Document N2ZOVyz2EZq0vLM3Bk9v7180y

('FRICTIO~ ~1ATERIALS STANDAr~S INSTITUTE, INC., E-210 ROUTE #4, PAPJUlliS,N.J. 07652 " . PL.AINTIFF'.!) ~ gXtilESIT i ]/I>tgl3.C>P l1IN1JT.EOSF THE HEETING of the. PLAINTIFF'S b EXHIBIT I~ ASBESTOS STUDY CO}fi1ITTEE Friday, October 24, 1975, at 9:30 A}1 Institute Office, E-210 Route 4, Paramus, N.J. HE?-ffiERPSRESENT H. Hagner, Chairman E. H. Feierabend D. E. Stone I. H. Heaver J. Dunderdale Carlisle Corporation Abex Corporation Bendix Corporation Raybestos-!~nhattan, Royal Industries Inc. OTHERS PRESENT H. R. Cole E. H. Drislane. Clapp & Eisenberg Friction !1aterials Standards TnsL.1.t:ute: NE~ffiERSl:~OTPRES:r:NT ( M. Jacko E. P. Stefl Bendix Corporation H. K. Porter Co. The meeting was called to order by Hr. lifagner,Chairman, at 9 :30 A.M. ]!INUTES OF PREVIOUS HEETnm The Hinutes of the "1.eetinhgeld April 28, 1975 had been distributed. These minutes were reviewed and a motion for their acceptance was made. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously passed, it was RESOLVED: To accept the minutes of the April 28, 1975 meeting as written. ASBESTOS nlFORHATION ASSOCIATIOU CONFEREi:iCE The Asbestos Information Association (AlA) held their annual GovernmentIndustry Conference in Washington on September 10-11, 1975. Non-members of AlA were invited to attend this conference. Several individuals representing 'friction materials attended. One of the ite~s of interest was the proposed OSHA regulation which was due near the end of September. It had been indicated that the OSliA standards would be oriented more towards work practices than to a numerical standard. lrr. WeaVer indicated that the OSHA individual who indicated this did so believing that the new standard wou.l.dnot have a nev numerical limit. Apparently there was alot of movement within OSllA by other groups--possibly labor unions and NIOSH--and that the proposed lower nunerical standard came in at the very end of the write-up as it was ~tlnutes of 'the Meeting .'. Asbestos Study Committee -2- October 24, 1975 prepared for publication. The standard, \vhich will be discussed later, proposed a numerical standard of 0.5 fibers/cc (TWA). Several attendees stated that this conference was most worthwhile. It gave a good overview on asbestos. The only criticism made was that the speakers did not have sufficient time to be questioned after their presentations. The Institute \vill continue to monitor this conference and expresses its support of the \york of the AIA. PLANS FOR INSTITUTE SEMINAR ON ASBESTOS !rr. ~agner and ~r. Drislane had taken the initial steps to organize this seminar. At the April 28, 1975 meeting of the Asbestos Study Committee a res91ution uas passed recommending that the Institute sponsor a workshop on the asbestos problem in the fall of 1975. This resolution was reviewed with the President of the Institute, ~~. Simon, and it was decided to proceed with such a seminar. Mr. Wagner contacted rrr. Noel Hendry of Johns-~Ianvil1e relative to his putting on a session similar to that whf.ch J-11 presented two years ago. (For reference: Hr. Noel Hendry, Denver, Colorado, telephone 303-770-1000, Extension 2142). It was suggested that the Johns-vlanvi11e presentation would have to be the corner-stone of any seminar and that this would have to be arranged first before arranging other presentations. Hr. B. K. K~-1onof OSHA had been invited by Hr. v7agner to . address this seminar. 11r. Kwon had indicated that he should be able to attend. It was suggested that the seminar would be a good time for a synopsis of the major points of the new OSH..!s\t.andard. Also Lt.woul.d be \-1e11for 11r. KHan to talk with people from our industry. A comment was made to the effect that OSHA had misled those attending the conference in Washington indicating that the proposed standard \10u1d be work practices oriented. (The standard carne out with a lo\ver numerical limit.) It was stated that 1.'1.r. K\von was knov Ledge.ab Le in the ind119t-ri.a.J hygiene area but he "las not a policy maker. lle\,]asnot responsible for the addition of numerical standard in the proposed amendments to the OSP~ regulations. Mr. Dris1ane indicated that he had talked 'tvith1'1r.Bob Hereness of the Asbestos Information Association, and Mr. ~iereness indicated that he would be pleased to attend. Also Mr. Dris1ane contacted }~. R. Magde1ain of Nilfisk of :\.,1neriIcnac. ~~r. 