Document ExrnJBV8eVeKZrXdZnk3NJLLn

J ^7 CLr* >r T. P. Horns W. C. Thurber J. E. Walsh KC-File NF-File V tStf/y+Ur**) (faffdriamtmi UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P.O. Box 579 Niagara Falls, N.Y. 14302 f Sy H. B. Rhodes*^ Date 11/13/74 Fu 1t Name Address Standard Paint & Varnish Harvey, LA Mfrs. of Epoxy Marine Paints 1ntervlewed * Mr. Fred Kinsler - Technical Director (Telecon) OBJECTIVE Return customer's telephone call at his request. OBSERVATIONS Walked into a real beauty here. Mr. Kinsler was in the process of having an OSHA inspection and he wanted me to get on the phone to "explain the OSHA asbestos regulations to the inspector." I talked at some length with the inspector Steve Herron who sounded quite young. He wanted to know whether RG-244 was asbestos and I could only admit that it was. He wanted to know about dust levels on handling and particularly around warehouse locations with emphasis on the need for signs. Told him we had monitored 10-15 dumping situations for RG-244 usually without special ventilation and were generally well below the limit, ` usually around 1-2 fibers/cc. We had not monitored warehouse activities to any extent but the bags were polyethylene overwrapped. Also that RG-244 tended to give airborne dust counts 1/2 to 1/3 those of conventional asbestos in comparable handling situations. His comment was that he would note this in his report but I don't think he really bought it. They will probably get a citation for no signs. I finished up with a short conversation with Fred Kinsler. He seemed to have calmed down somewhat and requested me send him another copy of our dust count report since he could not locate his. ACTION JEW Follow up with Fred in a week or so to prevent further panic. The size of our problem here will depend on the OSHA report. HBR Send copy of dust counts. (Done 11/14/74) A2GoJi UCC 007465 HBR Comment: Standard Paint & Varnish were citied for not having signs and a number of other picky items. They say they will contest the citations. UCC 007466 A * U 0 V. .Baker and Taylor, Texas The information below was received verbally from Montello. A Baker and Taylor drilling rig was inspected by OSHA. He found a broken step {for which he issued a citation) and asbestos on location. He did not take any air samples. He told them that if they used asbestos they must: 1. Put up warning signs where the asbestos is stored and on the rig where it is used. 2. Provide the men with special clothing. 3. Notify the laundry where the special clothing is sent so they could also put up signs. 4. Be faced with heavy fines if they didn't comply. Baker and Taylors current position is: 1. They will provide details to Wyatt when he makes a personal visit. 2. They do not want to be party to any litigation. 3. There will be no more Supervisbestos used on Baker and Taylor rigs until the "Mickey Mousing" is straightened up. VI. Added Note to Mr. Morgan The sign posting requirement noted in IV and V seems to be a favorite of the inspectors these days, some cases in ridiculous extremes. The regulations says that signs must be posted "... where airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers may be in excess of the exposure limits prescribed in paragraph (b) ..." It concludes, "Signs shall be posted at all approaches to areas containing excessive concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers." . The intent of the paragraph is clearly to protect the unsuspecting worker form entering areas where he can be exposed to concentrations over the allowable limits. At least some of the inspectors are taking it to mean any place asbestos is present, regardless of the chance that the limits will be exceeded. Your comments are solicited. A UCC 007467 n0 Attachment II Possible Action on OSHA "Qverenforcement" Question The course listed below could be followed by Union Carbide Corp. acting alone or via AIA/NA if they chose to spearhead it. The AIA/NA route seems to have more potential clout if it can be moved forward rapidly enough. 1. Assemble the facts now on hand plus whatever others are available from AIA/NA members and set up a meeting with the senior OSHA enforcement people in Washington. 2. Take a low key position with OSHA that these are isolated incidents but are becoming numerous enough to cause real concern. Ask them the question what should be one about it. Our objective would be to have them put out a clarifying directive to the field enforcement offices. 3. We could instead go to the field offices but I suspect would only be referred back to Washington. Added Note: It becomes evident on reviewing what facts we now have on these incidents that there are really two types of problem: 1. Where the inspector makes threats or misleads the user on what he must do to comply. 2. Where there is a reasonable difference of opinion such as the sign posting situation and may be actual citations to contend with. We need to decide how to handle both situations. UCC 007468 > INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE rdlNENS AMD METALS DiVISJGN p. o. box 579, Niagara falls, new yosk uso: To (Kam) D:.;ion location Copy Mr. J. 1. Myers UCC Mining & Metals Niagara Falls, NY <>* originating o.pt. Anw*riftg Uttar dot* May 29, 1973 "Calidria" Asbestos Messrs. R. E. Byrne, Jr. P. J. Morgan /W. C. Thurber Sub'*e' California Asbestos Regulations Dear John: The detailed comments on the new California asbestos regulations are attached. As with the recent review of the EPA regulations, most of these can probably be answered by Mr. Morgan. The most obvious critical area that I can see is the use of an asbestos concentration of 1 fiber/cc. as the criteria for monitoring and medical examinations without defining whether this is a peak or TWA. A recent contact by Mr. Piersall indicates that there is considerable resistance to clarifying this; however, as you know, the future of our RG-244 business rests heavily on this seemingly small item. ' In the course of this review, the AIA and UCC proposed changes were checked with the Emergency Regulations as published. UCC had a much higher batting average than tne AIA but generally made'less controversial recommendations. An annoted copy of the AIA proposals is also attached for your consideration. It is suggested that you and Mr. Morgan review these comments and questions in the light of Mr. Piersall's discussions with California and the original AIA proposals. I feel we should concentrate on the things most important to us in separate' UCC testimony at the hearings. The AIA can, obviously, make the same points as well as others but we have a large stake in California and should not rely wholly on the AIA, who does not have the same interest in "customer assistance" as we do. It should be noted that this review has been made from the point of view of its impact on our customers. Problems it may present at our mine or at the King City mill have not been examined. Very truly yours, 2 H. B. Rhodes HBFCcjb Attachments ,\ n ? UCC 007469 COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY ASBESTOS REGULATIONS SECTION 5208 1. Page 1, 5208 a. The ceiling concentration wording is different from that in Article 108, Section 5155. A maximum of 5 periods of 15 minutes each for exposures of greater than 5 fibers but not more than 10 fibers is specified in Article 108. No such requirements are noted in S5208 a. This does not appear to present any particular problem to us but it might make us some points to bring it to their attention. 2. Page 1, 5208 b. The words "...Engineering controls___ shall be used to meet the exposure limits in Section 5208 (0)..." appear. Are we correct in assuming that if the exposure limits are being met without such engineering controls that they are not required? (Identical wording appears in OSHA!) 3. Page 1, 5208 b. "All hand-operated and power-operated tools which may produce or release asbestos fibers___ " ' This look like the same use of "may" as in the EPA regulations, "...may emit." We assume that the same legal interpretation, whatever it is , will apply. 4. Page 4, 5208 c. Asbestos containing materials shall not be removed from bags, etc. without being wetted unless it is enclosed and/or vented to effectively control airborne fibers so as not to exceed the allowable limits. Suppose the asbestos is such a minor constituent or has been treated in such a way so that under any reasonable handling the allowable dust levels are not exceeded. Is prewetting or ventilation then required? 5. Page 2, 5208 d. Reference is made to Section 5144 regarding respirators. There is no obvious problem but we should obtain a copy of this section for review. 6. Page 2, 5208 d. The wording would seem to preclude wearing of respirators as an added precaution when concentrations are below the allowable values. It might be useful to change Item 1 to read: . UCC 007470 2- - "Reusable or single-use air filtering respirators may be worn for lower concentrations but shall be used when the concentration exceeds the levels specified in Section 5208 a........ etc." This is also consistent with parts (d)-1 and (d)-2. 7. Page 3, 5208 (e)-l. Based on E. A. Piersall's letter of 4/12/73, the "ceiling level" is 10 fibers/cc. This seems quite clear. Is there any need to suggest any specific changes in the wording of the regulation? 8. Page 3, 5208 (e)-2. Again, based on E. A. Piersall's letter, the term "exposure limits" covers both the TWA and/or the ceiling concentration. This, too, looks clear and I do not see any reason to suggest any wording changes. 9. Page 3, 5208 (e)-3. As written, the lockers, etc. are not contingent on exceeding exposure limits. Their intent (E. A. Piersall's letter of 4/12/73) was to require this only when 10 fiber ceiling limit is exceeded. This needs to be pushed hard for clarification since it could be a major deterrent for the use of asbestos. 10. Page 4, 5208 (f)-3. , . Labeling requirements are specified for "contaminated clothing" without any definition of what this means. It is suggested that such labels be required except where under any reasonably foreseeable handling the exposure limits of 5208 will not be exceeded. This follows 0SHA wording. Labeling reference in last sentence is 5208 i not h. 11. Page 4, 5208 (g) The words "...where asbestos concentrations may reasonably be expected to exceed 1 fiber..." are used without definition as to whether it is peak or TWA. Ernie Piersall was unable to convince them that this should be TWA. This is a. crucial point and we snould push hard for TWA. 12. Page 5, 5208 (h) This now says caution signs are required where "...concentrations of asbestos fibers may be in excess..." It is suggested that this should read "...asbestos fibers may reasonably be expected to be in excess of..." This is a minor point and also is related to the legal meaning of "may." UCC 007471 A 208 8 3 -3- 13. Page 5, 5208 (h) It would appear that the mill and the mine may have to be posted. If so, are there any comments needed here? 14. Page 7, 5203 (j)-1 The same problem exists here as in 5208 (g), i.e., 1 fiber/cc. is not defined. It is even more crucial here since medical examinations are required. We could live with it under monitoring if we could get TWA specified here. 15. Page 7, 5208 (j)-l The words "...shall be given" appear in reference to the physical examination. The AIA on page 3 of their letter, makes a considerable point that under OSHA policy an employee may refuse to take a physical examination made available by the employer. California seems to have refused to accept this. Should we get involved with it or leave it to the AIA? 16. Page 8, Article 108, Section 5.155 A reference to section 5208 is made which is not internally consistent Maybe this should be pointed out. HBR:cjb Mining & Metals Division Niagara Falls , NY 5/29/73 UCC 007472 AU ' Asbestos Information Association/North America . 