Document Y7zmboDXzgNBvMrRoj2qQnDy

Mr. E. W. Shortridge UCC - Metals Division Box K King City, CA 93930 Messrs. R, E. Byrne, Jr. G. L. Dickson E. J. Kleber T. P. Norris H. B. Rhodes R. L. Schult . W. C. Thurber*^ J. E. Walsh January 12, 1977 "Calidria" Asbestos ^SCE/VED JAN i 4 1277 This is to confirm recent discussions between NF and KC personnel on the Subject. All products should be bag shrink-wrapped except as follows Product Remarks SG-103 ^ SG-104 * SG-200 * HPO * HPP-EX In plastic bags Bulk Only RCA Rubber, requires pallet wrap Only Georgia-Pacific " " " Only TEC-Tokyo, no plastic ' *.This product for other customers or locations should be bag shrink-wrapped. JLM:dal UCC 008065 UC 149-2 IN7SS3SAL CC8RE5POM3ENCS .^STAIS l352^ to (Name) Division Location Mr. # w. Shortridge UCC - Metals Division BOX King City, CA 93930 Copy to Ms,. Messrs. File M. Cesare R. E. Byrne, Jr. R. L. Schult / W. C. Thurberl/ P.0. BOX 579 - 4525 ROYAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14302 originating osot, February 9, 1977 "Cal 1 dria" Asbestos Answering letter date Subject SG-100/UCAL// / 6 V -/ 'j /.; j Please note the enclosed copies of Ashley Barnes letter\to me and my te-l'etype reply. " I have confirmed that 40-foot containers are available for service from Oakland to Australia, but there are some travel limitations for 40-footers in Australia. Per our telecon on February 4, please advise if the cost of 100-lb. bags on shrink-filmed pallets would be about equivalent to what we are doing now. Do you have the 100-lb. bags and necessary shrink-film, and what is the maximum net weight capacity of 40-foot container? Please note the enclosed information form for Australia's quarantine department. George sent this to me a few weeks ago but we weren't then considering the use of wooden pallets. This should be checked out to determine our responsibilities. Jcr^ ^ HJohn L. Myers JLMrdal Enclosures UCC 008066 /-nJSTRftL//} CiD /y-rA-iN&R. Sl+i PW 7^er ~tro~ UCC 008067 INFORMATION FOR PLANT QUARANTINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AUSTRALIA For each container shippers are required to supply the following information for transmission to Australia. Circle applicable lines: 1. Wooden crates, cases , pallets: a. not used b. treated c. not treated 2. Wooden dunnage: a. not used b. treated c. not treated 3. Straw packing and/or rice hulls and/or similar plant packing material: a. not used b. used . CERTIFICATE OF CLEANLINESS THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS CONTAINER HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY CLEANED BEFORE PACKING AND ALL EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONTENTS HAS BEEN REMOVED. VESSEL: M/S VOYAGE ___________________________________________________________ DESTINED FOR: ___________ _________ _________ (Port of Discharge) CONTAINER NO.: . Authorized Signature Shipper Date UCC 008068 UNION CARBIDE AUSTRALIA LIMITED UNION CAR0IOE gufUOiNS. 157-f67 LlVCRPODL STREET, SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000, AUSTRALIA G.P.O. BOX 5322. SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2001 * TELEGRAMS: "L!NiCARSI0." SYDNEY TELEPHONE: 2-0655 TELEX: 20566 25th January, 1977 Mr* J*L* Myers, UNION CARBIDE COUP,, MINING & METALS DIVISION, P.O. Box 579i NIAGARA FALLS. N.Y. U.S.A, ' 14302 RECEIVED FEB 4 1977 UCC-CAUDfffA Dear John, - ' Further to my letter of 20th January, 1977* 'I visited C.S.R* Building Materials to view the unloading of the Galidria Asbestos SGlOO which was shipped in container loads on slip sheets. Firstly I must express our appreciation of your prompt shipment of our order, C.S.R. were most impressed. The fact that we ship out of Oakland is a distinct advantage over the Canadians. Unfortunately the operation was not at all successful hut I am sure the problems can be overcome and will not affect our future business. Our problems were caused by C.S.R. not telling me exactly what they wanted or I did not understand and therefore did not cor rectly relay to you their requirements. I have enclosed two photographs showing the Calidria Asbestos SGlOO as received in the container. The problem that arose was that the bags were loose packed on the plastic slipsheets and during the voyage had moved slightly so that when the forklift with the special grab attachment (first time I have ever seen one) tried to unload the container the load would not slide onto the forks with the slipsheets but remained jammed in the container and the slipsheet by itself came out from between the pallet loads* C.S.R. were not amused as the containers had to be unloaded by manual labour which took T/z hours/containar compared to 20 minutes which it takes to unload a container of Carey Asbestos. C.S.R. then showed us how the Carey Asbestos is packed and I have included two photographs for your information. The Carey Material is packed, palletised, shrink wrapped and loaded into con tainers as follows: - .............. . ..... . . (1) Corrugated Cardboard 3lipsheets are used (but presumably plastic slipsheets would be just as good, it would depend on price) and- the bags are loaded onto the slipsheets and are glued to the slipsheet and to each other with an adhesive strong enough to stop them from moving but they can be removed from each other without the bags tearing. The bags are not individually shrink wrapped. (2) Another slipsheet is then glued to the top of the pallet load. cont..*. UCC 008069 UNION CARBIDE AUSTRALIA LIMITED 2 (5) A second pallet load is then placed on top of the first and the two pallet loads are shrink '^rapped together* The photographs show their method of packing fairly clearly. (4) The unxtised loads are then loaded into a container, the floor of which has been lined with corrugated cardfoard which facilitates the unloading. (5) In addition to the corrugated cardboard placed on the floor of the container corrugated cardboard is also placed between the two rows of bags in the container, this ensures that even if the cargo moves during shipping it still can be unloaded using a forklift with the special slipsheet attachment. C.S.B. have requested that we ship future material packed said loaded into the container the same as the Carey material* I don't think this is unreasonable and you probably could have packed this shipment in the manner required if the correct information had been relayed to you. X think that whatever extra cost is involved would be offset by the fact that individual shrinkwrapping of the bags is not necessary. Whether you choose to shrinkwrap two pallet loads together as Carey have done or to shrinkwrap each pallet load indi vidually is left to your discretion. Please confirm your ability and agreement to packing the materials as required as soon as possible a3 C.S.R. are looking to placing a further order within the next month. r^m,clSi UNION CARBIDE AUSTRALIA_,LI MIXED I* S' f r/ ALB:1ms A.L. BARNES Product Manager P.S. - John, - - In reading my letter I note that I have refered to pallet loads quite often, of course no pallet is involved. I don't know what the correct phrase is maybe unitised load is a better expression. UCC 008070 ^/<?/'? 7 GC : yn, PLEASE RELAY T0 A. BARM ES UCAL SYDNEY I HAVE RECEIVED Y0UR LETTER DATED 1/25/77 BUT NOT THE ONE DATED 1/20/77 WHICH YOU REFERENCED IN THE FIRST LINE. I HAVE DISCUSSED CSR'S PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS V.ITH 0UT PLANT MANAGER AND HE ADVISES THAT WE ARE NCI CAPABLE 0F USING THE PLASTIC SLIP SHEETS AS PALLETS IN 0UR SHRINK-FILM TUNNEL, AND HE IS SURE 0UP LABCR AND MATERIAL CC STS WOULD BE INCREASED EVEN IF WE C0ULD F0LL0W CAREY'S SYSTEM- I SUGGEST THAT WE USE 100-LB PAPER BAGS 0N REGULAR PALLETS, SHRINK-FILMED, AND SHIP IN 4O-F00T CONTAINERS. PLEASE ADVISE. IF 100-LB BAGS AND 4O-F03T CONTAINERS ARE ACCEPTABLE.. THIS SHOULD KEEP 0UR COSTS ABOUT THE SAME AND SATISFY CSR'S REQUIREMENTS FOR EASE OF UNLOADING. BECAUSE OF USING WO0DEN PALLETS WE WOULD HAVE T0 FUMIGATE THE CONTAINERS BUT I THINK THE COSTS WOULD BE MINIMAL. REGARDS, J0HN L. MYERS CAL I DR.IA ASBESTOS DID YOU RECEIVE OK? YES UCC 008071 ;c V.9-2 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE' Cr UNION CARBIDE CORPOKATION 270 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1001' To (Nome) Division location Miss M,`J, Cesare international Distribution 5th Floor ~loor Number W. G. Green, 5 S. Hoffman, 45 J. L. Myers, Niagra Falls, . Loc, 699 Date January 27, 1977 Originating Dept* International Distribution Floor Number 5 . Answering letter dote Suf*f,cf ' B111 REAK"1 <BU....L. K / 1E1X1 PORT S"H'IPMENTS Dear Mary: .- Mr, Ed McIntyre (212-425-6300), Farrell Lines, has informed me that they will accept asbestos for export in break bulk quantities, if we place our shrink wrapped, paper bags, caution labelled cargo in 8 foot cube CONEX boxes, Infor mation about the CONEX boxes can be obtained from Mr. J. Calabrase (212-344-3320) of Bethlehem Steel, Mr, McIntyre is a member of a study team for the National Maritime Safety Commission and is of the opinion that "asbestos" is only one of many products that dock workers will refuse to handle, if shippers do not accept regulatory control. Captain R. H. Gallagan, Director of Safety, New York Shipping Asso ciation, agrees with this opinion. . " I expect to attend a meeting on February 3rd to discuss the Union Carbide position concerning proposed rulemaking of Docket No, HM-145 which, will subject asbestos to D.Q.T. regulation. I am of the opinion that this action will facilitate export shipment because break bulk shipments are presently embargoed by the I.L.A. JHCtag UCC 008072 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE MINING AND METALS DIVISION DiWiion iocarion Mr. I'!. C. Thurber Metals Division, 38th Floor New York, New York Copy to Messrs: J F. Emerson J L. Myers P. 0. 3QX K, KING CITY, CALIFORNIA 93930 Dots August 13, 1976 Originating Oept. Anivuring Utter data AugUS t 0, 1976 sbft Product Packaging RECEIVED AUS 2 0 1976 Phase out of pallet shrink wrap by using present inventory results follows: 1. 1976 Forecast costs would remain the same as available pallet wrap carries through 1976. /~^ 2. Pallet wrap equivalent tonnage in 1977. (To use up present supply.) (A) Open - 624T ( (B) Pellet - 45IT 3. Effect on the 1977 preliminary Budget Cost is a 23.4M$ addition to Direct Material cost for bag shrink wrap. The revised total plant expense is 3570.4M$. 4. A breakdown of individual product increased costs, follows: Product +$/T Total M$ HPO SG 130 SG. 210 RG 144 RG HOD SG 200 3.187 4.2702 4.5342 4.5364 4.5353 1.914 4.4 0.9 9.1 3.4 4.5 1.1 TOTAL 23.4 . ' j* F. H. Larrison, Jr. ' /snip UCC 008073 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE metals division 270 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 100 To (Name) Division Location Floor Number Copy ?o Mr. F. H. Larrison Metals King City, CA Messrs. J.F. Emerson R.E. Byrnes J.L. Myers J.W. Rawlings H.B. Rhodes Date August 6, 1976 Originating Dept. Floor Number 0 Answering fetter dote Subfeet PRODUCT PACKAGING Per our conversation, you should plan to package all future RG-144 production in individually shrinkwrapped bags rather than on shrink-filmed pallets. Marketing ha.s indicated the desirability of moving to a position where all product in paper bags is individually shrink-wrapped. The improved package integrity would minimize exposure during handling and warehousing. I tinder stand that you presently have in inventory sufficient polyethylene to pallet shrink-film about 2000 tons of product. Assuming that we decide to phase out of pallet shrink filming when this present film inventory Is expended, what would be the effect, vis-a-vis: 1. 1976 Forecast III Costs? 2. 1977 Preliminary Budget Costs? WCT/e /l/ W, C. Thurber UCC 008074 yc 149-2 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE METALS DJV3SSON *o fNamej Division -Location Mr. W. C. Thurber UCC - Metals Division 38th Floor 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Messrs. File R. E. Byrne, Jr. R. H. Larrison R. D. MaTin H. B. Rhodes R. L. Schult P.0. 30X 579 - 4325 ROYAL AV2., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK iI 4, -L7O- Dats Originating Oect. July 9, 1976 "Calidria" Asbestos **tc ^VVcr O JIJL t 3 19/8 Answering 'attar sata Packaging & Transportation Problems with Asbestos Dust Please reference the attached copy of Harry's letter to me on the same Subject. With increasing awareness of dust problems, especially asbestos, we are get ting an increasing number of customer complaints about our packaging. The principle problems are dust on the external surfaces of bags or shrink-filmed pallets, dust between the paper bag and shrinkwrap, and dust released from pallets when the shrink-film is removed. Almost all competitive products are "block-packs" which are completely sealed in plastic or heavy paper bags. They have no leakage or dusty bag problem except when the bags are punctured in an occasional accident. I am fully aware that we have different packaging problems than our competitors; e.g., hot pellets and fluffy open-fiber products. However, different problems should have different solutions; and I think it is time to engage the services of Engineering or the Corporate packaging experts from Bound Brook. I am concerned about an OSHA confrontation on our packaging and transportation practices, which may "shut us down" or force us into hasty and expensive sol utions which may be avoided by doing something now. Basically, barring acci dents, we need to be able to move the oroduct from our plant to the place where the bag is opened for use without any visible leakage or discharge of fiber. Unless the costs are entirely prohibitive, I think we should start shrink wrapping all bagged products immediately, and make sure that the shrink-wrap has adequate- integrity for shipment on pallets or for loose-loading in contain ers or railcars. If, as Harry suggests, we must have an inspector at the plant, then this cost should be part of the consideration. If bag vacuum cleaning has not been instituted, then this should also be done as soon as possible. By no means am I being critical of the pTant. Although carloading practices might be reviewed and shrink-wrapping equipment checked, the basic problem is one of unique package- development and is oeyond the scope of plant expertise and its- responsibilities. UCC 008075 To; W. C. Thurber -2- July 9, 1976 Equipment for densifying "UCAR" silica fume is being evaluated by Jim Downing and NF Engineering. Preliminary results with a vibrating ball mill and cor rugated rulls look encouraging and may work on RG-244 and other open fiber products. I think "us layman" have failed to solve the packaging problem and it should now be turned over to the experts. JLM:dal Attachment UCC 008076 UC 14-J-2/. 