For its heavy duty trucks and buses, GM bought complete brake assemblies which included an asbestos lining from Rockwell Brake Division, Eaton Brake Division, Wagner Electric (1974-82), B.F. Goodrich (1974-82); Bendix, Dayton-Walther, Unibond, American Coleman, Dana Axle, Kelsey-Hayes.  Replacement drum brake shoes and linings for medium and heavy duty trucks were supplied by Abex (1937-88); B.F. Goodrich (1979-84); Bendix (1951 to at least 1987); and Rockwell International (1954-85) and disc brake pads for heavy-duty trucks were bought from Johns-Manville (1965-69); Raybestos (1967); Bendix (1971-90) and Abex (1970-79). 

            GM did not manufacture the clutch plate facings that were components of its cars.  Instead, manual clutch plate facings were bought from Raymark (1965-1985); H.K. Porter (1965-1971) and clutch assemblies, including asbestos facings, were bought from Borg Warner (1930-1985).    

            In addition to manufacturing drum brake linings, Chrysler purchased disc brake linings and other asbestos friction products from Abex Corp. (1958-1961, 1965-1969, 1979); Johns-Manville (1958-1962; 1965-1968); Bendix (1960-1981); Raybestos-Manhattan (1974); Marshall, Delco-Moraine (a division of GM), Kelsey Hayes and Ferodo.  These brake parts were sold by Chrysler under the trade names of “Cycleweld,” “Cyclebond,” and “Mopar.” 

            Chrysler has never manufactured asbestos-containing clutches but rather bought the products from Luk, Fichtel & Sachs, Borg & Beck division of Borg Warner, Long Co., Lip-Rollway and the Spicer Division of Dana Corporation.  The replacement parts that Chrysler obtained from these suppliers were marketed under the “Mopar” trade name.  

            Chrysler is also the successor-in-interest to the American Motors Corporation.  AMC sold asbestos containing friction products manufactured by Bendix Corporation, Kelsey-Hayes, Borg & Beck (a division of Borg Warner), Dana Corporation, Valeo, Wagner Electric, and Abex.    

FORD MOTOR COMPANY was incorporated in Delaware in 1919.  Ford never manufactured asbestos containing brake linings or clutch facings.  Ford purchased all of its asbestos friction products from outside suppliers.  Ford believes that the brake linings contained between 40 and 60% chrysotile asbestos, by weight. 

 Ford sold the brake linings, pad and clutch facings under the trade names of “Ford,” “Mercury” and “Motorcraft.”  The aftermarket parts were sold under the name of “Ford” or “Ford Authorized Remanufactured.” 

             ABEX CORPORATION began in 1902, as The American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company.  In 1916, the American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company became a Delaware Corporation.  In 1926, the American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company formed a subsidiary named the American Brake Materials Corporation, which, in 1933, changed its name to the American Brakeblok Corporation.  Four years later, American Brakeblock Corporation was merged in the American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company to be operated as the American Brakeblok Division of that company.  In 1943, The American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company changed its name to the American Brake Shoe Company.  Finally, in 1966, The American Brake Shoe Company changed its name to Abex Corporation. 

             Abex manufactured and sold asbestos-containing friction products from 1926 to 1987 under various trade names, including:  American Brake Materials (1930 to 1971); Brakeblok (1936 to 1971); American Brakeblok (1938 to 1987); Abex (1941 to 1987); Brake Shoe (1943 to 1987); Esline (1965 to 1987); Stopper (1966 to 1987); American Eagle (1974 to 1980); Crossing Guard (1975 to 1987); Protector (1975 to 1987) and 121 Super Brakes (1975 to 1987).  All automotive friction products manufactured by Abex contained approximately 25 to 65% chrysotile asbestos.   

            THE BENDIX CORPORATION was incorporated in Delaware in 1929.  In 1985, it merged into Allied Corporation.  In 1987, Allied Corporation was merged into AlliedSignal Inc., which was subsequently purchased by Honeywell.  Bendix manufactured asbestos drum brake linings, disc brake pads, brake blocks and, for a short period of time, clutch facings in its plants in Green Island (Troy) New York and Cleveland, Tennessee.   

The drum brake linings averaged approximately 50% chrysotile asbestos by weight.  The drum brake linings were distributed under the following trade names:  Bendix (1939 – present); Marshall (1939 – present); Bulls-eye (1939-1948); SL (1939-1971); WM (1939-1971); Eclipse (1939-1987); Master (1945-1987); EDF (1946-1987); FK (1955-1987); Friction King (1960-87). 

The disc brake linings averaged approximately 50% chrysotile asbestos by weight and were distributed under the trade name “Bendix” from 1963 until the present.  The brake blocks were on average 35% asbestos by weight and were sold under the Bendix trade name from 1948 until 1988.  Clutch facings were sold only to the Chicago plant of Borg & Beck between 1975 and 1978 and contained 44% chrysotile asbestos by weight. 

            Bendix sold asbestos friction products to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler under the trade name “Bendix.”  It has also distributed asbestos friction products to every state of the United States of America.             

            BORG WARNER CORPORATION was created in 1928 when four companies, Borg & Beck Co., Marvel Carburetor Co., Warner Gear Co., and Mechanics Universal Joint Co. merged.  A year later, Borg Warner acquired Long Manufacturing Co.  The only asbestos friction product that Borg Warner manufactured was a disc brake pad manufactured in its Spring-Brummer facility in Bellwood, Illinois.  Although Borg Warner maintains that they manufactured this product only from 1971 to 1975 for Ford, Mercury, Torino and Montego police cars, Ford interrogatory responses state that they purchased disc brake pads for their police cars from Borg Warner from 1969 until 1975.  Another controversy surrounds the type of asbestos material in the disc brake pad.  In some interrogatories, Borg Warner has stated that both crocidolite (blue) asbestos and chrysotile asbestos were used.  In other interrogatories, Borg Warner has stated only chrysotile was used.  In all instances, Borg Warner states that the pads contained 7 to 28% asbestos depending on the particular type of disc brake pad.

