Document MKj4Qv9oJL3YjkoYdXQaOka7

nucriON MATERIALS STANDARDS INSTITutE, INC , -210 ROtrrE 4, PARAMUS, N.J. 07652 MINtrrES OF ME G of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS Tuesday June 15, 1982 at S~grass, Ponte Vedra BeaCh, Florida DIRECTORS PRESENT Gordon A. Carrigan, President Robert E. Nelson, Vice President Francis E. Messier Robert J. Anderson Stuart Comins F. William Barton John P. Gallagher S. K. Wellman Corporation Abex Corporation Friction Products Group Bendix Corporation~ Automotive Aftermarket Certified Brakes Lear-Siegler Company P. T. Brake Lining Coq>any Reddaway Manufacturing Company Thiokol Corporation Friction Division OTHERS PRESENT Philip H. Grim, Jr. ,Committee Chairman James W. Armstrong, Committee Chairman William Simon, Treasurer Robert P. Gorman, Counsel Edward w. Drislane, Secretary Abex Corporation Friction Products Group Bendix Corporation Brassbestos Manufacturing Company Durand, Gorman, Heber, Iubriaco & Lynes, Counsellors at Law Friction Materials Standards Institute ***** Mr. Carrigan, President, called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM, June 15, 1982. MINutES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Board _of Directors meetings of June 16-17, and June 17-18, 1981 had been distributed. A Director move& that the Secretary dispense with the reading of the minutes. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously passed, it was: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Board of Directors meetings of June 16-17,and June 17-18, 1981 be accepted as written. FMSI 07161 'J I ~~utes ~of.the Board of Directors Meeting . r ~ ~ . -7- . , June 15, 1982 ' .--~:.: }':' ;.~ ': - ' .'. ' ,~. ~'T;, ' =.~"' e .-, .: ~- .~ Mr. Armstrons:A::lla$,tman of the Health and Enrlronmental: #fairs.Committee, presented ~~~s~'!~port~_.Refer to.EXHIBIT.. 9 .: , . ~~ . . , ~-. _-_.:. ~- :. ~-..J~!,~ .' - ~:~ '. . :. ~ . ! ~ ___ ) .... _i_:~-- :_ ., : : Mr. Anns(rO'J:ig_I,lot;ed actions_, ~aken by the .C~ttee :and .the Institute-Office since eat'liei'~~~tirige .He.-l;l()ted.in.,particuiaJ",that .concern was rising relative to '1j.t,.gati~-,~!l tlu~ ..~b~tos .arEia; .aiu;l:.pr(w.osala fqr Federal, . - Legislation in the Compensation area. Based on this concern1 the Committee. met with representatives of the Asbestos Compensation Coalition relative to its ~ctivi~ie~, and. ~~co~ended th.at a r:epresentative. of this Coalition addres~r tbe,.full ~ership .at this Meeting. : . .. : -. .,. .... ~. . . ~~-;~-- . .: ,.,-- ... :-:- . !_1 .. _.. He also noted .the conce_rn with"landfill and waste disposal .requirements~ -At its meeting~ this Com.ttee asked that the Board of .Directorsapprov~ a, .... request to the Fei:lercll EPA on approved l~ndfills for friction materials waste, ~#d _,~ke'd .. that .the -Board suggest the means. fo~ making such a request. . . Mr. A~tr~ng reviewed severa1 generalOSHA:and EPA actirlties.'in areas .of ,.. concern to friction materials. manufacturers .and noted th~t::the Institute 'pad written NIOSH for either a final report or.astatus of_tbe NIOSH.contract for "Health Ha~ards in .Brake Lining Repair and Mainten.ance Workers Occupa- tionally Expose~-to.As~?estos.;".~-'' . . . _,..,. ,t'~~ .r In discussi~~ of ~his r~.Pqrt, the Chai~an n~ted that:.~~~ ;Y~~~ -~tate-~~:: .... requires the Haterial. Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) , for~ mate'rial;id~.