Purchasing Purchase Orders Purchase Requisitions Contracts 10 `68 3 '75 3 ` 75 10 *68 Accou nting Inquiries Time Cards (incl. Press Cards) Labor Distribution Cards Bonus Sheets-Form #3841 V7ork Order Runs Closed R/A Summaries 2 2 2 2 2* Permanent 76 76 *76 76 76 Employee Expense Reports-Top 25 men (including all Corporate Officers) Payroll Registers (Gross & Net Payroll) Salary . - Payroll Registers (Gross & Net Payroll) Wage 73 `71 ` 75 * Not to be discarded prior to IRS audit - must be labeled "Do not destroy without Corporate Tax Section approval." Mechanical Packinq RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR (S) TO BE DESTROYED ' (2) Accountinq continued Branch Office Personnel Rate Change Letters Time Slips Employee Withholding Exemption Certificates - Expired Earning Records (Individual) Gross Earnings and Tax Deductions Wage Payroll Qtrly Earnings List (15-L1) Salary Payroll Annual Earnings List (15-L2) WIP Listings 5 2 4 7 7 7 1 ' 73 '76 * 74 71 RECEIVE JAN 2 6 7 LAW Dl'.-.nlh* GAR LOCK IN * 71 ' 71 . 7? Controllable Expense Reports Monthly Inventory Listings Physical Inventory Listings 14-E Sales by Shipping Point Detail Sales Listing 3 ' 75 3* ' 75 3* ' 75 5* ' 73 2 76 Quarterly Sales Standard Cost Cards 14-D Standard Cost Listings Purchase Price Variance Report AT-150 Division Expense Ledger Listings 2 ea Qtr 7 last Qtr 2* 3* 4** Permanent * 76 '71 `76 `75 ' 74 General Ledgers and Journals Permanent Journal Vouchers Permanent Voucher Registers Sales & Use Tax Returns (With accompanying papers) -- 7 6 ` 71 ' 72 * Not to be discarded prior to IRS audit - must be labeled "Do not destroy without Corporate Tax Section approval." **Not to be discarded orior ho r do n i 4- RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) Mechanical Packing Accounting Continued Summary Books (Payroll and Tax data for returns) 4 State 6c Local Personal Property Tax Returns (Including Worksheets) 4 Bank Statements 3 Check Registers '6 Cancelled Checks (other than dividends) 6 Controllable Expense Reports 3 Daily Record of Cash Receipts 3 List of Deposits (Tabulation of D. R.C.R.'s ) 1 Law Department Leases (after expiration) 5 Personnel Department Save-at-shop Records _ 2 Assignments 6c Garnishee Records 2 Group Disability Records 8 Claims (after Settlement) 10 N.Y.S. Disability Ins. Records (exclusive of DB 450 claim) 3 N.Y.S. Disability Ins. Claim File Workmen's Compensation Records (Premium Calculation) 6 1 Tax Exempt Sick Pay Records 4 Tuition Refund Records Employee Census Reports 1 2 (3) YEAR (S) TO BE DESTROYED ' 74 74 '75 *72 72 ' 75 75 RECEiVci j*h26 7! l:- 21- 77 73 76 76 1 70 68 75 '72 ` 77 ' 74 77 76 (4) RETENTION PERIOD (YEA RS) YEA R(S) TO BE DESTROYED Hechancial Packing Personnel Department Continued Personnel Files-Terminated (Except Kardex) Personnel Kardex File Letters summarizing Weekly Change Rate Change Letters Workmen*s Compensation Claim File 6 Permanent 1 7 Permanent ` 7'2 JAM 26 79 ' 77 *71 Hospital Records (Daily Record of Injuries, etc.) Permanent Individual F.O.A.B. Claims 6 72 NOTE: . Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title I, sub-title B, Part I, Section 107 - Retention of Records states that the policy holder or employer must keep all pertinent data relating to calculations of certified documents, plan descriptions or reports that must be filed with the Government. For Garlock Inc Mech. Pack. , these records are: Pension Cards Annuity- Taxable Runs Bradford Thrift Plan Tapes &. Reports (Mo.) Employees Kardex Payroll Deduction Registers All materials related to retirement plans such as vouchers, worksheets, and receipts. Other Benefit Records currently in storage. Safety Department Fire Inspection Reports -- . .6 '72 Accident Reports 6 *72 Occupational Safety & Health Act: OS HA Form #100 - Log of Occupational Injuries and Illness 6-(5 from end ' 72 of physical yr) (5) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR (S) TO BE DESTROYED MeehanicaI packing personnel Department NOTE: (a) EEOC Rules and Regulations JfiN2 6 79 1602.12 Preservation of Records Made or Kept lav; department GARLOCK INC Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including but not necessarily limited to application forms submitted by applicants'- and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of 6 months# from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In case of involuntary termination of an employee, the per sonnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of 6 months# from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the Commission or the Attorney General, against an employer under Title VII, the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action for 3 years after final disposition of charge or the action. The term "personnel records relevant to the charge", for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and- to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an