3NTS3N Al COSSSSPOMDSHCS m*TAlS >1Y3230^ To(Nam) Qivuion Location Mr. J. L. Myers ycc _ Metals Division Niagara Falls, NY Cooy to File P.0, SOX 579- 4625 ROYAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14302 Dat9 July 8, 1976 originating oeot. "Calidria'1 Asbestos Answaring laitar data Sutliect Packaging & Transportation Problems with Asbestos Dust This confirms our recent discussion of certain packaging problems with Super Visbestos. Recently we ran dust counts at three warehouses in Wyoming during the loading of 20-30 bags of Super Visbestos onto a truck. The counts ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 fibers/cc for shrink wrapped bags and showed 2.5 fibers/cc for some older product which had not been shrink wrapped. A similar test in Oklahoma made shortly after the shrink-filmir.g was ini tiated gave levels of only 0.2-0.5 fibers/cc in a warehouse that was dusty and not particularly well maintained. .These levels are consistent with reports that we have been receiving from Montello, i.e. these are generally small but noticeable amounts of fiber on the bags, on the floor of the railcar, and in any area where the bags have been handled. The amounts evident are considerably more extensive in the shipments received in the past few months than was the case with initial shipments. The measured fiber counts are well below the allowable ceiling and TWA levels. As you are well aware, however, the medical examination, initial monitoring, and to some extent the warning sign requirements are not triggered by the allowable limits but by the presence of any loose asbestos fiber at all. More important, the sight of loose fiber has been found to set-off a "view with alarm" reaction among OSHA inspectors who lecture on the dangers of asbestos and feel that some sort of citation must be handed out- It is thus very important to ascertain why the loose fiber is present and what can be done to reduce it. In order to define the problem, Montello was asked to provide specific details of their observations. The following comments were received: 1. The principle problem area is along the edge where the heat seal takes place. 2. This edge is characterized by areas where the film is doubled, quadrupled or just wrinkled and-wadded. UCC 008077 To: J. L. Myers -2- July 8, 1976 3. The integrity of the seal depends on the configuration of the fiber at the time it is sealed, i.e. a. Two single layers - well sealed. b. Lumpy, 2-6 layers crimped - burns through and leaves holes. Also some areas where v/ads occur - not sealed at all. c. Where asbestos dust is on film it does not seal. 4. In the early shipments something less -than 5% of the bags showed sealing problems. Recent shipments show 20-25% have faulty seals. 5. Superficially the bags with the faulty seals look satisfactory. The leakage results from vibrations during shipping and from hand!ing. ' These observations appear to pinpoint the source of the problem quite well. It is suggested that we ask the plant personnel to look into the problem and advise what can be done to reduce the number of bad seals. Perhaps a regular inspection procedure or quality control specification should be instituted. While on the subject of shipment, it is relevent to report on a recent call from Mr. Roach at the Amsco warehouse in Kansas City seeking information on how to handle a damaged shipment. Their last car leaked asbestos out on the ground when the door was opened about 3". Unloading was then- don? from the other side. It was found that the load had shifted in transit and the center post in the door had torn 9 bags of RG-144 about the full length of the bag. The entire car was permeated with asbestos fiber. There was a spacer between the pallets but the door had not been lined with cardboard. Mr. Roach also mentioned that this was an unusual case and the cars usually arrive undamaged and clean. I do not know whether this case represents an oversight when the car was loaded, the need to improve our ' loading and dunnage procedure, or one of those difficu]t-to-avoid accidents that occur occasionally in rail shipments. It is reported for information and appropriate action by those directly involved. HBR:dal H. B. Rhodes UCC 008078 :! v> METALS DIVISION March 13, 1980 Memorandum to: Messrs. G. R. Bailey R. E. Byrne R. L. Folkman J.T. Kelly R. J. Klotzbach O. J. Malacarne J. L. Myers H. B. Rhodes F. J. Shortsleeve J. J. Sibley Subject: cc: G. R. Adams W.G. Alesio Asbestos Business In conjunction with the Mineral Products Meeting to be held on March 27th, Dr. Rhodes will discuss the current status of health-related regulations concerning the promotion and use of asbestos products. This will be followed by a discussion to update the asbestos strategic plan. If time permits. Dr. Rhodes will begin his discussion on the 27th following the regular order of business for the Mineral Products Meeting. In any event, the meetings will be continued or started on Friday, March 28th, at 9:00 a.m. in the 39th floor conference room. ' "-------------- --------------------------------- -------_ RWRjac R. W. Rebholz UCC 008079 UC 149-2 '('iQi INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE J. Ce.; PETALS DIVISION To(N.me> Division Location Mrs. L. 0. Grogan UCC Metals Division P. 0. BOX K King City, CA 93930 Messrs. R. E. Byrne, J,r. J. L. Myers*/" File P.0. BOX 57a- 4625 ROYAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YOR K 14302 Oats December 21, 1976 Originating Otpt. Answering letler date "Calidria" Asbestos A'wCEIVSD SuOject RCA Rubber dA;^ L 19^7 As you know, the latest car of SG-200 shipped to RCA Rubber was bag shrink wrapped and not pallet shrink wrapped. The car arrived in rather poor condition, according to reports from Eli Lines (RCA purchasing director) and Harwick's sales representative, Larry Sullivan. In the past, RCA has been extremely pleased with our pallet wrap and the excellent condition of the SG-200 when they received it. Therefore, they are insisting that we return to the former method of packaging as soon as possible. I explained to Eli about our SG-200 inventory at King City and he has agreed to take the next car with bag shrink wrap if we will also shrink wrap the pallets. If this proves satisfactory, he agreed to take the remaining inventory in this manner. Needless to say, everything within reason should be done to insure that these shipments be received by them in acceptable condition. i - .. . UCC 008080 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE METALS DSVJSJOS4 To (Name) Division Location Copy to Mr. A. Barnes UCAL 157-167 Liverpool St. Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia Ms. Messrs. M. Cesare R. E. Byrne, Jr. R. L. Schult E. W. Shortridge/ W. C. Thurberc/ P.0. BOX 579-4625 6OVAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14302 Data originatingoaot. February 15, 1977 "Calidria" Asbestos Answering latter date Subject Enclosed are the inspection form and Methyl Bromide fact sheet which were referenced in my teletype. JohjrvL. Myers JLM:dal Enclosures UCC 008081 INFORMATION FOR PLANT QUARANTINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AUSTRALIA For each container shippers are required to supply the following information for transmission to Australia. Circle applicable lines: 1. Wooden crates, cases, pallets: a. not used b. treated c. not treated 2. Wooden dunnage: a. not used b. treated c. not treated 3. Straw packing and/or rice hulls and/or similar plant packing material: a. not used b. used . . CERIIFICATE OF CLEANLINESS THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS CONTAINER HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY CLEANED BEFORE PACKING AND ALL EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONTENTS HAS BEEN REMOVED. VESSEL: M/S.: VOYAGE ' DESTINED FOR: ___________ _________ ' (Port of Discharge) CONTAINER NO.:,, , ______________ Authorized Signature Shipper Date UCC 008082 / fast sheet COMMODITIES U5\5SUSTED FOR . METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION ' ' Methyl bromide is a fumigant which;haa. proved its value in protecting a wide variety of stored commodities from rodent or insect damage. But we know that methyl bromide must be used with discretion. There ere materials which should not be exposed to methyl bromide, or should be exposed only under very carefully controlled conditions. - ' .' '' ' ' i The most common reason far avoiding fumigation of a material with methyl bromide is the off- odor resulting from a reaction of the fumigant with certain sulfur compounds. These odors ,, usually persist indefinitely and in most cases there is no practical way to remove them. . .... . ! K t Some materials have sorptive qualities or a solvent effect which will reduce the methyl bromide concentration in the fumigated area to the point of ineffectiveness. Other reasons for caution with methyl bromide exposure involve phytotoxicity {toxicity to growing plants), destruction . '; of seed viability, the possibility of illegal residues, and rapid deterioration after fumigation of ' commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables. * . . . . . .. - M The following is a list of materials which should not be exposed to methyl bromide. , :: 1. Foodstuffs 3. Furs, horsehair and pillows (especially -f- *.:/ i (a) Iodized salt stabilized with sodium hyposulphite. .- , (b) Full fat soya flour. . feather pillows). ` _ -' - 4. leather goods, particularly white kid or r > . { i ^ : t- * 4, , L` m. , (c) Ce/tain soap powders, baking sodas . and salt blocks used for cattle licks. fd/tFresh fruits and vegetables. 2. Certain rubber goods . -L- fa) Sponge rubber. '* (b) Foam rubber as in rug padding, pillows, cushions, mattresses, and any other leather goods tanned with sulfur processes. . 5. Wootens--extreme caution should be ' used in the fumigation of any Angora woolens. Some adverse effect has been noted on woolen socks, sweaters, shawls and woolen yarn. V * some car seats (usually imported T - i V ' cars). . . : - ' 6. Viscose rayons--those rayons : (c) Rubber stamps and other similar . forms of reclaimed rubber. processed or manufactured by a process in which carbon bisulphide is used. i : DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. \ M, IKPMING UM! Of !H DOW CHMXt CQVPiNI I AG-ORGANICS DEPARTMENT MIDLAND. MCHIGAN 48640 ! UCC 008083 / 7. Paper the methyl bromide, not only contami (a) Silver polishing papers. nating the charcoal but reducing the fbj Certain writing and other papers gas concentration to a point where an cured by sulphide processes. adequate fumigation job may not be (c) Photographic prints and blueprints . obtained. stored in quantity. 13. t Seeds that are to be used for planting. 8. Photographic chemicals (this does not mean camera or film but photographic 14. t Bulbs that are to be used for planting. chemicals used in dark rooms). -'. .' ' * 15. Alt pets, including fish and birds. 9. Rug padding (rubber, felted, etc.).'- . . - *\ . 16. tLiving plants or nursery stack. 10. Cinder blocks. 17. Cellophane, if sulphur is used.+t 11. Mixed concrete, which occasionally " . ` pick up odors, tt . .; 12. Charcoal materials--charcoal absorbs t Consult Dow or tha U.S D A for specific information on procedures and the possibility of residues of methyl bromide on fumigated produce. ft In questionable cases involving commodities that may-contain sulfur compounds that would react with methyl bromide to cause off-odors, -a trial fumigation should be run on a small amount of the material. . .; If any of our readers have had experiences with other commodities suggesting that they should be added to this list, please let us know. ; ! Ar- _ ." , Prir>?d nUSA * 'htfenwV *> tlx 0w tl*A.ct Ct UCC 008084 FomNe 132-1*1.74 LiM I CARBIDE 'MY CJL\ L.'SG^ UCT UNION CARBIDE CO RFO RATI0M METALS DIVISION) NIAGARA FALLS, MY TWX MO. 71 0-SS4-1664 FEBRUARY 15, 1977 PLEASE RELAY TO ASHLEY BARNES UCAL SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO L0AD ABOUT 42, 000# SG-10S, THIS IS 0UR DESIGNATION- FOR FLOOR TILE GRADE PELLETS IN 100-LB. PAPER BAGS, IN A 4O-F0OT CONTAINER, 0N PALLETS, SHRINK-FILM ED. YOUR ORDER SH0ULD BE APPROXIMATE MULTIPLES OF 42, 000#. IT IS 0UR UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH CONTAINER MUST BE FUMIGATED BECAUSE 3 F USING WOODEN PALLETS, PER THE AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT 0 F HEALTH. WE ARE CONFIRMING THAT THIS CAN BE DONE EN ROUTE FROM THE PLANT TO THE DOCKS. THE COST IS ABOUT S40 PER CONTAINER. THE FUMIGATION NORMALLY USES METHYL BROMIDE AND I AM SENDING A FACT SHEET AND A COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT FORM. THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH METHYL BROMIDE IS OBJECTIONABLE ODOR. CSR SHOULD 3E CAUTIONED ABOUT OPENING AND UNLOADING THE CONTAINERS. ' PLEASE ENTER YOUR NEXT ORDER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AS WE WILL NOT PRODUCE SG-102 UNTIL WE ARE CERTAIN OF YOUR ORDER. WE CAN EXPEDITE SHIPMENT IF YOU WILL SEND ME A TELEX ADVISING 3RDER NUMBER, QUANTITY, ETC. .. BEST REGARDS - WE ARE. STILL HAVING SNOW AND COLD "`WEATHER. JOHN L. MYERS CALIDRIA ASEESTOS DID YOU RECEIVE OK? RE VD WELL THANKS; . UCC 008085 uc i T INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE To (Name) Division Location Copy to Messrs. M. 6. Alesio G. R. Bailey R. E. Byrne, Jr. R, L. Folkman J. T. Kelly R. J. Klotzbach 0. J. Malacarne J. L. Myers R. W. Rebholz J. J. Sibley P, 0; BOX 579 -4G25 ROYAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK U3G2 cut April 1, 1980 originating Dept. "Calidria" Asbestos Answering fetter date suoiect Status of Asbestos Regulatory Matters The text and figures for the presentation on asbestos regulatory matters given at the SPU Meeting on March 28, 1980 are enclosed as requested. Suggested changes for the page on asbestos health effects in the SPU manage ment presentation (page 10) are also included. V-/S. Harrison B. Rhodes /rmm Enc. UCC 008086 ASBESTOS HEALTH EFFECTS MAIN EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE ASBESTOSIS Result of very high past exposures. LUNG CANCER Mainly from interaction with smoking. (Non-smoking asbestos worker has little or no excess risk of lung cancer.} MESOTHELIOMA This cancer can result from low exposures and is not smoking rela LATENT PERIOD VARIES FROM ABOUT 15-50 YEARS. PRESENT REGULATORY ACTIONS AIMED AT REDUCING RISK OF LUNG CANCER AND MESOTHELIOMA THE EXTENT OF CANCER RISK AT VERY LOW EXPOSURES IS ESTIMATED, NOT MEASURED DIRECTLY. Definitive scientific answers will probably not be forthcoming in the near future. I UCC 008087 STATUS OF ASBESTOS REGULATORY NATTERS MARCH 1980 Presented to the Asbestos SPU Committee March 28, 1980 H. 8. Rhodes Union Carbide Corporation Metals Division Niagara Falls, New York UCC 008088 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section BACKGROUND REGULATORY ACTIONS IN PROGRESS General Regulatory Situation EPA Rulemaking - Commercial and Industrial Use of Asbestos Fibers Issuance of an ANPRM Next Actions by EPA CPSC Rulemaking - ANPRM, ConsumerProducts Containing Asbestos EPA - Rulemaking Under RECRA OSHA Rulemaking Legislative and State Activities WHERE WILL THIS ROUND OF REGULATIONS STOP? KEY ASSUMPTIONS . FOREIGN REGULATIONS FIGURES - Page 1 2 2 4 4 5 6 7 8 10 10 11 12 14 UCC 008089 STATUS OF ASBESTOS REGULATORY MATTERS MARCH 1980 BACKGROUND During our asbestos SPU discussion about nine months ago we settled on the following key assumptions: 1. No widespread bans on mandatory substitutions. 