Document Z4982OQe24x1X0e1gL3DRpy0

FILE NAME: Drywall Spackling Compounds (DWSC) DATE: 1977 Aug 15 DOC#: DWSC043 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Transcript of Proceedings before the Consumer Product Safety Commission - Public Meeting on Asbestos U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. O C 20207 CERTIFICATE Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that the following attached document is a true copy of documents on file with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and is a part of the official records of said Commission: Transcript of Public Meeting on Asbestos, August 1 5 , 1977 Washington, D.C.; 213 pages. In witness whereof, I have, pursuant to the provisions of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 2053(d) and 2076(b)(9), hereto set my hand and caused the seal of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to be affixed this 7.6*1 day of January 1989. Syde E. Dunn Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before the CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION In die Matter of: Docket No. public im c m m m asbestos Place: Date: !fashinn'-on, August 15, 1977 , Pages: i Acm14e11ReKpoSrttrienegt..CNo.mWp.any Wash(i2n0g2to)n6,2D8.-4C8.8280005 Official Reporters UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Public Meeting on Asbestos Monday, August 15, 1977 Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 13th Street, N.W. 3rd Floor Hearing Room Washington, D. C. JOHN BYINGTON, Chairman BARBARA H. FRANKLIN, Commissioner R. DAVID PITTLE, Commissioner THADDEUS GARRETT, Commissioner LAWRENCE M. KUSHNER, Commissioner anti 1 2 o . usii, U. S. Gyps uni Corp. 3 Julius Memeth, Bondex International 4 Harry Rhodes, Union Carbide Corp. 5 6 Suadean Gibbons, Natural Resources 7 teiense Council 27 62 1S1 107 8 Barry Castlaman, Environmental Consultant 154 9 Peter simpson , Rustic Crafts Co. 123 10 Robert Rauch, Environmental Defense Fund 136 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 faporilnq C-ompantf <202) 29-4333 II I; dk fi CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: We'll call this public eetin `2 then, asbestos by the . S, Consumer Product Safety Com i mission, to order. This meeting has been called to hear oral presentations of data, views or arguments on the G Commission's proposal to ban two consumer products under the Consumer Product Safety Act. i I'm John Byington, Chairman of the Commission, 9 and also participating are Commissioners Lawrence Kushner, 10 Barbara Franklin, David Pittle, as well as: members of our staff. Mr. Jules Bigio, the Office of Engineering and Science, Dr. Robert Helir, Office of Health Sciences, 13 Charles Jacobson, Division of Enforcement, Dale Ray from 14 the Division of Economic Studies, Francine Shecter, from 15 the Office of Program Management, B. Pitkin, Office of General Counsel. We are also pleased this morning to welcome participants from a couple of other agencies participating in this effort, as part of the new interagency cooperation and coordination, and we have Mr. William Warren of the Standards Division of OSHA, and Mr. Ron Levine of the Office of General Counsel of EPA. And also we have just been joined by Commissioner Thaddeus Garrett. Now, on April 28th, 1977, the Commission announced its decision to propose barmintj consuaer: patching ? Vcm y} \ TOZi ; oMpstnn 3*4383 4 and artificial ambarizing materials containing respirable, free form, asbestos. The proposal to ban was published in the Federal Register of July 29, 1977, and also since that time copies of the proposal have been sent to 51 manufacturers of patching compounds, as well as copies have been provided to The Fireplace Institute for distribution to gas log manufacturers and distributors. Now, the scope of the proposed ban on patching compounds would include all such compounds that are dis tributed to or used and enjoyed by consumers and consumer environments such as homes and schools . The proposed ban, which would be effective 30 says after publication of the final rule, would apply to products in inventory as well as those manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule. Now, the scope of the proposed ban on artificial emberizing materials would include all such materials in inventory as well as those manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule, and the proposed effective date for this ban would be the date of publication of the final ban, of the final rule, rather. Now, in addition to soliciting written comments, the proposal also advised that an opportunity would be provided, tax oral- presentation of data, views or arguments A A- S? on the proposed bans as required by section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. And the Commission regulations that cover all oral presentations such as these are in 16 CFR 1109. Oral presentations provide interested persons with an opportunity to participate in rulemaking activities and such participation and discussion between the Commissioners and interested persons