Document g2zYojGo58vynVEQYxq8zyN2L

PLAINTIFF'S ]EXHIBIT,, _ ' i O/'* 1 QA.C .^S 'of* - \--."^V 2**U :ical # V ^ g V,'d ^ V*^ * - -a h?toh of a "erlos of arn\:nl re'crns on Asojeton e~rV/vess, *>4": *r. . r, ' "*? 113 ye his cV-icnl ar.d !(-riv in" res?Lzns at the conclusion of the 196? Asbect *ry; and ~h**siral sxitx exnminat: or.s. -r. 'ells had infemed John Alexander orsvicusly that several -.ore A~uertor employees vre now earl;/1 asbestos!s "suspects," a"d he named one case as very suspicious. Ke i= a picker tender who has worked in the Ashectcn Plant con tinuously for approximately 11 ;.*e-.rs t months. Heretofore, we have experienced no ashestesis cases in persons employed in the Asheston Plant si-ce 19.19. AjLl the cases, except, cne, h?d been expo-ed to relatively hi^h ;ust concentrations during the 1940's, when dust counts as high as 39 milliu"* particles p-r curio foot,and hither in isolated cases, v*"re recorded in some areas, particularly in the Omening 1 Piokin.n fe^artment. Therefore, it came as a surprise and shock to find an asbestosis case in an employee who h*s worked in an area where dust counts varied from a hire of 3.5 million in 1957 and 1952 to the present lows cf le3o trap. 1.9 !r?CH. How ever, we find that this man has worked on the third shift where he has had to work on a number of jobs with heavy dust exposure, including making bed mixes by hand, oprating pickers and the pre-carder, cleaning out the Oust House, cleaning out the stock room, sweeping, blowing off machinery, and a "ot of week-end cleaning. If he failed to wear his respirator at any time while carrying cut the duties xsxDdEferix listed, he could have inhaled harmful puantities of asbestos dust. Sr. Hells is of the opinion that this is an isolated case, which should not be viewed with alarm. It is comforting to realize that a number of the above dust hazards have either (more) 171 0000377 ben eli.Tdr.ated altc'et-er cr rreatl min ated the Dust House, the r.ev 3'er. e'--o~\ '"'>< *.' --ce^s- - ty of nabir.g bed v<~^ fv '-ard , the -> T- P'-a x ^sure regains on 2 few jobs where it is imperative that resrirators *e worn j er.force~.ent of our present policy ir. retard to tKe use of resrirato-s preclude harmful exposure. A brief sunnary of our experience with ashestosis is -*hovn in Attachment (A), Actual com.p.--nsation cases are surr.arized in Attachment (B'. 3.n t-`e latter, under "Condensation V arded," the amounts set were based on a'reer.er.ts made between the individuals concerned and the Company, wherein the per cents of disability due to as -=>stosis tv-re made on recocraendations given in Dr. V.'ell^' findings. To date, employees affected have been willing to accept Dr. `.`ells' evaluations, but in each case the full amount would have been awarded had the individual seen fit to file a claia through his attorney. The attorney's f`-e would have reduced the Jdszx amount by about 22&sxx 3^ per cent, or even 33-1/3 per cent. The full amount in each case to which we vre exposed is shown under "Maximum Exposure" in Attachment (B). V.'ith our exposure increasing at the rate of 35T a month, wo car.not help but view our exposure to future asbestosis case.: with prow', nr: concern. Sevonne C. Hunt Hana-ter 0000379