1'1agde1ain\'lou1dbe most pleased to put on a presentation relative to that type of vacuum cleaner for the work place. Er. Hagner also talked w'ith Hr. H. Enge1eightener of Ferro-Tech relative to their pelletizing equIpment. ~rr. Engeleightener will also make a presentation. At the meeting Hr. Hagner called Hr. Noel ~dry to firm up the J-M participation. In summary, it was indicatea that lrr. Bill Reitze would discuss the medical aspects of the regulations. lir. Ed Fenner would revia,] OSHA and EPA regulations. Hr. ~~oel Hendry wou.Ld discuss fiber handling. The J-11 presentation nill rcquilje"a 35 mm projector, a 60 x 60 screen, along with a podium and a FA system. lrr. Dris1ane indicated that arrangements for these would be made. ru.nut as cn e01: J:.t:.t':l ..... u5 Asbestos Study Cornnittee -3- October 24, 1975 The serafnarHill be scheduled for Heclnesday, December 3, and Thursday, December 4. The opening aeas Lon y;;ri1b1e a presentation by Johns-Hanvi11e for the full afternoon on December 3. Other topics will be scheduled on Thursday raornfng , ~-Tith:Ir. Mereness (or someone else from AlA) talking at the luncheon on Thursday. There would be a registration fee of $10 for the seminar. lIr.Drislane will try to make arrangements at either the t~rriott at Saddle Brook, the Rama9a Inn in Rochelle Park, or the Sheraton Heights in E:asbrouck ?!=-ights.-~lr.Drislane ,vi11 ,,,rite::'1r. Masde1ain and Mr. Hereness to officially invite them. Hr. Wagner will write to l1r. K"10n, Hr. Enge1eightener, and ;-rr. Hendry to firm up the arrangements. The committee reco~ends that Messrs. ~~agner and Drislane plan and schedule -the seminar. . It was suggested that the type of person to be invited should be SOMeone involved with plant problems, but it should also be the foreman or other individual who could get across the I:lessageto -not use an air hose or a broom. The possibility of a movie being shm-Tn was discussed. It was suggested that the controversial interview of Dr. Selikoff and Dr. Lewinsohn of Turner Brothers would not be the right presentation. Perhaps a movie that emphasized controls in the work place might be worthwhile. ~o decision was made as regards a movie; Another suggestion was to have a presentation by thos e ,qho have used foam to envelope the ,-1Orkstation so that no dust is raised during mixing. ~1r. Heaver felt that this was an interesting technique. !ir. Stone had discussed this at-an earlier meeting but had made no further progress on this since that time. It was decided that this would not be added to the agenda. As regards the LU1fisk equipment, it was noted that this is good equipment for local pick-up of dust and debris in the work place. However , this subject should be expanded to include a central system such as a Hoffman unit. It was felt that this session should be called :~ousekeeping in ~he work pLace" rather than "i.i!i1fiskl'H.owever, the Ni1fisk representative ,Y'ou1d discuss his unique equipment. The idea was to sell the concept of cleaning the work area (not to sell the vacuum cleaner). l~. Drislane will indicate this particular point to !1r. :lagdelain in his invitation. AIA BOOKLET "ASBESTOS MID BRAKE LININGS;! l'Ir. Mereness requested lIra Drislane to have this booklet revi~led for'update and corrections. ':!;'fhierst question raised was "Hho is this booklet aimed ( at711 Also, "Hhat is the purpose of this booklet'?" It Has stated that this write-up was not a complete presentation of any particular aspect of the asbestos problem, and while interesting insofar as it went, was not particularly convincing. It is not the type of message that would ordinarily be given to custo~ers of friction material manufacturers. The I:lessagefor re-builders and the garage people is to not create dust in the work place. There shrn11&- be re. f this ~as the direction of the booklet, on such things .