             In addition to manufacturing disc brake pads, Borg Warner was one of the nation’s oldest and largest distributor of clutch assemblies.  Borg Warner began distributed clutch assemblies containing asbestos pads in 1928.  The pads that were incorporated in their assemblies were contained asbestos and were purchased from Raybestos-Manhattan, Abex, Gatke, Johns-Manville, National Friction Products, Russe, Standco, H.K. Porter, Akebono, Amco Works, and Bendix. 

            Borg Warner’s asbestos products were sold primarily to Original Equipment Manufacturers like Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.  Some of the products were distributed through national distributors.     

            Other important manufacturers and distributors of asbestos friction products include Firestone (World Bestos company Division), Auto Friction Corp., Carlisle Corp., Reddaway Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Scandura, Inc. 

4.         NATURE OF EXPOSURES TO FRICTION MATERIALS

             The exposures that automobile mechanics endure during the course of repair and/or replacement of components containing asbestos friction products is succinctly outlined in the following passages from the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics  (June 1986)(citations omitted): 

Millions of asbestos fibers can be released during brake and clutch servicing.  Grinding and beveling friction products can cause even higher exposures. . .

Asbestos released into the air lingers around a garage long after a brake job is done and can be breathed in by everyone inside the garage, including customers.  While lowering exposure lowers risk, there is no known level of exposure to asbestos below which health effects do not occur . . .

Asbestos can be carried on work clothing, contaminating the family car and home.  This can cause asbestos disease among family members. . .

Using a compressed air hose to clean drum brakes can release up to 16 million asbestos fibers in the cubic meter of air around a mechanic’s face.  Even hitting a brake drum with a hammer can release over a million asbestos fibers.  Much less dust from asbestos-lined disc brake pads will settled on disc brakes, but some dust can get on a mechanic’s hands and into the garage air during maintenance.  The asbestos fibers released from brake and clutch work can be scattered throughout a garage, where they can present a hazard for months or years. . .

When grinding is done to renew used brake block linings, concentrations of up to seven million asbestos fibers per cubic meter can be released.  Beveling new linings can release concentrations of up to 72 million fibers and light grinding of new linings of up 4.8 million fibers . . . 

Significant exposure can also occur during clutch repair.  Since a mechanic’s head is typically under the clutch assembly during clutch repair, asbestos often falls on a mechanic’s face and clothing. . . 

General Motor’s expert, Ralph A. Froehlich[6], agrees that repairing and replacing asbestos brakes, regardless of the type or manufacturer of the brake, creates a significant hazard to mechanics throughout the entire repair and replacement processes.  Deposition Testimony of General Motors Expert Ralph A. Froehlich, in Terry v. General Motors, Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Ohio, Cause No. 98-893, at 47-48, 54-55 (May 8, 2000); Affidavit of General Motors Expert Ralph A. Froehlich, in Terry v. General Motors, Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Ohio, Cause No. 98-893, at 3 (January 24, 2000).  A Certified Industrial Hygienist, Mr. Froehlich agrees that, in the 1960s, brake mechanics were exposed to excessive levels of asbestos during ordinary garage brake maintenance work.  Froehlich Deposition, supra, at 51.  Mr. Froehlich then characterized asbestos exposure from brake work as “both significant and injurious.”  Froehlich Affid., supra, at 4.  He also agreed that asbestos brake work represented a significant hazard to brake mechanics throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Froehlich Deposition, supra, at 54.   

From the review of depositions of garage mechanics, it is clear that such workers are exposed to asbestos dust throughout the process of repair and replacing brakes and clutches, including when, in preparation for changing the products, the brake and clutch housings are cleaned and blown out with compressed air; when the new friction products are removed from their boxes; when the surfaces of these new friction products are disturbed by sanding, filing, beveling, drilling, or grinding; and when the asbestos debris from these processes is swept up or blown off during the clean up process. 

Blow Out 

Blow out is age-old process whereby mechanics use compressed air to blow out the wheel hub to clean off the brake assembly prior to removing the brakes for repair or replacement.  During the course of vehicle operation, these linings wear down.  Some of the “wear debris” becomes airborne and enters the ambient environment, the rests gets deposited on the surfaces of the brake shoe or calipers and around the wheel cylinders or collects on the lining surfaces, in the rivet holes and on the brake drum.   While the drum and disc brake linings contain anywhere from 25 to 75% asbestos when installed, the wear debris does not contain the same percentage of asbestos. 

Thermal studies have shown that when chrysotile asbestos is heated to 650 degrees centigrade, it loses water (dehydroxlation) and recrystallizes as a different mineral called “fosterite[7].”  See Rohl, et al., Asbestos Exposure during Brake Lining Maintenance and Repair, Env’l Research, 12:110-128 (1976).  At times during the braking operation, certain spots on the brake lining can attain a temperature ranging from 800 to 1000 degrees.  Accordingly, significant portion of the wear debris is fosterite, this transformed chrysotile.  Not all of the chrysotile, however, converts to fosterite. 

First, it is important to note that friction product manufacturers were aware of this conversion and added numerous reconditioning agents as modifiers in the manufacturing process to retard fosterite formation because fosterite was a harder material than chrysotile and its hardness tended to score and gouge brake drums and discs, degrading them prematurely.   Rohl, et al., Asbestos Exposure during Brake Lining Maintenance and Repair, Env’l Research, 12 at p. 112.   

Second, other factors besides thermal wear contribute to the disintegration of the brake linings, namely abrasive wear and macroshear.  These forces can cause fibers to be freed from the brake lining at temperatures lower than those required for fosterite transformation, liberating partially altered or even unaltered chrysotile fibers.            

One of the first papers to attempt to quantify the level of asbestos remaining in wear debris was Jeremiah Lynch’s Brake Lining Decomposition Products, Journal of the Air Pollution Control association, 18(12): 824-826 (1968).  Lynch tested 15 samples of debris, 10 from automobile drum brakes, 1 from an automobile clutch, 1 automobile disc brake, 2 bus drum brakes and 1 truck drum brake.  Eleven out of the fifteen had some remaining unconverted chrysotile fibers.  Of these, the percentages by weight of material were as follows: 8 were below 1%, 1 was below 5%, 1 at approximately 10% and 1 at approximately 15%.   

Defendants rely heavily on Jacko, DuCharme, and Somers, Brake and Clutch Emissions Generated During Vehicle Operation, Automobile Engineering Meeting (1973) and its conclusion that 99.7% of the brake wear debris is composed of asbestos material that was chemically converted to forsterite and that only .23% was unconverted asbestos material.  To put these figures in the proper perspective, however, Dr. Roy Gealer, the head of Ford’s Chemical Engineering Department analyzed dust collected from a brake lining wear test that simulated “stop-and-go” conditions from normal driving.  He discovered 12 asbestos fibers on a filter paper area of 40,000 square microns that corresponds to 30 million asbestos fibers per gram of wear debris material.  See Ford, Intra Company Memorandum, Subject: Asbestos Emissions from Brake Lining Wear, November 16, 1970.      

Other researchers have found significant levels of asbestos dust in the air after the use of compressed air.  For example, Dr. Rohl examined 10 samples of brake drum dust in New York City and 29 samples sent by colleagues from other countries.  Unaltered chrysotile was found in all of the New York samples with a mean weight of 4.5% and a range of 2 to 15.1%.   When he used a more power transmission electron microscopic, Rohl found both free chrysotile fiber bundles and fibrils in all 39 samples[8].  A.N. Rohl, A.M. Langer, R. Klimentids, M.S. Wolff, I.J. Selikoff, I.J., Asbestos Content of Dust Encountered in Brake Maintenance and Repair, 70 Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 32-36 (1977) 

In determining how much of this asbestos was in the air during blowout, Hickish and Knight, Industrial Hygiene Specialists for Ford in Great Britain, reported a time weighted average of 1.25 fiber/cc ^[9] for blowing out car brakes and of 1.75 fiber/cc for blowing out truck brakes.  Hickish & Knight, Exposure to Asbestos during Brake Maintenance, Ann. Occup. Hyg. , 13:17-19 (1970).  See also G.L. Lee, Removing Dust From Brake Assemblies During Vehicle Servicing-Alternative Cleaning Methods, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 13:33-36. (1970) (Blow out of brake drums yielded peak concentration of 3-5 fibers/cc); K.L. Knight, D.E. Hickish, Investigations Into Alternative Forms of Control For Dust Generated During the Cleaning of Brake Assemblies and Drums, Ann. Occup. Hyg.13: 37-39 (1970)(Blow-off personal sample yielded 5.35 f/cm³ and peek sample 87 f/cc); Hatch, Possible Alternatives to Asbestos as a Friction Material, Ann. Occup. Hyg. 13:25-29 (1970)(Brake cleaning by compressed air jet showed 10 minute average for fiber counts from 2 to 5 microns (5 f/cc), 10 minute average for fibers above 5 microns (.8 f/cc), peak concentration 43 f/cc).             

            Dr. Rohl also reported on the average concentrations from blowing the dust out of brake drums with compressed air jets, finding a mean fiber concentration of 16 fiber/cc and measurable concentrations of asbestos fiber fifteen minutes after the brake blow out up to 75 feet away.  Rohl, et al., Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining Maintenance and Repair, Env’l Research, 12:110-128 (1976).   

            Kauppinen and Korhonen found concentrations ranging from less than 1 to 8.2 fibers/cc during brake dust blow out studies in cars, while two independent laboratories they consulted found concentrations of 11.0 to 16.5 fiber/cc and 1.6 to 12.2 fibers/cc respectively.  Kauppinen & K. Korhonen, Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance, Brake Maintenance of Automotive Vehicles by Different Methods, 48 Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 499-504 (1987). 

When the International Program on Chemical Safety reviewed this subject in 1998, it concluded that “[a] considerable number of reports have included airborne asbestos concentrations during maintenance and replacement of vehicle brakes … resulting in high total dust exposures.”  IPCS, Environmental Health Criteria 203, Chrysotile Asbestos (Geneva, 1998).  The IPCS specifically cited the use of compressed air to blow off brake dust as one of the activities that caused brake mechanics asbestos exposure.  Id.  An overview of the air concentrations collected during the use of compressed air to blow-out brakes referenced in the IPCS Report show measurements that significantly exceeded the current permissible exposure level. 

            In addition to the published literature, corporate documents shed additional light on the issue of asbestos exposures during “blow out”.  In an unpublished paper in 1968, Dr. Hickish, who was with Ford’s Medical Services Division in Great Britain, examined asbestos brake “blow out” exposures.  He reported that the “generation of a dust cloud by blowing off dust from commercial vehicle brakes results in increased background contamination of 3 to 4 times the background level at any point within a radius of 20-25ft.”  D.E. Hickish, Report 52/68, Exposure to Asbestos Dust During Brake Maintenance Operations on Commercial Vehicles, Fleet Repair Garage, Dagenham (October 1968).  He further noted that, not only was the asbestos exposure of the mechanic engaged in “the blowing off task” nearly 4 times the Threshold Limit Value, but also the asbestos measured in the breathing zone of a different mechanic in an adjacent work bay, during the blow off period, exceeded the Threshold Limit Value. Id. at 3. 

