Document ymvq2OekK1ZR3R0j5KDg5dqv3

FILE NAME: Ford (FD) DATE: 1983 Nov 28 DOC#: FD249 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Internal Report - Asbestos Removal from Product Materials 010987 ASBESTOS REMOVAL FROM PRODUCT MATERIALS " RECORD COPT Schedule No Retain U n til__ H z ^ - S ign ifica n t progress has been made toward removal of asbestos from product materials over the last three years. An exception is in passenger car brakes where removal is slip p in g due to stretched out cycle plans and engineering issues. This paper reviews background and status of the whole effort and proposes a plan that w ill accommodate corporate objectives. Background . Removal plan - sta rtin g in 1979, with CEPL-10 and with subsequent directives from the Manufacturing and Supply Subcommittee, and the Technical Affairs Subconrittee, a plan was developed to remove asbestos from product materials. A Program Direction Letter was isssued (8-18-81) laying out NAAO and DPQ Car end Light Truck objectives and timing for new and C/0 vehicles, ho specific funding was provided but objectives were to be reviewed in case of "disproportionate expense*. Heavy Truck and Tractor agreed to be included. . Regulations - Original stimulus was the threat that Q$HA and EPA would soon t ig h t ly regulate asbestos with the result that Ford and particularly our suppliers could no longer use or manufacture asbestos containing products. Worst case fears have not materialized. However, in November 1983, OSHA reduced permissible shop exposure level from 2 to 0.5 fiber per ec to take immediate effect. Lower lim it is net expected to shut down any m ajor source, but added to other pressures (waste handling, a ir quality) makes elimination more evident as the only long range p ractical solution. . L itig a tio n - A further and increasing concern is the large number of lawsuits claiming illn e s s due to on-the-job asbestos exposure. Ford has so far avoided being involved in any asbestos case settlements by proving no role in the p l a i n t i f f 's exposure. Ford is named as co-defendent, on an ongoing basis, in about 60 cases; half of which are shipya-d worker type and half of which are mechanics/repairmen type. SK reportedly has settled (1) brake lawsuit out of court and won (1) lawsuit ih court. Ber.dix has reportedly settled several cases out of court. . Competition - GW reportedly plans to be asbestos free in brake linings by J9S5. An analysis of several 19S4 GK products indicate they are currently more than 501 . asbestos free in brakes, including a ll d isc fronts. 1984 Chrysler products are ` about 381 asbestos free in brakes. 1984 Vki Rabbit is asbestos free. All imco^ts are thought to s t i l l use asbestos in their brakes. Situation is mixed in other products. Ford is reported the leader ir. nonesbestos gaskets while GM's far ahead in bulk sealers and adhesives. Failure of users to move together creates a f a c il it y planning and inefficiency problem, for supplier industry. Status . Progress toward asbestos removal has beer, considerable in a ll but certain o. the f r ic t io n products area. Status by category (suratarized in Exhibit 1) is *5 follows: - Gaskets and Shaft Seals - sig n ific a n t progress has been made toward h free by 1985* target - exceptions are engine head and carb spacer gaskets an* same tractor applications. . , . - Bulk Sealers & Adhesives - on target: "noncritical applications to roe y 1985; others concurrent with reengineering opportunity". - P la s t ic F ille r s , l Hi$c. * on target: "predominantly free by 1985 . - PlA Parts no spe cific action targeted or implemented. PRODUCED BY FORD PRODUCED BY FORD F A F D 0 0 10545 FAFD0D001G545 - 2- - f r i t t i ^ Products - Passenger car brakes w ill not meet the prrtw inantlv free is 1$7* target due prim arily to changed cycle plans now cal line for f/r f Panthe' cars, (see exhibit 2); lig h t Truck is planning to be asbestos free by 1985; production problems delaying planned 1984 changeover. J . Friction Products Plan, Brakes - Car Chassis Brake Engineering reviewed alternatives f o ' meeting a 'predominantly free* target under the new cycle plan Three plans were investigated: A. A ll asbestos out by 1987$. Assessed as not containable free a manpower, d y r , t e r , and supplier capability standpoint. 6. A ll asbestos out by 1989 by completing Escort/Tempo in 1987, Panther/Kark in 1987s and by allowing Fox vehicles to phase out (1989); again not con tain ab le, same reasons. C. A ll asbestos out by 1989 by extending FVD (DN-5) technology to Escort/Terapo in 1957$, permitting Fox to phase out; and outside sourcing to 8endix of Panther/Xark (by 1987$). Assessed as containable for 11.3 to 2K added engi neering cost with confidence of 65X, Risks include: potential noise deterioration; containabi!ity of Panther job by Bendix; and p o ssib ility of Fox continuing past 1989 or volume increases. Plan C details are shown in Exhibit 3. Proposal Separate fric tio n products, which are clear health and legal concerns from other uses that are not, by pursuing the following plan: . Friction Products - Pursue the FVD and Panther nonasbestos programs (Chassis plan C). Develop and fund equivalent programs for Heavy Truck and Tractor. It appears that asbestos brakes w ill continue to be the focus of litig a tio n and health risk and that our competitors are proceeding to eliminate asbestos in brakes. . Caskets and Seals/Bulk Sealers/Other - proceed with elimination under CEPl-10 and program direction now in effect. . PlA's/Black Box/and Remaining Problem Applications - Organize a subcommittee on asbestos elimination (in general) under hyXA with the following objectives: - Exchange and evaluate the experience of manufacturers and suppliers in the development of asbestos free components and materials, - Evaluate the current knowledge of the health id safety risk from the various automotive products containing asbestos, both up and down stream fro the assembly plant. - Combine the two and make an KYKA recow&endatioo to saber manufacturers for a p rio ritiz e d removal schedule that makes sense and i f followed by all would re su lt in the optima* cost/benefit way to reduce the automotive industry's Share of the asbestos.health risk . The recoeaendation would be independent froa consideration of threats of regulation and litig a tio n which have led to the present confusion. . Imported Vehicles - EAO should be informed of our plan and requested to stay in step for export vehicles, lia iso n should be established between counterpart pro duct engineers reponsible for the substitutions. 02-198.? 010988 Supplier Research, Fasteners and Materials Department Rovcaber 28, 1983 PRODUCED BY FORD F A F D O 0 10546 PRODUCED BY FORD FAFD000010546