Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM INDEX NO. 190002/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
EXHIBIT 18
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM INDEX NO. 190002/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103
SALES o,ric,;::s
NEW YORK
CHICAGO
MEMPHIS
• CABLE AOC RESS "'KOLMARLAB"'
• RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
PLANTS
MILWAUKEE, WIS.
PORT JERVIS. N. V.
RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
BARRIE, ONT.,CANAOA
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
PARIS IVINCENNESI FRANCE
MEXICO CITY
DIETZEN BACH, GERMANY
LONDON, ENGLAND
OSAKA, JAPAN
NIMON KOL..MAll't CO. LTD. LtCr:.NSltt
lltXECUTIV~ OF'F'ICEtS
PORT JERVIS, NEW YORK 12771 TELEPHONE (9141 856-5311
November 16, 1973
NOTED
NOV 1 9 1973
Hr. George w. Sandland
Bristol-!1yers Products G. W. SANOLt\ND
225 Long Avenue
Hillside, New Jersey 07207
Dear George:
Enclosed ple~se find a copy cf the letcer which I
received from the Liberty lfatual Besearch Center,
on the analysis of the seven sar.1ples submitted for
asbestifcrm material in talc.
!
If you have. any\I questions
•
concerning their comments,
please give me \a call.
i .:>incerely,
KOL.MAR LABOR/1.TORI:S.S, INC.
/~11) /.
I ;- / / ·' ,. , ,
· -s.. --·, , I 1 /1./..,--., ... ,.
,__.,\b 1,..-f[ :...t': ~.~., .. ,t" .. ~",~l·-",-
Rohald Yakupc,in ' ,/
Analytical Service~
RY:dm
Protected Document--Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000030187
·• .
•
INDEX NO. 190002/2023
•
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
Nu~ vI/ .
L. 9"' v:·?·.)J
..i!
Re-aroh Center, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MaeaMlhu-ttil 01748 • Tel. 435-3462
November 5, 1973
Mr. Ronald Ya.kupc·:i.n
Kalmar Laboratories, Inc.
Executive Offi~es
Port J'ervi.s, N. Y. 12771
Dear Mr. Yakupcin:
I tried to call you this week regarding the talc samples.which you sent
us but found that you were on vacation. r·a.m writing this letter to
describe what we :1ave done so far with the samples. I.f yrru want to
pursue i·t further, please £eel free to ca.l.l me and. we can discuss it.
First of all - tw,:, general comments: The :orocedure is for determining
-whether or not th~ specimen contains any particles whose refractive
indices are below 1.574 or above 1.590. If we accept the fact that
none of the forms of as·::iestos have refrs.cti ve indices within this range,
then the a.bsen~~ of particles with a refractive ind.ex within this range
effectively rules out t:1e presence of a.ri..y asbentos. This procedure is
relatively simple. Onci~ you determine the particles wi. th refractive
indices outside tae raJlde of l. 574 to 1. 590, then the identification
of these particles becomes more complicated.
Some comments are in order on the practical aspects of mounting the sample.
The procedure su~gests that one milligram of sample be mounted on an 18 mm
square area which means that it will be spread over a total area of 324
sq. mm. We mounted the samples on the slides and cover elasses which we
normally use. Tr. ~se are 25 mm square and prov:lde an area of 625 sq. mm. -
approximately twice the recommended araac Even on our greater area, we
found the densit) of particles on the slide to be extremely high.so that
it is difficult to distinguish the characteristics of the individual
pru.•ticles. This pr_oblem would be a.ggravat.ed if we used a smaller slide
as is suggested jn the procedure.
LIBERTY MUTUAL iNSURANC COMPANY• LISERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURAtKE COMP ·.NY• LIBCRTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Of BOSTO~l
HOME OFFICES: BOSTON
EQUAL OPPORTUNIT)'. EMPLOY! ,5
'-,.Pro1ec;ted Document-,Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000030188
•
- c! - INDEX NO. 190002/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM
•
NYSCEF ,.DOC. NO. 103
• RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
In our sample counting, we use an eye piece gric~ which describes an area
of 0.01 sq. nnn. at a magnification of 400 diameters. It may be possible
to use a slightly larger grid but.most people actually use a smaller one.
With our grid, and. with ·che total slide Rrea, the area of the slide will
be 32,400 times the counting area which means that there will be 32,400
fields on the slide. The procedure talks about 150 fibers per milligram
and I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this figure. However, this·
would represent only 1 fiber in approximately each 100 cOUI,1ting fields.
It certainly means that, in order to assure yourself that there are no
more than 150 fibers per milligram, it would be necessary to examine
several hundred microscope fields.
