Document OB0aRqOyax4ve3vpom5rwLOK
FILE NAME: RT Vanderbilt (RTV)
DATE: 1973 Jan 25
DOC#: RTV261 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE RT Vanderbilt Activities FDA-OS HA Regulations
4-,
Qpit'
S?/r & \<r- - .
gb&`-V- - '
r
. - '
-
fr - ' ,,
Desert Minerals,' Inc.
January 25, 1973
F. J. Solon, Jr. H. M. Jackson E. M. Fenner W. B. Reitze ./ Dr. G. Wright T)r. S. SpeJj Dr. j , i^inewebei Dr. E. Marriner R. P. Carter W. L. VanDerbeek P. A. Martinson H. R. Keefe R. S. Lamar N. B. Scheffel E. B. Smith
,i
4 j 1
R. T. VANDERBILT ACTIVITIES FDA" OSHA REGULATIONS I}
On January 11 as arranged by Norman B. Scheffel, a meeting was held at the
} i
R. T. Vanderbilt New York offices to observe a presentation of the field by
i
RTV to Covemmcnt agencies concerning talc vs. asbestos. In attendance were
Dr. Spell, R. S. Lamar, N. B, Scheffel, and E. B. Smith.
The presentation consisted of a series of slides as photomicrographs comparing
Vanderbilt New York State talc (Nytal 10D, 200, 300, 400), California talc;
(Westal 101, 303, and 404), and beneficiated California talcs. Compared also
were slides of asbestos minerals. In this presentation, it is the objective
of Vanderbilt to establish that tremolite is non-fibrous and non-ashestoform
"
in order to obtain an amendment or variance in the OSHA regulations to exclude t
tremolite. The presentation did contrast the particle shape of their talc
mineral as compared to asbestos fibers but lacked any real scientific evidence 7
to differentiate current definitions.
Vanderbilt has made this presentation to the New York State Bureau of Mines
attended by Dr. Jacquelin Mcssite, Merley, Sheffield, and Stein. Kleinfeld
j
not present due to his retirement. Vanderbilt has also made this presentation :
to Earl Goodwin at the U. S. Bureau of Mines, They have also made these presente
to EPA at Durham attended by Mr. Arthur Stevens, Deputy Director of the Bureau
of Mines and Safety. Vanderbilt feels that they have cast some doubt on the
*
definition and are hopeful to pursue Government agency toward a new definition '
of ''commercial asbestos" as opposed to tremolite as an asbestos mineral.
I
Vanderbilt has also been in communication with the A.S.T.M. Committee D-1-3I-
07 concerning^ extender pigment. Presentation made by Allan Harvey at Miami
;
was oriented towards the removal of tremolite from the asbestos definition. It j
is their hope to obtain A.S.T.M, approval and use this approval with other
Government agencies.
Vanderbilt has justifiably been reluctant to tackle NIOSH until more confidence | is developed in their presentation. Dr. Speil was of considerable help at this meeting in pointing out the pitfalls and errors in Vanderbilt's thinking. It was concluded that the attack on tremolite vs. chrysotile must be medically oriented as opposed to a simple fiber definition or redefinition. Spell suggested that a more appropriate approach would be :to obtain an exclusion
i-f\ 5-% ftLM 0&00%~ )%2.0>
Qz pgs)
juuueuy .j t l '.i i d , rag c
of tremolite based on scientific or medical reasons as opposed to a redfini Liu
separating tremolite from chrysotile and/or asbestos. However, Vanderbilt intends to pursue the subject by enlisting the Talc Industry Association's help in developing an acceptable definition of talc, asbestos, etc. at the meeting scheduled for February 5 in New York. In view of the expertise obtained , by J~M people In this mineralogical area and the Government communc.ntipop. area, we urge that Dr. Spo i1 and additional environmental people at d-M attend the February 5 mcetihg in dew York.
A
Attached to thi3 memo tiro some definitions that Bob Bacon has extracted from
various enclyc lopec! 1ns and from the Federal Register concerning asbestos fibers.
It is in this direction that RTV intends to proceed. We certainly question
this attack and increased help from J-M to guide this program properly and
j
sclcnti ficolly and riot to the detriment of the talc industry.
t
t j
y
Earl B. Smith 1
EBStcks
;
tV
'S>
ft'; h`A \{ '
\