2. No significant impact due to "retroactive" legislation. 3. OSHA TLV no more restrictive than 1 fiber/cc TIJA. 4. Other regulations (EPA, CPSC, DOT, etc.) not significantly more stringent than now. Up to that time there had been sporadic outbursts of publicity such as the Califano report and the hair dryer scare. By and large, however, the agencies were taking the approach that the extensive occupational and environ mental regulations already in place for asbestos provided reasonable protection It was more appropriate to direct their resources to substances which were not regulated. There were some straws in the wind, however, that suggested that asbestos might be in for a new round of action, so a number of more stringent assumptions were included in the analysis. , Over the past nine months a series of new publications has appeared. These include:. * 1. An up date by Berry, et. al. of the famous Rochdale cohort that indicated significant risk at exposures of 0.3-1.3 fibers/cc. 2. A reanalysis of the Patterson factory workers by Seidman, Selikoff, et.al. that showed serious risks after high exposures for a period as short as nine months. 3. A reanalysis of the asbestos insulation workers cohort by Selikoff suggested that there was a small increase in the risk of Tung cancer to non-smoking asbestos workers. UCC 008090 -2- 4. A report by the very prestigious British Parlimentary Commission (Simpson Report) that recommended occupational standards of 1 fiber/cc for chrysotile, 0.5 fiber/cc for amosite, and 0.2 fibers/cc for crocidolite. Further use of crocidoli'te was also banned. All of these publications have significant scientific flaws but they provided "new information" upon which pressure for renewed action could be generated. We do not know exactly what caused things to "gel" at the agencies but OSHA, EPA, and CPSC are now moving forward on significant new regulatory programs. REGULATORY ACTIONS IN PROGRESS General Regulatory Situation In the examination of the regulatory situation today, it is important to understand that asbestos is only a small part of a much larger regulatory scene. OSHA has been in action since about 1970, has promulgated lots of safety standards, but only about half a dozen health standards. If their Generic Carcinogen Standard survives court challenge, they will be in a position to enact 10-20 new standards per year. The EPA has promulgated a substantial number of standards but these are small compared to the regulatory structure that will be in place soon as a result of TSCA, RECRA, and the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Unfortunately, EPA has elected to use asbestos as a trial horse for the definition of their regulatory powers under several of these Acts, so it becomes a precedent setter. Our fight for reasonable and realistic regulation is important not only to the asbestos business, but to all of Union Carbide's businesses where a substance classified as a carcinogen is involved. UCC 008091 -3- Over the past several years the Federal regulatory agencies have responded to pressure from various sources, particularly the Executive Branch of the government, to avoid overlapping regulations and to develop a common regulatory approach within the limits set by their different statutory authorities. Considerable progress has been made and it is useful to outline the approach that has evolved since it is common to the several initiatives that need to be examined here. The favorite item on regulatory agendas today is carcinogens (asbestos is generally regarded as a human carcinogen). Once a material has been demonstrated to be a carcinogen, a series of cliches are applied as follows: 1. There is a cancer epidemic in progress in the United States. Immediate regulatory action is imperative. (The "Chicken Little" syndrome.) 2. No safe level for a carcinogen has been demonstrated. (Any exposure greater than zero, regardless of how small, results in some risk to somebody, somewhere.) 3, Any use of a carcinogen for which a suitable, Tess hazardous substitute exists presents an unreasonable risk. It should be banned. (There is no consideration of how small the risk may be in the absolute sense.) 4, The urgency of the problem justifies the use of generic regulatory actions or pro forma regulations. Attention is directed to Item 3 in the list which is particularly relevant to our business. Our main emphasis has been high technology substitutes for non-asbestos materials. - UCC 008092 -4- EPA Rulemaking - Commercial and Industrial Use of Asbestos Fibers Issuance of ANPRM , This action has potentially the greatest impact on the asbestos industry of any regulatory action now under way. The EPA filed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) under TSCA which generally followed the scenario just outlined on October 20, 1979. This ANPRM stated their reasons why the rulemaking was needed, asked for the voluntary submission of a tremendous amount of information, and listed the regulatory options they have under consideration. These were: 1. Outright ban in the fairly near future of all uses where they deem suitable substitutes are available. 2. Limits on total usages in the U.S. Steadily decreased with time to virtual ban. 3. Ban started in 1985 and fully in place in-1990. Only exceptions are essential uses meeting three criteria. (No reasonable way to get an exception.) Burden of proof on user. The EPA used an innovative "cradle-to-grave" approach similar to that used to ban PCB's as the basis for the ANPRM. In this approach the risks at each step in. the."life cycle'of the substance is examined, i.e. mining, milling, transportation, product manufacture, product use, and final disposal are added together. If the cumulative risk is judged to be "unreasonable" the EPA takes the position that all except absolutely essential uses should be banned. They have already made a tentative conclusion that an unreasonable risk situation exists for asbestos and this is reflected in the proposed regulatory alternatives The Asbestos Information Association/North America submitted an industry response (endorsed by UCC) on February 17, 1980. It was basically a legal * brief disputing the EPA conclusions and the approach used. It made the UCC 008093 -5- following points: 1. No "reasonable basis" exists to conclude that asbestos presents an "unreasonable risk" of injury to health or the environment. 2. Statutory requirements for such a finding were delineated in detail. 3.' Even if a proper "unreasonable risk" finding can be made, EPA must by statute apply the "least burdensome" regulatory alternatives, not the most burdensome. 