un successful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position'as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected. (b) The requirements of this section shall not apply to application forms and other preemployment records of applicants for positions known to applicants to be of a temporary or seasonal nature. # Original applications and performance appraisals or related records are to be retained for J3 years.. * 7 years or until completion of IRS audit - must be labeled "Do not destroy without Corporate Tax Section approval." (6) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR (S) TO BE DESTROYED Data Processing Facilities Sales Detail Tapes - Domestic Do not destroy before consulting Law Department Sales Detail Tapes Mexican & Canadian Product Master Tapes-Year End Accounts Receivable (Magnetic Tape) Accounts payable (Voucher Payable) Distribution (Magnetic Tape) Quarterly Sales by Territory 9-Digit product Code Analysis Business Tax Numerical Control Program Library Records (Form G-6054) . Personnel Master File Tape 3 ' 75 RECrf/r . .. 3 ' 75 JAN 2 6 75 2 ' 76 *7(or com-'71 pletion of IRS Audit) LAW OE.F GAPLOCK j:-.* 3 ' 75 3 ' 75 3 ' 75 5 `73 5 (None to be des troyed until *82) Benefits Master File Tape 5 (None to be des troyed until *82) All Profit Centers Invoice Billings & Credit Tissues 3* `75 Employee Expense Reports-Top 25 Men (including all Corporate Officers) Shipping Paper/Order Master Sales Summary Sheets General Ledgers and Journals Journal Vouchers Voucher Registers -- Accounts Receivable Records (other than year-end) (AR340-1 and/or Ledger Cards) 5* 3 3 Permanent Permanent 7 3* ' 73 '75 ' 75 '.71 ' 75 * Not to be discarded prior to IRS audit - must be labeled "Do not Accounts Receivable AR 340-1 (YearEnd Report only) Accounts payable - Paid Bills Branch Office Personnel Rate Change Letters Time Slips Employee Withholding Exemption Certificates - Expired . (?) RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR (S) TO BE DESTROYED 6* ' 72 6* * 72 EEC:_; V 5 * 73 JM 2 6' 2 ' 76 LAW Z-\=T: GASLOCK ? 4 ' 74 General Sales - Domestic Correspondence-District office. General, Misc. Correspondence - Numbered Files H.O. Sales Orders Customers* Contract Files General Sales - Canada & Mexico Correspondence-District Office, General, Misc. Correspondence - Numbered Files H.O. Sales Orders Customers* Contract Files Transportation & Warehouse (Shiopi Sl Branch Stock Orders or Stock Trans ers Bills of Lading Express Receipts Freight Bills Do not destroy records from the current year or any past years that are stored in records reten sion areas. Mark all new record boxes & any from prior years "Do Not Destroy. Consult Law Department.*' These records are required for possible use in asbestosis litigation. 2 * 76 10 *68 3 ' 75 3 ' 75 1 *77 3 *75 3 *75 3 '75 * Not to be discarded orior to IRS audit must be labeled "Do not 2/1/79 Revision (8) Preduction Control Pull Tickets RECEIVED RETENTION PERIOD (YEARS) YEAR(S) TO BE DESTROYED FEB 1" '79 2 Months RECORDS RETENTION (SALES OFFICES, WAREHOUSES, ETC.) LAV.* 9Er.^'?-'NT garlOCK INC. Description Correspondence with Customers (Domestic 2 Locations: Mark "Do Not Destroy. Consult Law Department") <76 Customer Orders . 3 '75 Office Orders Disbursements Records Invoice and Credit Tissues (U.S.) Invoice and Credit Tissues (Canada) Daily Record Cash Receipts (Canada only) 5 * 73 1 `77 3 `75 4 `74 1 ` 77 Inactive Past-Due Accounts Reports Journal Vouchers - 5 ` 73 1 ` 77 Tax Certificates Permanent Copies of Purchase Invoices & Monthly Service Bills Bills of Lading and Express Receipts 1 ` 77 3 ` 75 Petty Cash Vouchers 1 `77 Customers Check Vouchers and/o r Remittance Statements (Canada only) 1 month -;Cc`VhO j.V:: 26 79 TO: il'l-ASTMcNl CiAfiLOCK INC, MJ Burdulis JH Cookson LA Green JW Guffey DE Holmes ES Kuhnen A Kuzmuk GB Leroy ME Panarites AE Saylor HT Schaefer Rjr stay WR Wise ES Ziemba DISTRIBUTION CC: JF Bello RE Burnisky LA Dephillip L Kramer P Lapinski JD Lynn --- GE Malgee WH Price G Robles GW Townsend . GM Wood EXHIBIT 9 CEKERAI DATA GENERAL INFORMATION 'P>Qc QQ81-1 (lived; 11-30-59 Supersedes: 11-14-58 GARLOCK PRODUCTS MEETING SPECIFICATIONS SPECIAL NOTES. 1. Beneath each specification number Is the date of Usue. When this date li not the latest Issue, contact Product Engineering Department to determine If the listed style compiles with a later specification revision. 2. "Qualification "Reference" gives source of approval for our product from a government agency. When nothing is shown in this column, it signifies that either the government does not require qualification approval or the need has not yet arisen for us to request qualification. 3. When any of the following are required, they must be Indicated on both inquiry and order: . - a. Overseas packaging b. Special branding c. Inspection at Palmyra d. Certification together with form of cart!fleadoa requlxacL 4. On spec. MIL-A-7Q21-A (10-2S-S6) Class l Style 7228, we are equipped to apply special branding. On Class II Style 773S and any ocher items referring to this note, we are not equipped to apply special branding and effort should be made to waive this specification requirement or contact Palmyra. Military Specification No. (date of issue) Clast, Type or Grade No. if any , Product Description Garlock Style Meeting Spec. Qualification Reference MIL-A-7021-A (10-2S-S6) See Note 4 MID-A-17472 Amendment 1 (3-27-S3) MIL-D-3377 (12-20-50) MIL-D-17650 Amendment 2 (11-22-54) Class i Class li Symbol 2150 M Type l n 4 Asbestos sheet, compressed 7228 H* " Atbestdt sheet, compressed 7715 A 773 S A m Diaphragms, synthetic rubber * M M M 7021 A 8459 HA Xs Sywsfcett-c rubber *cuv- trn taLbc valve discs tuxrt type - 8452 a/a Bureau of Aeronautics letter 2-13-S7 ti Test reference EES B-8679-C (4-28EES C-2149 (5-22-46 Bureau of Ordnance letter 4-14-SI Bureau of Ship* letter 1-14-54 MIL-E-1S330-B (10-8-S3) Type i If Spool type expansion joints, pt-pe. synthetic rubber, fire retardant II 9J76fully armored 9278-A no armor unfilled arch Test report EES-3 ADT-441 dated 8-11-52 co u.a.a. s r\ 4 * * Page 0081-2 tiwdj <-'*-01 Sup^r<j*i 11-30-59 Military Specification No. (date of issue) Class, Type or Grade No. if any MIL-C-12803 #6-10-53) i Grade G-lll Crade G-321I Grade G-3212 Grade G-3213 Grade C-3221 Grade 3222 MIL-G -1S342-A <10-24-51) . Symbol 2410 Class A Class B MIL-C-1626SA (4-17-52) MIL-G-21569 Symbol 2410 Class I MIL-G-21610 (12-23-58) MIL-G-22004 MIL-G -220S0 Class II Type II MIL-L-1594-A Amendment 1 (1-29-54) MIL-P-9S4 -A Amendment 1 (9-6-51) MIL-P-1384 (9-12-491 MIL-P-2863 (9-4-S1) MIL-F-2911-A (4 17-57) Symbol 1301 Type A Symbol 1303 Type B Symbol 235 3 Class II Symbol 1435 Grade A Symbol 1210 Type I Svmbol 1220 GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL DATA Product Description Non-metallic gasket materials Garlock Style Meeting Spec. -- 900 A 681 **\ 681 / 681 660 f 660 J Qualification Reference Department of Army letter 2-7-S6 Handhole gaskets - spiral wound asbestos metallic Manhole gaskets - spiral wound asbestos metallic 8166 A 8166 A Navy QPL-1S342 Ref. No. EN28/L5/ 1991E Rel. No. EN/28/LS/ 1365 Caskets, metallic asbestos, spiral wound for flanged joints 79SS A Test No. 01086 USNEES Nitrile Rubber Silicone Rubber Heat Exchanger Gaskets 9150 A 9297 C 9539 HA HA 8450 HA Nav. Ship Yd. NYK (Mat. Lab) Rept. No. S354-26 of 4-10-59 Test Reference EES 610S75A (10-29-59) Silicone Rings for Lighting Fixtures 9578 NO Progress report 6103S2B of 12-12-58 8113 Hfi QPL-22050 Dept. Navy letter 2-13-61 4123/22050 Ser. 630-119 Lantern, gasoline, leaded fuel with case; fuel valve packing 7276 A Packing, hydraulic, rubber frictioned layers Packing, hydraulic, rubber frictioned layers Synthetic rubber - cloth insertion 7984 NA 33 R. H. H'A 7540 NA Packing, condenser tube; flexible metallic Packing, assembly, hydraulic conical Packing, assembly, "V" type (CHEVRON) 1000 ^ 1001 8321 7256 _ Test Reference EES-01024 3 ( 3-30-SS Test Reference EE5-01O2S0(7-31-S7 Test Reference GENERAL DATA 1 Military I Specification No. (date o/issue) MIL-P-14078 (6-2-SS) M1L-P-16374-A (3-17-52) Clan, Type or Grade No. If any None Symbol 1405 MIL-P-17091-B (11-4-SX) Type I Type 11 MIL-P- 17303-C (10-14-SS) MIL-P-173 49-A (7-7-S5) MIL-P-17416-A Amendment 1 (10-8-S4) Symbol 1433 Class I Type B Symbol 1434 ClaM I Type C Symbol 1108 Class II Type C Symbol 1111 Clan II Type E t Symbol M30 CENERAL INFORMATION ( invcd. Svppftcj,^ 11-30-59 Product Description Teflon - any lorm Packing, metal covered lor item tube! Gar lock Style Meeting Spec. 8764 f/A 9119 HA Nylon - any form Nylon - any form Plartic metallic packing Plastic metallic packing Plartic non-metallic packing Plastic non-metallic packing 90S6 Special supplied to order ' 909 A 8890 A 5855 A 5901 A Qualification Reference None Test Reference EES 610382 (7-2-58) None None Test reference EES 010073(3-2- Text reference EES 010074(8-3 Text reference EES 610033A(6- Tert reference EES 010033D(1( Packlngi asbestos, rod, high pressure Flexible metallic packing 7569 ''A 8883 A Bureau of Ship* letter 2-16-S3 N*vy qualified products list 17 MLL-P-191S2 (12-16-SS) MIL-P-194 68 INHD o.. MIL-P-19918 (5-3-57) MIL-P-20084 (1-9-52) Group C Symbol 1290 High pressure hydraulic packing for gun mounts Sixes 1-1/4" to 2" Teflon rod "V" ring packing for catapults Packing, ramie-fibre sandpaper finish and 847<-D Oilers* Bureau of Ship letter (l-27-5( NAVORD 9901 NGF-T-4-S4 < 4-27-54 8764 HA Bureau of Ship letter (4-5-57 81S7-G with 8814-0- fillers t/A 5788 HA Bureau of Shi] letter (4-9-57 Ijswd: 4-28-61 Suo-r*d*: 11-30-59 - Military Cl ait, Type specification No. or Grade No: (date of issue) if any MLL-P-20693 (4-29-S7) Type I Type II III CIV GENERAL D<F ORMATICN Product Description Nylon - any form Nylon - any form GENERAL DATA Carlock Style Meeting Spec. Qualification Reference 9056 N None Specialsupplied to order None MIL-P-2I099 (11 S~S7) Symbol 1230 Type I Symbol 1240 Type II Packing assemblies - conical for fire resistant type hydraulic Ouids Packing assemblies - MV" type (CHEVRON) for fire resistant type hydraulic fluids 7514 Test reference ESS 010276B (12-23-S7) 8220 1 Test reference Jwith 9283 -D ESS 010276E fillers HA (11 -20-57) MEL-R -900-D (S-21-56) Rubber, synthetic, medium soft for water-weight and airtight door gaskets 9125 Bureau of Ships letter (4-20-53) MIL-R-I149-A 4-9-S6) MIL-R-276S-A See Note 4 Type I Class II Type I Class I Rubber sheet, strips and gaskets u u ft Gaskets, sheet and strip - oil resisting 152 8312 8892 Test report NSM033-OQ5 (5-17-55) Mil it ary Specification No. MIL-R -3065 Product Description Rubber a nd Synthetic Rubber Compounds Type R Grade RN -400 P^N-405 RN -409 RN -400 RN -405 RN-409 PN -415 RN -415 RN -420 RN -420 P.N-4 30 RN -4 30 RN 500 RN -506 RN-S09 RN-S1S Suffix B, F A,B,F A.B.F BfF,FF A,B, F, FF A.B.F, FT A, B, F A.B.F.FF A.B.F A.B.F.FF A, B, F A.B.F^F B,F A, B, F A, B, F A.B.F Garlock Style Meeting Spec. 1 l 1 154 154 154 1 154 1 154 1 154 7224 7224 7224 7224 Grade RN -525 RN -600 RN -606 RN-609 RN261S RN-620 RN -700 RN-703 RN-704 RN-706 RN-709 RN-71S RN-720 RN -804 RN-806 RN -809 RN-812 RN -820 Suffix A, B, F b,f,fF A, B, F, FF A, B, F, FF A.B.F.FF A.B.F.FF F, FF A.B.F A. B.F A.B.F A.B.F A.B.F A. B.F A.B.F.FF A.B.F, FT A, B. F. FF A. B.F, FT A.B.F.FF Garlock Styl e Meeting `Spec. 7224 N 8817 8817 8817 8817 8817 8950 8950 8950 8950 89S0 89S0 89S0 8700 8700 8700 8700 8700 _ * | GENERAL DATA GENERAL INFORMATION Military Specification No. Product Description MIL-R-3065 Rubber and Synthetic Rubber Compounds lYP0 R Grade RS-400 RS-402 RS-405 RS-405-7 j' RS-409 RS-SOO RS-503 RS-S06 RS-5Q9 RS-S09-S RS-SiS RS-600 RS-604 RS-606 RS- 609 Type S Suffix F, FF A, B, F, FF A, B, F, FF A, B. F, FF A, B F, FF B, F, FF A, B, F. FF A, B, F, FF A, B, F, FF A, B, F, FF A, B, F, FF B, F, FF A. B, F, FF A, B, F, FF A, B, F, FF Gar lock Style Meeting Spec. 8616^ 8616 8616 8616 8616 152 152 152 1S2 152 152 91 91 91 91 Grade RS-612 RS-615 RS-700 RS-703 RS-704 RS-706 RS-709 RS-715 RS-720 RS- 804 RS-806 RS-809 RS-812 RS-820 Suffix A. B, F, FT A, B, F, FT B. F A, B, F A, B, F A, B, F A, B, F A. B, F A, B, F A. B, F A, B. F A, B, F A, B, F A. B, F SB-400 SB-405 SB-410 SB-500 SB-508 SB-S1S SB-520 SB-600 SB-608 SB-612 SB-617 SB-700 SB-710 SB-715 SB-720 SB-800 SB-804 SB-810 SB-81S ' SB-820 SB-902 SB-910 SB-902 SB-910 A, B, E, F A, B E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A.-B, E, F A, B, E, F, FF A. B, E, F, FF A, B, E. F. FF A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B. E, F A, B, E, F A,. B, E. F A, B, E. F A, B A, B A, B, E + A. B. E - 9513 9S13 9S13 9S12 9512 9S12 9512 9122 9122 9122 9122 9S.11 9S11 9SI1 -9S11 9100 9100 9100 9100 9100 8452 84S2 9150 9150 r / j SC-400 sc-4os SC-4IS SC-500 SC-S07 SC-512 SC- 600 SC-608 SC-614 SC-620 SC-700 SC-707 SC-717 SC- 800 SC-804 SC-808 SC-815 A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A, B E, F A, B, E, F A, B, E, F A. B, E, F E, F A, B, E, F B. E, F B, E, F A, E, F A, B, E, F A, B E F E. F B. E, F B, E, F B, E, F Page 0081-S l.au^fs 11-30-S9 Supa#<i#n 11-14-58 Gar lock Style Meeting Spec. 9l\ 91 8627 8627 8627 8627 8627 8627 8627 7790 7790 7790 7790 7790 7491 7491 7491 8312 8312 8312 7986 7986 7986 7986 8639 8639 8639 7797 7797, 7797 7797 J M U.I.i. `age 0081-6 4-28-61 Soc^mJ..: 11.30-59 Military Specification No. (date of Issue) MIL-R-5521 -A (8-20-51) MH.-iR-5847-C (6-14-56) MH.-R-S847-D (4-1-60) MH.-R-6855 (8-8-50) See Note 4 Clan, Type or Grade No. if any Clan I Grade SO Grade 60 Grade 70 Grade 80 Clan II-A Grade 40 Grade 50 Grade SO Grade 60 Grade 70 Grade 80 Grade 80 Clan n-B Grade 40 Grade SO Grade 60 Grade 70 Grade 80 Clan I Class D Clan III MIL-R-21252 MIL-R -25897A (USAF) MIL-V-2741 (8-23-SI) MILS - 10736-D Type 1 Type II Clan I Type A Type B GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL DATA Product Description Qualification Reference Ring*: aircraft hydraulic, back-up LS -40 chrome leather Aeronautical Standards Group ltr. (10-8-52) Silicone: large quantity molded item* only 9S89 7144 9632 7708 Silicone: large quantity molded item* only 8364 9479 9S36 9640 9641 9478 Silicone - High G Low temperature 8634 9536 8147 9297 9294 Rubber sheet, molded and extruded - nitrile M II 1 " neoprene M H M ft HM 4 ft It 4 II 41 " SBR If fl 41 fl II It 9517 95 IS 9519 9520 9521 9522 9502 9523 Water Still Gaskets 8160 O Rings 9671 WLCT Molded parts, sheets, strips, extrusions 9671 " Valves, pump; synthetic rubber 7593 - 1 ft M II 8680 Stove gasoline burner M-19S0 Packing eccentric stem valve body 8986 or 7276 A GENERAL DATA GENERAL INFORMATION Uiwh 4-28-61 Soprtdn 1-22-60 MIL-STD-417 (9-10-57) Grade RN -510 RN-51S RN-510 RN-51S RN-S20 RN -525 RN-530 Suffix A A AB AB AB AB AB TYPE R 197V\ 197 ' 7224 7224 7224 7224 7224 Grade RN-810 RN-81S RN -820 RS-710 RS-71S RS-720 Suffix A A A AB AB AB Style 8700 8700 8700 8627 8627 8627 TYPE S Grade + SB-605 SB-610 + SB-615 + SB-620 SB-805 SB-810 SB-815 SB-820 SB-905 SB-910 SB-915 Suffix A1 B1 E3 E5 A1 A1 A1 A1 Al, B1 Al, B1 Al, B1 Styie- Grade 9122 SC-405 9122 - SC-410 9122 SC-4 IS 9122 SC-SOS 8459 SC-S10 8459 SC-S15 84S9 SC-605 84S9 SC-610 9385 SC-615 9385 SC-620 9385 ) SC-625 TYPE T Suffix Al Al Al Al, E3 Al, E3 Al, E3 Al Al Al Al Al TA-505 TA -605 TA -705 TA -805 A6, B3, E3 A6, B3, E3 A6, B3, E3 A6, B3, E3 95 36 \ 9640 / 9641 f 9478 1 F ederal Specification No. (date of iue) Class, Type or Grade No. if any_______ Product Description HH-G-76-B (S-31-5S) Type U - jointed Type II - jointed Asbestos gaskets Asbestos tape HH-G-156-C (12 -30-S5) HH-P-31B (8-4-S2) Class A Class B Class C Rubber gaskets, sheet or strip Rubber gaskets, sheet or strip Rubber gaskets, sheet or strip Asbestos sheet and tape Style 7491 7491 7491 8312 8312 8312 7986 7986 7986 7986 7986 Style Meeting Spec. 7817 7817 in 1/8", 3/16" ( 1/4" thicknesses IS 4 and 6023 'l 152 and 8312 i Nrt J22 7807 sheet 78J7 tape in 1/8", 3. C 1/4" thicknesses HH-P-34B (4-21-48) Type I Type II *IKniUH.UTKto. HH-P-36B (6-28-55) PDODUCT MANUAL Asbestos rod packing Asbestos rod packing Asbestos rod packing 5154 no wire S3S4 with wire A 7569 A GARLOCK INC. fsu*d: 4-28-61 Hriaf. 11-30-59 > Federal 'pecification No. (date of issue) HH-P-46B (2-6-52) HH-P-SIA (2-17-45) HH-P-96-D (S-31-S5) HH-P -106-C (7-14-48) HH-P-112 -B HH-P-I26-C (11-19-47) HH-P-151-B (4-3-45) Interim Spec. HH -P -00151 -D (10-14-58) WW -V -SI-A Amendment 1 (8-5 -46) Amendment 2 (6-29-54) ZZ-T-831-B Amendment 3 2Z-V-51-B Aeronautical Material Specification No. (date of issue) AMS-3201-E (11-1-54) AMS-3202-E (5-1-S4) GENERAL INFORMATION Class, Type or Grade No. if any Grade A Type I Type III Type I Product Description Compressed asbestos sheet Non-metallic asbestos yarn Non-metallic asbestos yam Plant or animal fibre sheet I GEhERAL DATA Garlock Style Meeting Spec. 7735 - 7021 AA 5432 braided A5432 twisted 681 Flax 5142 HA Type I - flexible Type II - rockhard Duck and rubber packing Duck and rubber packing 7984 A'* 33 R. H.* These styles applicable as noted provided that an exception is granted to the specification for volume measurement. Twisted lead foil rod packing \632 Cloth inserted rubber packing 7540 One grade Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class D Class EOF Cloth inserted rubber packing Non-metallic valve discs 7540 8421 7540 7602 J lh'c c TO 8452 C 8476 A7? f/A Grade C Class A - hard Class, Type or Grade No. if any______ Rubber tubing Rubber pump valves Product Description Nitrile Rubber Nitrile Rubber Garlock Style Meeting : 9513 / NA 9122 GENERAL DATA Aeronautical Material Specification No. (date of issue) 'Class, Type or Grade No. if any AMS -3208-D (11-1-S4) - AMS -3220-A (6-15-52) AMS-3229-C (3-1-51) AMS-3232-C (3-1-55) AMS -3240-B (11-1-54) AMS-3241-B AMS-3302-B (11-1-52) AMS -3303-C (11-1-52) AMS -3304-C (11-1-52) " For "O'1 rings AMS-3305 -C (11-1-52) AMS -3315 -B (12-1-53) AMS-3320-B (12-1-53) AMS-3346 AMS-3357-A (7-1-57) AMS-3650 (2-15-53) None A GENERAL INFORMATION Product Description Neoprene Rubber Neoprene Rubber Nitrile Rubber Compressed asbestos sheet Synthetic Rubber Neoprene Rubber Silicone Rubber Silicone Rubber Silicone Rubber Silicone Rubber Silicone Rubber Silicone rubber sheet, glass fabric reinforced Silicone rubber sheet, glass fabric reinforced Silicone Rubber Silicone Rubber Polytrifluorochloroethylene any form Page 0081-9 Inwrit 4~28-6* Supers*^ H-JO-59 Garlock Style Meeting Spec. 9422 7986 MA 9587 NA 8748 0 7228 A 9433 N 9430 9479 L9539 f Nfl 9297 9599 9294 J - 8^87^ reviewed and believed to be O. K. Not tested for all specification require in end. A to supply in .032" thickness oi Not able to supply .010", .01 C .050" thickness. 88 78 reviewed and believed tc be O. K. Not tested for all specification requirements. 9148 9641 9291 NA . Qualification Reference None 'i9 0081 -10 lnwd: 4-28-61 11-30-S9 * GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL DATA .' Aeronautical Material .cificaticra No. (date of issue) Class, Type oc Grade No. if any Product Description Garlock Style Meeting Spec. Qualificatior Reference AMS-3651 -B 1 -IS -57) None Teflon - any form 8764 hA None AMS-3652 (2-15-53) None Teflon tape 8764 Grades AT ana ST None Goverument Specification No. (date of issue) Class, Type or Grade No. if any Product D escription Seal for Pump (Ship.) Garlock seal type CA-51-A-2 approved for pump, operating at stuffing box pressures between 5 ft. and 25 ft. head of aviation gasoline. MECHANICAL SEAL for Aviation Gasoline Pump ! SAE -ASTM Specification No. Product Description E 10R C ASTM-D- 735-60T Rubber and synthetic rubber com pounds for automotive and aeronautical applications. C l<ui R Grade R-410 R415 R 420 R-425 R 430 R-505 R-SOS R-508 R -508 R-S 10 R-510 R-S 10 R-S 12 R-512 R-512 R-S1S R-515 R-S1S HI -520 ^^rt-525 R -60S F 605 R 608 Suffix B, F l, F2 B, FI, F2 B. FI, F2 B| FI, F2 B, FI, F2 D, Fi FI, F2 D, FI FI, F2 B, D, FI B. FI, F2 FI, F2 B. D, FI B, FI, F2 FI, F2 B. D, FI B, FI, F2 FI, F2 B, D, FI B, D, FI D, FI FI, F2 D, FI Garlock Style Meeting Spec. 1, 154, 8616 1, 154, 8616 1 C 154 1 C 154 154 7224 152 G 197 7224 1S2 G 197 7224 152 197 7224 152 197 7224 152 197 7224 7224 91 8817 91 Grade R-608 ^ R-610 R-610 R-612 R-612 R-615 R-620 R-705 * R-705 R-708 . R-708 R-710 R-710 . R-712 R-712 .- R-715 R-715 R-720 R-725 + R-805 R-805 R-805 R-810 Suffix FI, F2 B, D, FI FI, F2 B, D, FI FI, F2 FI, F2 F, F2 D, FI FI, F2 D, FI FI B, D, FI B, FI B, D, FI B, FI B, D, FI B, FI B, FI B, FI FI FI, F2 D, FI, F2 Garlock Style Meeting Spec. - 8817 91 8817 91 8817 8817 8817 8627 8950 8627 8950 8627 8950 8627 8950 8627 8950 8950 8950 7125 and 8747 7790 8700 353 > j GENERAL DATA GENERAL INFORMATICS Page 0081-11 4-28-61 Sop#<tW: 11 -30-59 Class R Grade Suffix Garlock Style Meeting Spec. Grade Suffix Garlock Style Meeting Spec. + R-810 R-810 R-810 + R -SIS R -SIS R-81S + R-820 R-820 R-820 R-825 4- R-90S R-905 R-9I0 Class SB FI FI, F2 D, FI. F2 FI Fl. F2 D. Fl. F2 Fl Fl, F2 D. Fl. F2 Fl Fl Fl 8747 7790 8700 8747 7790 8700 8747 7790 8700 8747 7645 7862 7862 .% Synthetic (nitrile) rubber compounds for automotive and aeronautical applications. SB-410 SB-415 SB-SOS SB-S08 SB-510 SB -512 SB-608 SB-610 SB-610 SB-612 SB-612 SB-6 IS SB-6 IS SB-620 SB-705 SB-70S SB-708 SB-708 SB-710 SB-710 SB-712 SB-712 SB-7 IS SB-715 SB-720 SB-720 SB-80S Class SC B, El, E3, Fl, F2 B, El, E3, Fl, F2 B, El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl B. El, E3, Fl, F2 B, El B, El, E3, Fl, F2 B. El B, El, E3, Fl, F2 B. El, Fl, F2 B, El, E3, Fl, F2 B, El, E3,- Fl, F2 El B, El, E3, Fl El B, El, E3, Fl El B, El, E3, Fl El B, El, E3, Fl El B, El, E3, Fl El B, El, E3, Fl El, Fl 9513 9513 9512 9S12 9512 9512 9122 8474 9122 8474 9122 8474 9122 9122 849S 9511 8495 9511 8495 9511 8495 9511 849S 9511 8495 9511 8459 SB-5 IS SB-5IS SB-520 SB-605 SB-605 SB-608 SB-805 t SB-810 SB-810 4 SB1815 SB-815 < SB-820 SB-820 SB-905 SB-90S SB-905 SB-910 SB-910 SB-910 SB-91S SB-915 SB-915 B, El B, El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl B, El, Fl, F2 B, El, E3, Fl, F2 B, El B, El, E3, Fl El, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El El, E3 El, Fl El El, E3 El, Fl El El, E3 El, Fl 8613 9S12 9S12 8474 9122 8474 9100 8459 9100 8459 9100 8459 9100 8452 9150 ' 9385 8452 9150 938S 8452 9150 9385 - Rubber and synthetic rubber compounds for automotive and aeronautical applications * XINTID N U.S.A. SC-405 SC-405 SC -410 SC-410 SC-4 IS SC-415 SC -420 SC-420 El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, FI 7491 9433 7491 9433 7491 9433 7491 9433 SC-SOS SC -505 SC -508 SC.-508 SC-510 + SC-S10 SC -512 + SC-S12 El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, E3, Fl B. El, E3, Fl El, E3, Fl B, El, E3, Fl El, E3, Fl B. El. E3, Fl 8312 9422 8312 9422 8312 9422 8312 9422 qr 0081 12 4-28-61 11 30 -59 GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL DATA de SC -SIS SC. 515 SC 520 SC S20 SC 520 ' SC 605 SC 605 SC -608 SC 608 SC 6J0 SC 610 SC. 612 Rubber and synthetic rubber compounds lor automotive and aeronautical applications. Suffix Garlock Style Meeting Spec. Grade Suffix Garlock Style Meeting .Spec. El, E3, FI B, El, E3, FI B, El, E3, Z B, El, E3, FI EJ, E3, FI El, E3, FI El, E3, FI, B El, E3, FI Ei. E3, FI, B El, E3, FI El, E3, FI, B El, E3, FI 8312 9422 863S 9422 8312 7986 9430 7986 9430 7986 943Q 7986 ` SC-612 SC -615 SC-615 SC-620 SC-70S SC -708 SC-710 SC-712 SC 715 SC-720 SC-80S SC -810 SC-81S El, E3, FI, B El, E3, FI El, E3, FI, B El, E3, FI El, E3, FI El, E3, FI El, E3, FI El, E3, FI El, E3, FI El, E3, FI El El El 9430 7986 9430 7986 86 39 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 7797 7797 7797 T* TA -SOS TA 507 IA 604 TA 604 r A 606 Elastomer compounds far automotive applications. B, EI, E3, FI, F2, L B, El, E3, FI, F2, L FI, F2 B, El, E3, FI, F2, L B, El, E3, FI, F2. L 9479, 8072, 9536 9479 9011 9640 C 9S39 9640 TA 704 TA -706 TA -80S TA -805 TA -806 B, El, E3, FI, F2, 1. 9297, 9641 C 9578 B, El. E3, FI, F2, I. 9641 El, FI, F2, L 8773 B, El, E3, FI, F2, 1. 9478 C 9294 B, El, E3, FI, F2, 1. 9478 ASTM D- 1170-58T Grade P-1161-A Compressed asbestos sheet Grade P-1161-A Compressedasbestos sheet Garlock Style Meeting Spec. 900 7021 SAL 10R AS IM D 1170-S8T Grade P-1141-A Compressedasbestos sheet Grade P-1151-A Compressedasbestos sheet 8748 7228 SAE 10R ASTM D-1330-SST Grades 1 and 2 rubber sheet 22 GARLOCK PRODUCTS APPROVED BY UNDERWRITERS' LABORATORIES The following gasket materials are approved by Underwriters' Laboratories Inc. for use against hazardous liquids, 'Uch a< gasoline, naptha, benzine, fuel oils, etc. Garlock 660 - thicknesses of .010" to 1 /8" inclusive Garlock 662 - thicknesses of 1/32" to 1/4" inclusive Garlock 681 - thicknesses of .006" to 1/8" inclusive Garlock 7021 - thicknesses of 1/64" to 1/8" inclusive Garlock 7228 - thicknesses ol 1/32" and 1/16" inclusive Garlock 7635 - thicknesses of 1/8" to 1/4" inclusive Garlock 8990 - "O" rings < means change in text + means addition to text - refers to notations 0 means omis ion from text EXHIBIT 10 DEPOSITION & TRIAL TESTIMONY GIVEN ON BEHALF OF GARLOCK Bv Company Representatives. In Re: Asbestos Litigation James E. Heffron j CAPTION In Re: B&B Fulton Co. McManus v. Anchor Hart v. Garlock In Re: B&B Fulton Co. Moore v. Garlock Davis v. ACandS In Re: Complex Asbestos Litigation Turley & Gilcrease Norman Hines * * Spangenberg Kulaw ... Donald Cipov * * Brockmeyer (Wilson & Perky) Cotton Barietta Virginia Consolidated Trial Caffey, Eddie ` * Davis G. Elwood Houghton 1 CAPTION Overby v. Raymark Re: Asbestos Cases COURT Superior Court. Trial Court Superior Court, Trial Court Supreme Court, St. Lawrence Co. Superior Court. Trial Court STATE GA MA NY GA DATE 9/10/1999 9/29/1999 11/22/1999 11/30/1999 CIVIL ACTION NO. | 1998CV02684 96-4393 101569/98 1998 CV 02684 Supreme Court, St. Lawrence Co. NY 3/8/2000 Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 4/28/2000 Superior Court, San Francisco CA 8/4/2000 105034/99 99001241 828684 District Court, Moore County District Court, Hunt County Supreme Court, Erie County TX 3/15/2001 00-57 & 99CI07037 TX March-01 62382 NY 6/22/2001 12000-561 District Court, Tarrant County Circuit Court. Baltimore City District Court, Jefferson County District Court, Kleberg County Circuit Court, Newport News District Court, Cass County District Court, Hams County TX 6/7/2002 MD 7/12/2002 TX 7/19/2002 TX 10/30/2002 VA 11/25/2002 TX 4/1/2003 TX 10/28/2003 141 189827 01 B-150.374-AK 01-454-D CL99-2000 01-C-753 2002-28497 COURT STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | Circuit Court, City of Chesapeake VA 12/4/1986 2055-M Circuit Court, Madison County IL 6/9/1988 * Harold Hughes CAPTION Sadowsky v. Anchor COURT Circuit Court, Oconto County STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. Wl 3/22/1995 91-CV-275 Clayton M. Jewett CAPTION Bailey v. J-M Matthews v. J-M Pennell v. J-M Jakupko v. Alloy Pratt v. Optical Adgate v. Keene Atkins v. Garlock Chancey v. Garlock Bigpond v. Fibreboard Bigpond v. Fibreboard Hoell v. Garlock Armistead v. Ceiotex COURT U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. Court of Common Pleas, PCCP Supreme Court, Albany County Superior Court, Middlesex County U.S. Dist. Court, Western Dist. Common Pleas, 1st Judicial Dist. U.S. Dist. Court, Southern Dist. U.S. Dist. Court, Northern Dist. U.S. Dist. Court, Northern Dist. U.S. Dist. Court, Northern Dist. Circuit Court, Sheboygan County U.S. Dist. Court, Calcasieu Parr. STATE VA PA NY NJ TX PA GA GA OK OK Wl LA DATE 10/26/1978 10/23/1979 10/18/1983 12/9/1983 4/27/1984 6/25/1984 5/23/1980 5/23/1988 9/14/1988 10/13/1908 2/26/1992 3/2/1992 CIVIL ACTION NO. 76-155-NN et al. 4052(1/97);AC#1-71 L-57219-8 NA EP-83-CA-288.406 EP-82-CA-366 N-3080 CV288-52 CV286-178 87-C-1223-E 87-C-1223-E 90CV667 91-400 * * = Cases consolidated for discovery purposes * * = Transcript ordered but not yet received Claytoti M. Jewett, continued CAPTION Delong v. Garlock West v. Garlock Lukowski v. Garlock Kenny v. Garlock Deschenes v. Fibreboard Abercrombie v. Abex Hellquist Malone v. Garlock Baltimore City Asb. Lit. Pi's v. Borden Inc. Ml Board of Education Ml Board of Education Potter. Et Al Abate. Et Al (Phase II) Boyd (Phase I) Osick (Phase 1) Chappell Cozie/Zong/Springer Page 2 COURT Superior Court, New Castle Co. Superior Court, New Castle Co. Superior Court, New Castle Co. Superior Court, New Castle Co. Superior Court, Orange County Superior Court, San Francisco Co Supreme Court, Los Angeles Co. District Court, Brazoria County Circuit Court, for Baltimore City Civil Dist. Court, Orleans Parish Circuit Court, Wayne County Circuit Court, Wayne County District Court, Orleans Parish Circuit Court, Baltimore City Circuit Court, Common Pleas Circuit Court, Common Pleas Circuit Court, Baltimore City Common Pleas, 1st Judicial Dist. STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | DE 4/21/1992 88C-NO-110 DE 4/21/1992 89C-SE-123 DE 4/21/1992 87C-JN-84 DE 4/21/1992 86C-AU-70 CA 5/29/1992 573285 CA 9/4/1992 941345 CA 10/19/1993 BC-072504 TX 11/15/1993 7868 MD 6/29/1994- 94095701 LA 7/11/1994 91-18397 Ml 8/16/1994 84-429-634-NP Ml 8/17/1994 84-429-634-NP LA 8/11/1995 88-16051 * MD 1/19/1995 93-076701 PA 10/26/1995 91-3806 PA 10/26/1995 91-2571 MD 5/29/1996 95-213501 PA 1/30/1997 2584/1135/3357 Kanwal Kapur CAPTION McGuire V. J-M COURT U S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | VA 6/22/1979 CP77-1 ;CS77-60-NN