~if~.c,ation ; and c o i m n u t d c a.t i o n . purpo8es. ': ,. - . . ~ In response to a question as .to who. is the "generator'' of haza~d~~ ~a:s~e, Mr. Armstrong .noted- th~t. it is the manufacturer who "generat~~~~. the w.ast:e. ' Laws apply to all hazardous waste, and while asbestos is not nm11 regulated under the Reso~rce Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA} ~t_;ls r.eg~~t~d,o: ...i :-'.:. under the National Emissions Standards .for Hazardous. Air. ?ollutants__(NE~.fi) .~~-.~ As asbestos is inert', ,it is probably not the real problem :1,11, w.aste .~:lt~.: .,.. '.! . - -. .... . ~- ~' _;.; :- -- ...... - . ~ , :'" . A Director askE!d what .the Board of Dire~tors could do in the .envi-ronm,ental area to better support its .Members. . It was suggested that pooling of _ip'-: formation to .assi~t:-: ~tt. defendi'[lg _against litigation from'exp,os~_re to. friction: materials dust could-'be an 'area or assistance. .It was noted that the Asb~.t.:.,., os Information Assocl.~tioo {AIA) had p.ooled informati.an of this type. :l.n it~. general library. Counsel noted that information on litigation in this area was available to Attorneys and otl,Jers through subsc~ption ser;vi~ . One. Director suggested th~t the.best information was that of a medic~! :nat;.ure. which coUld t;ie in .or-.not tie in ~pecific disease areas .(lung -c~cer.-a:s:-. bestosis, me~,othegoma) to exposure to asbestos in: tge ,brak~. ~epa;ir .area;' :. It was stated that .there were abo.ut 200 lawsuits .currently being lit;igat~d .:-:. in the brake repair. area (compared to well. over 20,000 asDestos -suits in'., ": ; all). It was noted that if information along. the lines of spe'cific hea:lth. .' effects among brake repair workers was gathered, it would be accessible by others and could not be held for Members only. FMSI 07162 ~nutes of the Board of Directors 1-Ieeting -8- , June -15, 1982 In this discussi~p,, the "manifest.ati_on" and" exposure" theories of liability .I " - . ., .. ., waswere discussed. Tlie manifestation Jheory held that the.:insurance carrier at the. time the !}ise~e kn~ should be held liable, while the expos- ure theory contended that'the carrier insuring the manufacturer when theworker. was exposed should be held liable~ The long latency of: disease from asbestos exposure would lend support to the exposure theory. This is an area :of:increased concern.-among insurance -carriers '-and the 'insured :;J. parties. . Current prac.tice.liS: tQ name as many'. defendants as posSibie' MQ. j ;: ... to work one party against~the;otlier ,(insurance-; carrier versus~i~ur~ce_ c:J.:.;.. carrier, manufactureragainst'insurance carrier; and manufact:uret versus~;..\: --manufacturer) . - .:~ :, ; . :..... ::::. :~1i _...: -. . - -~-----~~~- -- ~.-. : ': :L- ,:j::: ~--~c-~;~:.;.,'.1 ': -~ :~ ... , -. It was noted that any experienced Counsel involved"'inaeibesto!{'l:itigadon=~= or in litigation in the brak~ repair area,_ could gather, resul~s and. decisions in this area by reference to 'normal legal publications available 'in the.Se areas. There would be no .problem in gathering specific information 1n the brake. lining litigation area~ ;It was noted that the vast uajority of asbestos lawsuits:_ do not involve brake lining, and those that do pri- marily concern the;brake.!.repair.shops~ . Mr; Armstrong noted that Mr~ "Pullen of the Asbestos .Compensation .-Coalition would address some of these 'niatters in his presentationoto the~Membership.: . . ' : ,.. J:_ . : .