22 East 40th Street New York, N. Y. 10016 212-689-3378 February 12, 1973 Mr. Richard Wilkins Chief State of California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Industrial Safety Post Office Box 603 San Francisco, California 94101 ' . . - Dear Mr. Wilkins: On behalf of the 19 member companies of the Asbestos Information Association/Worth America, I wish to express to you our appreciation for permitting us additional time in which to review and submit comments on the Proposed Amendment to Group 16, Article 110 of the State of California General Industry Safety Orders, creating A new Safety Order, Section 5208 on Asbestos. In general, we support both the intent and contents of the proposed standards on asbestos as being both necessary and * feasible. However, in light of your comments to me in your letter of January 29, especially with regard to your "as effective as" OSHA restriction and the question of the proper interpretation of certain sections of the OSHA standards, we ' would like to submit the following comments and suggestions. Section 5208 (a): In order that the results of both state and (rc^d k'lUs. employer monitoring of ceiling or peak concentrations be comparable for purposes cf inspection and enforcement, we recommend that specific measuring parameters be established. OSHA has no such parameters in their standard, however, the NIOSH Criteria Package recommended that the ceiling or peak COh(f* A* /i im\ CiUL^+olili /. Cb vc tv ///) concentration limit should be measured "for a period of at least 15 minutes and preferably 30 minutes." We concur with this recommendation, except that we feel a 15 minute sample would be the more preferable. /"Section 5203 (b): We recommend that the wording "All hand-operated fret d !'/{' and power-operated tools etc." be changed to "All portable and fixed power-operated tools etc." It was not OSHA's /yA a ccephef. intent to'recruime"tneiHse of ventilation systems on such hand-operated non-power tools as files, sanders, small hand itfivC to f/(/i saws, etc. , which are used almost exclusively in the insulation trades, and in areas, such as on ladders, girders, UCC 007473 . r n, - a ^ 0 ) 0 i 2 etc., where the use of power-operated tools with ventilation systems is totally impractical. Work is presently underway to develop dust data on the use of these non-power-operated hand tools for the purpose of putting together a list of those tools which do not normally release dust in excess of the standards and those that do. A revision of the standard will then be proposed to OSHA exempting specific tools and operations from the standards and requiring . personal protective equipment for those men using tools likely to release excessive dust. Section 5208 (c): For clarity purposes# ve recommend inserting /-/of acc-cptid. the word "insulating" between the words "asbestos" and "cement" in. the second sentence of this subsection. As written, the standard could be interpreted to refer to fr // 49. asbestos-cement sheets and pipe, which was not the intent of OSHA in this requirement. .' Ai 4 i1 /. Also in this subsection, we recommend changing the word "and" in the phrase "enclosed and ventilated" in the second sentence to "or," as is the intent and wording of the OSHA standards. Since either enclosure or ventilation is capable of lowering exposures below the established limits, there is no need to require both, as does your proposed standard. A suitable compromise would be "and/or." Section 5208 (d): .Since not all manufacturing and mining //// <? at. y,./ ' operations can reasonably be expected to come into immediate compliance with the exposure standards, we recommend that, as in the OSHA regulations, respiratory protection al.so be permitted "During the time period necessary to install the engineering controls and to institute the work practices required" in the standards. Section 5208 (e) (2) As we read :his particular requirement, Co r i tc '.r fixed locations, such as plants and mines, would not be required to provide protective clothing for employees, no matter what levels they might be exposed to. This is dirA' certainly not the intent of OSHA in its regulations, which Icdtvr, nt-fidfit require protective clothing for all employees, no matter what their place of employment, exposed to levels in excess Sec l ' <u / ffcwi. 4 of the peak concentration. The OSHA standards, on the other hand, do not require protective clothing for employees exposed above the time weighted average limit. We are also confused by the use of the phrase "non-regular employees" in this subsection. UCC 007474 A 2' 0 9 0 2 3 ' Section 5208 (g) (1) (b): While the sign specifications contained t in .the proposed regulations are precisely those required in the OSHA standards, it should be pointed out that the ' OSHA specifications are a minimum size, and that the ' employer is free to produce a larger sign with larger letters if he considers it necessary from the point of ^view of easier employee readability. We believe the California regulations should contain the same flexibility. Section 5208 (h) (1): The use of the phrase "provide or make available" in the OSHA standards was intended to permit the employer, if he could not "provide" medical examinations at a company clinic, to make available" examinations at outside non-company facilities. Thus, your use of the - word "and" instead of the OSHA word "or" does not reflect the intent of OSHA in this situation. We recommend, therefore, that the phrase be changed to "provide or make available." ---------------------------------- Also in this subsection, we agree that specific criteria should be set identifying those employees who are required to have a yearly medical examination. The OSHA standards are quite confusing in this regard, however, we believe that the interpretation contained in the proposed regulations is too loose. We recommend, therefore, that the state adopt the recommendation contained in the MIOSH Criteria Package on Asbestos, which called for yearly exams on those employees exposed to greater than one fiber per cc as a time weighted average or to greater than five fibers as a peak concentration. We believe that this is more in keeping with the intent of OSHA than your proposed standard. //j /* cacyr. J' y '- /try ,Prt hz*1 />' k'uCr 72 /e* v*. f( /-`V ` Your use of the word "given" in the second sentence of this subsection carries with it a connotation that the employee is required to accept the medical examination "provided or made available" by his employer. If this is your intent, it should be pointed out that it is established OSHA policy, .that ..no., employee has ar7y--cBlication ^whatever to accept a medical examination provided'by his employer. Asbestos insulation employees throughout the country, for example, have absolutely refused to honor any of the medical examination requirements contained in the OSHA standards. This would also be the case, I assume, with these workers in California. Thus, if it is your intent to require employees to accept medical examinations, a strong statement of their responsibilities in this regard should be included in the standards. ' UCC 007475 A 2 0 9 C .J 4 . fO a * We believe that the 30 day limit established for the completion of required preplacement and existing employee medical examinations is too tight. In large operations, it would take considerably longer to conduct these examinations. In addition, in some cases, employers will have to purchase additional medical equipment for their clinics or find qualified outside physicians to conduct the examinations. For these reasons, we would recommend a SO day period instead of the proposed 30 days. Section 5208 (h) (2): We believe that clarification of the /; C ~i entire second sentence of this subsection is in order. - If "previous employment" is intended to refer, to employment rnTift tdtrcwf with'other companies'-prior to an employee's joining his to p ri dikrc^ present company, then we would be depending upon an employee's recollection of previous exposure and the date when it began. This would appear to be totally impractical and untrustworthy as a method of developing exposure data and we would recommend against such an interpretation. On the other hand, if it is intended that "previous employment" should refer to past employment within his present company, we may still run into trouble with long term employees who may,or may not have been exposed at some time in the past or for whom detailed work records are not available. Perhaps a clarifying phrase such as "as far as can be determined" should be included' in the sentence. .- Once again, let me express our appreciation for the opportunity to submit these comments for your consideration. If you,have any questions with regard to this submission, or would like further details on any other matter relative to the proposed regulations with which we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. We would appreciate being added to your mailing list for information on activities affecting asbestos or the asbestos industry, and would also appreciate receiving a copy of the final standards on asbestos. Very truly yours, 7^Jcz&3\suur /7. Matthew M. Swetonic Executive Secretary , UCC 007476 A 20904 / I vv * l i t j M A JiUiW felcfypcsvrifcr message COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT US ONLY MNEuSuSgAEGnE TIME OPLftATCF! ft position PRIVATE LINE T YU X TELEX OTHER PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE MESSAGE BILLING CODE (SHOW 4 DIGIT NUMERICAL CODE ONLVj ADDRESSEE LfCC ACTIVITY Division of Industrial Safety 5S>i01u/1 Department of Industrial Relations 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco. California a < M55AG SECTION -- tf addition*} addres sets or* required cco</nuf f bc/o*r; Attention: Mr. Richard Wilkins Subject: General Industrial Safety Orders Section 5208, Asbestos and Section 5155, Threshold Limit Values Pursuant to your letter of January 29 addressed to E. A. Piersall of Union Carbide Corporation, the following are our comments regarding the proposed Asbestos standard for review by the Industrial Safety Board. ' AAA Section 5208(g)(2) requires that caution labels be affixed to r all waste as well, as other products containing Asbestos Fibers. It must be recognized that the OSHA regulations were not specifically concerned with mining operations and therefore did not consider the problems of ore tailings piles. It is obviously not possible to package and label the large quantities of material in ore tailings. The piles can be treated to minimize dusting and posted if necessary. We suggest that tailings piles be specifically exempt from the labeling provision although they should be subject to the posting of caution signs if excess airborne concentrations exist. BBB In Paragraph 5208(h) medical examinations are required "within thirty days of effective date of this regulation for existing SiC N A T L N a UCC ACTIVITY [CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 'A 20 9 0 c 149-20 A -- TO COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT - UCC 007477 MESSAGE SECTION -- // additional oddres sets ore required continue f fist belew; PAGE 2 / at ^ employees." This could be interpreted to require an additional examination for existing employees who had been previously examined within a relatively short period. We suggest that this sentence be revised to read "Such examination should be given within thirty days of the effective date for existing employees who have not had such an examination within one year." CCC Also in Paragraph 5208(h)(2) it is required that records be , kept of employees showing the date of the employee's first date of exposure to Asbestos Fibers. In a case of an employee who /) e * t./ has previously worked elsewhere, we will not necessarily be able to obtain an adequate and verified record of his previous employment. We can keep on record what the employee listed in his application. We would have no way of determining where or when he may have first been exposed to Asbestos Fibers except for DDD the statement made by the employee as he was hired. Lastly, the OSHA regulation included a paragraph on waste disposal Or?