Document r215mLJ4gb0DKxk9KQzVYx7E

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT GF-1624 February 17, 1982 MEMORANDUM Non-Asbestos Calsilite Presently Manufactured by Dresser Industries Last week 1 talked at some length with Reed Hughes,, . a former Ruberoid and GAF employee who is currently Manufactur ing Manager of Calsilite Insulation, Inc., owned by HarbisonWalker Refractories, a Division of Dresser Industries. The Calsilite operation is in Brunswick, Georgia. In addition to its potential as a source of documents and information (see attached), the present-day Calsilite oper ation is notable for the following reasons: 1. The product manufactured by Dresser uses essentially the same non-asbestos formula developed by GAF in 1970. The product has been placed by the Navy on its "Qualified Product List," and meets present government specifications. Getting on the Navy's QPL list took some doing, and was achieved after the Navy had essentially banned the use of asbestos in products used on its ships. 2. The present Calsilite plant has been in commercial operation for 2 to 2% years. It manufactures essentially the same sizes and types of pipe covering and block as did GAF and Ruberoid. The product is apparently virtually indistinguishable from the prior product. 3. The distribution of the present-day, asbestosfree Calsilite is essentially the same as for GAF's product. The principal purchasers are refineries and chemical plants; many of the customers remain the same; and the Southeast and Southwest account for a large percentage of total sales. rl , 4. The trade name, of course, is-the same ("Calsilite"). Packaging, trade logos (the "fire in the pipe" symbol) and other identifying marks remain the same. ******** I anticipate going to Brunswick in the next month to look for documents and pursue the Government contracts and Navy QPL issues. MICH09064 < However, for attorneys dealing with underlying 'plaintiff cases, I think it is important to be aware of the ''new" Calsilite and its virtual identity with the GAF asbestoscontaining product. Since the distribution pattern is also virtually the same, plaintiffs' memories of seeing the Calsilite name and logo may have been "refreshed" by seeing the new asbestos-free product. Such plaintiffs may never in fact have worked with the asbestos-containing product. cc: Edward D. Tanenhaus, Esq. Vanessa Morgan Daniel H. Williams, III, Esq. Ronald M. Oster, Esq. Dorothea Sunmerell, Esq. Douglas C. Conroy, Esq. Alan K. Steinbrecher, Esq. Claudia A. Carver, Esq. 2 MICH09065