Document v6KOZbOaBgR3xnNva706E9Bbq

** .UntZOZON MATERIALS STANDARDS INSTITUTE 1-210 ROUTE 4, PARAMOS* N.J. 07652 MINUTES OF MEETT of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS Tuesday June 15* 1982 C6 U7ZS1 at ' ' Swgrui, Pone* Vedra Beach* Florida DIRECTORS PRESENT Gordon A. Carrlgan, President Robert E. Nelson* Vice President Francis E. Messier Robert J. Anderson Stuart Cooins F. William Barton John ?. Gallagher S. K. Wellman Corporation Abex Corporation Friction Products Croup Bendlx Corporation Automotive Aftermarket Certified Brakes Lear-Slegler Coopany P. T. Brake Lining Company Raddavay Manufacturing Company Thlofcol Corporation Friction Division OTHERS PRESENT Philip H. Grla, Jr.,Committee Qiairman Janas V. Armstrong, Committee Chairmen Willi Simon* Treasurer Robert P. Gorman, Counsel Eduard W. Drlalane* Secretary Abex Corporation Friction Products Group Bendlx Corporation Brasabestos Manufacturing Company Durand, Gorman, Haher, Inbrlaco 6 Lynes* Counsellors at Leu Friction Materials Standards Institute e**ee Mr. Carrlgan, President, called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM, June 15, 1982. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Board .of Directors nestings of June 16-17* and June 17-18* 1981 had been distributed. A Director aoved that the Secretary dispense with the reading, of the ainutes. Upoa notion duly Bade, seconded and unanimously passed. It vast RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Board of Directors meetings of June 16-17,and June 17-18, 1981 be accepted as written. {o) MAR 000182 -.Minutes of .the Board of Directors Meeting -7- June 15, 1982 . HEALTH AMD ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Armstrong7;i(2iairmsn of the Health and Environmental. Affairs'.Committee, presented thU'Jrcport^.. Safer to. EXHIBIT.. 9... '.- Mr. Armstrong.noted actions.-taken by the..Committee.and the Znstltute'Offlee sines eafller'-meatings. . Ha-notd.in. particular.-that concam-was rising " - relative to litigation .la the..asbes toe area; and..proposals' fqr Federal-' Legislation in the -Compensation area. Based on this concern,t the Committee- met with representatives of the Asbestos Compensation Coalition relative - to Its activities, and. recommended that a representative, of this Coalition- address``chei full-Meaiiershlp'at this Meeting. - - _ '----- .: ' -- f.*'.*' - Ha also noted .the concern with landfill and waste disposal requirements:. -At Its meeting, this Committee asked that the. Board of -Directors approve a--' request to the Federal EPA on. approved landfills for friction materials waste, and.askadthat the -Board suggest the means, for making'such a request. . Mr. Armstrong reviewed.several general-OSHA.-and EPA activities.-in areas-of concern to friction materials-manufacturers .and noted that-Xhe Institute had written NIOSH for either a final report or. a-status of.the HZOSH. contract for "Health Hazards In Brake Lining Repair and Maintenance Workers Occupa- . tlonally Exposed-to-Asbestas;n.J...-, : . .1 .L.. - - . -..-f -. - Zn discussion of this report, the-Chairman noted - that rHew.!ork-State -now' requires the Material-Safety Data. Sheet (MSDS) .formaterialridentificaticn ' and communication purposes. . Zn response to a question as .to who. Is the "generator? of hazardous, waste, Mr. Armstrong noted that.lt Is the manufacturer who "generates" the waste.. Laws apply to all hazardous waste, and while asbestos Is not now regulated* - ' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).-It..Is regulated": . .j under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous. Air. Pollutants .(NESHAPji) As asbestos is Inert', .It Is probably not the reel prbblea in waste sites.: -,i A Director asked what .the Board of Directors could do In the .-envi-roamnral area to better support its .Members. It waa -suggested that pooling of. in'-. . formation to assiat.^n.defending against litigation fxoa; exposure to-friction; materials'dust could-'be an arsa of assistance.' .It waa noted that the AsbestS-- oe Information Association (AIA). had pooled informstion of this type In Its general library. Counsel noted that information - on litigation In this area was available to Attorneys end others through subscription services. One. Director suggested that -the-beat information was that of a medical mature; which could tie .In or-.noc tie.in specific disease areas .