* . y/which you may wish to include in the State Regulations. Jr. - /V.w.ic V C:- /7.-J|r f /o /15/73 -i, W. 14. Jolmson William H. Johnson Union Carbide., Corporation Sew c?of Avenue k, Jew York 10017 | UCC ACTIVITY ^lining & Metals Div. Ci . V ' 38th Floor UC K3-29A -- TO COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT -- A 2 0 9 0 0 UCC 007478 Mining and Metals Division Niagara Falls, NY 14302 Noventer 29, 1973 MEMO RAND U M To: J. L. Myers W. C. Thurber From: Copy: H. B. Rhodes File*/ Subject: Joint NIEHS Durham, N.C. The writer attended the above noted meeting as an observer. Although the meeting was officially sponsored by NIEHS and EPA, it was Selikoff's show. Overall, it was a big production with a number of distinguished foreign researchers included among the speakers. Attendance was limited to 135 of which 12 were from Mt. Sinai. Senior government officials from the various regulatory agencies, the environmental protection crusaders, and the press were heavily represented. Industry representation consisted of Sid Spell (J-M), Fred Pundsack (J-M), a couple of British and South African medical researchers who were on the program, and several unofficial observers. An official lis-ting of registered attendees is attached. In spite of the heavy antiasbestos background of a majority of the speakers and the audience, the general tone of the meeting was that of searching for the scientific truth. Only occasionally would a speaker get up and make statements like, "I hate to evenhave asbestos around, it's too dangerous to work with," or, "Why are we evendiscussing things; we have the Delany amendment, let's invoke it!" - The quality of the scientific oral presentations was surprisingly poor. Over half of the talks were unorganized,- disjointed, mumbled (frequently in a thick accent), and backed up by unreadable or poorly prepared slides. The writer took extensive notes wherever it was possible to make out what the speaker was saying. These have been filed together with copies or abstracts of several of the papers that were available. You got the impression throughout the meeting that the Mt. Sinai people were about to drop a bomb and they may have done so to the press without exposing it to review and criticism by the scientific types present. They seemed to be building up to extending the Minnesota scare to the rest of the country on the basis of asbestos picked up fromasbestos-cement pipes, and from higher than ordinary ground water "asbestos" levels from natural causes and/or industrial pollution. This never came out, however, and looking back on the questions they asked the various speakers, it seems evident that they have not yet been able to A 2 0 i) 0 7 UCC 007479 Memo - Joint NIEHS-EPA Conference -2' Durham, N.C. 11/18-20/73 November 29, 1973 come up with any statistical or autopsy evidence that the levels in the Minnesota water have been harmful to the population. If they had, this certainly was the place to announce it. In fact, towards the end of the meeting, Selikoff himself stated that the background exposures which the general population is experiencing, both in air and water, are not causing cancer. The thing to watch out for is short term but severe industrial exposure. At about this point in the meeting Prof. W. E. Smith, who has been testifying for industry in the Minnesota trial and who had to force his way in to be allowed to attend this meeting, stood up and reported . that he had made extensive animal studies where 1% asbestos had been part of the diet. He found no evidence of tumors and quoted several other studies that had come up with the same findings. He first asked Selikoff if he knew of any contradictory studies and then asked the question of the entire audience. No one rose to challenge him. In general, the conference was undoubtedly useful as a scientific meeting where the leading researchers, in the field got together and exchanged information. To the best of my knowledge, nothing new and startling was announced in the scientific session. We can only wait to see, however, what Selikoff has told the press representatives. A listing of the specific topics covered and the speakers is attached for reference. A brief statement of the general theme and tenor of each session is also included. 7/ fy. H. B. Rhodes HBR:cjb Attachments UCC 007480 A nW n n>J Session I - Ingestion of Particles There were several "Eureka's" here in that when an animal is fed a massive does of asbestos fiber, some small percentage of it gets through the bowel wall. It is then transferred rapidly to a variety of organs including the brain. It is hard to see why the researchers finding this seemed so surprised since it is a relatively well-known phenomenon called "Persorption." The same results on transport throughout the body were reported by those who injected asbestos, also in massive doses, into various locations in the animals. Several of the foreign researchers (England and South Africa) questioned quite forcefully the applicability of results based on massive dosages. This is apparently a fundamental controversy in the interpretation of animal testing. Session II - Identification and Quantification This was mainly a discussion of progress and practicality of automatic particle counting in liquid samples. The consensus was that the only way to go for sure identification was the electron probe confined with electron diffraction. Direct transfer mounting of samples also was the preferred route of sample mounting. The problems of separating the rare fibers from the plentiful mud seemed to be well known with no really good solution. The technique used previously by Nicholson where the sample was homogenized in a blender and only a very small percentage of the sample was counted was considerably criticized. (Nicholson was not identified by name, however.) Dr. Nicholson, incidentally, presented the results of their analysis of the Lake Superior water, i.e., 20-70 mineral fibers/liter 5-25 micrograms/Iiter The majority of the "fibers' were less than ]_/, in length and seemed to be cummingtonite chips. I did not see a single true fiber in any of the slides. Sid Speil from J-M followed quite shortly after Nicholson. He stated that chrysotile is present to some extent in all potable water and quoted results on a ten-city survey which ranged from 0.01 to fwgram/gal. Analytical differences between laboratories were as large as X5. His most telling point was that at a typical situation of ]_* g. per gal., 2 liters per day, for 70 years would result in the ingestion of 0.013 g. of asbestos. Session III - Biological Effects This was largely a discussion of how to prepare tissue samples to identify and count particles and fibers. Session IV - Biological Effects (continued) Asbestos does have an active surface and effects on cells which come in contact with it. Some changes when heated, i.e., to 650-750 ^ had some sharply increased biological activity. One of the strong "antiasbestos" types (S.Epstein) was sorry to report that their initial studies on carcinogenic effects of asbestos were negative but they were hopeful they could induce cancer with it by changing the technique. A 2 0 '3 0 J UCC 007481 Session V - Epidemiological Considerations This session was started about two hours late and the writer had to leave due to prior travel commitments. Dr. C. S. Thompson of R. T. Vanderbilt kindly suppled the information as to the happenings. There were no outstandin new revelations and the statements given previously in the main body of the report pretty much sum up the situation. H. B. Rhodes 11/29/73 UCC 007482 a 20 a Joint NIEHS - EPA Conference on BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF INGESTED ASBESTOS Durham Hotel-Motel, Durham, N.C., November 18-20, 1973 PROGRAM Sunday, November 18 4.00 pm Welcome David P. Rail, Director, NIEHS ' 4.10 pm Opening Statements Conference Committee Session I -- Ingestion of Particles Chairman -- V. Nevill, EPA 4.30 Passage of particles through wall of G.I. tract G. Volkheimer (Berlin);(gT E. Westlake ^(San Francisco) 5.00 Lymphohematogenous distribution following Ingestion R. D. Pontefract (Ottawa); A. M. Brown (Rochester, Minn.) 5.30 Particles In Bowel wall/ ^ ^' A. M. Langer (New York); F. Pooley (Cardiff); R. Rickert (E. Orange, N.J. 6.00 Discussion 7.00 Reception 7.30 Buffet Dinner Monday, November 19 Session II -- Identification & Quantitation Chairman -- F. L. Pundsack, JM 8.30 Instrumental approaches & constraints A. M. Langer (New York); I. Stewart (Chicago) 8.50 Microparticles in water / W. J. Nicholson (New York); P.^Biccaye (New York); S. Spiel (Denver); E. Goldberg (La Jolla); G. Everett (EPA) 9.40 Geochemical considerations D. 0. Whittlemore (Manhattan, KA); E --Satanzare (Now York) 10.00 UCC 007483 A2u Asbestos Program -2- 10.20 10.45 11.15 11.45 Discussion and Coffee Microparticles in^gplid materials ttfy' V \kV D. Bowes (Glasgow); A. Rohl (New York); M. Ross (Washington) Automation, of particle quantitation / MfA. *l- C. Maggiore (Ney York); K. Heinrich and E. P. White (College Station, Pa.); I. Eichen (Dearborn) Discussion Ca . Session III -- Biological Effects 1.00 y Crystallography J. Konnert (Washington) Chairman I. J. Selikoff (Mt. Sinai) 1.15 2.00 Microparticles in biological materials F. Pool^y (Cardiff) ;/~A. J. Bignon (Paris) Pathcdpgical correlations ^Kew-YflYk^ ; A. Fondimare (Le Havre); y / H. Ot^o (Erlangen) 2.30 3.15 Cell penetration . Y. Suzuki (Nagoya); J. M. G. Davis (Edinburgh); ^/jlayasS? (Kawazaki) Fibrogenesis jl <l ) J. S. Harington (Johannesburg); S. D. Douglas ^(New York); M. Chvapll (Tucson) 3.45 Surface activity of particles ,0 R. J. Schnitzer (New York); J*--Sr Harington (Johannesburg) 4.30 Discussion 8.00 pm Panel on Research Directions (Members to be notified) Chairman B. P. Rail, NIEHS UCC 007484 Asbestos Program -3- Tuesday, November 20 Session IV -- Biological Effects (contin.) Chairman -- J. S. Harington, ______________ Johannesburg 8.30 Experimental pathology ^ I. Webster (Johannesburg); L. H. Zaldi (Lucknow); P. F. Holt (Reading); A. G. Heppelston (Newcastle); J. Churg (New York) 9.30 Effects on DNA S. Epstein (Cleveland); J. Glass (Brookhaven); D. Amacher (Cleveland) 10.00 10.30 10.45 Carcinogenesis H. L. Stewart (NCI); F. Pott & F Immunology R. Burrell (Morgantown) Discussion and Coffee (Dtlsseldorf ) Session V -- Epidemiological Considerations Chairman - D. H. K, Lee, NIEHS 11.00 Geographical pathology of G. I. cancer E. C. Hammond (New York); J. K. Wagoner (Cincinnati) 11.20 Extrathoracic neoplasms after asbestos exposure I. J. Selikoff (New York); W. J. Smither (London) 11.40 Discussion 12.00 Lunch (individual arrangements) 1.00 Inorganic particle content of food and drugs W. Eiaenberg Washington); C. Maggiore (New York) 1.30 Multiple factors In particle-associated disease S. Epstein (Cleveland) 2.00 Inorganic particles of agricultural origin K. Kay (New York); E. Goldberg (La Jolla); G. Stotsky (New York) 2.45 3.00 Essentials of epidemiological approaches M. Schneiderman (Washington) Discussion A209 ; 3 UCC 007485 LIST CF ATTENDEES c Conference On Biological Effects of Ingested Asbestos 'David Amacher ' Case Western Reserve University 2119 Adelbert Road Cleveland, Ohio 44106 Willard Baumann United States Steel Corp. Mail Station 91D17 Gary, Indianna 45402 Peter Bertozi kv(\ Water Supply Research Lab ^ * Environmental Protection Agency 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Otto A. Bessey NIEHS P. 0. Box 30276 Beth esc! a, Md. 20014 fsf/Ev^ Jean Bignon Clinique de Pneumo-Phtisicloqie Hospital Laennec 42, Rue ds Sevres Paris, France Pierce Biscaye Lamont-Doherty Gcological Observatory Columbia University Palisades, N. Y. 10964 Donald R. Bowes Department of Geology The University of Glasgow Glasgow, Scotland Arnold Brown Chairman, Department of Pathology Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minn. 55901 Jane Brody NEW YORK TIMES New York, N. Y. pf!b4 Professor Bruch Med. Institut fur Lufthygiene und Silikoseforschung an der Universitat Dusseloorf Postfach 5634 West Germany Robert Burrell Department, of Microbiology West Virginia University Morgantown, W. Va. 26506 David Carlisle Head of Water Sciences Department of the Environment Ottawa, Canada Robert E. Carter University of Minnesota 2205 E. Fifth Street Duluth, Minn. 55812 / Armond Cascla Bureau of Feeds 8F-150 Food & Drug Administration Washington, D. C. 20204 Barry Castleman Center for Science in the Public Interes 1779 Church Street. N.W. ,,Q Washington, U. C. 20036 ` Cr Edward Catanzero Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory Palisades, N. Y. 1 OS64 Jacob Chiirg Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, K. Y. 10029 a gp A 20 A 1 UCC 007486 2 Milos Chvapil Department of Surgery University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Arizona 85724 David Clayson Eppley Cancer Research Institute Omaha, Nebraska 68105 Wesley Clayton Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. ' rVO, Room 919-WT 1 Washington, D. C. 20460 W. Clark Cooper Tabershaw-Cooper Associates 2180 Mil via Street Berkeley, Calif. 