during oral presentations might not otherwise be available. The proceedings of this meeting are non adver sary and informal, as legislative proceedings would be. There are no formal pleadings or adverse parties as there are in court proceedings. A transcript of this meeting is being made and should be available within 10 days. Interested persons, including those speaking today, may submit written comments and other related information to the on both the proposed bans as well as today until August 29, 1977. These comments, as well as Office of the Secretary ! issues discussed j 1 i ! the transcript of j this meeting, will be considered part of the public record,! on the proposed bans, and will be available for public inspection. Now, the Commission has received seven requests to make oral presentations. Questions will be asked of & fCtrts ,. q L. pcin if I iIiI 6 these making oral presentations only by the presiding of ficer, commissioners, and commission and staff members. Any participants or others in the audience who wish to ask questions of the participants should write out their ques tions, give us their names and organizational affiliations and pass them up to Miss Francine Schecter, sitting right there. Papers are available at the rear of the room. Persons' questions will be asked subject to such limita tions as time, relevance and repetition allow. Questions as well as presentations should be confined to the scope of this meeting, and as presiding officer we will attempt to allow as many views as possible to be heard during this proceeding within that scope. Mow, at this point in time we have not received any advance copies of any written statements or outlines, so any of the parties who have prepared statements, I j would ask you to provide them to Mr. Shelton 3utz here, j i unless you already have copies to distribute. If you do then we would like you to provide him ` | with sufficient copies for himself and for the Comnissionersj, and as many other copies as you have for staff. If you don't have sufficient copies with you, if you'll give him one copy we will take care of the dup lication and provide j them, the Commissioner and staff, with copies from our own,. v V,?c m i fo'i <porlinii lo^ompcinp jI ;2C2: i28-4a8 j 7 I! i: facilities. So we would appreciate as soon as possible your 3 providing that to him. The following persons are scheduled to make oral presentations. Michael Helton of U. S. Gypsum, Julius Nemeth of Bondex, Harry Rhodes of Union Carbide i O i: Corporation, Svedeen Gibbons of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Barry Castleman, the Environmental Consul `I M :! tant, Peter Simpson of P.ustric Crafts Company, and Robert Rauch of the Environmental Defense Fund. In addition, although he does not plan to make an oral presentation, Mr. DeCarter of Jones Mansfield 12 Corporation is with us, and will be available to answer any 13 questions. 14 If that is agreeable in terms of providing the material, other than any informal comments that you have, we would begin and we'd call then Mr. Michael Helton of the U. S. Gypsum Corporation, who has asked for approximate ly 20 minutes. Mr. Helton. < MR. BUSH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Helton could not be hare, he's sorry this morning. ii CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: It would be fine, if you'd also give us your name and title, for the record. MR. BUSH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is John S. Bush, 3-u-s-h, I am* director of Governmental Affairs of United States1Gypsum /4'verni T ^ i t & o r - i i n a antjyanti \102J 1?3-4i33 8 I Company. 2 I am appearing today on behalf of my company ot* and comment on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's 4 proposed rule concerning asbestos containing patching 5 compounds . 6 During the 50 years, past 50 years, patching 7 compounds have been manufactured in the Unite-d States as S a complement to the steadily increasing use of gypsum wall 9 board and as a repair material for existing plaster or gypsvii to wall board, as dry wall walls and ceilings. II Patching compounds are known in the construction 12 trades as.surface preparation products, a collective term 13 which includes three basic compositions. Joint treatment 14 compound, spackling material, and patching plaster. 15 In terms of volume, joint treatment compound is most 18 significant of these products, so I will concentrate on 17 this class of product. 