Document e7gVzB5bK7r1kxJmbXkL3QMeq

FR.ICTI0:-l 'HATERIALS STMi'DARDS msTITUTE, !!1C., E-210 ROUTE 1/4, PAIWfiJS, N.J. 07652 April 24, 1979 TO: BOARD OF DIRECI'ORS DRAFTSUBJECT: FEDERAL LEGISLAT!VE "ASBESTOS HEALTH HAZARDS COUPENSATION ACf" An Institute member has fon1arded me a draft copy of the "Asbestos Health Hazards Compensation Act.a This draft was prepared by an industry . legislative drafting committee for which Johns-Manville coordinated most of the work. Other asbestos manufacturers suCh as Unarco Industries and Jim Halter participated in this drafting. In most cases, it l~as probably legal counsel for the various corporations who worked on the draft in consultation with their technical people. The draft that we are enclosing is patterned after a House Bill, called the Fenwick Bill in the last Congress (HR8689). No action was taken on the Fem11ick Bill at that time. The draft legislation proposes an asbestos type compensation plan perhaps patterned after the coal miners compensation bill. As I do not have the legal kn~~-how as to where the act was drafted from or patterned after, I uill confine my comments to an area that would impact the manufacturers of friction materials if it were to be enacted into law. 1 am not commenting on the possibilities of it being enacted in the form in which it is no~l drar:m. After seeing the draft of the legislation I talked with Ur. Jim Reis of Johns-Hanville concerning industry vie,lpoints on this legislation. It is difficult to quote exactly l7hat ~-1e discussed but Johns-Manville is familiar with this and has been advocating some type of a compensation act of this nature. The main pressure along this line may be the grm~ing number of product liability suits ~hich are being aimed at producers and nanufacturers of asbestos products. It would be the intent of such legislation to have a fund supported by the asbestos industry, the tobacco industry, and the US government l-7ith payments based on certain formulas for those ~11ho suffer disability or death from employment-related diseases caused by asbestos. Mr. Reis indicated that there was no overall industry consensus concerning such legislation. I then called I>lr. Bob Pigg at the Asbestos Information Association concerning the .PJ.A and its members' attitudes touards this legislation. Hr. Pigg indicated that the AlA has no position. It is leaving to its individual members discretion as to whether they should or should not support such legislation. The AIA, as ~nth the FMSI, is a tax-exempt organization and as such cannot lobby directly for or against legislation. Hm-1ever, I believe ,.,e can send in our viet7S on legislation and the individual members would, of course, be encouraged to. If we llere to comment to the industry legislative drafting comcittee we would probably direct our remarks to Hr. Dennis Markusson of Johns-Hanville or Hr. Bob Emerton of Jin t-Jalter Corporation. Hr. Harkusson is Chairman of the drafting committee and Hr. Emerton has coordinated some of the recent work. This industry legislative committee had a meeting on April 10, 1979. In order to identify what will be termed 11Class I" products, as described on page 9 of the draft, the committee recommended that "Exhibit A" listing the type of manufacturer be incorporated as the "Class I" type party. At the end of the draft you will note that FMSI 06960 l BOlLin QF DIRECTORS -2- April 24, 1979 / I "Exhibit A" (which Hould then becone Class I parties) includes, on the bottom line, ~:Friction materials, autoootive. 11 Then if you Hill refer to page 26 of the draft, you will find that Class I parties 'tV"ould be assessed a contribution amounting to $325 per ton of asbestos fiber purchased a.-td used 15 years ago. Had friction materials manufacturers not been included on Exhibit A, i "~hich has never before been part of the legislative draft, they would then be considered a Class II party for which the assessnent would be $32.50 per ton. In other words, if a certain Class I manufac- j turer used 10,000 tons of asbestos in his products in 1965 he would be assessed $3,250,000 in 1980. Had the friction materials manufacturer not been included in Exhibit A (which becomes Class I) the assessment l v10uld be $325,000 for the 10,000 tons of asbestos. This, of course, can be scaled dmm proportionately \o7here the consUI!ler of 1,000 tons would be assessed $325,000 under Class I and $32,500 under Class II. TI1ere are other parts to this suggested legislation which may be of concern to members. Products inported into the United States rnir,ht be somelvhat difficult to control tvhere the imported changes for a certain foreign manufacturer. In other words, the entire burden would most probably be born by a domestic manufacturer even though they attempt to \Hite the importer into the reBulations. In the proposed legislation there are provisions made for those who acquired certain entities Hho uere manufacturing asbestos products in the past. Based on the draft, a company like Lear-Siegler would be responsible for the \-Jorld-Bestos usage and the old Krasne products. I am circulatin~ this draft to the Asbestos Study Committee as 1vell as to the Board