94701 Morton Corn University of Pittsburgh 130 DeSoto Street Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213 ' John M. 6. Davis Institute of Occupational Medicine Roseburgh Place Edinburgh, Scotland Vern Dodson University of Wisconsin 333 North Randall Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Stephen D. Douglas Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & .5th Avenue |/u < New York, N. Y. 1002S Edward Dwornik US Geological Survey Washington, D. C. Robert E. Eckardt Esso Research & Engineering Company P. 0. Box 45 Linden, N. J. 07036 Irwin Eichen Ford Motor Company 3001 Miller Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121 William Eisenberg Bureau of Foods Food & Drug Administration 200 C Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20016 ^ F Samuel S, Epstein Case Western Reserve University 2119 Adelbert Road Cleveland, Ohio 44106 Gordon Everett Environmental Protection Agency Room 3109, West Tower 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20460 B'fi Murray Felsher Environmental Protection Agency WSM 3211-0 4th & t-1 Streets, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Gershon Fishbein ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LETTER Washington, D. C. A, Fondimare Hospital Calmette LeHarve, France Bruce Fowler NIEHS P. 0. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, N. C. ft/kh 27709 Edward Gardner NIEHS P. 0. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, N. C. h'/BKi -' 27709 John Glass Mount Sinai School of Medicine 10 East 102nd Street, BSB, Room 253 New York, N. Y. 10029 UCC 007487 ALU Wo ",S Lo 3 E. Goldberg Scripps Oceanographic Institute F. 0. Box 1529 La Jolla, Calif. 92037 John Goldsmith Bureau of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, Calif. 04704 Hand Gorchev $& Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20460 David Groth National Institute of Occupational Safety A Health 1014 Broadway Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 E. C. Hammond American Cancer Institute 219 East 42na Street New York, N. Y. 10017 Robert Handy Research Triangle Institute P, 0. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 John S. Harington National Cancer Association of South Africa P. 0. Box 1033 Johannesburg, S. A. Kurt F. J. Heinrich National Bureau of Standards Washington, D. C. 20234 W. J. Henderson Tenovus Institute for Cancer Research The Meath Cardiff CF4 4XX Wales A. G. Heppleston Royal Victoria Infirmary Newcastle Upon Tyns NET 4LP England Gavin Hi1dick-Smith Director, Medical Affairs Johnson & Johnson New Brunswick, N. J. John P. Kills Department of Justice Main Justice Building Washington, D. C. 20530 Paul F. Holt Reading University Reading, England William Korwitz Bureau of Foods BF-101 Food & Drug Administration Rockville, Kd. 20352 fpfi F. Huth Institute fur Pathologie Moorenstr. 5 Dusseldorf D-4, West Germany Robert Harris Environmental Defense Fund 1525 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20C36 Bl'C' Kingsley K. Kay Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street A 5th Avenue New York, N. Y. 10029 Hisato Hayashi National Institute of Industrial Health 2051 , Kizukisuniiyoshi-Chc Kawasaki, Japan Frank Kover Office of Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 p/)- c KiA. Larry Hart NIEHS NiEMg P. 0. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 A 09 UCC 007488 Kaye Kilburn Pulmonary Division University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri 65201 J. Konnert Naval Research laboratory Overlook Avenue Washington, D. C. 20375 H. F. Kraybill National Cancer Institute Room C-334, Landow Building Bethesda., .Md.. 20014 R. Kroes Rijks Instituut Voor De Volksgezondheid Postbus 1 The Netherlands Leonard Laster National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20418 IPG L. LeBouffant Centre D`Etudes Et Recherches Des Charbonnages De France B.P. 27, 60 Creil, France E. William Ligon Consurer Product Safety Commission 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, Md. 20207 . William Lijinsky Biology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Stephen Krop Bureau of Drugs Food & Drug Administration Washington, D. C. pen Scott Lang Environmental Defense Fund 1525 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 \(.fb Carl Maggiore Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, N. Y. 10029 lAt-S. Don Harlow \bi i ur Office of Toxic Substances p Environmental Protection Agency ftrf-* '-1 Washington, D. C. 20460 A. M. Langer Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, ti. Y. 10029 Sidney Laskin New York University 550 First Avenue New York, N. Y.. 10016 Donald V. Lassiter National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Md. 20852 Douqlas H. K. Lee NIEHS P. 0. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 L. J. McCabe Water Supply Research Laboratory Environmental Protection Agency 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 jr Carl Melton Battelle-Columbus 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 P. B. -Meyer Researcn Institute for Public Health Engineering Delft - 97 Schoemakerstraat - P. 0. Box 214 The Netherlands A i U/r"Vi OI 7 \ UCC 007489 Philip McGrath Food & Drug Administration 5600 Fishers Lane p Rockville, I-id. 20852 Edward Miller CONSUMER REPORTS 256 Washington Street Mt. Vernon, N. Y. 10550 Warren R. Muir Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W Washington, D. C. 20006 l' fb Ian Munro Food Research Labs Department of National Health & Welfare Ottawa, Canada Jack Kurchio School of Public Health Berkeley, Calif. Jack Moore NIEHS , rltk P. 0. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, N. C. \ Vaun Newill Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 C Albert Perl off National Bureau of Standards Washington, D. C. 20234 Lawrence A. Plumlee Office of Research & Development Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 c- R. D. Pontefract IrFood Research Laboratories Department of National Health & Welfare Ottawa, Canada yJ^red Pooley jr University College ^ Newport Road Cardiff, Wales . F. Pott Med. Inst. f. Lufthygiene Gurlittstr. 53 Dusseldorf, West Germany Benjamin Pringle Water Supply Division Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 rederick L. Pundsack Research L Development Center Johns-Man'vi lie Denver, Colorado 80217 William J. Nicholson Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, N. Y. 10029 P S- David P. Rail NIEHS P. 0. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 Heinrich Ott Commission of the European CoinTiuni ties. Rue de la Loi 200, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium H. Otto Uni versiJ^-efHrrTarlger i825&-frhrn^m A *V\ tfW West Germany Judy Randall WASHINGTON STAR-NEWS Washington, D. C. f.nnMO' John Rankin Department of Preventive Medicine University of Wisconsin Medical School Madison, Wisconsin 53706 \ A <oL nU J i* o UCC 007490 6 Rebecca Rawls CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS ^ Washington, D. C. H. B. Rhodes Union Carbide P. 0. Box 579 Niagara Falls, N. Y. . Robert Rickert VA Hospital East Orange, N. J. 07019 Arthur Rohl Mount Sinai School of Medicine V' ` 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, H. Y. 10029 Malcolm Ross Branch Experimental Mineralogy & Geochemistry ( U. S. Geological Survey ' Washington, D. C, 20244 ' Raymond E. Shapiro Bureau of Foods, BF-100 Food & Drug Administration Washington, D. C. 20204 a p P' Samuel Shibko Food Drug Administration 200 C Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20204 Susan Simon NATIONAL JOURNAL Washington, D, C. i l&ro William E. Smith Health Research Institute Fairleigh Dickinson University Madison, N. 0. 07940 ,, Walter J. SmvtlTer Cape Asbestos Company Limited 114 Park Street London, England Ivan Rubin Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue s New York, N. Y. 10029 Sidney Speil Research & Development Center Oohns-Manville Denver, Colorado 80217 Robert J. Rubin Johns Hopkins University 615 North Wolfe Street Baltimore, Md. 21205 Harold L. Stewarf ------National-Cancer Institute ERF Building, Room 202 Bethesda, Md. 20014 Yvon Sabourin 39 St. James Street St. Johns, Province of Quebec Canada Herbert E. Stokinger NI0SH 1014 Broadway Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 ,, , Marvin Schneiderman National Cancer Institute Bethesda, Md. 20014 R. J. Schnitzer Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, N. Y. 10029 f4l n!` G. Stotzky Graduate School of Arts & Science 952 Brown Building New York, N. Y. 10003 John Stowel1 ASSOCIATED PRESS Washington, D. C. Irving J. Selikoff Mount Sinai School of Medicine 100th Street & 5th Avenue New York, N. Y. 10029 1 Yasunosuke Suzuki Fujita-Gakuen University Toyoake-shi, Aichi-ken {Nagoya Shi Gai) Japan \ A o nu r) UCC 007491 Elbert Tabor . National Environmental Research Center Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, fl. C. 27711 Susumu Watanabe National Cancer Center Research Institu Tsukiji 5-Chcme, Chuo-Ku Tokyo, Japan Robert G. Tardiff Ian Webster Environmental Protection Agency National Research Institute for 4676 Columbia Parkway .. Occupational Diseases Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 P. 0. Box 4788 Johannesburg, South Africa S. Thompson R. T. Vanderbilt, Inc. G. E. Westlake 33 Winfield Street J Children's Hospital East Norwalk, Conn. ()655 Edythalena Tompkins 3700 California > San Francisco, Calif. S4119 (<fc National Environmental Research Center E. W. White Environmental Protection Agency Materials Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711 The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pa. 16802 James H. Tucker National Water Quality Lab Donald 0. Whittemcre 6201 Ccngdon Boulevard Department of Geology Duluth, Minn. 55804 Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 66506 Gerhard Volkheimer Berlin 52 Herbert Wiser Bayerischer Platz 9 Environmental Protection Agency West Germany Washington, D. C. \j. u v ' Jaroslav J. Vostal University of Rochester 260 Crittenden Boulevard Rochester, N. Y. 14642 S. H. Zaidi Industrial Toxicology Research Center Post Box No. 80 Lucknow, India V. Vouk Division of Environmental Health World Health Organization 1211 Geneva Switzerland . J. K. Wagoner . National Institute of Occupational Safety ft Health Post Office Building, Room 523 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ralph Hands National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D. C. 20418 A 20020 UCC 007492 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION - METALS DIVISION P. 0. BOX 579 NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. 