Document rBVEXzODEaboJp4aY3mBay7o0

FILE NAME: US Gypsum (USG) DATE: March 24, 1982 DOC#: USG009 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: 1982 Confidential memo to TS Snell from SK Torrey re asbestos cases " . TO: #149 - T. S. Snell FROM: #149 - S. K. Torrey SUBJECT: Asbestos Cases >! 7J f J r y \ c o i oentiAl JA <Ar J** -- -,Jr- >/- , ^ M a r c h 24,/l982 This will elaborate Qf St^ S?e?at!SnshIphbe8t5een tosis. There KlUrai! . . . was an operating buUetln_kn"j4as1j5|ean" ^ l ^ o i r r c a n c f l f a a ^ k t ^ L a it J " : 'v} i969. The Jl*.*K**' A V 1- is therefore a current bulletin. In 1943 it bears the notation: ` -iitt iiss rreeccoonmuumce.nidued th.a.t .beforoef ahniyS apprpelviicoaunstemfporlo'y- employment is hired, the hist y t n ^ tionable ment be fully developed. ,If there is a q Qr an history of exposure to a?beab ? ,such as tuberculosis, indicated PaJfc^ ^ employed until satisfactorily the applicant should not be empi y medical examina- passing a medical examination. y ravs an(j their tion shall include the taking of chest X-rays ^ t h e i r interpretation by Saranac Laboratories aa -* Bulletin 4-5." (Note, we have not yet located Bulletin 4-5.) `asbestos In the 1954 revision there is a section labeled exposure" wherein it is stated: - "Operations involving manual handling of R e n t e s min aanmy; rphliaanntf sshhaallll bDee cconsidered in aandeaqrueaate inrewshpiicrha- employees shall be requireu ^ tory equipment." r r o u n r ^ b e f t o s T n r i i thre late 1960-l This provision is matntained throughout the rest of the bulletin. P S c:p.ex.mo. f ' FOR 9\ .. AS OF ~7~ 6510 UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY %. '-* - - . * CONFIDENTIAL i T. S. Snell Page 2 ' March 24/ 1982 This bulletin was originally approved in 1943 by F. M. Thorman, J. W. Butler/ D. L. Powell/ C. B. Pooler/ K. R. Eckrote, J. R. Newberry, W. F. Anderson, G. D. King, and H. R. Palmer. The second bulletin which has surfaced is another operating bulletin which is labeled "Hazardous Chemical Used in Paint Manu facture." It is number 602 and was promulgated on 8-11-40. The historical file copy carries the notation "expired" by the section which refers to asbestos. This bulletin is a chart which has four columns labeled "Compound," "Hazard," "Precautions," and "Treatment After Contact or Exposure." Asbestos is labeled with the notation of Hazard as "Inhalation of the dust for long periods of time can produce a disabling lung condition called asbestosis." Under the Precau ion section it is stated, "Not to be handled in confined areas without local exhaust ventilation at the point of handling. Intermittent handling for short periods may be done in open areas with good general room ventilation. Dust counts should be less an lve million at such operations (one million on a count of asbestos alone, not including the other dust present). The Treatment section states "Asbestos 'warts' on hands due to asbestos fibers penetrating skin-- fiber must be completely removed. Asbestosis lungs should be X-rayed periodically." This bulletin was amended in 1966 and again that notation is in the updated bulletin. The bulletin was requested by C. W. De Ment of Insurance and Property and it.was approved by D. L. Powell and J. W. Butler. The bulletin expired on 9-15-67. Finally, as I showed you, there is correspondence in some old files maintained by the Insurance Department that Mr. Kipp in l^53 embarked upon a project to gather articles concerning asbestosis. ** * ' I believe these document are sufficient to impute to the corporation some knowledge of the relationship between exposure to asbestos and development of some disease. Accordingly, I e eve we are going to have to disclose this in future answers to inter rogatories, depending obviously on the precise wording of the interrogatory. *' CONFIDENTIAL T. S. Snell Page 3' March 24, 1982 . This becomes important in Grenier. This is the case that was recently reported in the Asbestos Litigation Reporter, for which you will be receiving a summary from Barbara. We initially answered a set and we are faced with a Motion to Compel which was argued and we have received a very unfavorable order requiring us to answer virtually all questions more fully. Thus, I believe we have no choice but to provide some sort of answer to this kind of question. Previously we used an objection that the question called for a medical conclusion which the defendant was not competent to give. I just thought you should be aware that we will be disclosing this information. cc: #149 - B. L. Arras