Document EdXgg25jXKjjX9O6Kda70GZ3N

FILE NAME: WR Grace (WRG) DATE: November 26, 1980 DOC#: WRG352 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: 1980 Memo to OM Favorito from RH Locke regarding NIOSH Meeting ) . /.GRACE x . . T O : . 0. M. favorito , \ . .. * .FROM: R.'H. Locke cc: -0; V. Wol ter Conitructien F n ^ u itt Civilian Personal & Confidential 03S64155 DATE: November 26, 1980 . SUBJECT: NIOSH Meeting . November 24, 1980 ' As agreed following the Monday meeting, Borgstedt, {schenbach and self * were tawrite you by Monday,-December 1st,-to report what each thought -- transpired 1 n the meeting, as-well as what our options'TM.- - * * ' 1. Background - Dement stated NIOSH's plan 1s to do an epidemiological study of.-Ubby Tn fiscal 1981 and of South Carolina* in fiscal 1982.' Banks (physician) stated that while he has "not fully*thought out'the'Libby study, * he would probably wish to utilize: . '., . . ' a) Three "8" readers to study all current (latest) Grace - -x-rays (to avoid subjecting the whole group to re-x-ray). b) The Vanguard spirometry data <a1 though he was unfamiliar - with the machine). - c) Grace questionnaire1-results.5* ` ** / .. d) Compared with a St. Regis or Forest Service Control .. group. . . Dement interjected that he would like to also add earliest x-ray for all current employees. Kennedy (epidemiologist) inquired how we (Grace) might go about supplying data on employees1 individual historical exposures. When we indicated this would be difficult and subjective, she produced a * 1968/69 Earl Lovick summary which did tills. Kennedy also asked about Grace records oa-former. employees. . . . 2. Objective - Oement stated NIOSHls overall objective was to study occupational mining exposure to mineral platey-hard silicate fragments and fibers, not necessarily asbestos, 1n "new to be studied" minerals, 1n- eluding hard ball clays, kaolin clays and vermicullte. He stated-venalculite 1 s of interest because ft Is a major, unstudied materials 1t has been of 3P vy 'A? 0. M. Favorito November 26, 190 03364156 . ..periodic HIOSH/MSUl interest over a decadej and the Scott bloody pleural effusions indicated hazard (he said there are now nine cases at Scott). Vvl.Deoent further stated.the U b b y study would yield data on the effects of ^f^gi^c..kBinerar fragments (longer than S nicron) as well as trace contamination non-coomercial asbestos. ' .. * 'We'*(Favor!to, Locke) indicated this study could create s lot of loose talk with 'serious implications and .have a deleterious; unjustified and pointless ^ ^ f ^ . f r . i m p a c t on Grace's venaiculite business. Borgstedt stated a viral infection jV, ^ r / ' w'lals*. a ". r e l,,ikel,y Scott ex.planation than venaiculite. Eschenbach stated j-v-iv. /c.r^the chemicals handled and applied at Scott were further suspects. Favorito V-v;-:f^'.`^ d Locke stated -the Scott incident did not establish a link. . \ .* . ' ` '<* J**.' ' We further stated that the N10SH study as described would be another asbestos -exposure studyr and shed no .new flight on NIOSH's stated overall . ' -1 ' mineral'fragment objectives. rEschenbach-stated Libby had 90-120 f/nl ' ' / exposures through the early 1970's which prevented sampling longer than . ; ' five minutes'due t o filter loading and that* w e (Grace) had Incurred a lot ' of Libby deaths due to lung cancer and that the study would thus yield . - ' little or no new light.. J ... ; - " ' ' 3. Data Reviewed - The Libby fila was~shown~for orientation. No NIOSK m notes were taken during 1t or questions asked (such as about the dynamiting P or truck dust). c .. . .- **' ' -V * . Following the film, Eschenbach verbally worked through our prepared responses to Kennedy's-pre-meeting questions. There was extensive NIOSK note taking and questioning from Kennedy*'Banks and Jones' (industrial hygienist). The * sampling surmary was handed out as ras the concentrate analysis. Kennedy and Dement inquired about union .records and pension plan records for-tracking ex-employees/ret1red employees.'; Jones asked about retention of samples* filter and. implnger. -He wanted'to obtain Info on what the pest non-tremollte dust was. Eschenbach. advised this'was not possible owing to samples not being saved. . . ' . . Borgstedt next described the new monitoring program. There was a. lot of Interest. The bar graph summary was handed out and explained. After a . brief discussion of B-Reader conflicts* Banks agreed to sand Borgstedt N10SH . study results o f this. Also* Dement concurred with Borgstedt that sputisi cytology Is not useful as a screening -device. . . Following luneh* NIOSH requested a rundown of the South Carolina and expanding plants similar to what thqy had received on Libby. We countered that they had come to talk about Libby and it was U b b y on which we were prepared but that we would try to respond in general terns. WR0018313 f 15077003 i 0. K. Favorite -3- Ncvcmber 26, 1980 03664157 Eschenbach briefly characterized Enoree as a low exposure, higher turnover, that CPD had apparently done an exemplary job coping olite problem, compared with other companies he's seen. ... . . f-i-is-:-i*'-1 ` *.. c< c is point the discussion t a m e d to "where do we go from Favorito) reiterated that NIOSH's proposed study was 'Just another asbestos study and the world didn't need another. .T h e only ' study parameters envisioned by NIOSH were asbestos exposures.. NIOSH *countered by asking 6race how the study could be differentiated; Grace stated the first hurdle-was demonstrating need, which NIOSH hadn't.. . .1 ->*iV. ' - ' : Surprising to .-me, this hon-plussed-the NIOSH group. - The meeting broke up three hours prior to their scheduled flight departure. ` It was l e ff th ey - will draw up a Libby study protocol end submit It t o us for comment. - /-'v. ?.* . 5. Potions - it-is assumed NIOSH will submit, a tibby study protocol-* to CPD in early January... Without discussing the 6race/CP0 objectives and risks . In such a study, the principal options, which are not mutually exclusive follows, ' .V - a) Obstruct and block, possibly even contesting In the courts. v As I understand it,-we'd lose'and this 1s-not exactly the - ^ Image we try to project. .: , . ; -j-. - ' . ." ' b) Be slowi* review-things extensively and contribute to delay. - This might not be bad policy-generally and 1 t 1 s possible that the new Administration's policies will make NIOSH more selective i n how .scarce staff resources are allocated after January 20, 1981. ' . ' ' *....... 'i-'' ` c) Publish a "pre amptivt epidemiological study*. This could ' . attenuate the resume-enhancement potential for NIOSH study personnel;. This could also be a checkpoint for a sub ' . sequent NIOSH study when It Is released. d) Cooperate .-fully. This agency and its personnel have not always acted with high levels of professionalism oh past studies.. This option would save NIOSH time and effort, . . make their study more comprehensive and possibly rule out some inaccuracies'. It would not necessarily make NIOSH's . conclusions any more responsible . . '' i ' 0. K. Favori to -4- f.uvt'iiucr i), VoO 03564158 e) Actively 90 upstream in NIOSH to personally repeat the awe arguments, the first time icrmediately after ' receipt of the protocol. f) Actively seek to turn off the sources o f the pressure 'for the study by personally repeating the same arguments; ' However, the sources may have supplementary reasons not fully shared by NIOSH. 1 . g) Attempt to apply Influence via congressmen, senators, lobbyists or others to get it turned off. This might ; result in.delay without turning it off. However, it Is not necessarily successful, can backfire and to be effective must be developed over long periods of time due to the trust, requiredr*. . There are other options as well. All should be discussed. ,, At this time I tend to favor a-phased-combination'of options -(b), (c), (e) and (f). RHl:dlc Robert H. Locke C ` WR0la3l5 r 1 15077005