of Directors. ~fuere appropriate, this le~islation draft should be referred to legal staffs. Some members of the Institute who are also members of the /~bestos Information f~sociation may already be revie\iins this v10rk prior to expressing opinions. I don't believe the Institu~e at this time can take any position on this legislation as it must have input from the i.lembership. It is, of course, interesting to note that the mining and the production of asbestos is not assessed. Obviously most mining is done in Canada and United States legislation could not reach that producer. The burden is to be born by those manufacturers -:.rho use asbestos and turn it into a finished product. It \'1ould appear that the listing of Friction Haterials in Exhibit A (Class I) groups our manufacturers Hith others lvho are distributing products primarily to the construction industry. It is kno\vn that the construction industry (shipyards) was '~here the first significant asbestos disability appeared. I don't believe there have been any significant claims on the part of friction materials installers concerning asbestos related disability. It l10uld appear that the grouping of friction materials manufacturers with construction materials manufacturers is out of place. I v10uld think that friction materials should more likely be grouped with the Asbestos Cement Pipe, Floor Tile, Paints Coating and Sealants, Gaskets and Packing and similar type production lines. Hhile there have been several epidemiological studies run in the construction area, the first of any signifcance with auto mechanics or garage repairmen \vorking Hith brake linings is that \vhich :rount Sinai is nov7 conducting for !UOSH. Hhile granting FMSI 06961 l BOARD OF DIRECTORS -3- April 24, 1979 that a survey by Mount Sinai may ha~e bias, we should at least see the results of this study prior to grouping friction materials manufacturers Hith those manufacturers supplying the building trades. I would ttelcome any comments and suggestions on a course of action for the Institute. Individuals might also make their viewpoints known to this industry legislative drafting committee. I don't believe there is time enough to respond 'quickly to the detailed items lmich appear in this proposed legislation. I think that the nost important item in the document is that which appears on the last page of the proposed bill (Exhibit A). The addition of "Friction materials, automotive11 to this list of asbestos users seems out of place. I can even see opposition from members included as any type of party subject to this assessment. I believe that it will be very difficult for the Friction llaterials Standards Institute to take a position on this draft legislation. This is somewhat like the attitude that the Asbestos Information Association has taken according to my conversation \7ith Ur. Bob Pigg. I would be most receptive to any comments, suggestions and recommendations by the Board of Directors and }~mbers of the Asbestos Study Committee. z. H. Drislane Executive Director FMSl 06962 "' Underlined:iiems ar~ ~~~nge~ from_~.R. .. -' 8689. To provide equitable~ comprehensive, and exclusive benefits'-to {a} persons who a~e disabled as a 't'esult of employ::'lent-:related diseases caused by the-inhalation o~ ingestio~ of asb.stos, and/or 'the inhalat,ion o: asbes_tos r;c,upled '' ' . ,:,i,th -th~- inhalntio~ of cig:lrcttc ' . " .I tobacco smoke, (b} mem!>ers of s'.lchp~r~;)~'s household, and (c} the surviving deper~cients of such persons \./hose de:J.th vas due to such Gisl!<~ose. . Bf: it enac r.ed by t!1t.~ Senate and: House of Representa~;i,ves of the ( .J J Unite:; Scates of Amrj.c.a 'in Congress af.sembled, That t.his Act may be cir:.ed as the "Asrf..::;c:os !iealt:h Haz;J!"ds. Compensation Act". \, FMSI 06963 1 -Frsoews __\~D rrJ:Io::;E - J (...). Sl~C. 101. (n) The Congrc!';; finds nnd' aecl;ll'C::i tllnt- n3 ( 1) .tl1e1:~- i!'. ~jCoTuifiC;\1\t- l'Hllllhl'X ,~f..,}l.Cl~-::..):__-.{)\r1o\~:r:q\\"rh--tl 4 fro~1 ~.cn1ploymen t:I:el~~ed- J "' ~- ' . - \. # suffer disnhility or denth _, dis- ~ ease~ ~n.1. _1'~e.~..-l?Y- the . inhitlntion . . .I . . . o_0_f-esti~ oJ . nsl,rsto~, G , .:.mll/or l .... . the inhabtion . of n~be:;to.::; cmiplccl with the m.- '1 . .' ,. ' . .. : -:~ ' . ' ,.. 8 . ;ha.b tion of _cigarette tohncco smoke; .~ j ~-~ ' ' . ' . (2) members of households of pefscins who nrc 9 occupationally e::s.poscd to nsbcst~s mny. suffer 'from as- 10 11 . bestos-related disenscs; (3} lnng cancer nt rates_dramnticaUy nnd snhstan- 13 tially above the general an~mgc occurs in persons who 13 inhale asbestos conpled with the inhalation of cigarette 1-:1: . .... 15 -...tobacco smoke; . ~-... . . . :.. . (4) there is a substantial munher of survhing de16 17 pendents o[ affected re~ons whose deaths w(!le dnc' to 18 such diseases; . (5,) the di:;c::tses nnsmg out of occnpntionnl situn- 19 tions nnd rnuse<l hy the inh:1htion of nshcstos nnt1/or 20 the inhnh'ltion of nshc~to:: conplcu with the inh1brion of 21 _()(..). cignrt-tte tohncco smoke crm:'titntc a ~uh:-:t;'tntinl hnrurn upot'l. interstate commcrcr ;tn<l ha,e nn n1hcr:::c ciTrct 23 24 upon .the general welfare; FMSI 06964