Document M41r3LZ2OKMa2eepMG9k0d9Oy

FILE NAME: Union Carbide (UC) DATE: 1975 May 30 DOC#: UC152 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Union Carbide & Asbestos Mr. W. C. Thurber May 30, 1975 The toxicological picture was outlined orally in general ternis to Mr. Stephenson at an Asbestos Review Meeting in early 1974 and he found it acceptable. He also made it clear that Union Carbide Corporation should not be in a business that caused undue risks to people. It was also stres5ed that if any new medical information became available that would change the picture, we should review our position promptly. I know of no new medical evidence to change this basic view. The Bore! Tacp however, seems to have altered the concurrent legal situations. The * recommendations inthe Chamberlain memorandum place the people in the asbestos business in the ambivalent position of being charged with the responsibility of maximizing the use of asbestos (in applications where it can be used in compliance with OSHA regulations) and simultaneiously being obligated to inform the potential customer that he should really use something else because asbestos "can cause cancer." y P TM 61.6"1 is not unique to asbestos even within Union Carbide Vinyl chloride is in a very similar situation and styrene, vinyl toluene and phenol appear to be close behind. In fact, it is my understanding that almost any organic chemical based on the aromatic ring can be considered as a suspected cancer-causing agent. It is suggested that we need to look t^+oS!i c?rpora*? poll<:y iTi the area of marketing of potentially hazardous materials for guidance in our particular problem. In this connection it is relevant to mention that the Union Carbide Corporation ccDonnttelnntJaiinnXtfhhearlikaetie1xn9t+o9raOU?levheal? wherethetihrereproisblelmittbylercehdauncicnegfotrhethVeC muosnero'mser exposure to exceed the OSHA action level. They are not labeling A competitor also lowered the monomer content to a comparable level but a corporate decision was made that they would also label to be on the safe e. The net result of this was a large "label removing ceremony" with pictures and union representatives participating at the customer's (PPG) plant. Returning to the immediate question of the assessment of the various risks .vn!!^arblde d?es,not appear t0 have "in-house" the specialized medical expertise on asbestos to judge the merits of the minority position on asbestos hazards as expounded by the Mt. Sinai group. It is to be expected however, that all of the latest research results will be argued in great * to thl iSnah!!c!!ri fGW m w - d u H n ? the hearin9s on the proposed amendments asb^ ts reflations. It is strongly recommended that we do S i h < urnlateral action until we have the benefit of this information i!Lihe d?cis'10n t the U -s - Government on what they consider to be a safe ive, appropriate, an outside consultant such as Dr. Wright or Dr. Weill might be used at that time for a final review of our position. thphn^Hflbi ! n ,, S t bhe asbastos business about ten years, are complying with the OSHA regulations and urging our users to do so, and are looking at the possibility of medical problems which take 15-30 years to develop. A period of 3-6 months to study the very complex medical, legal and ethical unriSniLhi suf^ cient depth t0 reach a proper decision does not seem t i rSSnniblI' Ibls al* Possible that the labeling question will be mf fA.uUr bai?ds in tfl1s tiroe Period and be covered by government tbe entire asbestos industry. This may occur in the revised OSHA of f t" C U n 'ent 30vernment st"d)es the labeling U C C 014128 A08664- Mr. W. C. Thurber -3- May 30, 1975 Toconclude these general comments, I would like to express two personal opinions which I am sure represent the attitude of the Asbestos Group at Niagara Falls: 1. If there is really an appreciable chance that the use of our product will result in serious injury to a substantial number of people we. should not be supplying it for that end use. 2. If it should turn out that exposure to low levels of asbestos does cause serious injury to a substantial number of people, the courts will find a way to assign liability to the producer regardless of the type of warning labels and information dissemination that they may have used. Thefirst and most basic thing we need is our best assessment of the medical risk and our best judgment on the reliability of the assessment. When this is available, the legal and business problems can be examined in perspective and an objective decision made on the proper course of action. The foregoing ideas have been used to prepare the attached commentary on Miss Chamberlain's letter. The comments are not intended to imply an adversary position with our Law Department at a time when communication and cooperation are urgently needed. It is my impression, however, that she was working without benefit of much information on the asbestos health controversy or on the nature of our business. One item not covered is our potential obligation to provide warning labels in the language of the countries to which we ship. 1 We must be sure that the conclusions drawn accurately represent our situation, so I suggest that we have a meeting with the Law Department soon after the new OSHA regulations are published. H. B. Rhodes Attachment /ds U C C 014129 A08 66b