(lung cancer,-'as- . bestosls, mesothelioma) to azpoeura to asbestos ini the .brake.repair .area.-; It was stated that there ware about 200 lawsuits currently Hnv in tne Prase repair area (comparea to well over 20.000 asbestos suite. all). It was noted that if Information along the lines of specific health eliecta among brake repair workers waa gathered, it would be accessible by others and could not be held for Members only. MAR 000183  Directors Meeting -8- June-15, 1982 In this diaeusaiop,, the "manifestation" snd"exposure" theories of liability were discussed. -. Th'e_maafas cation theory held that the..insurance carrier -. at the.tlae the disease was known should be held liable, while the clos ure theory contended that'the carrier insuring the manufacturer when the * ' worker was exposed should be held liable. The long'latency- of"disease - from asbestos exposure would lend support to the exposure theory. This is an area of - increased 'concern^among insurance -carriers 'and .tha'lnsured'-- ~J' parties. - Current pracdca.:ls: to none as many'defendants as possible' ail'd - to work one party against? the.other .(insurance; carrier ersus"insurance y-1 y`-: " carrier, manufacturer-? against'insurance, carrier,' and manufacturer versus-"-; manufacturer).' . - .* iv. - u. ; h 1:- - It was noted that any experienced Counsel involved'in-asbestos'litigation1'' ~ or in litigation in the brake repair area, could gather.results and.decisions in this area by reference-to-normal legal publications available In-these- areas. There-vould be.-no problem in gathering specific information in; -- the brake, lining litigation area;- It was noted-that the vast majority of asbestos- lawsuits "do not -involve brake lining, and those'that do pri marily concern therbrakeirepeir-shops. Mr.' Armstrong noted that Mr.'Pullen' of the Asbestos..Compensation .-Coalition-would address-some-of these'matters in his presentation.to thelMenhership. i?- A Director suggested consideration of the Committee's -reconnendatlons'-in'" the landfill or waste disposal area. Should the Institute start a dialog with Federal and/or .State'.Begulatory:-authorlties -to .develop' information on j approved waste disposal sites?''Where'does a manufacturer now -dispose of ' friction materials waste? It was suggested that the Institute start asking' questions on Che Federal level. A Member seated that existing landfill availability was not new .a problem. The problem was that-when these land- - fills are filled, where can friction materials manufacturers dispose-of - their waste? - The landfill problea.Hargely la a timing'problem. Aa present landfills' are filling up, the problem will:be two or three years down the road when these sites ere filled. It wee suggested that the Institute initiate e dialog with the Federal ZPA to seek landfill sites for friction materials waata. It was stated that there is -a question Of Federal' or State '-control - of landfills, and that the '.Institute should be seeking Infofmatlon-on - currently available-sites, for.hazardous waste disposal within- particular ' crates. It was restated- 'that tba question Is not -where the -sites are now,1 but where will they :be-in two*or-Three'years. -> . ` '-.c-. -j . ' It was suggested :that the Committee draft-a letter "for 'Members ;to'send to their suppliers which would-provide guidelines -on saaklng 'or'establish- -- lng landfill- sites for their materials i'- The Directors -asked'-'that- * -'the- Committae' prepare such a .letter. Further,- it -was suggested that -other associations .be contacted to get background 'on ocher industries sad their probleas and!solutions for wasta disposal.'-' - MAR 000184 Direct on _ Meeting t?' Junk 15, 1982. . In' addition, legel Counsel was .esked to wzlte the States involved for information-on-ayailabiiity of.landfill^ sites for dispoeal -of, friction, materials waste, ;He wakalso.asked to contact the federal"'Regulatory" . authorities for information'of~a''siB&lar.na'ture. " '-1"*' 4.. It was asked if the.Inatitute..should^take. an aetive. roU. ln support, of a. Federal Compensation Act for workiers'exposed to asbestbiV"Should!the * Institute tie. in with.,aither the Asbestos-Information....Association, or the Asbestos Compensatloa* Coalition*.ln. dieect'.sq>port'of their'objectives? Should these organizations be supported Individually or should they be supported by the Institute?' - It was suggested'that any activities relating to asbestos compensation" be':deferred until'after the presentation by the Asbestos Compensation Coalition to. the Membership. ...After that presentation, the newly elected Board of Directors' could take action they feel appropriate as regards the Asbestos Compensation Coalition, Upon motion'^uly'.oade,. seconded and unanimously passed, it was: '* -/ |,4* .... . .* . * < ^ ^"V. *,,% # , . ., k* "RESOLVED:. "To accept the. report of the Health and. . .. * '! '"!.. Environmental' Affairs Comaittee' as" written. ' Upon further discussionV-it "was" noted that this Comoltfee!hka' made' significant efforts on behalf "of. the Institute over the.past'year.1.' *""!* Dpon motion duljr made',, seconded ~and unanimously passed,'it was: - " RESOLVED: Toexpreas aapedalvote* of.tharika' to the Comlttee for its. efforts "in the" health and-, environmental, areas on behalf of. the.Institute. . . ;:v4'AHMPA1 MEETING COMMITTEE REPORT ' "1 '* Mr. John M. Moore lie Chairman of the* Annual Meeting Conmittee. Mr. Drlslane delivered Mr. Moore's .report. . Refer to EXHIBIT. 13. .. In summary, Mr. Moore recommended .that the .Institute return, to Sawgrass in 1983, in continuance'of thelnstltuteTs .policy "of attending the same site for two years if the. first year, is satisfactory,* -For 1984, Mr. Moore recommended LaCosta, in .Carlsbad, California, in .the San Diego area. As back-ups, his Comaittee .recommended Sandpiper-Bay and Crenelefe, both in Florida... ...... : . ....... .... .. ^ A Director stated. that One iaj or'difficulty with Sawgrasa `and'that type resort was thee the Membership was' spread out ell over the development;, and a "one front door" arrangement like the Hones tead is preferable to 'thla villa/' ' condominium arrangement. It wee stated that LaCosta wee that type arrangement. It was recommended that if the Institute returns to grass -in' 1983 that it attempt to get the villas together. It wee" suggested that`if this report were to be accepted as. written, the Institute would amend this-to add: (1) Sawgrese would be asked to. reserve villas closer .together for-the Institute's 1983 meeting: (2) Alternate sites in Florida--Sandpiper Bay and Crenelefe-- be rejected. MAR 000185 Minutes of the Board of Director* Meeting II -12-1 I ..... Juna 15, 1982 FEE FORMULA COMMUTES REPORT. (PART 2) * ' Th* report by. the Tee Formula Commltta* had beea read earlier at this Meeting. The subject had been tabled pending certain subsequent reports, and particularly that of the Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee (Jbairman. . Mr. Comlns-proposed -that the fees be Increased to.fund contingent expenses, such as those for consulting In the health and environmental areas." Of-' particular concern would be assistance In the waste disposal areas. This increased fee formula would be established to intentionally provide a Reserve to deal with Industry's problems In th* asbestos, health and'environmental areas. Including, but not limited to areas of waste disposal. An Increase In the basic fee for Active Mesber* from $1,150 to $1,300 was recommended, with no additional increase in the category assessment. Fee Increases of similar amounts were suggested for other classifications, and-th* following fees, were suggested for 1982-83: '. Active Members and Regional Mesbers-..' with Active Mesber rights Basic Fee: $1,300 (Has $1,150) - " - Category Charge: $700 (No Change) Regional Menbere. (Individual Regional* . . . without Active Member' rights ) .. Fee: $1,600- (Mas $1,450) ' Regional Mesbers (Associations) Fee: $2,600 (Was $2,400) - Licensees - Fee: . $600'(Was $550)'-. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed with six Directors in favor and one opposed, 11 was:* . RESOLVED: .To adopt the .following fee formula for 1982-83: Active Mesbers and Regional* with Active Mesber rights: Basic Fee. $.1,300; - - Category-Fee $700; Regional-Member (Regular): Fee $1,600; Regional Mesber (Association): Fee .$2,600; Licensee: Fee: $600. . There being no additional business brought to the attention of the Board of Directors, upon motion duly siade, seconded and unanimously passed,. It was: RESOLVED: To adjourn Adjourned at 12:25FM E. W. Drlslan* Secretary MAR 000186