-J . ,; ::. . ;: :-~ . ' .. - ; . . :'~~ ~-~-;;~~7', ~:_J. ._, A Director suggested consideration of the Committee's -recornmendations-;iu'': the landfill or waste disposal area. Should the Institute start a dialog with Federal and/or.State.Regu~atory .authorities -to,de~elop'information on . approved waste disposal'sites? Where does a manufacturer now dispose of - ' friction materials waste? It was suggested that the Institute start asking questions on the Federal level. A Member stated that existing landfill availability was not now :a problem. The problem was that ',;men these land-: fills are filled, where can friction 'lliaterials manufacturers dispose of their waste? The landfill problem ~argely is a timing problem. As present landfills are filling up, the problem will be two or three years down the road when these sites are filled. It was suggested that the Institute initiate a dialog with the 'Federal EPA .to seek landfill sites foi ftlct'ion materials waste. It was stated that there is .a question -of -FederaT or 'State -cOn.t'rol of landfills, .and .that the .Institute shoUld be -seeKing 1nformat:1ori ~on ~ -:_ currently avai.lable sites for. hazardous waste disposa"lwithin' particular. states. It was restated rthat the .question is not W:here .tliEi S:ltes are. noW, . but where will they:be-in _twoJor:threeyears. .': 1..~ -' ~.. : __:. --- ... -, ~ ;J __.__ ~ r.:_: ~--~ .. It was suggested :.that the Committee draft a -letter for ~ers it:o' :aerid . to their suppliers whiCh :would provide gUidelines ~n seeking or:lest'abllsh.:.' ing landfill sites for their materials~- The Directors ~a8kE!d~tliat <tlie ' Committee prepare such a: ~etter. Further; it -was -suggeste'd that :other associations .be contacted to get back'ground on other industrles and thefr_ problems and: soJ.utions for waste disposal.'. FMSI 07163 Minutes of Boarrd' of I . Directors ~Mee~i11g I In addition, J.,egal Counsel was. asked to w.rite the ~tates involved for information on.;availabi_iity .0 lanc:ifil.l site~ .for disposal -of, friction materials waste.._He _was- also-. askeci to contact -the ;Federaf;Reguiat'ocy- , . authorities for'' infomation-o!~ a'-'8im11a~: rt.~~u~-~ -, ~- . ; ~~~- .( ;,2 ~.. :\' '~-~- 'J':. It was asked~. ~he"In~.~itut;e,.s!toul~. take_an active_rollill suppo;t;t,of,.ar . Federal Compensation Act for workers-'eipo'sed to asbestos:' Shou~d ~the ' - ""' Institute_ t,i~- ;Ln_ wi~h;.~i~her tJ:i!~ ~~e~~o~:;.!,nfo~_ation , ,Ass_?~ia'~ion ,9:r ~he Asbestos Compens.~ti~ Coa11ti~n .i:q ~eect ~support_ of t~eir _objectives? orShould these organizations be supported individually should they be supported by the Institute? It was suggested that any activities relating to asbestos compensation'be deferred until after' the presentation by the Asbestos Comp~s_at:Lon Coalition ~o the Membership . ,After that presentation, the newly elected Board of Directors could take actiori they feel appropriate as regards the Asbestos Compensation Coalition. ' . '"- .Upon .mot:ion':~~}/_-inad~~- seconded 'and ~~an:Lmously ~assed, it was: ~- :-- ,J '- 4 - ,. -.; ,. -' ! - -~ 1 ;- , j l. . .. ' .. . --. . . RES?~VE.~L To_ ac~pt. the, i::eportof th~ Hea~th and _ ,.-.'~ . .. . ~' EnVironmental Affairs Committee as written. .::;. _. ._ ~ . - f' \ ~ .:. ,,1....~ ..!_ i t wS.S:',.'. ..... j ..... . '."-i''f 4'!'.: . \: ! Upon further: discussion-,-:; ~ ""T ' noted that ~ , .this ComJnit,~\~, ~-~. ~- hi!.'t1' :~ - made significant :' . _; efforts o~ behalf of. t~~- Insti~~~~- over tbe pa8t yeai:~ --:..--:C.~-~.,:,. Upon motiori duly'~~d~:~:.s~1ccidded ~~n=cf uria~ini~~l.;, -pa~sed,.-ftw~: .,_:., ' " - ~,. ... .. ' . .... : _ _ : _ _ : - :.) .;., ' - :.. -- .I - ;.. ~ RESOLVED: To e'xpress :a spe.cfa.I. vote to the -. ~ ~ -. . :. ( -;, 1. ;~ - ... . ,~ : '. oLt:~ariks. .: .... ~; Committee for its.efforts in the' health 'and< _: ~ . ... .: ,, . environmental_areas on be?