Document Rj7bkmmyz5b1ezZQZgdrMX54k

^UfNU L.1 i -*tuction pwoouct* otvmo^ WLt-OTTTCZ CORXESPOWDEHCZ PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT WRG-1653 RECEIVE MAR 2 7 1981 ^ ANTA AN> Tea ?eit moMi Ralph Bumhaa batki Kareh 25, 1981 sususct. ' Report for the Week Ending 3/20/81 Asbestos -- Thanks to a local architectural flra, I received a call this week from a reporter from the ARIZONA REPUBLIC i ni?.mF He was asking questions about acoustical plaster, and acoustical -tex tures .XEESEilni-afifcfiAifl* fiber content, what fiber substitutions'had been effectively made since 1973, and if such substitutions increase our cost to produce or If ultlaately these beeaae an additional 'cost the consumer. X felt obligated to give the gentleaan some answers,, i was very guarded in ay statements. X did inform him that we had n used any asbestos additives in our formulas slnee 1973 and that we h changed to inorganic fiberglass fibers, as well as cellulose fibers, in certain formulations. I also stated that such re-formulations ha to a certain extent, increased pumping pressures and, subsequently, decreased productivity, which had the effect of increasing the in-pl rsst of the material. I'm not sure I gave him all of the informati he was looking for, but he did indicate they might, in a future artl ust some of my statements to the effect that the material had been r formulated and that it had, to a certain extent, increased the in-pl cost. Ve have a number of schools with acoustical plaster (at least one with asbestos in it) here in the state and, at the present tiae, they are estimating a cost for removal from the school systems alone of approximately $15,000,000. One school may cost as much as $1,900, In a series of articles the REPUBLIC ft GAZETTE has written over the few weeks, I'm of the opinion that they were reasonably accurate, bu using somewhat the alarmist approach, and apparently the State Is re mending complete removal rather than sealing. Of course, over the 1 term, I suspect complete removal will be one of the. safest ways to g but at the same time, very expensive. Some estimates given locally as high as $15.00/psf. I find this difficult to believe, but I gues It Is not of my concern. Hopper ft Son -- X think I should tell you that Dennis Hooper anaro me this week, requesting information regarding the.terms of his fran agreement on roof decks. All questions were relative to jubstitutlc Ineulpern* by-other fowm.products and how, it related to the royalty, structure, etci This conversation developed as a direct approach tc Dennis this week by _Bernle Green of Ver-tecs. Bernie says there Is r question in his mind that hc_can justify the construction of a [Operation In Phoenix for the~Drlvit. If he can get our Insulaem?* business. Obviously, Dennis or someone has provided Bemle with a t numbers, at least as far as our products are concerned. According t Dennis, Bernie Green has quoted $1*5./MBF f.o.b. Phoenix. This, of course, is for Insulperm or the equivalent of it. When you combine that with a royalty fee of 1-1/24 per board foot, you are looking at $160./MBF. Effective May 1, 198I our price for InsulpermS will be PACIFIC REGION W.R. GRAiC? IPO