Wilbur Klotz CAPTION McGuire V. J-M COURT U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | VA 6/22/1979 CP77-1 ;CS77-G8-NN Alexander Kuzmuk CAPTION Bailey v. J-M Matthews v. J-M Gordon Leroy CAPTION Matthews v. J-M COURT STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. VA 10/27/1978 7G-155-NN et al. Common Pleas, Philadelphia Co. PA 10/23/1979 4025(Jan 79);AC1-71 w COURT STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | Common Pleas. Philadelphia Co. PA 10/23/1979 4025(Jan 79);AC1-71 Michael Marrone CAPTION Seningen Trial Group et al. COURT Superior Court, New Castle Co. STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. DE 4/17/1995 93C-09-088 et al. Thomas Mills CAPTION Hutton V. Raymark Mehegan V. Celotex Smith. H. v. Raymark vC* COURT STATE Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ DATE 9/22/1988 9/22/1988 9/22/1988 CIVIL ACTION NO.`] L-014451-87 L-025167-86 L-88932-85 Donald G. Pomeroy, II CAPTION In Re: All Dallas Co. Asbestos Cases, including: Kulaw, Ingraham. Barletta and In Re: Carla Smith COURT District Court, Dallas, Tarrant, Cameron, Travis, Kleberg & Orange Counties STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. | TX 8/21/2002 69-12-5218-0 - Kulaw - Cases consolidated for discovery purposes ` = Transcript ordered but not yet received Walter Rooney CAPTION Re: Asbestos Cases Patrick V. J-M Herbert Schaefer 1 CAPTION McGuire v. J-M George Townsend ! CAPTION McGuire v. J-M Roy Whittaker CAPTION Durski v. Celotex Lee v. Am. Cyan. Sholtis v. Am. Cyan. Sharp v. II. C G RR Bruce v. II. C.G. RR Douglas v. Gariock Judy v. Armstrong Vogel v. Armstrong Huriow v. Armstrong Delong v. Gariock West v. Gariock Lukowski v. Gariock Kenney v. Gariock Morgan v. Gariock Abate v. Gariock Dolan. Thomas W. Huff/Fowler v. Gariock McDonald v. U.P. RR Layton v. Gariock Granski v. Gariock Balonis v. Gariock Norman. Mike Chariot v. Gariock Fertig v. Gariock Brannan v. Acands Jackson. R. B. Swindler, Jr. Eitemiller v. Acands Aaron, Johnny B. Neary & McAnany Fisk & Graves Finocchio Homung & Steffancavage Nelson (Excerpt only] MON MASS II Scribner Boyd/Collins/Conger Greenleaf COURT U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. rayc o STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. VA 4/26/1979 CP-#77-1 VA 4/26/1979 ALN#2330 COURT U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. VA 6/22/1979 CP77-1; CS77-68-NN COURT U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. STATE DATE CIVIL ACTION NO. VA 6/21/1979 CP77-1; CS77-68-NN COURT STATE DATE Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ 7/21/1987 Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ 7/21/1987 Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ 7/21/1987 U.S. Dist. Court, Southern Dist. KY 1/27/1988 U.S. Dist. Court, Western Dist. KY 1/27/1988 U.S. Dist. Court, Southern Dist. NY 2/29/1988 Circuit Court, Monongalia County WV 10/30/1991 Circuit Court, Monongalia County WV 10/30/1991 Circuit Court, Monongalia County WV 10/30/1991 Superior Court, New Castle Co. DE 4/21/1992 Superior Court, New Castle Co. DE 4/21/1992 Superior Court, New Castle Co. DE 4/21/1992 Superior Court. New Castle Co. DE 4/21/1992 Superior Court, New Castle Co. DE 8/30/1993 Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 9/29/1993 Superior Court, Middlesex Co. MA 4/13/1994 Superior Court, King County7 WA 8/1/1994 District Court, Cameron County TX 12/6/1994 Superior Court, Middlesex County NJ 7/19/1995 Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 12/6/1995 Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 12/6/1995 Circuit Court, Wayne County Ml 12/13/1995 District Court, Orleans Parish LA 3/27/1996 Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 4/11/1996 Circuit Court, Baltimore City District Court, Harris County District Court, Orleans Parish Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 4/11/1996 TX 4/17/1996 LA 6/5/1996 MD 9/24/199G District Court, Brazoria County TX 5/1/1997 Common Pleas, 1st Judicial Dist. PA 5/15/1997 Common Pleas, 1st Judicial Dist. PA 5/27/1997 Common Pleas, 1st Judicial Dist. PA 6/18/1997 Common Pleas, Philadelphia Co. PA 11/13/1997 Circuit Court, Baltimore City MD 11/18/1997 Circuit Court, Monogalia County WV 1/14/1998 Circuit Court, Baltimore City Common Pleas, 1st Judicial Dist. MD 10/30/1998 PA 7 U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern Dist. PA 17/24/97 CIVIL ACTION NO. L-06S301-86 L-019976-84 L-069326-85 86-3749 CQ7-0229P(J) - CA 88-C-147 CA 86-0832 CA 86-0764 880NO-110 890S0123 870JN-84 86C-AU-70 CA89O0C-185 9236705 93-6001 94-2-02492-2 94-01-497-E W02605788 95-020502 95-261701 94-421061 91-18397 94-032501 92-153501 87-37068 (?) 95-15916 96-176701 94-02110-2 975 & 3606 4276 & 4348 1484 Nos. 2681 & 2679 97-314701 Mon Mass II 95-284501 Nos. 3834.0760 & 4476 90-1557 - Cases consolidated for discovery purposes * = Transcript ordered but not yet received