14302 TEL; 71.6-278-3376,, May 27, 1977 Mr. Norman Hill Allied Manufacturing Company 1245 E. Commercial Springfield, MO 65803 Dear Mr. Hill: You are no doubt aware of recent action by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to propose a ban on consumer use of asbestos-containing taping, spackling and joint-sealing compounds. Their action was instigated by a petition filed on 7/15/76 by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The CPSC voted on 5/2/77 to take action on the petition via the "Proposal and Hearing" procedure. This involves the following steps and would probably take a minimum of six months: 1. Publish the proposed regulation. 2. Accept written comments. 3. Schedule and hold a public hearing. 4. Publish a final regulation. Although the CPSC has no jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of products for commercial use, the proposed ban, depending on its wording and interpretation, could inadvertently affect the packaging and sale of products intended for industrial users. It is our understanding that the usual commercial packaging, 5-gallon pails of ready-mix and 25-pound bags of dry-mix, are stocked by some retail outlets, such as lumber yards. It is highly probable that these products could be purchased and used by a "do-it-yourself" consumer. The CPSC, in prior actions, has taken an ultra-conservative approach that any product which can be obtained by a consumer js_ a "consumer product" and would be covered by their regulations. This is the type of question which could be discussed and resolved at a public hearing. The CPSC also has the power to implement an immediate ban on a product and to order its recall to prevent further distribution to consumers. Although we do not expect this to happen, the NRDC and other activist groups are continuing to press for this type of action; and the CPSC can vote at any time to change their action plans. There is, at the present time, little or no counter-pressure c p a T 1 industry; and this is the main reason for our letter to you. Enclosed is a crA 1 of information sent to the CPSC last September by the Asbestos Information Association. This information was developed by Dr. H. B. Rhodes of our asb group. UCC 007493 2- - As you can see from the contents of the enclosure, we do not believe that the use of asbestos in spackling and similar compounds presents a significant hazard to the consumer. However, we do not feel that it would be prudent to oppose a ban on asbestos-containing compounds in "consumer-type" packaging, i.e., 1-5 pounds or 1-4 quarts. The consumer does not need the high-performace products (containing asbestos) which are required by commercial applicators, and the "protection" of your products for commercial use is much more important. Also enclosed is a copy of our letter recently sent to members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We felt that it was appropriate to take this action before asking you to become involved. If you are concerned about the possibility of an inadvertent and perhaps immediate ban on your asbestos-filled products, even though they are intended for commercial use, we suggest the following action: 1. Review the enclosure to determine the facts about the issue. 2. Express your concern to the CPSC, including the following points: A. The effect on your commercial products which could result from a ban on consumer products. B. Your preference for the proposal/hearing procedure rather than any immediate action which is unnecessary and could have a severe deleterious effect on your business. C. A hearing is necessary to properly air the potentially harmful consequences of any CPSC action. D. Suggest, if you concur, that your products be labeled with the regular OSHA asbestos warning plus "For Commercial Use Only." This would be based on the assumption that such products would then be exempt from CPSC regulations. Your comments, opinions, etc. should be expressed directly to: Mr. S. John Byington, Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1750 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Please be assured that Union Carbide will take an active part in a hearing or in any other phase of the CPSC procedure where such action is appropriate and neces sary to assist our customers. Please let us know if you require additional information or wish to discuss this matter in more detail. Very truly yours, Marketing Manager f\ i-'1 ' ^ ^u /cjb Enclosures P.S. It is obviously at your discretion, but we would appreciate receiving copies of correspondence between your company and the CPSC. UCC 007494 A. S. Hart Vice-President UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION 270 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 May 26, 1977 The Honorable S. John Byington Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is in regard to potential action by the Consumer Product Safety Commission on the second petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council to effect an immediate ban on certain asbestos-containing spackling and tape joint compounds to prevent their further use by consumers. Union Carbide is engaged in the mining and milling of asbestos ore at a plant in California and markets asbestos for use in numerous applica tions including tape joint compounds. We are not opposed to a ban on the consumer use of the products in question, even though we do not believe Wat the use of asbestos in these products presents a significant health hazard. What we are proposing is that a ban be implemented through Section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, so that the Commission will have access to the full implications of its ruling. To supplement this request, we call your attention to the communica tion the Asbestos Information Association sent to you on September 1, 1976. Our concern is two-fold: 1. An immediate ban, especially if coupled with a product call-back, would cause an unnecessary hardship for our customers who manufacture spackling compounds. 2. The wording and/or interpretation of your ruling could inadvertently inhibit or prohibit the use of asbestoscontaining tape joint compounds by commercial applicators. UCC 007495 A Au 9 Letter to Mr. S. John Byington May 26, 1977 Page Two "Ready-Mix" (pre-wetted) tape joint compounds for commercial as con trasted to consumer use are normally packaged in 5-gallon pails (62.5 pounds) or in 50-pound polyethylene bags in cardboard boxes. "Dry-Mix" compounds are packaged in 25-pound bags which yield about 50 pounds of compound when water is added. These packages contain enough material to finish the drywall in three rooms and are normally marketed through whole sale channels to commercial applicators. This quantity of material is substantially greater than required for normal consumer use. However, some building supply outlets stock these packages for small contractors and they would, therefore, be available to a "consumer." If these com mercial packages are judged to be "...packaged in a form suitable for use in the household," the ban requested by the NRDC will, in effect, apply to the commercial as well as the consumer market. Asbestos-free spackling and tape joint compounds have proved to be technically inferior and a ban on the package sizes mentioned above, which are targeted for commercial users, would destroy the market. In summary, we feel that because of the relatively insignificant consumer hazard and the potential deleterious effect on the commercial market, we respectfully recoimend that you implement a ban on the products in question via Section 8, the "proposal and hearing" procedure. This would provide industry with the opportunity to contribute information on the size and value of the consumer market and to respond concerning what effect your rulemaking could have on the commercial market. We would be glad to work with you on the wording of your proposal to limit or negate its effect on the commercial market for asbestos-containing tape joint compounds. Sincerely, (Original signed by) A. S. Hart CC: Commissioners Pittle, Franklin, Kushner and Garrett Messrs. Kapps, Garrish and Hobby UCC 007496 A 09 / 'T f, r.ORTrt amcRiCa catV'Wrebotvji j ^ 1835 K Street, N.W., Washington, 0,C. 20006 * (202) 223-4835 1 September 1976 Mr. S. John Byington . Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1750 K Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. / 20036 Re: Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,and the Consumers Union of U.S.A.> Inc., for the Promulgation of a Rule Declaring Certain Patching Compounds to be Banned Hazardous Substances Dear Chairman Byington: . ; . .... . The Asbestos Information Association/North America, an in- * ` corporated, non-profit organization of firms and corporations engaged in the manufacture or processing of asbestos-containing products and in the mining and milling of. asbestos fiber, de sires to comment on the petition to the Commission submitted July 15, 1976 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Consumers Union of U.S.A., Inc. ^he petitioners seek an order by the Commission to ban patching compounds containing asbestos by declaring such compounds to be hazardous products. Comments contained in the attachment have been prepared fol lowing consultation with member companies of the Association and other expert sources of information. - We are pleased to have this opportunity to present our comments and to advise that, if desired# we are prepared to further address this matter with you or members of your staff. We wish to inform you that Ms. Shacter of the Commission staff has been highly efficient and responsive to her public interest charge in the conduct of business with this Association. We commend to your attention her professionalism and pleasant demeanor. Sincerely yours. Executive Director Enclosure UCC 007497 AA ***U**: lESft ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION NORTH AMERICA SWSiiMgfiWWBnilill 'qVnW7T'>i^iA^iM>5~jaW 1835 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-4885 Response to Consumer Product Safety Commission . on petition by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Consumers Union of U.S.A., Inc. for the Promulgation of Rule Declaring Certain Patching Compounds to be Banned Hazardous Substances, dated July 15, 1976. 30 August 1976 UCC 007498 A Li i"S ^ KLl X INTRODUCTION On July 15, 1976, a petition was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Consumers Union of U.S.A., Inc. with the Consumer Product Safety Commission pur suant to paragraph 2 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. paragraph 1261 (1974) requesting that consumer patching compounds containing asbestos be banned as hazardous substances.. Patching compounds were indicated to include taping, spackling and joint sealing and joint sealing compounds. The petition alleged - that continued use of these compounds will result , in a significantly higher incidence of cancer (including lung cancer and mesothelioma)" and "that no cautionary label would adequately protect the public from the risk of illness associated with patching compounds." ; . . . / - ..-j: . The Asbestos Information Association/North America is an association of 32 producers of asbestos and asbestos containing products. Members of the Association are directly`affected by the petition and wish to enter this response into the record. ' ' II USE OF ASBESTOS IN PATCHING COMPOUNDS :C :V.; : , ... _ ' Ij.V: ' Composition of Drywall Compounds .. :. ;' The petitioners note correctly that the principal use of patching compounds by consumers isj in home drywall construction and repair. This discussion therefore ;! will focus on the material generally \ised for the application, tape-joint compound (TJC) . ,, There are two principal types of join compound.' One uses a latex or water-soluble .glue as a binder and "sets" by evaporation of the water. The other uses dehydrated gypsum as the binder (and the principal, dry ingredient) , or gypsum in combination with water soluble binders, and sets by chemical reaction as the gypsum com bines, with water of hydration. The evaporative type, composed mainly of limestone, lesser amounts of mica and 3-5 percent as bestos plus the binder, controls about 80 percent of the market, and usually is sold in the ready-mixed, wet form. The hydrating type (gypsum-based), with roughly 20 percent of the market, also typically contains asbestos and must, of course, be sold dry and mixed just before use. .. . . Asbestos is added to these compounds for two principal reasons: 1. It imparts properties to the compound (mud) which make it flow easily and smoothly when trowelled on, while still remaining viscous enough to stay in place during the initial stages of hardening. UCC 007499 A ~U "7 4- 3 It also is appropriate 'to examine the significance of the quart of compound cited in the petition as the typical purchase size. A quart of ready-mix compound weighs a little over three pounds and will finish about 45 square feet of dryvjall. This is less than two of the standard size 4' X 8* gypsum board sheets and appears to be a reasonable quantity for the usual clo-it-your-' self craftsman. . .- ........ Most of the packaging and distribution of products to the . - consumer market is done by one or two of the large building. " products companies, several larger companies that specialize in - the consumer tape joint.compound field, and a substantial proportion . of the major paint manufacturers who market through their own distribution outlets. The medium to large regional manufacturing ' companies which have a substantial share of the commercial TJC busines: generally are not involved. Consumer TJC is distinguishable from commercial TJC in that the consumer product finally.passes into and , - through mass distribution retail outlets. - . _ The question of container size is particularly relevant to the _ issue raised by the petition. TJC for retail distribution typically is packaged either in a one gallon container of the wet type or in a one pound or five pound package of the .dry type. The largest clearly identified consumer product found in our brief survey( was a kit containing 18 lbs. of wet compound plus tape x^hich was intended for use in the installation of 250 sq. ft. area, i.e., a small room. Some large retail stores,however, stock limited ' quantities of commercial 5 gallon pails for the convenience of the . smaller commerical contractor. While it is conceivable that a home- craftsman might purchase one of these 5 gallon pails,it vrould be a ` rare home repairman who would vmdertake a complete three room ' ~ finishing job. Ready-mix compound intended for commercial use, by contrast, universally is packaged either in 5 gallon pails (62.5 lbs.) or in 50 lb. polyethylene bags in cardboard boxes. Dry-mix compound is packaged id 25 -lb, bags x-micn yield approximately 50 lbs. of compound x?han xfater is .added. If these commercial containers are ,'jx to be '*. .'.-packaged in. a form suitable' for use in the household" ' the ban requested bv. the petitioners xvill apply , not jxist to the const market (5% of the total), but to the entire market, commercial as x-/ell as consumer. . . - 7 . Ill ASBESTOS EXPOSURE'DURING DRYWALL INSTALLATION . . The petitioners do not provide any data x^hich shox* the level" of exposure that occurs during use of the compounds at a scale and under conditions likely in consumer use. The only data presented is that of Rohl et al (Reference 7) obtained during a test performed at one location by commercial dryxvall v/orkers. Materials X'/cre handled on a much larger scale than that xvhich must be considered here. Exposures .recorded xtfere high, and it is alleged that exposures in . , consumer use would be similar.............. . .. . ................. . . UCC 007500 ' ' A 20 92 8. 5 The concentrations described above all were ceiling concentrations obtained during sanding operations.. In most cases even commercial operators . do not sand for an entire shift so that the 8-hour time weighted average exposure will be considerably less. TWA values for the study cited shown in the table below: . are SUMMARY OF -AIRBORNE -ASBESTOS ' Fiber Concentrations' During Prywall' Sanding Location ' Exposure Time Estimated Ceiling . During 8-hour ^ .. -Exposure- - Sanding TWA Exposi ` (Fib'ers/cc> 5um) ... .' (Hours) (Fibsrs/cc New York City, N.Y. " . ' o.4 8.0 0.3 Hialeah, FL Ft. Lauderdale, FL (Hand) 1* , ' . - .. -' V. ; -4.0 ;. 1.1 " 1.0 ' 0.4 o.i Detroit, MI Dallas, TX Ft. Lauderdale,(Pole) Niagara Falls,N.Y. , ' i.3 ... i.8 ' ' ` ; 8.0 ; 0.5 * 3.4 _. . .. 3.6 . ': . " ... 3.3 . . 0.6 ` 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.2 It is our contention that these lower values are much more representative of exposure during commercial operations than those cited by the petitioners. It.is also our contention that, becaixse smaller quantities are handled, peak consumer exposures generally will be no greater than the commercial ceiling exposures recorded abovei And, since consumers work with tape joint compound in- frequently,average or TWA exposures for consumers will be much lower than for commercial operators. ... ....... , IV THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE . .` . -' . Petitioners cite,in. support of their position, a selection of pieces from the medical, scientific and popular literature, some of which items are of questionable value in furthering the regulatory process. Because time does not permit a detailed analysis of each reference cited, we can only offer a few cautionary considerations to be borne in mind when studying the petition: UCC 007501 A 2CH) 20. 7 qualified experts would conclude that: . 1. Asbestos, when inhaled, causes fibrosis (asbestosis). 2. Asbestos, when inhaled, is associated *:ith the develop ment of malignant tumors of the bronchial system and lung and with mesothelioma, (in other words, asbestos is a carcinogen). . '. ' Few, if any students of the subject would disagree : . with the conclusion that there is a dose-response relation . .ship between exposure to airborne asbestos and the devel opment of asbestosis. There is also a substantial : body of expert opinion', which supports the premise that . there is a dose-response relationship between exposure \ to most, if not all, carcinogens and the development of cancer. There is no reason to believe, from the data available to us,>. that asbestos is an exception to this /- . generality; although, at this time, no one definitely can say at what exposure level asbestos becomes a cancer hazard to man. _ / .....: ` Our view of the literature indicates that no credible . epidemiological studies have been published which would . suggest an excess of malignant tumors among persons ex- . posed to no more than 2 asbestos fibers per cc of air - ' (TWA) , using the presecribed membrane filter test method. ' This is a fact simply because there have yet been i dentified for study no populations the exposure experience of which consistently has been as low as 2 fibers. Since all populations studied to date have been exposed to ` . . substantially higher concentrations of airborne asbestos, we can conclude only that an excess of all types of as- . bestos disease is associated with levels of exposure significantly higher than the level currently mandated to become effective on July 1, 1976." Johns-Marivilie Corporation,the largest producer of fiber in the western world and the largest manufacturer of asbestos-containing products in the United States, also conducted a detailed medical review and the following conclusions were included in their state ment to OSHA. Exhibits B and C from the Johns-Manville response are attached hereto for reference. . ,;'it: From page 4 : ` ^ `' ' * * f " . .. - - "2. J-M*s Review of the Medical References Cited By OSHA We have reviewed in considerable detail all of the references cited by OSHA, and conclude from this study that these references totally fail to provide UCC 007502 9 "B. Criteria in Human Studies Types of evidence suggesting that an agent is carcinogenic in humans include: 'neoplastic response . directly related to exposure (both duration and dose), incidence and mortality differences related to occu- ' pational exposure; incidence and mortality differences between geographic regions related to difference ex posures rather than genetic differences and/or altered incidence in migrant populations; time trends . in incidence or mortality related to either the intro duction or removal of a specific agent from the environ ment; case control studies; and the results of retrospective- prospective and prospective studies of the consequences of human exposure. . Clinical case reports may also provide early warning of a potential carcinogen. . Negative epidemiologic data may not establish the safety of sus pected materials. Negative data on a given agent ob- ' tained from extensive epidemiologic studies"of suf- ' -ficient duration are useful for indicating upper limits for the rate at which a specific type of exposure to that agent could affect the incidence and/or mortiality of spe cific human cancers (Emphasis added.) " - . . "E. Extrapolation from Experimental Data and . . Evaluation of Human Risks - : . ' ' . The criteria listed above provide a guide to determining whether a compound is carcinogenic under a specific set of exposure conditions in a given species or subpopulation. Quantitative extrapolation from animalstudies for the purposes of evaluating human risks entails large uncertainty at the present time. Each case must be individually e valuated, taking into consideration such factors as adequacy of experimental design, statistical significance of the . data, dose-response relations, duration of exposure , route of administration, metabolism (including species variations) : host susceptibility, co-factors and other modifying factors, and the amount of the material to which humans will be exposed^ The criteria for extrapolation may vary depending on the agent in question. (Emphasis added.)". The National Cancer Institute report does not appear to support the OSHA position that the concept of a "no effect" or "threshold level" may have little real significance. . V STATEMENT OF POSITION ^20^3] For the reasons cited above, it is the position of the AIA/NA that: . 1. Because consumers use tape joint compounds in small quantities and at infrequent intervals, the levels of airborne asbestos to which consumers will be UCC 007503 . airborne ASBESTOS FIBER CONCENTRATION (Fibers/cc longer than 5 micrometers) dor yrN-lr**-* \ Koyworelc Pollution Effluents Pollution control Standards Toxicity Carcinogens Abstract Tbe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established efficient limitations and standards for regulating the discharges from pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. The Agency has recently signed a consent decree (June 1976) as a result of litigation brought by five public interest groups. The consent decree requires the Agency to establish revised effluent limitations end standards regulating the discharge of up to 65 classes o' pollutants!rom pulp, paper, and paperboard mills, builders paper mills, and converted paper plants. The regulations must be prom ulgated within 3 years and would be applicable to new facilities, to existing facili ties (on or before 1983). and fo users of publicly owned treatment works. Revision of the 1883 effluent Guidelines The role of toxic.compounds Craig Vogt t Under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency (FWPCA), the U.S. Environmental Pro tection Agency (EPA) has established efTi ucn 11 i m ita tion 5 for cxi st ? r.g sources, standards of performance for new sources (NSPS), and pretreatment standards for discharges to publicly owned treatment facilities for 43 in dustrial categories (including the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry). Regu lations have been established for exist ing sources which had to be met by July 1, 1977, through application of the best practicable control technology cur rently available, and by July 1, 1933, through application of the best avail able technology economically achievable (BATEA). The basis for the NSPS is the best available demonstrated technology (RADT). The regulations arc required under sections 301, 304, 303, 307(b), and 307(c) of the FWPCA and (excepL for pretreatinent) are intended for use in the section -402 NPDES program. In order to develop effluent limita tions and standards for the pulp arid paper industry, the industry was di vided into two phases: unbleached and bleached production. Regulations for the unbleached or Phase I segment of the industry were promulgated in May Ci-i^i Vey*, U.S. Environew-ntal Piotoction Ajui.cy w.