-9:i labe1line, possible use of insfiu~';QJ:L.shae.t.s-4TIC11and.1in1P2L~-,- and the ro er use of exhaust systems. One of the problems in the field is that these custcmer s Tq :eR-.gI:QQYe,chamfer or provide extra dri11in g. It is during these subsequent operations that asbestos concentrations may be raised to levels above that a110V1able. It was pointed out the Asbestos Study Committee could not re-write a draft unless it knew ~hat the booklet was ai~ng at. It \Vas stated that the title is wrong. Perhaps there should Ninutes of the ~ieeting Asbestos Study Comnittee .,. --... -4- October 24, 1975 be bvO separate pamphlets, one for the garage and the re-builder type operation (for those who are doing br~ke service), and another for the general public. It was stated that the audience for this booklet, as written, must have been the environmentally concerned customer. Ik. Weaver suggested alternatives as regards this write-up: (1) Drop it-do not use it. (2) Ret7rite it for thOSe servicing and installing friction ~aterials. (3) Write a complete new article. The ,?rite-up made haa lit~le impact. One advantage may be the listing of reference material at the end of the booklet. If the ALA believes that the booklet should get to the user (the cuctomer of the friction materials manufacturer) it is suggested that information be given to the user as indicated in the propos ed regulations under ilDA:::lGElRa"bels. This concerns the requirement during "any reasonably foraeeable use, handling, storage, disposal, processing, or transportationll that no airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of the exposure limits prescribed be released. The items that follmv this section on housekeeping and waste disposal are particularly pertinent to the users of friction materials 'prior to installation on a vehicle. 1fr. Drislane was advised that the Asbestos Study Committee will not re-write the article. The Committee recommends emphasis on recommendations for garages and the re-builders. The Co~~ttee would be happy to review a nen write-up prepar ed by AlA which 'vas aimed for this user, vith emphasis on the those uho actually do subsequent work on friction materials such as grooving, cutting, grinding, chamfering, etc. RECO~11ENDED PROCEDURE FOR BRAKE AiID CLUTCH SERVICING This write-up had been prepared by the Raybestos-Hanhattan, Inc. 1'JI. Heaver distributed copies to Committee members. Raybestos would welcome comments on this write-up along with any reco~endations for changes. Committee members wishi~g to comment should send their recommendations to the Institute office. THE PROPOSED OSHA STA1:lDARDAND TH.E 0.5 FIBER/CC LTI1IT Prior to discussing details on the proposed OSHA standards, several members stated that they had been inspect~d by OSIIA. tfuile in a few cases citations were made for higher concentrations of asbestos than permitted, there had been many instances where counts were made without a citation. ~fuile the values on the concentration are revealed when a citation is made, osa~ does not provide information on the counts when a citation is not issued. Several me~ers indicated that they believed that OSTiA will not provide written results on their test in the work place unless it is necessary to support a citation. In other ~ords, where a citation is not involved they \.7illnot; reveal the. data. Legal Counsel 'dll check on the availability of this information and ~hether OSHA can be requested to provide this data when a citation is not involved) and will report in writing to the Institute on this. ~~e proposed QS!IA standard is far reaching. The main problem is the new more difficult numerical standard (0.5 fiber/cc). OSHA has put out a list of rather specific items for public participation with the main item being that the comments must be postmarked on or before December 8, 1975. Minutes of the Heeting Asbestos Study Conmittee -5- October 24, 1975 Written comments concerning the proposal must be submitted in quadruplicate: Docket Officer, Docket H-033 US Department of Labor, Room H3620 200 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 The question was asked as to what would be the most effective means of co~municating with Washington to indicate the problems with this new numerical standard. Should the Institute comment? Should the individual members comment? It is not enough for the manufacturer to feel his views will be represented to the regulators by the Asbestos Information Association or TIfSI. It was suggested that it would be best if both the Institute and individual members respond tiith points that are particular to their factories. It is felt that participation by the small manufacturer will be most meaningful. The Asbestos Study Committee tvill revietv the proposed standard and note some of the points that members may wish to comment on. It should be pointed out that even if members comment to the effect that they support the AIA comments or they support