In December 1975, GM conducted asbestos monitoring during brake repair at a Buick dealership in New York City.  Although the mechanics took care not to use compressed air to clean brake assemblies, levels as high as 4.5 f/cc were measured, or 45 times the current limit.  Letter from W.H. Krebs, GM Industrial Hygiene Department, to W. McCrocklin, Manager, Circle K Buick (September 28, 1976). 

            In the early 1970’s, the Ford Industrial Hygiene Section began monitoring asbestos dust levels internally, at test tracks and other locations, during brake repair operations.  In a May 29, 1973 letter from Ford Industrial Hygienist Harry Lick to Ford’s J.A. Keller, Mr. Lick discusses air samples taken during blow off of truck brake drums and assemblies, and states the results of the air sample “indicated an over exposure to the 10 fibers greater than five microns in length per millimeter of air ceiling concentration limit prescribed by OSHA.”  Letter from Harry Lick, Ford Industrial Hygienist, to J.A. Keller, Ford Personnel Services Supervisor (May 29, 1973).  

 In August 1973, Mr. Toth, the Supervisor of Ford’s Industrial Hygiene Section, circulated a memorandum reporting that “[r]ecent industrial hygiene studies have demonstrated overexposure to asbestos fiber in air during certain vehicle brake rebuilding and inspection operations.  Overexposure occurred when brakes and brake drums were cleaned using compressed air blowoff.”  Paul E. Toth, Supervisor of Ford’s Industrial Hygiene Section, Memorandum Re: Vehicle Brake Rebuilding (August 3, 1973).

Shortly thereafter, Ford internally banned the use of compressed air to clean brakes and brake linings during servicing of any automobile, truck, trailer, and any other unit having asbestos brake linings.  See J.B. Williams, Memorandum Re: Vehicle Brake Rebuilding (August 23, 1973).  In that same month, Ford issued Maintenance Bulletin No. 137, warning Ford employees that “[o]verexposure to asbestos fiber in the air can occur during inspection and repair operations on brakes, brake drums, clutches, and associated components of these units when compressed air is used to blow off asbestos laden dust.”  Ford Plant Engineering Office Manufacturing Staff, Maintenance Bulletin, No. 137 (August 1973).  

In place of compressed air blow out, Ford ordered its employees to use specially designed vacuums, which its Rotunda Equipment Division later marketed to Ford dealerships.  See J.R. Knauss, Memorandum Re: Controlling Asbestos Exposure (November 16, 1973); see also Ford Parts and Service Division, General Field Bulletin No. 1469, Re: Rotunda Shop Safety Equipment Promotion (July 8, 1976) (“Rotunda has just added a special vacuum cleaner to its equipment line, which is designed to remove hazardous asbestos dust fibers which result from certain brake and clutch operations.”); Ford Rotunda 1977 Dealer Catalog.           

            By late 1975, Ford issued a technical service bulletin that contained a section entitled, “Brake Asbestos Dust Fiber Removal.”  The Bulletin read:  “CAUTION: Dust and dirt conditions present on wheel brake assemblies and rotors and drums, may contain asbestos fibers that can represent a potential health hazard when made airborne by cleaning with compressed air.”  Ford, Technical Service Bulletin No. 99 (1975).  Ford reaffirmed its position on blow out exposure in an April 23, 1975 internal letter, where Ford stated, “for the most part, whenever air hoses were used to clean dust out of brake drums, we found exposures in excess of limits established in OSHA standards on asbestos dust.”  Letter from Paul E. Toth, Supervisor, Ford Industrial Hygiene Section, to T. Cole, Ford Chemistry Department, Re: Exposure of Garage Mechanics to Brake Dust (April 23, 1973). 

Finally, in September of 1981, Ford’s Manufacturing Guideline stated that “[o]verexposure to asbestos fiber in the air can occur during inspection and repair operations especially when compressed air is used to blow off dust.”            

Machining 

            After the wheel well is cleaned, the mechanic is faced with two choices, repair the existing brake shoes or replace them.  Either operation can result in significant exposure to asbestos dust.   

            Brakes can fail for a lot of different reasons.  Prolonged riding of the brakes or improper break-in can cause one of the brake linings to become glazed or matted.  Friction between the brake shoes and backing platforms can cause a shoe to hang up when it is released causing uneven wear.  In these instances, the recommended procedure was to use sandpaper or a file to roughen or remove part of the lining’s surface.  See, e.g., Chrysler’s Master Technician’s Service Reference Book, Brake Service (1964).  In addition, for brake squeal, mechanics inserted compressed air, blew out the drums, support plate and shoes, then crosshatched the lining with a hacksaw.  Finally, to correct shoe knock, mechanics would break up the helix of the lining with vigorous hand sanding.  

When installing new brakes, sandpaper was also used to eliminate “high-spots” on the brake lining of drum brakes to ensure smooth braking and to eliminate motor oil or other lubricants from the surfaces of disk pad, brake pads and clutch facings caused by greasy fingers.  The heels and toes of the brake lining frequently had to be ground to ensure a proper fit.   In earlier days, brake shoe linings were beveled with a grinder, the entire longitudinal surface scoured to attain the proper angle for installation. 