-aotslda Matt. <CI M Saeet S'*v, Waon**?>. P.C. 23-:63. T;'PP: ! July 1977 Vo!, 60. No. 7 1974, challenged in litigation, and af no later than June 30, 1933, in effect firmed by the U.S. Court- of Appeals in requiring the application of BATEA August ]S7G. Regulations for the 1977 which will result in reasonable further effluent limitations for the Phase II progress toward the national goal of segment were promulgated in January eliminating the discharge of all pollu 1S77 and are presently in litigation. tants, including toxic pollutants. The The regulations for the Phase II 19S3 Settlement Agreement also requires es effluent limitations and NSPS were tablishment of standards of perfor proposed in February 1976. Pollutants mance for new sources requiring the controlled by the regulations include application of BAD'!' and pretreatment such classical pollutant parameters as standards for existing and new sources BOD:,, TSS, and pH but do not include for controlling discharges of toxic mate toxic compounds required to be regu rials into publicly owned treatment lated under section 397 (a). facilities. To urge the EPA to proceed to develop The pollutants which are to be regu regulations for the control of additional lated are specified in the Agreement, pollutants including toxic pollutants, and these i nclude Go individual or class five public interest groups filed civil es of compounds ns shown in Table I. suits in the U.S. District Court in the The Agency must also identify the types District of Columbia against EPA. The of mills discharging the compounds public interest groups were the follow shown in Table II. ing: Natural Resources Defense Coun Regulations must be established for cil, Inc.; Environmental Defense Fund, 21 major industry categories specified Inc.; Businessmen for the Public In in the Settlement Agreement, and these terest, Inc.; National Audubon Society, are shown in Table III. The Settlement Inc.; and Citizens for a Better Environ ment, Inc. The litigation was settled cut of court and a consent decree was signed by the Agency and approved by the U.S. District Court on June 7, 1976. Agreement requires that regulntionsbe established for pulp, paper, and paper board mills, builders paper mills, and converted paper plants. The SIC codes to be covered within the pulp and pa per industry are shown in Table IV. REQUIREMENTS OF AGREEMENT The schedule for promulgating the limitations and standards is also set. The consent decree, or Settlement For the pulp and paper industry, the Agreement, requires the Agency to de regulations must be promulgated by velop and promulgate regulations September 30, 1979, which allows one which establish, effluent limit.alions and year for contractor studies beginning guidelines for existing sources to bo met June 30.1977. The regulations are tnl-c UCC 007505 A ^ ^ Table I. Sextlemont Agreement Pollutants Accniqi'ftheno Acrolein Acrylonitrile AMrin/die^drin Antimony fc com pounds Arsenic 5: com pounds Asl'i'A-Ps Benzene Benzidine Beryllium A com pounds Cadmium & com pounds Carbon tetra chloride Chlordane Chlorinated ben zenes Chlorinated ethanes Chloralkyl ethers Chlorinated nnpthalene Chlorinated phenols Chloroform 2-Chlovophcnol Chromium & com pounds Copper & com pounds Cyanides DDT & metabolites Dieli'nrobenzene Diohh'rubenzidino Diciilorccthylencs 2, l-clieltlorophenol Dich'.uropropnne & did lolorpropcne 2, 4-DimelhyIphenol DinilroUolune Diphimylltydraztnc Eudosirifnii & metabolites Endrin Ethylbenzene Mercury Jr compounds Mapthalcne Nickel & compounds Nitrobenzene NiUophenols Nitrosamines Pfcntachlovophenol Phenol Fhthah'.te esters Polychlorinated biphenyls Polynuclear aromatic hy drocarbons Fluoranthene Selenium & compounds Silver & compounds 2, 3, 7, S -Tetraohloro- Haloethcrs Halomelhanes dibenzo-p-dioxin Heptachlor & metabolites Hexschlorobutadiene Kexachlorocyclohexano Hexp.cblot'ocyelopentadiene Tetrachlovcthylene Thallium & compounds Toluene 'Toxajjhdhe Trichloroethylene Isophorone Vinyl chloride Lead & compounds Zinc & compounds Table li. Settlement Agreement Pollutants (Secondary) Table til. Industries Covered by Consent Decree 1. Timber Products Processing 2. Leather Tanning .t- Finishing 3. Steam Electric Bovver Plants -1. Iron A Steel Manufacturing 5. Petroleum Refining . G. Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 7. Paint & Ink Formulation & Printing 8. Auto & Oilier Laundries 9. Paving & Roofing Materials 10. Ore Mining & Dressing 11. Coal Mining >.12. Textile Milts 13. Soap Detergent Manufacturing 1-1. Plastic & Synthetic Materials Manu facturing ^15. Pulp & Paperboard Mills; Converted Paper Products ^16. Rubber Processing 17. Miscellaneous Chemicals IS. Machinery & Mechanical Products Manufacturing 19. Electroplating 20. Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 21. Organic Chemicals Manufactui-ring IVsJp*Ant**- 4,4tA. Acetone n-Alkar.es (C^ n "C*n) Biphenyl Chlorine Dialklyl ethers Dibenzofavail Diphenyl ether Methylethyl ketone Nitrites Secondary amines Styrene Terpencs proposed within 6 months of completion such criteria as (1) known occureftce in Table IV. Settlement Agreement: Pulp and Paper Industry Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills; converted paper products of the economic contractor studies (due point source effluents, in the aquatic SIC 2611 - Pulp Mills 3 months after technical studies) and promulgated 6 months after proposal. The S3 compounds shown in Table I were determined for inclusion in tlies environment, in fish, or in drinking wa ter, (2) carcinogencity, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity in human epidemiologi cal studies or in animal bioassays, and SIC 2621 -- Paper Milts, Except Build ing Paper Mills SIC 2631 --Paperboard Mills Settlement Agreement through the ef (3) known toxic effects on humans or SIC 2641 -- Paper Coating and Glazing forts of a special Agency ad hoc work group assisted by consultants and en vironmental interest groups. The group developed an initial list of 232 candi date pollutants of concern from infor aquatic organisms. In order to develop a specific list of pollutants which aretobe considered in setting the effluent regulations, the 65 compounds were examined by the SIC 2642 -- Envelopes SIC 2643 -- Bags, Except Textile Bags SIC 26-15 -- Die-Cut Paper and' Paper board and Cardboard mation supplied from the Agency's Of Agency and a specific list of 123 pollu SIC 2646--Pressed and Molded Pulp fice ofToxic Substances, Water Supply, tants was determined. The selection of Goods and Water Planning and Standards, the National Science Foundation, the En vironmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Additional information was obtained from the National Institute of Occupa tional Safety and Health, the Interna tional Agency for Research on Cancer, the specific compounds was based upon a number of criteria including (I) the frequency of occurrence of the com pounds in receiving waters, (2) the avail ability of chemical standards for analy tical requirements, (3) the production and number of plants involved in the manufacture of the compounds, and (4) SIC 2617 -- Sanitary Paper Products SIC 2648 -- Stationary, TabicLs, and Re lated Products x SIC 2649 -- Converted Paper and Paper board Products, Not Else where Classified SIC 2651 -- Folding Paperboard Boxes and the National Cancer Institute. Each of the pollutants on the initial list was researched to determine human carcinogenicity, other chronic toxicity, aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation, per the chemical stability and structure of the compound. Aill 9 PROGRAM STRATEGY SIC 2652 --Sot-Up PapcrOoard Boxes SIC 2653 -- Corrugated and Solid Fiber J Boxes SIC 265 1 -- Sanitary Food Containers sistence, and presence in effluents, The agency's approach to satisfying SIC 2655 -- Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, aquatic environment, drinking water the requirements of the Settlement and Similar Products supplies, and media sources (air, water, and food' of the pollutant. The initial list of 232 substances was reduced to the G3 individual compounds or classes of compounds through examination of Agreement involves the staff includedv SIC 2661 -- Building Paper and Building in the office of Water Planning and Stan Board Mills dards which is included in the organiza tional structure under the Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. SIC 27S2 -- [bankbooks, Loosclcaf Binders and Devices UCC 007506 ir. "P . f r\-r-r t r- - and Standards, four separate divisions haye specific responsibilities in a pro* , pram- \vhich lias been designed to fully integrate the Agency's regulatory pro grams urTder sections 301,304,306, and 307 and which is keyed to the effective control of toxic and hazardous pollu tants discharged by industrial point sources. These divisions include the Effluent Guidelines Division (EGD), Criteria and Standards Division (CSD), Monitoring and Data Support Division (MDSD), and the Office of Analysis and Evaluation (OAE), Section 301 (d) of the FNVPCA requires the Agency to review and revise, if necessary, the effluent limitations within 5 years, and the Agancy's approach to responding to the Settlement Agreement will also satisfy this requirement. The program strategy is to integrate studies of the health and environmental effects of individual pol lutants or families of pollutants along with industry-bv-industry technical and economic studies to provide a final framework for regulating the 123 pol lutants. These studies will be conducted primarily by private consulting firms contracted to the Agency. HealthlEnvironmer.td Studies The CSD and the MDSD are respon sible for conducting 'studies into the health and environmental impacts of the G5 classes of compounds. These studies will gather, develop, and analyze scientific, technical, economic, analytical, and background informa tion pertaining to the evaluation of po tential human-related or ecologicalrelated hazard- in the water environ ment of the 65 compounds listed in Table I and the 12 compounds listed in Table II. The studies will include geo graphical and quantitative identification of the toxic pollutants in water, fish, wildlife, air, r.nd on land; geographical and quantitative identification of im porting, manufacturing, distribution, consumption, uses, disposal, and fate of the pollutants; relative significance of indirect and direct discharges of thcpollutants to the total environment bur den; and the identification of geo graphical and environmental areas of concern and the potential sources of each of the pollutants. Economic Imped Studies The OAE is responsible for economic studies which will examine the economic impact of achieving the effluent limitations and standards. Pre liminary analyses will be conducted to establish ranges of acceptable, margi nal. or unacceptable costs associated with installation of pollution control technologies. The purpose of the pre liminary analyses is to provide the EGD with some ii.r.u-matioTi relative tn the magnitude of the costs which can be' fi-ppi ! July 1977 VoL CO, No. 7 various industries. Thus, economic studies will be integrated into the pro gram at the outset which will minimize problems with coordination, sub categorization, and setting of effluent limitations. Technofogy Studies The EGD has the responsibility for investigating alternative pollution con trol technologies which can be applied to each subcategory' for reduction of the compounds in Table I. Costs for each of the treatment alternatives will be de termined in addition to the effluent re duction capabilities. In the course of col lecting information and data for these efforts, it is anticipated that extensive use of section 308 requests for informa tion and data from individual plants will be used. This will place a responsi bility on industry to provide data and on the Agency's contractor and in-house resources to analyze the data and com plete the engineering studies. 