the TI'ffiI comments, at least they will be on record espousing their viewpoints. A comment was made to the effect that everyone has been gearing to get their concentrations dO~TU to the 2 fiber/cc limit by July 1, 1976. The technology necessary to take the count down to 0.5 fiber/cc is not knotvn. How can comments be made on the cost impact, effects on competition, effects on employment, effects on energy supply, when the technology for getting to the 0.5 fiber/cc is not even knmvn at this time? The least that can be done is to request an extension of time for comments past December 8, 1975. Upon motion duly made, seconded, unanimously passed it ,'ias RESOLVED: That the Institute will request the Department of Labor to delay the cut-off date for comment on these proposed amendments to April 1, 1976. ~e friction materials industry does no ~c ""J.mitcan be reached, Perhaps it tIill be necessary to go to materials with a material cost ten times that of asbestos in order to get the wprk place down to the proposed level. Industry is confronted with requirements for Standard 121 and Standard 105-75 from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration t1ith stringent friction materials requirements at the same time that they must evaluate whether they can s'tlll use asbestos in their products. There are several points in the OSHA standard besides the 0.5 fiber/cc limit. H00ever, the main problem is the 0.5 fiber/cc limit. Some of the comments to follmv concerned new problems that may arise as a result of this proposed standard. These problems tvill be pointed out to the members so that they can look at these from their viffivpointswith the aim of advisinp; Hashington on their individual problems ,'liththis standard. ~e reduction of the limit to the 0.5 level is going to effect processors such as the re-builder and the garages who were not really included in this standard before. Any outfit that handles frictioD mate~ials may very well find airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers that exceed Li.e'0.5 fiber!cc level. For example, a Junk yard tvhich might have ~ ~ide line in brakes might Rave no problem at the present time. However .. Hinutes of the Heeting Asbestos Study Committee -6- October 24, 1975 any work that they might do ~lhich could bring their concentration above 0.5 fiber/cc wou Ld nOH be a problem. These people t070uldnow be covered by the requirements of the OSlL~ standard. Many smaller operators have to drill materials to adapt them to unique shoes in the field. Additional drilling would probably move concentration levels well above the maximum ceiling concentration of 5 fiber/cc. 'A point to be mentioned is not to adopt the tactic of "You can't do it.1l Iruapojut is that at the present time technology is not available in the factory to get down to these l~els. The~U:S1:ry-does Clotknm" '-;Thatt11e -~osts are. How can comments be made on cost impact, competition, employment, energy, etc. when the technology to get there is not known? Still further, is such a limit necessary? .,. It is suggested that unless a member has specific medical information suitable to refute the proposals' in the standard that he not attempt to resist the 0.5 fiber/cc limit based on non professional observations of workers made in the past. In other words, if it was not good medical information don't use it. The Asbestos Information Association will try to assemble some realistic medical information for consideration by the Department of Labor. As regards the problen with cost impact on the consumers, it may be that clean rooms for the elimination of asbestos may be required. Hithout knowing figures perhaps costs 'tolilmlore than double vlith poorer performance at a time when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat~on is calling for even higher performance. l~embers have made extensive plans for equipment, exhaust systems and procedures to set to the 2 fibcrs/cc limit on July 1, 1976. Since this equipment h~ll not get them to the 0.5 fiber/cc level, this huge capital investment should perhaps be stopped until such time as a new standard is decided. Should a manufacturer discontinue his heavy commitment to equipment for the 2 fibers/cc limit when this equipment ~il~ not meet the 0.5 fibers/cc limit? Could there be more emphasis on protective clothing with cover-aIls, smocks, boots and gloves as well as a respirators. ~~ith