You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.
A two-page memo of May 12, 1933, by S. A. Williams, J-M vice president, reviewing dust control at seven J-M plants. Manville, New Jersey, had spent $48,000 on dust collecting equipment up to December 1932, covering only the equipment then in use; Alexandria had a complete installation in the saw and trimming room for about $8,000; Lompoc had spent about $12,000 since October 1931; and Waukegan had done engineering work to bring about half the pipe covering saw room equipment up to Manville's standard at a cost of $5,000, after an earlier proposal was "put off" because of economic conditions. At Asbestos, Quebec, "We still have and I think will always have a dust problem in the milling of asbestos," which would take "a tremendously large expenditure" to clean up; at Redwood City nothing more had been done because the plant might move; and at Pittsburg, California, plans awaited approval.
- Author
- S. A. Williams
- Published by
- Johns-Manville
- Date
- May 12, 1933
- Library no.
- ACL Doc 11824 · asbestosclaims.law/library/11824
- Rights
- Republished under fair use for research and historical study.
Read or download
Read online Download the PDF Memo, May 12, 1933 · 2 pages · 114 KB
What it shows
The memo is a plant-by-plant account of what J-M had and had not spent on dust control by the spring of 1933. Even at Manville, Williams wrote, more would be needed "to clean up the other machines in the textile department and in the saw room" if business picked up. The Pittsburg plans led to an exchange in June 1933 over their cost.
In Johns-Manville's chronology
Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:
S.A. Williams memo detailing expenses set forth, if any, in the Manville, Alexandria, Asbestos, Waukegan, Redwood City, Pittsburg, and Lompoc plants for dust collection equipment. Manville had spent about $48k on equipment, Lompoc $12k, Alexandria $8k, Asbestos $0, Waukegan proposed $5k, Redwood City and Pittsburgh $0
Editor's note: J-M's description gives $0 for Asbestos, Redwood City and Pittsburg. Williams's memo gives no figures for those plants: Asbestos still had a dust problem that would take "a tremendously large expenditure," Redwood City had some existing equipment, and plans for Pittsburg awaited approval.
Cited on this site
Cite this document
“S. A. Williams Memo on Dust Collecting Equipment at J-M Plants.” May 12, 1933. Johns-Manville. AsbestosClaims.Law Library, ACL Doc 11824. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/11824.
ACL Doc numbers and their short links never change. See how to cite the Library.
Talk with an asbestos lawyer
Start with what you remember, and we'll take it from there.
This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.