Document n9XEXwoDRy9oV8aOkVBQ1Eamz

FILE NAME: Chevron (CHV) DATE: 1972 Aug 8 DOC#: CHV014 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo - Somastic Meeting with Chevron Research Company r San Francisco, California August 28, 1972 SOMASTIC MEETING WITH H. C. PRICE COMPANY CHEVRON RESEARCH COMPANY i i \ rrt- MEMORANDUM TO FILE: On Wednesday, August 23, 1972, a meeting was held with Robert P. White, President and John M. Holliman, Jr., Vice-President of H. C. Price and Company, Coating Division, P. 0. BoxlllS, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 7U0G3 in H. B. Wands' office. Present representing Chevron Research Company were H. B. Wands, B. G. Fehringer, M* V. Hunter and R. J. Schmidt. The meeting was convened for the purpose of discussing H. C. Price's objective of replacing asbestos in their pipe line coatings sold under the name of SOMASTIC (a Chevron trademark) with a fiber that does not represent a health hazard. H. C. Price is convinced that even if techniques could be found to remove asbestos health hazards, a substitute must be found for asbestos for the reason, if for no other, that personnel will think that their emphysema and other lung disorders will result from the use of asbestos and be the source of litigation and legal claims whether or not justified. Priaa currently has a research program underway at Midwest Research Institute (MRI) of Kansas City. Price has not yet received a written report on this research but the report is expected to be available shortly According to oral reports from MRI, fiber glass appears to be an acceptable substitute for asbestos I n .... fact in some ways the fiber-glass coatings seem to have properties more desirable than asbestos Schmidt pointed out that the current performance of the asbestos coating reflected 30 or 40 years of actual commercial experience; that even though the MRI tests seem to indicate that fiber-glass would be a satisfactory substitute for asbestos i this could only be told with certainty after the new product^had been' in the r . / ground for a-substantial period of time;;that in 3chmidt's opinion it would, therefore, b e preferable to-try to find some way te .r 1 live with the asbestos hazard rather than to substitute another fiber. . . . \ . _ * x Hunter pointed out that they had been wortdLng|wi^ asbe8toa in the Rlohaond asphalt for many years, aree;ssttlllUl'VAUisilhg asbestos `and,.- plan to continue, had no difficulty wi*t*h-emplbyeos or g_overnmental agencies It was agreed that Hunter and^ Schmidt would`talk to our safety people supervising the Richmond operations to eee if CH 2125 MEMORANDUM TO FILE - 2- August 28, 1972 ^ the Richmond experience offered any useful suggestions to H. C,- .* Price. ' a:;- Schmidt made the suggestion that perhaps the asbestos could be nixed at some central mixing station with asphalt and then in such concentrated form be admixed at the nastio preparation sites completely without any health hazard. The H. C. Price representatives had not adverted to this possibility and it was agreed that the idea was worth careful evaluation. In view of the desirability of applying the mastic aoating to a metal pipa having a primer in a soft or molten form, Schmidt also suggested the possibility of using an annular heating element or ring which would heat the primer aoating so that the SOKASTIC coating could be applied to the soft primer coating to insure a firm bond between the 2 coatings. This was.a..suggestion which h a d ----- --not occurred to the H. C. Price' people* Schmidt pointed out that the permaance of the bond between asphalt and the asbestos fibers was very different from the bond between the asphalt and fiber-glass; that even though the asphalt/glass bond can be improved by giving the glass a surface treatment, on a long-term basis, it is possible that the penetration of water into the asphalt could greatly weaken the asphalt/glass bond in a manner which would make the coating unacceptable. This was one of the reasons that Schmidt was reluctant to substitute any fiber for asbestos unless absolutely necessary. It was agreed that it could be catastrophic if a long underwater cement coated SOMASTIC pipe line were to have the asphalt/glass bond fail. Sohmidt was asked whether it would not be possible to develop soma water or accelerated water permeation test with the fiber-glass* Sohmidt expressed the view that perhaps such an acceleration test aould be devised. The aaoeleration test would not reveal the actual acceptability of the fiber-glass but it might indicate whether there was any apparent difficulty with the use of fiber glass. Sohmidt pointed out that the tests of the Asphalt Institute for mastic coatings are designed for coatings using asbestos and that such tests are not completely reliable for coatings containing asbestos substitutes. In the near future, Price is going to coat for a austomer a commercial length of piping with a coating containing the fiber- ' glass. This tsst would at lsast give some indication of possible difficulties in the practicable application of coating with the . shbstitute fiber. The Price people were reminded that Chevron Research, as owner ' of the SOMASTIC trademark, have a legal Obligation to specify the. nature and quality of the coatings sold by H.C. Price under the . ' SOMASTIC trademark and that if there was to be any ahange in the . product sold under the SOMASTIC trademark, Chevron Research would have to adopt and issue the new specifications. 5 CH 2126 MEMORANDUM TO FILE / -3- August 28, 1972 It was pointed out to the Frio people that Chevron Research is appreciative of the trademark license royalties received and is prepared at Chevron Research's expense to make a reasonable effort to help Price to evaluate its current problem and to find an acceptable answer. No information was requested or given as to the extent to which Chevron Research would make a financial commitment to assist. Formerly Mr. White had mentioned the possibility that Price might offer to buy the SOMASTIC trademark. At this meeting Mr. White advised Wands that he would like to postpone the purchase question for the present. --The- conferees recognised that theoretically we had possible problems of inventorship receipt of confidential disclosures, and that we should work with Mr. Don M. Bradley Price's attorney to avoid any complications in such regard. In summary it was agreed as follows: 1. Prior to any further discussion we would work out.with Bradley a mutually acceptable understanding regarding inventions and confidential disclosures. 2. Our people would review our asbestos operations against the possibility that we might have some suggestions which would remove the necessity of substituting for asbestos. ' ' 3. Assuming that it becomes necessary to substitute fiber-glass for asbestos our people will be giving some thought as to acceleration tests and similar suggestions which sight be useful in dealing with the coatings containing fiber-glass. HBWitth cc: Messrs. J. A. Buchanan J. M. Whitney C. J. Tonkin B . G . Fehringer CH 2127