reduction to the two fibers/cc level on July 1, 1976 and better work practices, the clothing might do the job as well as the new difficult-to-measure 0.5 fiber/cc limit. The members don't know hov Low they can get in fiber counts until this new collection equipment is actually installed and in operation. Suggestions made for cleaning the work area are all well and good but the only proof that one has reached an arbitrary' fiber limit is when the installation is completed. As regards energy who can say that if double the horsepmver was added to collection systems that they would get dOv1n to the new limit? How can the energy cost be estimated until this same equipment has actually reduced the concentrations dmo7n to the new levels? ~Vhere regulated areas are established where allowable concentrations may be exceeded, it is difficult to get employees to wear the proper clothing. If one were trying to operate a clean room along with proper protective clothing, employees 'vould want air-conditioning in the Ninutes ot the }feeting Asbestos Study Cowmittee -7- October 24, 1975 work place for the uncomfortable clothing. To require air-conditioning in the work place t~hile also D~intaining the extensive exhaust systems would be prohibitively expensive--if it can be done at all--because one is at cross purposes tvith the other. Costs al~o will be increased because of the new monitoring requirements. p~ re~ards the effect on competition it was pointed out that this may very well be the trigger which would close d~Nn some marginal operations with a resultine transfer of jobs outside of the U.S. Even in Great Britain where much medical information has been gathered they have not gone to the 0.5 fibers/cc limit. It does not appear that Great Britain has sufficient medical evidence to support such a limit. Countries on the continent do not have this 0.5 fiber/cc limit. The Latin AI!1ericancountries have no limits. ~~ regards the etfect on employment and competition, the hur-e capital expenditures required for the U.S. plants may very well export additional jobs. 1fuilesome of the procedures recommended for'handling asbastos and removing the worker from contact tiith the product may ShOH' labor saving results, the actual level of exposure to the remaining workmen from these changes still will be quite high. There would be considerable costs for members in the friction materials industry to requalify brake blocks and heavy duty segments for the requirements of the rffiTSAStandard 121 which went into effect during 1975. There has been a considerable expenditure of funds for Standard 105-75 (hydraulic brake systems standard) by many members. Any changes in the processing or compounding of friction materials necessitated by the proposed OSHA standard wou l.d add additional costs for manufacturers in requalifying their mat8rials~ The friction materials industry in particular is caught bea~een the forces of improved performance of braking materials along tiith restrictions on how to manufacture and distribute their materials. There may be considerable testing to requalify materials if there should be a change in processine or compo~nding .> As regards the costs to consumers and society in general the industry does not know what can be done if it is necessary to remove asbestos from brake lining. The industry could be subject to 5 - 10 yea+s of serious dislocation. 'In addition to the problems with the OSHA standard that appear evident, costs can not be quantified at this time. Industry needs more time to respond to these far reaching regulations. One of the requirements for record keeping stated that the records must be maintained for forty years, or for an employment interval plus 20 years, which ever is longer. This is a considerable record keeping requirement. However it was stated that perhaps this is necessary in order for subsequent study of the epidemilogy of asbestos. It tias suggested that perhaps this is one of the new proposals that can be lived with. In prior meetings and at prior workshops the problem of correlation of fiber count has been discussed. In general there seems to be some agreement that different experienced counters may total up results showing as mueh as a 30% variation in counts from the same sarapl,e, This is already a problem. However these counts whare the 30% variation is evidenced are in the 2 fibers per ec to 5 fibers/ce area. A 