Document kRDkBQ8p2n8YrR1k8KeoEj50

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT f=&& l Mrlr/on 1 intra-company correspondence to D. L. Western - Toledo 23 from R. F. Shannon - Granville 62 subject TENTA7T/E CAS FOP. FYRCOR date March 3, 1971 cc: D. W. Anthony i - Toledo 12 F. 0*N. Brisley - Toledo 12 D. C. Glosser - Toledo 23 E. J. Mirra - Toledo 12 Nj/'C. Nielsen - Bloomingt 0. Preston Central Files - Bloomingt' Thanks for covering ne with a copy of the tentative Fyrcor CAS you submitted to Keith Preston Tor review prior to issuance. I'm sure Keith and his people will go over the proposed specification in depth to make sure the plant can live with the CAS as written. Thus, eocaents on sy part may be repetitious. Nevertheless, I would like to call your attention to the following: 1. In the general description secticr. of the CAS, you describe the product as containing asbestos, silica and other inorganic materials. To many, the terns asbestos and silica will raise "red flags". They will get our custaaers thinking about asbestosis and silicosis. Wouldn't it be better to describe the product as a hydrous calcium silicate reinforced with inorganic fibers. I note in the Product Requirements section, you often list the same number for both the Specification and Reject Point with zero tolerance. For instance, the moisture aosorption specification is 5?, rejection is anything exceeding 5? by veignt with a +0 tolerance. I don't see how the plant can live with zero tolerances. Also, the CAS as written indicates the product we are producing is extremely marginal since we list the same' number for product specification as we do for minimum rejection. For Kaylo, we list as the specification the nominal value va get for the product being produced at Berlin; the tolerance reflects the plus/minus variations in value due to processing and the reject * point is the value beyond which we do not ship. For instance, far Kaylo 10 linear shrinkage, we normally get a shrinkage of l.JjC. Due to process variables, shrinSage normally varies from abait 1.1? to 1.8?. Thus, we list as the linear shrinkage specification for Kaylo 10 a value of 1.5?, * tolerance of + 0.5?, and a reject point of 2.0? above which we do not ship. Vo have removed Density frcn all Kavlo CAS'a (with the concurrence of E. V. Smith). It is our contention we sell "performance", not material the pound. In your ease, you cay have to list product density since . are conforming to various Marine and UL specifications. Tou may t sit to tie yourself to a tight plus/mLnus-velrfit tolerance or point. To illustrate, if a lot of beards test out at 19.9 pcf y but meet all other product specifications, would you ship or Ject? If you tie yourself to a 22+ 2 pcf specification, ycu wiwld have to. Maybe you want an upper reject point ^ g 0878 EXHIBIT _UL I D. L. Ves `-err. - Toledo 2} I Tentative CAS Tor ?Vrerr Karch 3, 1971 Page 2. 1 1}0te for flex strength values, you list as the reject point "ir.div. not less than 300" Shouldn't you reaore the vord "not"? pJ.^L.........._/ R F* Shannon HFS:rl 3 \ 01 016 0880