The machining of brake linings, either by sandpaper, file, or grinder, does not involve the conversion of chrysotile.  Instead, the mechanic is manipulating a product that contains on average 50% asbestos and his actions liberate those fibers from their binder and introduce them into the air around him.  While there have not been studies examining each of the job duties described above, there have been a substantial number of studies regarding the manipulation of new brake linings.  It is important to note, however, that there are no studies that pre-date the late 1960s.  Below is a picture of the brake grinding attachment from Ammco: 

            In the picture below, the brake lathe is the device on the left and the brake grinder attachment is on the right: 

               In 1969, Ford Industrial Hygiene Specialists report that they have specifically analyzed the dust produced by sanding asbestos brake linings and found 28% of the dust was asbestos fibers.  D.E. Hickish & K.L. Knight, Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance, 13 Ann. Occup. Hyg. 17-21 (1970).  In concluding their presentation, these Ford specialists noted, “[o]ur environmental studies have not included maintenance procedures which involve the filing and grinding of brake lining material, and we would envisage that these would give rise to considerably increased air contamination by chrysotile asbestos, with the attendant need for strict precautions to prevent the inhalation of fibers.” Id. at 21.   

In the early/mid 1970’s, Dr. Arthur Rohl, and his colleagues at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, measured asbestos dust levels for various brake repair activities on trucks.  Fiber concentrations, all above the current PEL/TLV, were as follows:  grinding linings, 3.8 fibers/ml; beveling new linings, 37.3 fiber/ml; riveting linings, 1.5 fibers/ml; sweeping floors around the grinding area, 3.6 fibers/ml. Arthur N. Rohl, A.M. Langer, M.S. Wolff, & I. Weisman, Asbestos Exposure During Brake Lining Maintenance and Repair, 12 Env’l Research 110, 122 (1976).  In another report, light grinding of new linings yielded 4.8 fibers/ml and grinding new linings before installation yielded 2.7 fibers/ml.  William V. Lorimer, A.N. Rohl, A. Miller, W.J. Nicholson, I.J. Selikoff, Asbestos Exposure or Brake Repair Workers in the United States, 43 Mount Sinai J. of Med. 207-217 (May-June 1976). 

In a 1987 Finnish study, researchers confirmed these results, noting that “grinding of new linings is an operation that may cause heavy exposure unless the enclosure and the local ventilation are efficient.”  In fact, grinding asbestos brakes for one hour without exhaust ventilation resulted a time-weighted average of almost 10 f/cc. Kauppinen & Korhonen, Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance of Automotive Vehicles by Different Methods, 48 Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 499-504 (1987). 

The International Programme on Chemical Safety (“IPCS”) study also confirms that brake mechanics have had significant asbestos exposure from machining brake products.  In its report, IPCS concluded, “[a] considerable number of reports have included airborne asbestos concentrations during maintenance and replacement of vehicle brakes.  In the early period, poor or no engineering control measures were utilized, resulting in high total dust exposures.”  IPSC, Environmental Health Criteria 203, Chrysotile Asbestos 41 (Geneva, 1998).   Specifically cited within the report were such machining activities as grinding, drilling, boring, as well as packing, storage and distribution.  Id.  The report acknowledges that the most likely place for workers to be exposed is during installation of asbestos friction products.  Id. at 138.  Peak concentration measurements for maintenance activities during the 1970s were cited at 16 f/ml.  Id.  Similarly, in Japan, between 1970 and 1975, mean concentrations of 10-35 f/ml were measured, and between 1984 and 1986 (presumably with better dust control measures in place) mean concentrations of 0.2 – 5.5 f/ml were measured.  Id. at 3.   

            In addition to the extensive published literature on the subject, corporate records and trade association documents demonstrate that, without doubt, machining friction materials creates significant levels of exposure to asbestos.               

As early as the 1930’s, GM was apparently aware that the grinding of asbestos friction products generated significant asbestos exposure.  As a result, GM provided exhaust ventilation at the grinding machines in its asbestos friction product plant and monitored asbestos dust levels in the operations.  See Case, 1939 GM Inland Mfg. Dust Studies Dayton, Ohio (October 31 and November 1, 1939).   

Similarly, only a few years after Chrysler began making asbestos friction products in 1959, as early as May 27, 1963, Chrysler was measuring airborne asbestos concentrations in its Trenton plant and finding measurements exceeding the current PEL/TLV.  Dust Study Performed At Chrysler Plant In Trenton, New Jersey (May 27, 1963). 

            Many of the operations conducted at the Dayton and Trenton plants were admittedly similar to those that a mechanic would perform if he ground asbestos brake parts before putting them on a car. 

In 1971, Dr. Dement performed asbestos dust surveys at the Worldbestos asbestos brake manufacturing plant in Indiana.  He performed individual tests in the areas for grinding, sanding and drilling friction products, as well as for inspecting and packing the friction products.   Dr. Dement reported exposures of 20 f/ml during grinding and peaks of 10 f/ml simply discarding old linings.  Department Of Health, Education and Welfare, Minutes Of Occupational Exposure To Asbestos Dust From Brake Linings Meeting (July 21, 1973).           

            Similarly, dust studies at Bendix’s  Ontario friction product manufacturing plants showed excessive dust readings.  The dust study considered exposure in areas where the employees drilled, riveted and ground asbestos brake products.  For example, in August 1976, with dust protection measures in place, measurements of 0.09, 0.14, 0.49 and 0.77 f/cc were found.  In November 1979, with dust protection measures in place, measurements of 1.8, 4.3, and 5.9 f/cc were found.  Memorandum of Dust Studies at Bendix, Walkerville, Ontario (August 24, 1976 and May, June, July 1977); Ontario Ministry of Labour, Field Visit Report, Dust Studies at Bendix, Windsor, Ontario (January 9, 1979)           

            In December 1979, GM confirmed that brake work creates exposure in an article in Business Week.  The Growing Need For Asbestos Substitutes, Business Week, December 3, 1979, at 98D.  The article discusses the brake repair worker practice of sanding asbestos brake linings, and quotes a GM engineer’s response:  “[t]his puts all sorts of harmful fibers in the air.”  Id.   