4. The problem of confidentiality of information must be resolved prior to any broad submission of data. Next Actions by EPA Since the flood of information requested voluntarily did not occur, the EPA is now moving to force its submission. The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority (under Section 8) to promulgate general orders to require that certain types of information must be submitted. Section 8(a) includes exposure data but focuses mainly on commercial information. Such things as manufacturing and sales volumes and dollar values, customer lists including tonages sold, and information on substitutes are included. Section 8(d) primarily involves health: and safety studies. General Orders under Section 8 must go through the proposed rule, public comment, final rule steps. They are subject to review in the courts. A Section 3(a) proposed order which covered a large number of chemicals, but did not include asbestos, was issued recently by the EPA. It's potential impact on UCC is being examined by the appropriate people. A specific order for asbestos is in preparation and is expected out in the next several months. The AIA/NA is cooperating in the evaluation of the proposed reporting form. A UCC 008094 -6- final rule on asbestos does not seem likely before the last quarter of 1980 and could be delayed longer if litigation is involved. The EPA proposed a rule for certain chemicals under Section 8(a) about two years ago. It was withdrawn following litigation. A new proposal was made last fall which included asbestos among a myriad of other substances. The Chemical Manufacturers Association responded to this latest proposal on February 29 with a very extensive legal brief. It is expected that litigation may follow if substantial changes are not made by the EPA. The AIA/NA could not identify any issues unique to asbestos so they did not participate in responding. Here, too, it seems doubtful if a final rule will be settled before the last quarter of 1980. The EPA also has two contractors making exposure measurements and contacting companies to provide the kind of information requested in the ANPRM. Frequently the contacts are by phone requesting on-the-spot answers to specific questions. The answers are written up and become part of the public record. Senior EPA officials are also calling on individual large companies and providing misleading information as to the extent of the data other companies are submitting. We are following the approach that all requests for information must be in writing. All responses will be written and be approved by the appropriate persons in UCC before submission. It is obvious that this is going to be a long and expensive battle with little likelihood of regulations in place before the end of 1981. Industry litigation is a distinct possibility. Some sort of compliance period after the regulations are in place can reasonably be expected. CPSC Rulemaking - ANPRM Consumer Products Containing Asbestos The EPA and CPSC have worked-out an interagency agreement which divides up the responsibility for the massive asbestos efforts under way. On this basis the CPSC also issued an ANPRM on October 17, 1979 that followed much the UCC 008095 -7- same rationale described previously and included releases by both use and misuse as a basis for bans. The AI^/NA responded on February 17, 1980 with a legal brief containing the following main points: 1. The CPSC does not have statutory authority to regulate many of the products listed in the ANPRM. 2. The Act does not sanction the banning of any product merely on the grounds that it emits a substance that is harmful at some high dose and can be termed "non-essential." 3. There is no basis for action against asbestos under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. 4. Detailed infomation will not be supplied until confidentiality problems are resolved. The CPSC also has statutory powers to require the submission of information. They too are preparing a general order which does not have to go through the full rulemaking process. A draft has been reviewed and the request appears to have been reduced to a small number of products which are clearly in their jurisdiction. It will put an extreme burden on small appliance manufacturers. We will obviously have to continue to fight in this area, but it appears that CPSC is leaving the major share of the action to EPA. EPA - Rulemakino Under RECRA As you are all probably aware, the EPA is well along in the implementation of "cradle-to-grave" control of hazardous wastes. The costs for this elaborate system will obviously be covered by fees from the operation involved. The approach includes the following elements: 1. All generators of hazardous waste must register. 2. All hazardous waste must be transported only by an appropriately licensed carrier. UCC 008096 -8- 3. All hazardous waste must be deposited on!y at a disposal site licensed to handle it. 4. The waste must be accompanied by a three part manifest with each part properly filled out by the generator, hauler, and disposal site operator, respectively. About a year and a half ago when the subject first came up at EPA, the AIA/NA made them aware that they needed a specific and limited definition of "asbestos" or this kind of regulation would shutdown the face of the earth. It was also pointed out that asbestos emissions and disposal were already extensively regulated under NESHAPS. The combination of these reasons convinced them that they should leave asbestos out of the initial round of P.ECRA reg ulations. We have learned recently that this decision Is under review. It is being watched closely and could be a sleeper. Inclusion of asbestos in this kind of regulation could have a very large impact on asbestos users. OSHA Rulemaking Asbestos was the first material regulated by OSHA. The industry has been subject to a standard since December 1971. At the present time, this standard permits an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 2 fiber/cc >5u with short time exposures of 10 fiber/cc >5u. There was a flurry of activity in 1975 when OSHA proposed that the level be lowered to 0.5 fiber/cc >5y. About a year later NIOSH suggested that the limit should be 0.1 fiber/cc >5y based on analystical limitations, not health considerations. Until recently OSHA has been more interested in working on their Generic Carcinogen and other Standards than in spending time on asbestos which was UCC 008097 -9- already regulated. The four publications mentioned earlier and the danger of being upstaged and preempted by other agencies has changed this position. They have had a substantial task group working for about the last 6 months looking at regulatory alternatives for asbestos. A subcommittee has also been studying the special problems of the construction industry. Rumors of an immediate Emergency Temporary Standard that were strong about three months ago have faded out but such a move is not beyond the realm of possibility. They also have a contractor who is updating an earlier study to provide a regulatory analysis by August 30 of this year. It is reasonable to'assune that a new proposed rule would accompany the regulatory analysis so that publication would be some time in the last quarter of 1980 at the earliest. It is obviously difficult to be sure what QSHA will propose, particularly before the Supreme Court rules on the benzene case. It is my guess that the format will generally follow that of the Generic Carcinogen Standard with an allowable TVJA in the range of 0.1-0.3 fibers/cc. OSHA is also likely to make their first move on mandatory substitution. This should be an interesting exercise because their