Document LgQMK8pnn97qyVQaQ392wByNz

FILE NAME: Garlock (GAR) DATE: 1997 Jan 21 DOC#: GAR012 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Barry Castleman Notes arw/ir'orvm^rvlal car^vjlIta rv l January 21,199 7 Barry Julian and Melissa Chapman Dear Barry and Melissa, Garlock I have now spent slightly over 5 hrs looking over Garlock documents and have a little to add to what I have already provided you. ATI Minutes of 10/9/69 contain an important sentence, reflecting the ATI's easy access to US Public Health Service official Lewis Cralley, who periodically was in attendance at ATI meetings: "Confidential Information" on USPHS draft position paper on asbestos, reviewed by Sheckler of J-M... "USPHS gives opinion that asbestos hazard can be controlled except for mesothelioma." A. Kuzmuk of Garlock was recorded as present at the meeting summarized by these minutes. The other thing I would add to what I had listed for you earlier is (G-7381) the worker's compensation claim file of Grace Baylord, hired by Garlock (NY) in 1941 and dead from asbestosis in 1958. Shep Hoffman's exhibit G-1 is the A H' meeting in 1973 where Swetonic gave his "good news" speech, that most people (78%) in the survey were unaware that asbestos was hazardous to health (see pp 817-818 in my book). This would make a good argument for the public health need for warning labels on asbestos products. This may be among the A H minutes that you have; if not, please call Shep for a copy. Other tidbits: AP-5995 shows Anchor Packing started in 1908 and had 3 plants in the US and Canada by 1942; G-1410 shows Garlock was founded in 1887. So these are companies whose use of asbestos predates any publication about asbestos hazards in this country (1917). It is not believable that Anchor first learned that asbestos dust was hazardous in the 1970s. G-7378 is Kuzmuk's statement to OSHA, as representative of ATI at the 1972 OSHA asbestos standard hearings, opposing proposals to lower the permissible exposure limit (PEL) from 5 f/ml (set as emergency temporary standard on 12-7-71) to 2 f/ml (recommmended by the PHS) and instead urging that the limit be raised back up to 12 f/ml, to prevent devastation and loss of jobs in the asbestos textile industry. This testimony was a factor in OSHA allowing another 4 years for industry to get down from 5 f/ml to 2 f/ml (pp 330-332 in my book). G-7389 shows consultant IHF measured exposures at Garlock in 1974-78, and a number of exposures exceeded the legal limits at the times they were measured. I have reviewed 3 of 4 boxes of Garlock documents and 2 (of 2) boxes marked Garlock trial documents at Shep's. I can go back for a last look through the last box if you wish. All exhibit numbers are Shep's, please call him if you want copies of the documents. The 10/9/69 ATI minutes follow. The charge for services is $1,500. Please let me know if there are any further questions or problems. I have not really prepared to go to trial against Garlock since sometime around 10 years back. I7 22 Iin d a g a va -.. kaltimor'e--, ir>d-- 2 I2 I7 U . -4 6 2 - S I3 S 1979 Garlock used blue asbestos yarn this year, not clear how long they had before. 1966 -- early report of Garlock graphite pump packing product (Chem Processing Feb. 1966) 1980-81 - Garlock markets "Blue Guard" asbestos-free gaskets ("meets asbestos specs") G-5631, widely announced in trade magazines. In 1989, EPA issued regulations calling for the end of asbestos use in "sealing products in most applications." In 1990. Garlock ran ads in Chemical W eek (May 23, Nov. 28) boasting of the superior qualities of their asbestos-free products ( e.g., "Garlock abestos-free gasketing and packings deliver superior sealability in virtually every application.") The next year, industry challenge to the EPA rule overturned it. I called the toll-free number listed in the 1990 Garlock ad and asked if they still sell asbestoscontaining gaskets, and was told they do (1/14/97).* * It would be interesting to read Garlock records planning for changeover to asbestos-free product lines in 1989-90 and then the reaction after the industry challenge to the EPA "ban" rule succeeded in 1991. What internal discussions were there about the (legal and moral) reasons to go AF versus the financial incentives to retain asbestos lines. I wonder if they knew about the approach to OMB to get packings taken out of the "ban" rule (Christmastime, 1988).  /7 /t 3 T H lM ? f i J 4 h <&SZ & 7 l//^ ? y ^ tC j r s ^ ( S 'iV / 3 /7/ <r /T^y t V L ' / / k f. : K j r * l S Z /^ 3 3 ^ ak y '^ ^ ^ y p ^ 14 d L & -< z 0- <0 * S 6 / $ -$ z 2 y .y ^ Y ^ 2 y ' f} F ~ y ~ ^ -i S = / i- L - 2 / 9 ^ 3>*-T^C.5 ^ 7 ^ -- y ^ c^ y ,-<s> A f /? ? ? A ^ L a -e P ^ A c e ??9 '(Zt^ z^ \ - /^ o(sps?pt< y^\)'~z?^/ z/,/r 2 ^ ^ ^ i--i\_ ( /? - ? 3 7 < f 7 ^ zfls 0 ? ^ 7 J2 ' * - ' ^ S 7 /^ : f --2^---x^----2 ^ y 7 ^ 2 ^ f 3 / / 3 / >1-^ y < 3 ~ 7 3<$7 A// o P t-d u ^ y t & & 's c . o f. /p ^ ~ /? s y 7 7 3 /7 /A ^ P ^ K y y * ^ z 9 t ?; y g y % ^ y? y ? ?y _ y y~ ~ -P yA ^ y ^ ?- ^ y 'y ? ^ h / r - ^ f p y z - ~ y / y j "i~ ^ y < L J k '* ^ fy \ 7 ^ / 2 / ^ u l 0 P^-V ^-'^c5Z_^ ^ /^ -5 y * ? /9 c > -^ 'w ^ 'Q ^ . ~~8~'<,-*-t'-~~ L ? , ~ -8 s ^ -y ^ r ^-' < y ^ <k) \s to ri ^^^ ^ bd C. ^ \ N . \ Oq ^ f t j j l O nJ N W N fi tJ 0 01 *1 rJ -- s m Oo o o o o K rrj- ^ n ^ n V) ^ > U AJ? ........ - ^ 7 r/cc^ 9 &U 97 s<0 sr ys ! 9? 5 s '^ P 9 V1 3_ -T b T 'flL.s g r 3 0 9 3 < ?0 > JO >2.0 H 3 3 'i7>' 2_ ( y3 /S 2./C 1 1 /(^ + "j3> / >*2?*9^--7^ ^ 1 ~---^ <~^/o <9-t/~~^L- ^-C? / ? 7 -2. Y- / ? 7 3 2 .9 /- 2 j I9& +7I ~ C/ 7 OlA I cs^7 /g / ie ^ 'Z - O