            In August 1983, Ford issued its Industrial Relations Bulletin No. 4 on Asbestos.  Ford Employee Health Service, Industrial Relations Bulletin, No. 4, Industrial Hygiene (August 22, 1983).  Ford noted that asbestos exposures “can cause asbestosis, cancer of the lungs and digestive tract, and mesothelioma”.  Under a section entitled “Employee Exposure,” Ford’s Employee Health Services Department wrote: “… [E]mployee exposure can generally occur during material handling and maintenance of asbestos-containing friction materials.  Exposure can occur during grinding, sawing, sanding, drilling or otherwise disturbing or finishing asbestos-containing products.”  

The major brake manufacturers’ trade association, The Friction Materials Standards Institute (“FMSI”) shared the generally accepted understanding that brake workers in the field were exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos from drilling, cutting, beveling and grinding linings.  The FMSI was a trade association of most of the leading friction materials manufacturers including GM, Chrysler, Bendix, Abex, JM, Raybestos and others.   

The issue of asbestos exposure from friction products was a regular and ongoing concern for the FMSI.  For example, toward the end of 1972, FMSI told its membership that a problem existed when brake linings and clutch facings were cut, grooved, drilled or ground after shipment, because these operations produced high concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers.  E.W. Drislane, Executive Director, FMSI, Memorandum Re:  Interpretative of OSHA Labeling Requirements (November 6, 1972) 

Three weeks later, in a letter to an official at Bendix Corporation, Drislane warned that “[w]hen customers of yours drill linings, chamfer linings, cut linings, or grind linings, they may very well raise the asbestos concentrations in the atmosphere to above the OSHA standard.” Letter from E.W. Drislane, Executive Director of FMSI, to J.H. Kelly, Bendix Corporation (November 28, 1972).  He added that “[s]ome members have indicated that the drilling and grinding operations are problem areas in brake lining factories with existing exhaust systems.  Therefore, if a customer of yours started drilling or grinding without having proper dust collectors, he would probably be in violation of the OSHA standard.  It therefore becomes your responsibility, as a supplier of the brake lining, to warn the customer of this possibility.”   

            Then on February 16, 1973, the FMSI’s Asbestos Study Committee noted that, “[i]n many drilling and grinding operations without dust collectors, Committee members indicated that the 10 fibers/cc ceiling concentration has been exceeded.”  Minutes of the FMSI’s Asbestos Study Committee (February 16, 1973).  Most Committee members believed that, where no adequate dust collection machinery was employed, “ the 5 fibers/cc (Time Weighted Average) is exceeded in many areas such as inspection, drilling, and grinding”.  The Committee acknowledged that such exposure might be particularly likely in garages where drilling and grinding is often necessary and adequate dust collection equipment is absent.  On this point, the Committee noted:  “[w]hile the members of the OEM accounts are dealing with manufacturers who should understand the OSHA regulations, the biggest problem may be with the small shops that are exempt from the requirements of the OSHA regulations.”  The Committee also acknowledged that exposures may occur just from opening boxes containing new friction products.  On this point, the Committee stated, “with undusted linings from a manufacturer [,] it is likely that customer inspection, or possibly opening of cartons, could show airborne fiber concentrations in excess of the 5 fiber/cc (TWA).”  (emphasis added). 

            In June 1973, the Asbestos Study Committee once again expressed concern regarding asbestos exposure from friction products, when Mr. Weaver, Chairman of the Committee and Vice President of Raybestos-Manhattan, suggested that the possibility of additional cutting, drilling, or grinding is always present and that he felt the OSHA warning label should be used for these operations as well.  Minutes of the FMSI’s Asbestos Study Committee (June 1973).  On its face, the OSHA requirement only applied to “friable” products, those that give off dust when handled.  Mr. Weaver’s point was that all of the membership knew that these subsequent machining operations were inevitable and when the mechanics engaged in those activities, asbestos dust can be generated at levels more than the 5 fiber/cc limit in the OSHA standards.   

Mr. Weaver emphasized this common sense approach during his speech to the Annual Meeting of the FMSI when he told those assembled that the claim by some of the other asbestos product manufacturers that the OSHA regulations did not apply to them because the asbestos in their products was “locked in” and could not become airborne during use was not “at all applicable to friction materials.”  I.H. Weaver,  Address at the Annual Membership Meeting of the FMSI, Asbestos and the Friction Material Industry (June 27, 1973).  He further stated that operations and alterations of asbestos friction materials in the field “could result in excessive exposures of workers or bystanders to airborne asbestos fiber.”   

5.         ASBESTOS DISEASE AMONG FRICTION PRODUCT WORKERS  

Asbestosis 

            The first articles dealing with the appearance of asbestos disease among workers who were exposed to dust from friction products in the manufacturing setting began appearing in the mid-1930s.  In England, in 1935, a Memorandum on the Industrial Diseases of Silicosis and Asbestosis by His Majesty’s Stationery Office contains the following paragraph: 

Industries and processes in which asbestosis occurs. – Processes involving exposures to asbestos dust which are known to give rise to asbestosis or in which the conditions are such as to be liable to produce the disease, are the breaking, crushing, disintegrating, opening and grinding of asbestos and the mixing or sieving of asbestos or any admixture of asbestos, the manufacture of asbestos textiles, the making of insulating slabs or sections and the making or repairing of insulating mattresses composed wholly or partly of asbestos, and the sawing, grinding and turning in the dry state of articles composed wholly or partly of asbestos such as motor car brake and clutch linings, jointings, electric insulating materials and some types of electrodes.  (emphasis added). 

In the same year, the Department of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reported its results of a survey of several plants in the state that made asbestos cloth, brake linings, insulating tape and rope and wick.  The researchers found that 25% of the workers employed in these fabricating plants had both clinical and chest x-ray evidence of asbestosis. 

