Document 4vGDjrEnXGbMm75QbLyxpBV3j

"'Vi r(i-'.-r-' INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE Kk-U CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS 120 SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606 WG' /f to iN.me) ^ o. Robinson Compaq Latex plant ia(,on Tucker, Georgia Copy to P. E. Bouffard R. A. Daily F. Del Guidice R. Holliger G. M. Iwaskow R. K. Lopp R. W. Martin H. Mayfield C. W. McGaryC. E. Metten J. A. Moore E. L. Peterson J. -A. Pomeroy T. L. Proctor D. H. Reed J. W. Ross W. Woolwine oaie February 11, 1976 Originating Dept. N. Y. -28 N. Y. -33 So. Char. Atlanta Dallas Cleveland Jennat - Alsip So. Char. N. Y.-33 Long Beach N.Y.-33 N.Y. -27 Hackensack Chicago Garland Atlanta Garland Answcr/np /e/ter ttefe Subject United States Gypsum Company Asbestos .Free Tape Joint Compounds Rr-CEIV^ MAR 8 I97g UCC-C .'_!"=> Dear Mo: Asbestos is on the wav out in Taoe Compounds. While I cannot speak for all compound producers, U.S. Gyps'. ; will not h?,,ve any asbestos in their plants by July 1, 1976. They are already virmally asbestos free at New Brighten, Dallas and South Gate. All others are well on the way to converting their cus tomers. With such a sweeping change, we should determine whether UCAR Latex 131 is still the ''standard of the industry. " As promised during our late December meeting, this letter will cover what I believe will be required in the way of Union Carbide Technical Service. U.S. Gypsum is convinced that asbestos is through as a material in TJC. The asbestos controversy has reached the consumer level. Articles are appearing in such magazines as Good Housekeeping warning even the home owner to steer clear of asbestos TJC. U.S.G. lias assumed that UCAR 131 is still the best latex. They have not run evaluations on other types. Eventually Air Products, DuPont, Celanese, Amsco, RCI. and/or Borden is going to precipitate a review and our 11-16MM #/year of business here could evaporate. Continued U.S. Gypsum Company -2- February 11, 1976 I therefore strongly recommend that we screen our candidates in an asbestos free TJC formulation as soon as possible. The fc:*. ulation used for screening should be the first one shown in U. S. G. 's patent # 3. o91.453 (copy attached). Our Dallas Lab already has the equipment and know how to run the screening tests. Pro perties to be tested are attached. Basically, what will eventually replace UCAR 131 is a product that allows USG to 1) lower their overall RMC without affecting performance or 2) improve performance without increasing overall RMC. Improving performance at an in crease in cost will not create any excitement. In addition to screening latexes, we shoule consider their thickener business. They still use over 1MM # of cellulosic thickener (primarily Methocel) here and we do not participate. Since Attogel 40 is a key ingredient in the asbestos free products, we should take a fresh look at what we have to offer now and in the future (2.5, 4. 0 M. S., etc). Mo, it is hoped that this letter will encourage you and the business team to initiate a project in the immediate future. If additional information is required please let me know. Very truly yours. A. J. Lyon AJL/kh Attachment: