Document VV3OY0LkezL9r3Z7O3bgZkrp

GRACE rt; 2 4 * &. . .* t t . * * 754015 Cwiitruction fmbchIKvition To: 0. M. Favorito From: R. H. Locke cc: W. F. McCord B. R. Williams J. W. Wolter v E. S. Wood Date: February 25, 1977 :-Subject*: ^41arlKK$l&:Amendment .. - 'V5|Sh ` 2.. , - -' . "' , .- . w. I am bringing the attached note on this subject-to your attention. You and I had talked about this last week and I believe you indicated that you were going to be pursuing" this yourself :The alternatives seemed, at that time to be: 1. A possible rider to the Torres Bill to add a f/ml trigger level exclusion for asbestiform tremolite to supplement the proposed exclusion of nonasbestiform tremolitic talc from the Board's authority. Since it could easily be proved that most, if not all, tremolitic talcs contain detec table quantities of asbestiform tremolite, it would seem that all informed talc users would be agreeable to such a rider. It would also be nec essary to delete or change the "talc" specification in order to benefit CPD. 2. Independent of the Marks Amendment, pursuing a 1.0 or 0.5 f/ml trigger level guideline in the Carginogen Advisory Committee, procedurally limiting the Gregorio Act's scope and by precedent also the Marks Bill's. This would seen to be of broad appeal. Reference, Jim-Joyce, Dave Kandel, George Borg, Union Carbide and J.M. George Clyde was exploring a parallel inquiry direct with Dr. Ottoboni. 3. Last in priority, due to publicity potential, would be to find out Marks' reaction to a 2nd Marks Amend ment. excluding non-asbestiform tremolite (S.C. payoff and no identifiable hazard) or all tremolite (Libby) payoff) from the enforcement scope of the original . 15170850 0. 11. Favorite 754016 2 February 25, ,1977 Barks Bill as modified first by Dresley and second by Marks. This would seem to be of limited interest (CPD only to my knowledge).. I have no reason to believe Harks would be positive. 1 thus put this lower priority than the first two. well. V.' ' ' ' ; /; .. .. I think you had other ideas you were going to .pugrntf vas The above are. of course, independent of. .other exemption petition representations. ' 7 .* RHL/cf Attachments: E. S. Wood 2/24/77 R. H. Locke 2/14/77 with Attachments R. H *5170851