~ of. the -~nstit;ute .!:: . - .. . . ~- ANNUAL MEETING COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. John M. Moore .is Cttairm~ ~f th~- ~ual Meetin-g Committee. Mr. Drisllme delivered _Mr. Moore's .report . Refer to EXHIBIT .13. : I .. I .. ~ . ' . : .. . '. In summary, Mr. Moore recommended.tha~ the ~nstitute return to Sawgrass in 1983, in continuance oi the "ins~ii:ute"s _policy o'f attending the same site for two years if the first year. is satisfaCtory~ For 1984, Mr. Moore recommended LaCosta, in .Carlsbad. Califorirl~, .in ~the San Diego area. As back-ups,. his Committee :recominended sandpiper -Bay and Grenelefe, .both -in Florida. ... ...... __ :: ~-: ;_. :,,;- .. , c.:~: . ::.:. _,: .. _. _ ,,..,. . ., , .. _ ; i- - r_ : 1 -:" ~:\ -. f , . : : -..._ - . . . , :l . .-- ~- - ~. <.. i - - - -~ A Directqr stated, that one m~j or 'difficulty with 'SawgJ;ass and that type resort was . .. . .' . '.. . was that the' Membership .. . spread out ' - .. au over the de.v. e~(lp'.t.nent_,. . and .. II . - a one front door" arrangement like the Homestead is preferable 'to -'this villa/ condominium arrangement. It was stated that LaCosta was that type arrangement. It was recommended that if the Institute returns to sawgiass in 1983 that it attempt to get the viilas together. It. was suggested that if this report- were Sawg to ras be sw acc o. uld epte be d a s a~ ke w dt rit o. ten, rese 'th rve evIinllsats.i tute 'clo w se ould r.tog amend ether this to f.orthe add: Inst i t(u1t)e._' s 1983 meeting: . (2) Alternate sites in Florida-.:.Sandpiper Bay and Grenelefe-- be rejected. FMSI 07164 :Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting ~12- ~ '' June 15, -1982 FEE FORMULA COMMITTE RT {PART 2 The report by. the Fee Formula Conunittee .had been read earlier at this Meeting. The subject had been tabled pending certain subsequent reports, and particularly that of the Health. and Environmental Affairs Committee Cfb.aitman. Mr. Comins. proposed-th~t the fees be increased to. fund contingent expenses. such as those for consulting in the health and environmental areas. - Of.particular concern would be assistance in tpe waste disposal areas. This increased fee formula would be established to intentionally provide a Reserve to deal with industry's problems in the asbestos, health and environmental areas, :i.ncluding, but not limited to 11reas of waste disposal,. An increase in the basic fee for Act:ive Members from $1,150 to $1~300 was recommended, with no additional increase in the category assessment. Fee increases of similar amounts were suggested for other classifications, ana -the followinB fees_ were suggested for 1982-83: Active :Hembers and R~gional Members. with Active Member rights Basi-c Fee: $1,300 (Was $1,150) Category Charge: $700 (No Change) Regional Membe_rs. {Individual R.egionals . , . _ without Active Member- -rights ) .Fee: $1,600 (1~as $1.,450) Regional Members {Asspqatio~) - Fee~ $2,600 (Was $2,400) .. Licensees . Fee:: $600. (Was $550) - . - .' ... Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed with six Directors in favor-:' and one oppose4, it was:, RESOLVED: .To adopt the_following fae formula for 1982-83: Active Membe;rs and Regionals with Active Member rights: Basic Fee $1,300; Category-Fee $700; Regional,Member {Regular): Fee $1,600; Regional Meooer (Associati_on): Fee.$2,600; Licensee: Fee: $600. * * * *. _: * There being no additional business brought to the attention of the Board of Directors, upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously passed,. it was: RESOLVED: To adjourn Adjourned at 12:25~M E. W. Drislane Secretary FMSI 07165