Johns-Manville Memos on Labeling Bags of Asbestos Fiber Under the Illinois Rules (1952)

Eight memos and letters, January 30 to May 2, 1952, between J. C. Kelleher of Johns-Manville's Asbestos Fibre Division in Montreal, Arthur L. Fisk Jr. of J-M's Legal Department, Dr. A. J. Lanza and W. H. Souter at the Asbestos, Quebec, mine, on whether new Illinois rules required warning labels on bags of asbestos fiber. Fisk concluded that they did and proposed: "CAUTION - ASBESTOS FIBRE. Inhalation of asbestos fibre over long periods may be harmful. The material should be so used as not to create dust or, if this is not possible, employees should be equipped with adequate protective devices." Lanza found the wording "quite acceptable and adequate," adding that users of such products "are rarely exposed to prolonged concentrations." Kelleher, calling compliance a "troublesome task," wrote that what the Canadian side wanted was "a decision that it is compulsory to do the labelling job as a Canadian producer, and that there is no other way out."

What it shows

Fisk's last memo, of May 2, 1952, answered that Illinois probably could not force Canadian Johns-Manville itself to label, but could require its customers to, and that labeling was compulsory for fiber handled or stored in Illinois: "If we do not do it, our Illinois customers will have to do it." He noted fines of $25 to $200 for each failure. The papers show that by early 1952 J-M's lawyers had drafted, and its medical consultant approved, a written warning that breathing asbestos fiber could be harmful, while the fiber division looked for a way not to use it. The same rules had already led J-M to label diatomaceous earth (see Jackson's May 1952 memo on Celite labels). These papers do not say what J-M finally decided.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:

Ten memoranda among J.C. Kelleher, Arthur L. Fisk, A.J. Lanza and W.H. Souter commencing 1/30/52 and culminating 5/2/52, relating to rules and regulations promulgated by the industrial commission of Illinois to require the labeling of substances harmful to the health and safety of employees. The law required use of a "signal word" which was intended to draw attention to the presence of a hazard and indicated severity. "The signal words in order of diminishing severity of hazard: (1) 'DANGER'; (2) 'WARNING'; (3) 'CAUTION.'" J-M drafted the following proposed language:

"CAUTION -- ASBESTOS FIBER" Inhalation of asbestos fiber over long periods may be harmful. The material should be so used as not to create dust or, if this is not possible, employees should be equipped with adequate protective devices."

The burden of implementing this Illinois provision apparently fell on employers (rather than directly on sellers) to insure that any products which were in use in the workplace were appropriately labeled.

This series of correspondence relates to attempts on the part of U.S. J-M entities to require that J-M Canada place the aforementioned label on bags of fibers intended for shipment to Illinois. Anthony J. Lanza was asked to comment on the adequacy of the label language and was informed that "this is the same law Vandiver Brown wrote you about on October 1, 1951 in connection with diatomaceous earth." Lanza's response approved the language and noted: "As a matter of fact, users of the various types of products that cause pneumoconiosis in their production are rarely exposed to prolonged concentrations that are so essential in producing diseases of the lung."

J-M Canada was reluctant to undertake bag labeling. "What we are really after is a decision that it is compulsory to do the labeling job as a Canadian producer, and that there is no other way out." U.S. in-house counsel for J-M responded that: "In our opinion it is compulsory that the bags of asbestos fiber handled or stored in Illinois be labeled in the manner described . . . If we do not do it, our Illinois customers will have to do it." Decision was apparently made not to label, and conclusion was that this decision was not good from a legal standpoint, although it was from a practical one.

Editor's note: J-M's description speaks of ten memoranda; eight are in this file. None of them says what was decided about labeling the bags, so the description's statement that J-M decided not to label is not supported by this file.