30% difference with a 5 fiber/ec count is 1.5 fiber/ceo Here, OSru\ is asking for a concentration limit of 0.5 fibers/cc when with current observations there can be variations of as much as 1.5 fibers/ceo As concentrations move towards 0.5 fibers/ce not only does technology get ..,,..,.,...,,rH ff; 1",,r1. hl1t"nht"~dninQ'accurate reading s become more of a "problem. Hinutes of the Ueeting Asbestos Study Committee -8- October 24, 1975 Industry conditions in 1975 (under the current 5 fibers/cc limit) are much improved over industry conditions which were in.effect through most of the 1960's. Each additional step approaching zero fibers/cc is a lot more difficult than the steps that were taken to get industry dawn to the 5 fibers/cc limit. vfui1e it will be burdensome to move the concentrations to the 2 fibers/cc limit, the steps necessary to get down to 0.5 fibers/cc are not knovrn , There are requirements in the proposed standard for worker ra-assignment. If many employees are moved to lesser and lesser duties maintaining the same premium pay that they had received for working with the asbestos products, there will be a negative productivity result. It has been industry practice in the past for night shifts and more difficult tasks to command higher pay preiums. This rotation to another job with no loss in pay will be another penalty to productivity. . The recommendations that will be made by the Fr1Sl or the AlA are not known at this time. It is believed that the AlA stand will include background on medical information. However, it is most important that the individual companies make a response. They should not expect that someone else will write it for them. The Secretary will prepare a bulletin to be sent to the membership suggesting that they comment to OSHA on these requirements. It T,1illbe pointed out that the comment s must be those of the individual member and they should not echo the suggested outline of problems which the Institute 't'1ilplrepare. It was also pointed out that there are a lot of new items in the proposed regulations including items on loading, unloading and storing of asbestos cargo. The carrier--be it a railcar, ship or other--must make a visual inspection of the cargo and cargo space to determine if leakage or spillage of asbestos has occureed. ~fuo does this? Does the carrier do this? Are the carriers aware of this problem? A close reading of the proposed OSHA standards revealed many problems of this nature which 't\Tilh1ave to be pointed out to others who may not feel that they are affected by the asbestos regulations. TIlE EPA NATIONAL El'IISSlONSSTANDARDS FOR ASBESTOS The Environmental Protection Agency published the amended standards for the ..Ia tLona L Emissions. Standards for Asbestos. This appeared in the Federal Register October 14, 1975. Ordinarily the EPA amendments \\Touldbe an item of prime concern to the manufacturers. However the proposed OSHA standards are so extensive and so far reaching they must take priority over these new EPA Standards. It was pointed out that the EPA notice is the adoption of the amendments to the standards. These are not proposed amendments. In particular the \\Tastedisposal requirements are of interest to friction materials ~nufacturers. The friction materials manufacturer is responsible to see that land-fill operators and trucks carrying waste comply with the requirements of EPA on disposal of asbestos bearing materials. The manufacturer is responsible for supervision to see that these requirements are carried out. r1embers reviewed the section 61.25 on waste disposal. There was some difficulty 'tvithinterpretation. l1r. Heaver pointed out that the requirements for covering the asbestos containing material were applicable only if there were visible emissions to the outside air from the waste disposal site. In other wor-ds, if there 'tvere"novisible emissions" requirements (e)(1) and (a)(2) l'unut:eso.t the i'ieet~ng Asbestos Study Committee .... ' -9- October' 24, 1975 of 61.25 do not come into play. aO\lG.verthese requirements for cover do take effect if there are any visible emissions. The most difficult areas of the new EPA standard are in the waste disposal area. There was no other business called to the attention of the committee. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously passed it was RESOLVED: To adjourn. Adjourned~ 2:15 PH E. W. Drislane Secretary '.