statutory authority in this area is extremely weak if it exists at all. There may also be some special provisions in the monitoring and medical surveillance requirements for the construction industry. It is even more difficult to predict what any final regulation will look like following the hearings and court challenge if it occurs. It is my opinion that the industry can make a very strong case against any regulation lower than about 0.5 fibers/cc and will back this up in court. As the level moves upward towards 1 fiber/cc, the situation becomes grayer. It does not appear that any final regulations will be in place before mid 1980. Some period of time to achieve compliance can also be expected. UCC 008098 -10- Legislative and State Activities In the interests of time it will only be noted that the danger of "retroactive guilt by association" legislation seems to be greatly reduced. There has been sporadic state activity largely directed at asbestos-cement pipe in drinking water use. These do not presently appear to present anywhere near the threat we are facing from EPA and OSHA. WHERE WILL THIS ROUND OF REGULATIONS STOP? This is obviously the key question and it is equally obvious that no-one knows the answer. We can only balance factors and opinions and make a judgment. It is quite clear, first of all, from the regulatory time tables that we are in for several more years of turmoil. This could be even longer if, as is likely, substantive legal challenges are undertaken. When the industry became aware about nine months ago of the regulatory initiatives it faced, the conclusion was reached that we were up against a crusade where reason and facts were unlikely to prevail. It was highly likely that:the courts were the only possible source of relief. . On this basis the AIA/NA hired the Washington law firm of Kirkland and Ellis as special counsel to coordinate and guide our actions with the Federal regulatory agencies. K&E has wide experience in this area and is the American Petroleum Institute's counsel in the OSHA benzene case. The AIA/NA membership has tripled their annual dues from $300,000 to about $1,000,000 to cover the added costlP The AIA/NA is also optimistic that the Canadian mining companies generally are not members, will contribute $350,000 more to the effort. The Executive Conwiittee of the AIA/NA had a very serious discussion at their last meeting on tfie question of whether we were in a position such that we might (1) UCC as a small mining and milling operation pays the minimum dues. This was Increased from $2000 to $6000 per year. UCC 008099 -11- win the battle to obtain liveable regulations in the next several years but lose the war because there were no more customers left. (This may be the most critical problem in our own situation.) The decision was made, however, that the AIA/NA had no choice but to keep up the best fight it could to obtain reasonable regula tions to protect the workers, the users of asbestos products, and the general public. The other area of intagibles that needs to be weighed is the overall regulatory picture. Asbestos may be the bellwether but it is only a small part of the regulatory structure that is being developed. There is clearly concern today in Congress, in a substantial share of the general public, and even in some unions, that the country is grossly over regulated. This feeling has manifested itself in the recent Congressional action to limit the FTC authority, the Schweikert Bill to limit QSHA inspections, and a number of bills to allow Congressional veto of regulatory actions. There Is also the impact of regulations on energy and inflation that is. receiving wide publicity. Finally, even allowing for bureaucratic inertia, the upcoming election can have a significant impact on the regulatory climate. *- KEY ASSUMPTIONS Based on the foregoing facts and generalities, ft is suggested that several revisions should be made in the key assumptions of May 1979 that were shown previously. It appears that it is important to include the time element in our considerations. It is suggested that we plan on a period of uncertainty regarding final regulations of 1-3 years followed by several more years to come into compliance. An assumption covering this should be added. Concerning bans and substitutes, our products are largely in bound, form so releases of asbestos are small. There are generally readily available substitutes, however. It seems doubtful that no bans or mandatory substi tutions at all will result from the large scale regulatory actions in progress. UCC 008100 -12- Son e moderate factor to account for this in our sales projection should be included. The assumption of no significant impact from "retroactive" legislation still looks reasonable. The OSHA conclusions were given earlier. A 0.5 fiber/cc TWA appears to be a realistic assumption. Promulgation will not be sooner than the first quarter of 1981 and effective date could be a year or more later. The same reasoning used re widespread bans also applies to other regulations. The most likely changes appear to be a numerical ambient air standard and inclusion under the RECRA provisions. This, too, is probably one-two years away. FOREIGN REGULATIONS The foregoing discussion has been confined to the situation in the United States. Since about half of our asbestos is now sold overseas a brief comment on foreign regulatory matters is appropriate. The situation regarding asbestos varies considerably from country to country. In general the adversary position between government and industry is much less extreme than in the U.S. and the public image of business'is better. Public interest groups and the media are a significant factor, but do not appear to be as strong as they are in this country. There is also the impression that in the large, most advanced countries, the governmental authorities regard the approaches advocated in the U.S. as much too extreme. The U.S. regulatory agencies have recently set up regular meetings and information exchange arrangements with their counterparts in the EEC countries. This will facilitate the proliferation of the U.S. approach and the general industry opinion is that Europe will tend to follow the U.S. Based on past observations it seems that the large, heavily industrialized countries such as UCC 008101 -13The U.K., Germany, France, Italy, and possibly Japan may end up with more moderate regulations and the smaller, highly socialized countries such as Scandinavia, Holland, and Belgium may go the ban route. The main point is that regulatory matters in most of the countries where our foreign customers are located are moving more slowly and regulations may in a substantial number of cases end up to be less severe than those in the U.S. UCC 008102 -14- KEY ASSUMPTIONS - LEGISLATIVE AMD REGULATORY IMPACTS ON THE ASBESTOS SPU 1. Mo WIDESPREAD BANS OR MANDATORY SUBSTITUTIONS. 2. Mo SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DUE TO "RETROACTIVE" LEGISLATION. 