Document j0K6RKX8Y6wJ3y6p4mQ9rqo5

b.cc.: n.O. Ereinhedcr , F.iX. iiimmornen I J. Volk R.ft. Brown GOLD BOND BUILDING PRODUCTS DIVISION OF NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY BUFFALO. NCW YONK 1-1202 ALBERT H. FAT iu Miiarvt June 27, 1974 Mr. Robert Mereness Executive Director Asbestos Information Association/ North America 1660 L Street N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Re: Clarence Borel vs. . Fiberboard Paper Products Corporation Dear Bob: Please note the attached report from the Bureau of National Affairs, which indi cates that the warning statement required by OSHA is not considered adequate warning to the user. This statement should be reviewed with the Department of Labor, as promptly as possible, to determine their position in view of the OSHA required warning label. Sincerely, AHF:les end. cc: John II. March f*r tj wrfTT 00.2-7.7il v *' * ***'/ * .r*J ZZtpditA current iutcrt *i i '.01 cun:,ttiiivi.. m;:> \vi-il_ |.icm-iiI mine v.-iiu:n iIim.iiU- || j:i acute "I bvhew l|ice aic pri::u* can-iu'at,.". |.if itift.-itii.it.nul c,l.u'::ii.>n poi/jams i.".;.n(!.\l to l>x-1-11 cti cnu.timer Jv. jicm;;! of tlie |;::/aril:; and vwurt.ua atrium ,.y-' llic lo incitM:v vu'.'mUi) aclit.:i by imlu>- try lo modify llicsc' products so as lo eliminate the ha/.utd," the CPSC vice chainuan contended. "As an alternative, these pariicul.tr cases could perhaps be reg ulated by appropriate agencies as environmental ha/.arils.'* Discussing import regulations, Kush tier told the attendees that estimates have been nude that as many as SO percent of the individual items subject to CI'SC jurisdiction may be imports. Hies it is reasonable, lie said, that the commission's enforcement and compliance pro grams should direct as much attention to imported prod ucts and importers as to assuring compliance on the part of dome-tie manufacturers of the same products. David Masselii, of the Washington. D.C.-based Health Research Group, cited what he called failings in tits safely agency's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Two of the system's major drawbacks, h: asserted, are that it is not cause-specific, that is, it tells' only that a product was related to an injurs1, and that the produets at the lop of the commission's hazard index are not neces sarily products that are the most unreasonably hazardous. The products at the top of the hazard index, Masselii noted, generally are products with the widest exposure and those which are most likely to be involved in activities with dangerous aspects, such as bicycling. lie claimed that there may be products fatther down on the hazard index -.which present more unreasonable risks, and which should be considered for CPSC action above those near the top. Integration of Acts Warren AY. Eginton, partner in the law firm of Cum mings & Lockwood, Stamford, Conn., said that defense attorneys generally favor seeing (lie laws other than CrSA tint are administered by the commission, particularly the Flammable Fabrics and Hazardous Substances Acts, more integrated in the agency's regulations. He said there is concern among his clients about the provisions of the different commission-administered Acts. Defense attorneys lend to watch these other laws' care fully, Egintcn claimed, because their clients are plagued with misinformation about their applicability. CI'SC Chairman Richard 0. Simpson, in his banquet address, urged industry, when submitting data in a com mission inquiry or fact-finding activity, to provide specific, rather titan general information. Citing the agency's recent hearing into possible hazards associated with television sets, lie slated that the commis sion was seeking specific information from TV manufac turers, but received general information from the indus try's trade association. He warned parties communicating with the safety agency no! to daini they've never hed a problem with a particular product, especially when the commission has good data to the contrary. "Rather,*' Simpson advised, "tell us what problems you've had. If they've been hmuniafTTcll 'us'"so; il ifiey'vc-been-tjuabl)'-control problems, tell us that; If you've got some desist dif- fivullu-s, tell Ui Hut. If you believe your dale is l.a.l, l-.ll us tli.it and tlivn give us your data." Hu: fl'SC i:!iairin::ii aho urged indu-.tiy to stand up !.a its legal rights. lie su]U'.vstcd that it use the due |<m>c<..vs piuviskiii: huil: iiilu the law, and mil be al'iaid to a'!: I.,, advisory opinions, eillu-r legal ui technical. General Policy CPSC REFUSES TO ACCEPT CONSENT AGRECMENT WITH CAnPET EXPORTER The Consumer Product Safety Commission decided that il would not be in the public intcicst to allow the i-s|K>rt of carpets and ru;? which do not meet the standard under the Flammable Fabrics Act, and. at its executive session June 13. rejected a consent agreement the ar.enc>' bureau of compliance negotiated with Mercury Mels of Ceorgia, Inc. In rejecting the agreement, the commission slated that it believes lhat a consent order such as this would be acceptable if the provision allowing export of subject carpels and rugs was eliminated. The buicau was instructed lo inform the exporter of its decision and, if it is not able to negotiate a satisfactory consent agreement in an "expeditious manner," to tecommend to llie commission any further action it deems appropriate. In another unanimous decision, the commissioneis denied a request fiom Ronson Corporation, Wooibririge. N.J., for an extension of tunc to comply with a child protection packaging regulation. On February 7, Ronson asked for an extension, of the effective dale of the poison prevention packaging require ment applicable to lighter fluid, and an exemption lor one size container from the provisions of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. .V Injury Suits "MAY BE HARfdrUL" IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARM USER OF ASUESTOS* LETHAL PROPENSITIES A label on packages of asbestos informing the user that the product "may be hazardous" is not sufficient to warn even those who know that "it is bad for yon" of the danger of a fatal illness caused by asbcslusis or other cancers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled May 13 (Garenee Bard v. Fiberboord I'u/K'r f>u- duels Corfioratiun, et at. No. 72-1492). The suit wat brought by an insulation worker against .manufacturers of insulation materials containing asbestos for injuries caused by the alleged breach of duty to warn of dangers involved in handling asbestos. The manufac turers opposed the allcplions, claiming that at one time ' labels were put on the asbestos packages warning that inhalation of the asbestos dust may be harmful, and that If dust is created, the worker should "avoid breathing the dust." ... --lt-sliould'be~n6ltit~llre~rdUtt~saTdrihar HiE-nrilir-- suggestion that inhalation of asbestos in excessive quan-"*/ s-.t" .**s-'Mvaui-.;u'.rar'W`'Kc:*v A'V*o'**