Incidentally, according to my figures, 150 fibers per milligram, assuming
5 micron spherical talc particles would represent approximately 1 fiber t
per 100,000 particles. '·
f
As a. practical matter> it seems to me that the sample size for deterr.rl.- tt
nation should be reduced or the area over which it is spread should be
increased in order to ro.a.ke it easier to d.is~-l.n.g-.iish between particles.
We examined your- s-piked rample and several of your other samples to deter-
mine whether they ha.d fibers outside the range of 1.574 to 1.590. We
performed this examination on both a dispersion staining microscope and on
a petrographic microscope. The spiked sample he.d many particles outside
of the range and most of the other samples did £-swell. ·Particularly
samples #K0-002 a.no. #KC,-063 had such particles. We did not attempt to
ma.ke a quantitative dete1mination on these samples, but based on our
limited examination, it vould seem that the incidence of such particles
was greater than 150 per milligram.
We did not attempt to identify those particles ¥hose refractive index waa
outs,ide the specified r&"1ge. We do not normally try to make this kin4 of
precise identification o:· particles and the p~ocedure would therefore take
a great dea.l of tifile, fi:.·st :.n qualif'yi.ng ou.r .. elves with the procedure.,
and second in ma.ii:.ing the a.ctua.l determin&t:i.ons. However, the technicr.ies
described a:re fairly standard petrographi.c techniques and should b~
applicable. As vith any petrographic procedure. the problem comes with
ver-J small particles whose diameter may be as li >w as 1 micron. In such
cases, the cb.aracteristies begin to get :f'uzzy and determinations are
d.i.fficul t.
'Althoug.-i the techniq_ue is straight forward, we i>elieve that it would be
very time consumin.g if the sample were complica· ;ed and the particles
were sma.11. The initial screening for particleu whose ref'ractive index
is outside the spec:i.fied range is rather simple a.nd could possibly be
carried out in perhaps one hour per sample, dep,.1nding on the number of
fields which it is necessary to examine. The s1tbsequent examination of
auspect particles for identification could be nr1ch more time consuming.
This could involve mounting samples in various '.mmersion liquids to deter-
mine refractive index, rotating the microscope .t~v'-/
.
~-~~--
~
R. W. Van Eouten
Direct.or,
Induct.ris.l H~rgier.e Field SerYice
RVH/bb
.J>rot~f!ed,Document--Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000030190
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM INDEX NO. 190002/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 EXHIBIT 18 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM INDEX NO. 190002/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 SALES o,ric,;::s NEW YORK CHICAGO MEMPHIS • CABLE AOC RESS "'KOLMARLAB"' • RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 PLANTS MILWAUKEE, WIS. PORT JERVIS. N. V. RIVERSIDE, CALIF. BARRIE, ONT.,CANAOA SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA PARIS IVINCENNESI FRANCE MEXICO CITY DIETZEN BACH, GERMANY LONDON, ENGLAND OSAKA, JAPAN NIMON KOL..MAll't CO. LTD. LtCr:.NSltt lltXECUTIV~ OF'F'ICEtS PORT JERVIS, NEW YORK 12771 TELEPHONE (9141 856-5311 November 16, 1973 NOTED NOV 1 9 1973 Hr. George w. Sandland Bristol-!1yers Products G. W. SANOLt\ND 225 Long Avenue Hillside, New Jersey 07207 Dear George: Enclosed ple~se find a copy cf the letcer which I received from the Liberty lfatual Besearch Center, on the analysis of the seven sar.1ples submitted for asbestifcrm material in talc. ! If you have. any\I questions • concerning their comments, please give me \a call. i .:>incerely, KOL.MAR LABOR/1.TORI:S.S, INC. /~11) /. I ;- / / ·' ,. , , · -s.. --·, , I 1 /1./..,--., ... ,. ,__.,\b 1,..-f[ :...t': ~.~., .. ,t" .. ~",~l·-",- Rohald Yakupc,in ' ,/ Analytical Service~ RY:dm Protected Document--Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000030187 ·• . • INDEX NO. 190002/2023 • FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 Nu~ vI/ . L. 9"' v:·?·.)J ..i! Re-aroh Center, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MaeaMlhu-ttil 01748 • Tel. 435-3462 November 5, 1973 Mr. Ronald Ya.kupc·:i.n Kalmar Laboratories, Inc. Executive Offi~es Port J'ervi.s, N. Y. 12771 Dear Mr. Yakupcin: I tried to call you this week regarding the talc samples.which you sent us but found that you were on vacation. r·a.m writing this letter to describe what we :1ave done so far with the samples. I.f yrru want to pursue i·t further, please £eel free to ca.l.l me and. we can discuss it. First of all - tw,:, general comments: The :orocedure is for determining -whether or not th~ specimen contains any particles whose refractive indices are below 1.574 or above 1.590. If we accept the fact that none of the forms of as·::iestos have refrs.cti ve indices within this range, then the a.bsen~~ of particles with a refractive ind.ex within this range effectively rules out t:1e presence of a.ri..y asbentos. This procedure is relatively simple. Onci~ you determine the particles wi. th refractive indices outside tae raJlde of l. 574 to 1. 590, then the identification of these particles becomes more complicated. Some comments are in order on the practical aspects of mounting the sample. The procedure su~gests that one milligram of sample be mounted on an 18 mm square area which means that it will be spread over a total area of 324 sq. mm. We mounted the samples on the slides and cover elasses which we normally use. Tr. ~se are 25 mm square and prov:lde an area of 625 sq. mm. - approximately twice the recommended araac Even on our greater area, we found the densit) of particles on the slide to be extremely high.so that it is difficult to distinguish the characteristics of the individual pru.•ticles. This pr_oblem would be a.ggravat.ed if we used a smaller slide as is suggested jn the procedure. LIBERTY MUTUAL iNSURANC COMPANY• LISERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURAtKE COMP ·.NY• LIBCRTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Of BOSTO~l HOME OFFICES: BOSTON EQUAL OPPORTUNIT)'. EMPLOY! ,5 '-,.Pro1ec;ted Document-,Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000030188 • - c! - INDEX NO. 190002/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 10:29 PM • NYSCEF ,.DOC. NO. 103 • RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 In our sample counting, we use an eye piece gric~ which describes an area of 0.01 sq. nnn. at a magnification of 400 diameters. It may be possible to use a slightly larger grid but.most people actually use a smaller one. With our grid, and. with ·che total slide Rrea, the area of the slide will be 32,400 times the counting area which means that there will be 32,400 fields on the slide. The procedure talks about 150 fibers per milligram and I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this figure. However, this· would represent only 1 fiber in approximately each 100 cOUI,1ting fields. It certainly means that, in order to assure yourself that there are no more than 150 fibers per milligram, it would be necessary to examine several hundred microscope fields. Incidentally, according to my figures, 150 fibers per milligram, assuming 5 micron spherical talc particles would represent approximately 1 fiber t per 100,000 particles. '· f As a. practical matter> it seems to me that the sample size for deterr.rl.- tt nation should be reduced or the area over which it is spread should be increased in order to ro.a.ke it easier to d.is~-l.n.g-.iish between particles. We examined your- s-piked rample and several of your other samples to deter- mine whether they ha.d fibers outside the range of 1.574 to 1.590. We performed this examination on both a dispersion staining microscope and on a petrographic microscope. The spiked sample he.d many particles outside of the range and most of the other samples did £-swell. ·Particularly samples #K0-002 a.no. #KC,-063 had such particles. We did not attempt to ma.ke a quantitative dete1mination on these samples, but based on our limited examination, it vould seem that the incidence of such particles was greater than 150 per milligram. We did not attempt to identify those particles ¥hose refractive index waa outs,ide the specified r&"1ge. We do not normally try to make this kin4 of precise identification o:· particles and the p~ocedure would therefore take a great dea.l of tifile, fi:.·st :.n qualif'yi.ng ou.r .. elves with the procedure., and second in ma.ii:.ing the a.ctua.l determin&t:i.ons. However, the technicr.ies described a:re fairly standard petrographi.c techniques and should b~ applicable. As vith any petrographic procedure. the problem comes with ver-J small particles whose diameter may be as li >w as 1 micron. In such cases, the cb.aracteristies begin to get :f'uzzy and determinations are d.i.fficul t. 'Althoug.-i the techniq_ue is straight forward, we i>elieve that it would be very time consumin.g if the sample were complica· ;ed and the particles were sma.11. The initial screening for particleu whose ref'ractive index is outside the spec:i.fied range is rather simple a.nd could possibly be carried out in perhaps one hour per sample, dep,.1nding on the number of fields which it is necessary to examine. The s1tbsequent examination of auspect particles for identification could be nr1ch more time consuming. This could involve mounting samples in various '.mmersion liquids to deter- mine refractive index, rotating the microscope .t~v'-/ . ~-~~-- ~ R. W. Van Eouten Direct.or, Induct.ris.l H~rgier.e Field SerYice RVH/bb .J>rot~f!ed,Document--Subject to Protective Order JNJNL61_000030190