Document 1Q0Nk8XaMbV2m14NJoZb5ZGbZ

WRG 001333 C 0" -O: k. r. Crsnkcr J. Bram^^v PROM: R. CC: V. H. Dodson T. F. Egon DATE: March 16, 1970 SUBJECT: Kor.o-Kote Reformulation cr ja c -*< 3% oo 3 9 To date^ve have.approached the subject in tvro manners: replacement . of asbestos with entrained air or with non hazardous fibers.1' Con-' cernihg the latter program, our efforts have been rewerding at lew density vith five successive successful fire tests on compositions .. containing Georgia-Pacific.P-32 unbleached cellulosic fiber. > 'During'a 'meeting vith high ranking officers of Canadian JohnsManvilie Co.Ltd., Asbestos Fibre Division on 3/10/70 in South Carolina, -1 learned the cost figures ve had used in our previous costing- vere low. For example, I was given a 1aid-down cost in Travelers Rest of $.0260/lb. for asbestos. Actually the correct cost is #.03625/lb. >. ' "in addition,``Mr. Payment'and"!'Sadie a substitution'of'air'entrairf`-~ ' $.48o/lb'.went, changing from Du Port's Duponal WA Dry 8 to half /lb.again as ouch Proctor & Gamble1 s Orvas A B Granules 8 $.185 This results in & savings per bag of MOno-Rote (i.e. AEA substitution) of $.025/bag. ; " Combining both of these changes, ve now have a formulation using Cellufloc P-32 and Orvus A B which costs $.02l47/lb., vith & DMC of $1.3735 oer so lb. bag. The DMC of standard Mono-Rote' containing asbestos is $1.3860 per 50 lb. bag. Strangely enough, because of a competitive situation on the West Coast which led Johns-Manville to provide freight equalized shipments 'to California, our Los Angeles plant pays less for asbestos than our South Carolina plant ($.02975/lb.). Again, using the new costs for ..asbestos, and Orvus, yie.DMC _of_Mono-Rote QutloELoBjAngeles.la -$l;27/-~r' ~ . 50 lb .beg. .______________________ _____________________ ___ I believe since ve .are lover in cost (l& cents/bag) in Travelers Rest, ?*. (new formula vs.' old) and since I don't have accurate aggregate costs ^ "' out of Los Angeles, that ve should ask Jim Zisson to cost out the new formula at several points in the U.S. An important consideration here is that the West Coadt area should be eble to buy Cellufloc at a lower cost than the Eastern U.S. / i a. i t 'I a o o 00 RJ3:mlr  CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIVISION .. < INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE TO: K. Harrison, Cambridge from: C. Wendel, Los Angeles CC: DATE: November 23, 1970 subject: Mono-Kote Research WRG 371 Thanks for sending me the outline for Mono-Kote Research. It looks to me that it is very thorough and well organized. I would like to stress that although cost is mentioned, I do not think it is emphasized enough. It should be high on the priority list. We have just run out another batch of MK 4 and find that the cost per bag at the plant for MK 4 is 23$ per bag more than MK 3. Ihis increase would make it very difficult to substitute MK 4 for MK 3 and expect our customers who have large contracts to swallow the difference. The main increase in cost is due to the price of the fiber and I am wondering if everything possible is being done by our purchasing department to get a lower price on this item. At one point, the cellulosic fiber was more or less a by-product for the wood people. They are certainly not pricing the product on that basis. We are very pleased with the working qualities of MK 4 and if it were not for the increased cost we would swing over to it as soon as possible.I I am returning the white paper to you as requested. G-/I. - PACIFIC REGION