            The recognition that the asbestos incorporated into friction products was capable of producing disease was supported by other investigations of the friction product manufacturing facilities.  In 1939, Drs. George and Leonard published the results of their study of one of the large industrial plants in Massachusetts where brake linings were manufactured.  Out of ninety workers, the researchers made a positive diagnosis of asbestosis in 12 and a diagnosis of questionable asbestosis in three others.  George et al., An X-ray Study of the Lungs of Workmen in Asbestos Industry Covering a Period of Ten Years, Radiology, 33:196-202 (1939).  Another study of the same plant yielded astounding results, 82% of the 180 workers examined had symptoms and chest x-ray evidence of pulmonary asbestosis, 78 patients with Stage I, early asbestosis, 54 patients with Stage II, moderate asbestosis, and 16 patients with Stage III, advanced asbestosis.    Stone, Studies in Asbestosis, Disease of the Chest, 6:170-171 (1940). 

This level of disease was also noted in German friction product facilities.  In Germany, asbestosis was recognized as an occupational disease in 1937.  As part of this recognition, workers in all asbestos manufacturing plants were examined annually.  Among the plants subject to this requirement, were facilities where asbestos brake bands were manufactured.  These brake bands were composed of asbestos remnants that were impregnated by an artificial resin.  The resulting band was then ground to obtain the correct thickness and drilled to create rivet holes to attach the brake lining to the metal brake shoe.  In examining the workers who did the grinding and drilling, researchers found that after two years of working with these brake bands, a few isolated cases of slight asbestosis occurred.  After five years, however, definite changes of asbestosis on clinical and x-ray examinations were found in all workers.  Brackman, Asbestosis in Grinders and Drillers of Brake Bands, Arbeitzschutz (1940) abstract printed in Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 23(4):76-77(1941) 

The risk of asbestosis in the manufacturing of friction products was not lost on the brake lining manufacturers.   In 1944, while discussing asbestosis, L.E. Hamlin, the Medical Director of American Brake Shoe Company wrote that: 

The greatest occupational hazard exists in mining, handling and crushing crude asbestos, making insulation and the carding and weaving of asbestos.  In other industries such as the compounding of materials for automobile brake linings, the hazard is recognized but the disease is uncommon. 

He went on to note that:

In one of our plants where considerable asbestos is used in the manufacture of automobile brake linings, a recent survey of 189 employees exposed to variable amounts of dust, revealed no actual cases of fibrosis.  A few men’s films showed haziness which suggested evidence of disease, but they were not sufficiently typical to warrant a diagnosis of asbestosis.  However, it should be stated that the hazard in this particular plant is well controlled by adequate exhaust ventilation. 

The hazardous nature of the asbestos used in brake products was also not lost on V.J. Castrop, the Assistant Head of the Industrial Hygiene Department of General Motors Corporation.  He is a paper entitled Fume and Dust Exposure to presented to the Automotive and Machine Shop Section of the National Safety Council and subsequently published in the National Safety News in February of 1948, he conceded that: 

[a]sbestos used in the formulation of brake lining is a potentially harmful compound.  This material is the offending agent in the production of the lung aliment known as asbestosis.  The harmful effect is comparable to that of silica and a permissible limit of 5,000,000 particle of asbestos dust per cubic foot of air is generally recognized.  Dust exposure to asbestos and other ingredients of the brake lining exist when the dry materials are handled and emptied into the mixers and in the subsequent operations of slitting, grinding, or surfacing.    

The hazards of friction product manufacture were also noted in Australia where chest x-rays of 300 asbestos workers were examined and 47 demonstrated positive evidence of asbestosis.  The occupations of the group diagnosed with asbestosis involved, among others, the “sawing, cutting and finishing any product containing asbestos – for example brake linings.”  Thomas, Pneumonokoniosis in Victorian Industry, Medical Journal of Australia, January 19, 1957, pp. 75-77.  

In addition, a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health review of 20 long-term employees of a friction products plant in New Jersey identified 7 workers with  chest x-ray abnormalities consistent with the effects of asbestos exposure. Two of the 7 had asbestosis and 5 exhibited asbestos-related pleural abnormalities.  NOISH Investigation, Friction Division Products, Trenton, New Jersey, September 1986. 

The incidence of asbestosis was not limited to only those workers engaged in the manufacturing of asbestos brake linings.   As early as 1943, workers had filed claims alleging they contracted asbestosis as a result of working with asbestos brake linings in garages.  See e.g., Converse v. State, 181 Misc. 113, 41 N.Y. 245 (Court of Claims N.Y.  1943).  In fact, all over the world, researchers have reported the incidence of asbestosis in automobile mechanics engaged in the repair and replacement of brake linings. 

For instance, in England, McVittie published an analysis of cases of asbestosis approved by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that moderates England’s Workers Compensation Program.  From 1955 through 1963, four cases of asbestosis were approved in brake lining workers, workers engaged in the repairs to brake and clutch parts.  McVittie, Asbestosis in Great Britain, Ann NY Acad Sci 132:128-138 (1965).  An additional ten cases of asbestosis in brake repair workers were approved from 1963 through 1969.  Smither, Surveillance of High-Risk Groups – A survey of asbestos workers:  the present position in the United Kingdom, Ann NY Acad Sci 330:525-532 (1979). 

In Germany, two cases of asbestosis were found among 39 vehicular maintenance workers who had performed brake lining service for about ½ to 2 hours a day for eight years.  Boillat et al., Risk of Asbestosis in Workers Employed in Replacing Automobile Brake Linings, Schweiz Med Wschr 103(39):1354-1359 (1973) cited in Lorimer et al., Asbestos Exposure of Brake Repair Workers in the United States, Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 43(3):207-218, May-June 1976 at page 208.   