'Within the Agency, the Office of Research and Development and the Regional Office staffs (Surveillance and Analysis Divi sion) will also provide information and data from on-going projects and plant surveys. In addition, sampling of mill raw water supplies, raw waste waters, and final effluents will be conducted by the contractor. These sampling surveys will be conducted in two phases. The initial survey efforts (termed "screening" sur veys) will include approximately one or two plants in each subcategory, and, in the second, all 123 pollutants are to be measured. Present plans are to collect one 72-hr composite sample from the mill's raw water, raw wastewater, and final effluent. Following analysis of the screening survey results, the second phase surveys ("verification surveys") will be conducted at approximately five plants in each subcategory, and more extensive sampling will be conducted including at least 3 days of sampling efforts during which 24-lir composite samples will be collected. It is antici pated that many of the 123 pollutants will not be found in significant amounts in the screening survey samples, and thus the verification survey samples will hopefully be analyzed for much fewer than the original 123 pollutants. In addition to measuring the 123 pollu tants, the classical pollutant parnme- 'lvL$ \blllii cb UUj, a..U. Da r'rM'U t.t..lMlll i'liO bo measured because correlations be tween the 123 pollutants and the more classical parameters may exist and sur rogate parameters may be desirable to be used to regulate the 123 pollu tants. These sampling surveys are a major focus of a program which has been de signed to use Agency resources initially ^ 0 9 J ,-jto identify information*! iHuUdMa re 'A u i j c i j j t;.* titgib* CtlO.'Li, emphasis is to be placed on industry to provide the extensive information end data required. The initial data base put together by the Agency will thus in clude nil available information and data from the literature, from mill sources, and from mill sampling surveys. It is presently anticipated that this initial information and data base will be used as a basis to request by the section 305 mechanism, if necessary, on-site monitoring (sampling and analysis) of mill effluents by mill personnel over ex tended periods of time. The Agency is hopeful that the industry will initiate self-monitoring programs at an early stage of the regu lations development in order to generate an extensive data base. The effluent limitations and stan dards will be determined using the in formation and data derived from all of the above studies. Depending upon the assessment of health and environmen tal risk avoidance and the economic im pact, one of the treatment technology alternatives will be selected as the basis for the limitations and standards. SUMMARY In summary, the Office of Water Planning and Standards strategy is to: (1) integrate its control options for water quality constituents of concern under sections 301, 304, 306, 307 into one program; (2) initiate a series of health/environmental, economic, and technical studies to support the ranges of regulatory options; (3) complete health and environmental effects studies, pollutant-by-pollutant, as well ns for other constituents associated with the section 304(a) water quality criteria mandate; (4) complete a general over view study; (5) accomplish technical and economic studies, industry-by industry and place increased emphasis on statistics and technology demonstra tion; and (6) use sections 301, 304, and 303 in most cases to achieve effective control of the substances of concern. However, if a BATEA technology level is not deemed sufficient control, and the health environmental risks are severe, section 307 (a) will be used to require more stringent, environmentally pro tective controls. Section 307tb) and tc> would continue to control indirect dis chargers. The water quality monitoring program will be used where possible as a iccdback mechanism to tictermine tne effectiveness of the final regulations over the long term. If more stringent controls arc determined to be necessary, thesectiiin302tmd303 processes will bo used to achieve the desired control. TEccvivt'd fv>r review May 2-1. 197 7. Acvt*t>tcd M:v 24, 1977. on ;t p.!>*r j>uKi>hcu* in T W77 Cc-fcwnr* -- J9i7 c..; \ t y--'- liunlion or tK' "lYfhikitkt* As'-tvi I'.t-.'ii of i\2p anrl irv^i-try, Imv, Allnn- C?.. UCC 007507 UC 149-2 , INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE METALS DIVISION To (Name) Division Location Messrs. C. R. Allenbach R. E. Byrne, Jr. J. L. Myers E. W. Shortridge W. C. Thurber Copy to File P,. 0,. BOX 579 -4625 ROYAL AVE., WIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14302 Date Originating Dept. August 18, 1977 Answering letter date Subject Revised EPA Effluent Guidelines As you may be aware, the EPA settled a law suit by a group of environmental activists by agreeing to promulgate effluent regulations for a wide variety of toxic substances by 1983. An article describing the program and an EPA response to a request by Nicolet, Inc., for a NPDES permit are attached for your information. The latter is interesting in that the deadline for the control equipment to be operational is 1981 not 1983 and zero discharge of fibers longer than 5y, not al 1 asbestos fibers is required. t H. B. Rhodes HBR:dal Attachments UCC 007508 A u3j 1' 1- <0 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE NPDES PERMIT t U.s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION HI PERMIT ERANCH SIXTH & WALNUT STREETS PillLADIL ?: 11A, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 TELEPHONE: (215) 597-9300 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 1875 NEW HOPE STREET NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 19401 TELEPHONE: (215) 631-2432 Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency, after public notice, has on this date issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit pursuant to PL 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act), to: 1. Nicolet Industries, Inc. Norristown, Pennsylvania EPA: PA 0013471 2. Certain-Teed Products Corporation Ambler, Pennsylvania EPA: PA 0012483 3. Nicolet Industries, Inc. Ambler, Pennsylvania EPA: PA 0011991 ` This notice is provided pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 125.35 (b) (2), which requires the Regional Administrator, to provide a notice of permit issuance or denial to any persons on the mailing list maintained by the Regional Administrator. Such notice is to briefly indicate any significant changes which have been made from terms and conditions set forth in the fact sheet and the draft permit. The significant changes are as follows: . Changes to all three permits . 1. These facilities will be required to cease discharge of all processrelated wastewater by January 1, 1981. The limitations pages have been changed accordingly. 2'. The following asbestos limits have been added under Part III: A. There shall be no discharge of any asbesto particle larger than five (5) microns in length. 5. ta UCC 007509 A 2 0 0-34 . ' B. Asbestos shall be sampled once/month by visual microscopy and cncc./ ' quarter by electron microscopy. In addition to reporting tlie number of fibers/litcr, pemittec shall report tic size of the largest fiber found and the number (if any) of fibers/litcr larger than five microns in length. The analytical method for visual microscopy can be found in: Julian and McCror.e, Microscope 18, 1 (1970). The method for electron microscopy is given in: Anderson, "Interim Procedure - Transmission Electron Microscopic Method For Asbestos Analysis", USEPA (Athens), 1976. 3. All schedules of compliance have been deleted and the following schedule substituted: First Report of Progress Report of Progress Final Plan Approved Begin Construction Report of Progress . Report of Progress Attainment of Operational Level January 1, 1978 July 1, 1978 January 1, 1979 July 1, 1979 January 1, 1980 July 1, 1980 January 1, 1981- These changes have been made in accordance with new Regional Policy developed with regards to asbestos discharge. PA 0013471 ` . 4. The interim limitation page (effective date through June 30) has been deleted. -. . 5. Page 12, 13, & 14, titled "Proposed Other Conditions" have been deleted because the applicant has already achieved compliance with these provisions through state order. PA 0012483 . , 6. The first date of the limitations page has been changed to July 1, 1977. 7. The -requirement dealing with the solid waste disposal area, formerly number 2 in Other Requirements, lias been deleted since this requirement has been met. The requirement dealing with BOD-5, formerly number 1 in ' Other Requirements, has been renumbered to letter "C". PA 0011991 8. Tlie interim limitations pages (effective date to September 30, 1976; October 1, i97& to Juno 30, i977) have been delated. 9. The pages titled "Proposed Other Conditions" have been deleted because the applicant has already achieved compliance with these provisions through state order. -2UCC 007510 'A2 0 0 Ei Ea * li is the judgement of the Regional Administrator that the terms and conditions of the permit, which include the significant changes presented above will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of water quality standards and does provide for the application of best practicable control technology by July 1, 1977. This determination is based upon a review of water quality data and studies. The permit will become effective July 30, 1977 , and will expire at midnight, July 30, 1982. The draft permit, finalized permit, and all related documents are on file at the Region III office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Sixth and Walnut Streets, Curtis Building 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. The documents may be inspected and arrangements made for copying between 9 am and 4 pm Monday through Friday, except during Federal Holidays. Please bring the foregoing matter to'the attention of persons whom you know would be interested. A200 UCC 007511 13 *3 l m 31 UC 149-2 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE METALS DIVISION To (Name) Dr. C. R. Allenbach Division UCC - Metals Division Location Niagara Falls, NY Copy to Messrs. File^ R. E. Byrne, Jr. B. L. Ingalls J. L. Myers E. W. Shortridge W. C. Thurber F. B. Twitty R. G. Woolery P. 0. BOX 579 -4625 ROYAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK U302 ate July 20, 1977 originating oept. "Calidria" Asbestos Answering letter date / subject Toxic Substances Control Act Listings This is in reference to the portion of my letter of June 16, 1977, t relating to materials manufactured or potentially manufactured in the Niagara Falls pilot plant. The matter has been discussed with Bob Woolery and he states that there are no plans or serious prospects of manufacturing either of the acid-leached products. Mr. Thurber concurs, so we will drop any further consideration of these products. Present emphasis is on the combined silane and silica treated material. This product is manufactured in the same manner as RG-244 except that Y-9187 silane is added at a level of about 6%. Y-9187 is octyl triethoxy silane [Cg Si (C2 Hg Q)g]. The impurities, intermediates, by-products and wastes in this process are ethanol and small amounts of unreacted silane. If you heed any further information, please let me know. HBR:dal UCC 007512 * f\ r, i'i / r'