3. OSHA TLV no more restrictive than 1 fiber/cc TWA. A, Other regulations (EPA, CPSC, DOT, etc.) not signifi cantly more stringent than now. FIGURE 1 UCC 008103 -15- HEM PUBLICATIONS RELATING THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURc1_ BERRY1. - 0,3 - 1.25 fibers/cc present a significant hazard, 2, SEIBi'IAN - 9 MONTH EXPOSURES at high level VERY HAZARDOUS, 3. Simpson Report a. 1 fiber/cc chrysotile b. 0,5 fiber/cc amosite c. 0.2 fiber/cc (ban on new uses) crqcidolite 4, Selikoff - non-smoking asbestos workers at excess risk of LUNG CANCER. UCC 008104 FIGURE 2 -16- REGL'LATION BY CLICHE^ 1. We have a cancer epidemic in progress, Immediate REGULATORY ACTION IS IMPERATIVE, 2. NO SAFE LEVEL FOR A CARCINOGEN HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. (Any EXPOSURE GREATER THAN ZERO, REGARDLESS OF HOW SMALL, RESULTS IN SOME RISK TO SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE,) 3. Any use of a carcinogen for which a suitable, less HAZARDOUS SUBSTITUTE EXISTS PRESENTS AN UNREASONABLE RISK. It should BE BANNED, 4. The urgency of the problem justifies the use of generic REGULATORY ACTIONS OR PRO FORMA REGULATIONS, UCC 008105 FIGURE 3 -17- EPA - ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING COMMERCIAL AMD INDUSTRIAL USE OF ASBESTOS FIBERS - OCTOBER 20. 1979 1. OUTLINES REASONS FOR THE REGULATION CCANCER EPIDEMIC). 2. Asks for voluntary submission of a tremendous amount OF INFORMATION, 3. States regulatory options under consideration: a. Outright ban in fairly near future, ALL USES WHERE THEY DEEM SUITABLE SUBSTITUTES ARE AVAILABLE. b. Limits on total usage in the U.S. Steadily decreased with time to VIRTUAL BAN. c. Ban STARTING in 1985 AMD fully in place in 1990. Only exceptions are essential Muses meeting three criteria, o reasonable way to get an exception, Burden of proof on user, ! FIGURE 4 UCC 008106 -18- AIA/KA RESPONSE'TO THE EPA ANPRM Mo1,. "reasonable Basis" exists to conclude that asbestos PRESENTS AN "UNREASONABLE RISK" OF INJURY.TO HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT. 2. Statutory requirements for such a finding were DELINEATED IN DETAIL. 3, Even if a proper "unreasonable risk" finding can be MADE, EPA MUST BY STATUTE APPLY THE "LEAST BURDENSOME" REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, NOT THE MOST BURDENSOME. A. The problem of confidentiality of information must be RESOLVED PRIOR TO ANY BROAD SUBMISSION OF DATA. FIGURE 5 UCC 008107 -19NEXT ACTIONS BY EPfl 1. Evaluate ANPRM Responses, 2. TSCAGeneral Order under Section 8(a) of to require submission of information on: a. Production and sales volumes and costs, b. Identification of customers, c. Information on substitutes for asbestos. d. Exposure information. e. Controls used and costs thereof, STATUS i. In preparation for asbestos. Proposal expected in NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS. ii. Final rule - towards end of 1980, 3, TSCAGeneral Order under Section 8(d) of to require submission OF HEALTH and 5AEEIX SIUHIEi- Status i, Proposal issued and responses made on February 29, 1980. ii. Much broader than asbestos, in. Under heavy attack by CMA, . iv. Issue date, litigation? 4, Contractor's studies of industry structure, substitutes, exposures, economics. Status Under way - Completion not before end of year. miilSlQNS . 1. This is going to be a long and expensive battle with little likelihood of regulations in place before the end of 1981, 2. Industry litigation is a distinct possibility, 3. Some sort of compliance period after ihe regulations abe 1H place can reasonably be expected. UCC 008108 FIGURE 6 20- CPSC AMPRM CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING ASBESTOS - OCTOBER 17, 1980 1. Issued on October 17, 1930, a. Inter-agency agreement with EPA. b. Same general rationale and pattern, 2. AIA/NA Response - February 17, 1980 a. The CPSC does not have statutory authority to regulate MANY OF THE PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE ANPRM. b. The Act does not sanction the banning of any product merely ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT EMITS A SUBSTANCE THAT IS HARMFUL AT SOME HIGH DOSE AND CAN BE TERMED "NON-ESSENTIAL". c. There is no basis for action against asbestos under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act, d. Detailed information will not be supplied until confiden tiality problems are resolved. 3. Further actions by CPSC, a. Evaluate ANPRM response, - b. Issue General Order for Submission of information Status Expected in next couple of months. CONCLUSIONS . 1. Lesser impact than EPA. * 2. Timing will probably be coordinated and, therefore, similar. 3. Need to be monitored and dealt with as CPSC moves. UCC 008109 FIGURE 7 -21- PA HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS UNPER-RECBA 1. REGULATIONS with the following requirements are nearing IMPLEMENTATION: a. All generators of hazardous waste must register. b. All hazardous waste must be transported only, by an appropriately licensed carrier. c. All hazardous waste must be deposited only at a disposal SITE LICENSED TO HANDLE IT. d. The waste must be accompanied by a three part manifest with EACH PART PROPERLY FILLED OUT BY THE GENERATOR, HAULER, AND DISPOSAL SITE OPERATOR RESPECTIVELY. 2. At PRESENT ASBESTOS is NOI INCLUDED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. Regulated under NESHAPS instead. 3. Under reconsideration. - CONCLUSION Could be a sleeper with very large impact on customers. UCC 008110 FIGURE 8 -22QSHA REGULATORY ACTIVITIES 1. Background . a. Emergency standard December 1971; FINAL 1972; MODEST CHANGES. b. Proposal on October 3, 1975, 0,5 fibers/cc (General Industry Only) c. ?!I0SH 0.1 fibers/cc based on analytical limitations, 2. Present Actions i a. Task group studying options, b. Contractor preparing regulatory analysis required by E,0. 12044, Completion date,, August 1980, 3, Options a. Emergency Temporary Standard. b. Proposal no earlier than August. 4, Proposed Rules GUESS A. Format like generic carcinogen rules, b. Oil;- 0.3'fiber/cc yS u'TWA. c. Mandatory substitution included, d. Possibly some special consideration for construction RE MONITORING AND MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE. 5. Conclusions a. Very strong case against any level below 0.5 fibers/cc, b. Industry will go to court if necessary. c. Mandatory substitution requirements will not be sustained in court. d. Timing - middle of 1981. " UCC 008111 FIGURE 9 WHERE HILL THIS ROUSD OF REGULATIONS STOP? 1. ONE - THREE MORE YEARS OF TURMOIL., POSSIBLY LONGER IF LITIGATION RESULTS, 2. Will there still be any customers? 3. AIA/ilA Decisions: a, Likely to have to go to court. b. Hired Kirkland and Ellis as special counsel. 0^$700y000 budget for 1980) A, Regulatory Climate: a. Congress, some parts of the general public, EVEN SOME UNIONS, CONCERNED THAT THE COUNTRY IS GROSSLY OVERREGULATED, . 1. FTC AUTHORITY LIMITED, 2. Schweikert Bill, ' 3. Bills to allow Congressional VETO OF REGULATORY ACTIONS. b. Impact of energy and inflation, c. Upcoming election, FIGURE 10 UCC 008112 KEY ASSUMPTIONS - LEGISLAilVh AND REGULATORY IMPACTS ON IHE.ASBESTQS SPU MAY 1930 It NO WIDESPREAD BANS ON MANDATORY SUBSTITUTIONS. 2. No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DUE TO "RETROACTIVE" LEGISLATION 3, OSHA TLV no more restrictive than 1 fiber/cc TWA. A. Other regulations (EPA, CPSC, DOT., etc.) not signifi cantly more stringent than now. SUGGESTED REVISIONS MARCH 1980 1. One - three years, possibly longer, of unsettled regulations. 2. 'lo significant impact due to "retroactive" legislation, 3. Moderate impact of bans and mandatory substitutions. 4. OSHA no more restrictive than 0.5 fiber/cc TWA. (NO SOONER THAN FIRST QUARTER OF 1981, COULD BE A YEAR OR MORE LATER.) 5. Numerical ambient air standard and more restrictive waste DISPOSAL UNDER RECRA. (1 - 2 years away.) FIGURE 11 UCC 008113