Matthew M. Swetonic of Johns-Manville and the Asbestos Information Association, Testimony Against the Two-Fiber Standard and Warning Labels (1972)

The transcript of Matthew M. Swetonic's statement at the U.S. Department of Labor's 1972 hearing on a permanent asbestos standard (17 pages, with the Department's 1978 certificate of a true copy). Swetonic, executive secretary of the Asbestos Information Association of North America and manager of special projects in Johns-Manville's public affairs section, said the medical brief for a two-fiber limit "falls far short of establishing the necessity of such a standard" and that "no one, NIOSH included, knows for sure what a safe occupational standard should be." He estimated that meeting two fibers would cost the industry about $200 million, and he opposed labeling every product containing more than 5% asbestos.

What it shows

Swetonic told the hearing that "the percent of content of fiber in a product has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to create a health problem," and asked that labels go only on products that release fiber in use, such as most insulations, fireproofing sprays and insulating cements. He added that while no federal law required labels on insulation, he believed most companies already put warnings on products "which they consider potentially hazardous in use." Someone later wrote in the margin of this copy, beside that passage, what appears to read "What did label say." His testimony followed that of Albert H. Fay (Motley #313) and was followed by John H. Marsh and Isaac H. Weaver of Raybestos-Manhattan (Motley #315).

In Johns-Manville's index

Johns-Manville's legal department indexed the Motley 1,000 in 1984. Its index describes this document as follows:

Statement of Matthew M. Swetonic (Executive Secretary, AIA of No. America and Manager of Special Projects in the Public Affairs Section, J-M) at Goldberg Hearings on 3/16/72. Swetonic discusses the difficulties posed by the proposed new standards. Swetonic states that there is no medical evidence to support the two fiber standard. The evidence seems to indicate that more importance should be given to peak exposures in evaluating disease potential than to time-weighted averages as is presently the case. Swetonic makes the following statements: 1) The medical evidence for establishing a meaningful time-weighted average is unavailable at this time. 2) Most experts agree that the brief, massive doses of asbestos fiber are probably more important in the causation of disease than continuing, long-term, low or moderate exposure. 3) If OSHA promulgates a time-weighted average lower than five, the economic impact on the industry will be enormous. 4) Of additional enormous potential financial impact on the industry is the labelling requirement as contained in the final recommendations of the OSHA Advisory Committee. It will require the placing of a warning label on each and every product containing more than 5% asbestos by weight. This label would contain the words, "Do not breath dust - may cause asbestosis and cancer." A labelling requirement of this type will result in the unnecessary loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in sales each year. Entire segments of the industry will be destroyed with resultant large scale unemployment. The fact of the matter is that the percentage of fiber in a product has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to create a health problem. Swetonic is in favor of a system which only requires labelling of those products which readily release asbestos fiber in a hazardous quantity during handling or application. 5) The dust monitoring program recommended by OSHA is impractical at this time because of the lack of trained personnel. 6) The medical surveillance recommendation of the Advisory Committee is illogical and unworkable. The recommendations state that the medical surveillance program should be carried out by physicians selected by the employee and that the medical records will be available only to HEW and DOL physicians and medical consultants and physicians designated and authorized by the employee. Note that the employer is omitted from seeing an employee's medical records, even though the employer is responsible under the law for the medical condition of its employees.

Related documents

• Albert H. Fay of the Asbestos Information Association, Testimony at the Labor Department Asbestos Hearing (1972)
• Isaac H. Weaver of Raybestos-Manhattan, Testimony at the Labor Department Asbestos Hearing (1972)

About this copy

This is document 314 of the Motley 1,000, from the set the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust's records facility certified as true copies, pages CRMC-Motley1000-Subj-001570 to CRMC-Motley1000-Subj-001586.