In the United States, Lorimer and his colleagues at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York published the results of their examination of 104 members of a union of vehicular maintenance workers.  Many of these workers showed signs of asbestosis, 29% had a decreased vital capacity on pulmonary function testing and 27% had chest x-ray abnormalities.  The authors noted, “the prevalence both of chest x-ray changes and restrictive function results was significantly higher after 20 years exposure than before, a result expected after occupational exposure to asbestos.”  Lorimer, supra, at p. 217.  The authors then concluded that their findings “suggest that asbestos disease will be present among such workers and that appropriate control measures should be urgently instituted.”  Id.   

In 1976, Dr. Selikoff, one of the premier asbestos researchers at Mt. Sinai, visited with representatives of the Big Three Automobile Manufacturers - Chrysler, Ford and Genera Motors, and discussed the high levels of asbestos found in brake linings and the high incidence of disease, twenty-four percent, found in a group of garage workers he had examined.  See Letter of Armstrong to Riopelle regarding Selikoff’s visit to the Big Three, June 11, 1976.   

In 1983, William Nicholson, a research scientist at Mt. Sinai, examined three groups of workers, garage mechanics who repaired brakes, garage mechanics who did no brake repair work and a blue-collar control group.  He found: 

A greater prevalence of x-ray abnormalities is found among garage mechanics who repaired brakes than among blue collar controls or garage workers who do not engage in brake or auto body work. . . . a significant excess is seen in workers who had occasion to grind and machine brake linings prior to installation on larger vehicles.  The prevalence of x-ray abnormalities is in accord with estimates of asbestos exposure in the different circumstances.

Investigation of Health Hazards in Brake Lining Repair and Maintenance Workers Occupationally Exposed to Asbestos, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York, pp. 93-95 (NIOSH 1983).                

In Finland, six verified cases of asbestosis have been reported to the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases during the period of 1964 to 1984.  See Kauppinen et al., Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance of Automotive Vehicles by Different Methods, Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 48(5):499-504(1987).  The disease occurred in four car mechanics, one turner, and one garage supervisor. 

Finally, in Sweden, 41 car mechanics were diagnosed with asbestos-related pleural plaques.  Marcus et al., Asbestos-associated lung effects in car mechanics, Scand J Work Environ Health, 13(3):252-4 (1987).  

LUNG CANCER 

It has been estimated that 20,000 deaths from asbestos-related cancer will occur during the next 40 years among automotive maintenance workers in the United States.  See Huncharek, Brake Mechanics, Asbestos, and Disease Risk, Amer J Forensic Med and Path, 11(3):236-240 (1990).  Asbestos friction product manufacturers have known about the capability of asbestos fibers to cause cancer since the early 1940s.  In 1936, a group of asbestos friction product manufacturers agreed to sponsor a series of animal experiments by Dr. Leroy Gardner of the Saranac Laboratories in New York.  Although Dr. Gardner’s study revealed that a 81.8% of mice that had been inhaling asbestos dust from 15 to 24 months developed lung tumors, the friction product manufacturers reviewed his findings and agreed to delete any reference to cancer and tumors.    

By the early 1960s, asbestos had been established as a cause for lung cancer and brake lining and clutch facing was known to be an operation that brought users and consumers in contact with asbestos.  See Hueper, Carcinogens in the Human Environment, Archives of Pathology, 71(3):237-267 (1961).  Dr. Enterline studied lung cancer rates among various occupational groups in the United States and found that automobile mechanics and repairmen had significantly elevated mortality rates.  In fact, by 1970, Dr. Merle Gibson, Medical Director of the Inland Division of General Motors, believed that asbestos was the main cause of lung cancer and objected to any additional input of asbestos into the air, no matter how slight.  See Memo to File: Visit to Inland Division of General Motors, August 31, 1970.   

Subsequently, in 1976, researchers found a significantly elevated Standard Mortality Ratio (SMR) for lung cancer of 146 for automobile repair.  See Menck et al., Occupational Differences in Rates of Lung Cancer, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 18(12) 797-801 (1976). In 1984, McDonald and associates found a significant increase in the rate of death from respiratory cancer in workers at a friction products manufacturing facility; 49 observed, 35.7 expected for an SMR of 137.  McDonald et al., Dust Exposure and Mortality in an American Chrysotile Asbestos Friction Products Plant, Brit J Indus Med, 41:151-157 (1984).   Finally in 1988, an extensive review of car mechanics in Sweden revealed a significant increase in lung cancer deaths when compared to the general population; 39 observed, 23 expected for an SMR 170.  Jarvholm & Brisman, Asbestos associated tumours in car mechanics, brit. j. indust. med., 45:645-646 (1988). 

A non-statistical biological reason supporting the causal relationship between asbestos exposure in automobile repair and the development of lung cancer is the documentation of physical evidence of the causative agent in the lung tissues of exposed mechanics.  For example, Dr. Andrew Churg and Barry Wiggs reported on the size and number of asbestos fibers found in 3 brake workers who had developed lung cancer, 2 brake mechanics and 1 brake lining factory worker.  Churg et al., Fiber Size and Number in Workers Exposed to Processed Chrysotile Asbestos, Chrysotile Miners, and the General Population, Am J Ind Med, 9:143-152 (1986).  In comparison to the general population, the authors found that the mean concentration of asbestos in brake workers exceeded the controls.  In fact, the authors noted that two of the brake workers had mean fiber lengths and aspect ratios roughly equal to those found in textile workers.  This is important because asbestos textile workers have been found to experience statistically significant excess mortality from lung cancer.  See Dement et al., Follow-up study of chrysotile asbestos textile workers: cohort mortality and case-control analyses, Am J Ind Med, 26(4):431-447 (1994)(SMR of 230 for lung cancer in South Carolina textile plant workers).