18 s Joint treatment compounds are cementous 19 materials, typically used to reinforce and conceal joinings 20 of gypsum wall board used on walls and ceilings. Joint 21 treatment compound is also used to patch, fill, and texture 22 surfaces much as spackling material is used. 23 It may be purchased in dry powder, or ready-mixed 24 form. Joint treatment compound products are chemically )C tr'Ji GO Of n q v,. aftxpantf -. i * >* a 9 designed to satisfy at least 15 critical requirements, working characteristics and performance properties. These include shelf life, wet mix life, stability consistency, slip, wet pack, feathering, coverage, low shrinkage, bond, edge and check resistance. These products must be designed to work under widely varying weather and climatic conditions, applica tion methods ana tools. Most powder and ready-mix products are sold in three functional forms; taping, topping and all purpose. The taping form is designed with particular emphasis on high bonding properties as a first coating over wallboard joints. The toping form is designed to provide easier finishing properties while all purpose is a conven ient compromise of the taping in, copying functions. There are well over 1400 possible synthetic and natural raw materials that may be considered in preparation -- in preparing a new surface preparation formula, The use of each ingredient may produce a product that differs from all other products in grade, color, composition, purity and reaction. Changing any one in gredient, beneficially or adversely affects at least one of the critical performance properties. This delicate relationship makes joint compound /t v^)parCi.r.ti} i.*.>fnp*xa.u (a*) O formulate into very precise, complex, and demanding processj i A single formula is seldom acceptable in multiple markets J and therefore a family of acceptably balanced formulas is required. Any change in working properties can quickly affect user acceptance. Over the years joint treatment compounds technically contain a very minor amount of as bestos, usually no more than a few percent. For this reason we were not convinced that thew presence of this very small amount of asbestos posed a threat to health. However, when the health issue was raised in the early 1970*s, the United States Gypsum Com pany funded a research project to develop non asbestos formulas for all of these surface preparation materials. This research project was a complex and expensive effort, however we are pleased to note the project was successful. As a result of this success, United States j Gypsum, during the last few years, has offered a complete line of non asbestos, joint treatment products. Today, United States Gypsum's entire line of these products is nonasbestos and available nationwide. We believe our nonasbestos formulas will perform their function of providing a proper, monolithic surface, ready for a final decoration in a manner equal to the old asbestos formula. /' Y} ,,, ^.kctne jX uporiLn a ornv a n Lf iaoaj *23-4988 11 We also believe such characteristics as shelf life and wet life, and other working properties, are such that these products can be marketed and used on the job in a fully satisfactory manner. There is always a reluctance to accept any change but these new United States gypsum products are gaining widespread acceptance. Any reluctance to make the change, we believe, is due more to the habit and the continued availability of asbestos formulas than to any substantive reason. Today, non asbestos products are sold to and used by the same people that previously expressed a preference for the asbestos containing products. While the constituent!; of the non asbestos formulas obviously differ from the older asbestos containing formulas, the non asbestos line of products is manufactured with the same production equipment used to manufacture the older formulas. | United States Gypsum's non asbestos line is available in a full range of sizes and packages from small consumer size packages to larger, contractor size packages. We believe the larger portion of joint compound is consumed in new construction. Its application is usually contracted to dry wall or pair.t ing contractors. The products for the new construc- tion mar ket move predominantly through building material He/.n* yy ^rimpemq 12 1t specialty stores, luabar dealers, large paint stores, mass o merchandisers, and contractors. These products are ff typically sold in 25 pound bags in the case of powder, and 4 62 pound, five gallon containers in the case of the ready 5 mixed products. 6 While the contractor is believed to represent the larger share of the market, a certain percentage does 8 find its way into consumer channels. The joint treatment o industry is composed of some 100 manufacturers in approxi mately 26 states, which encompass over 130 plants in 238 10 warehouses. An estimated 55 percent of total volume was 11 12 manufactured by five or six national or near national 13 producers. 14 The balance..cones from regional, sectional and 15 local producers. Jn summary, it is our company's position that in the event the Consumer Product Safety Commission 16 implements the proposed limitation on asbestos containing 17 products, that action will not appreciably disrupt the 18 10 market. Comparable non asbestos products are, and for 20 21 several years have been, available from United States Gypsum as well as other manufacturers active in the industry. 22 Reformulation of the various asbestos containing products J );> i would be required but we, at least, have r.ot found it nr necessary to make major "new capital investment for new I i 'tcjns Kiafffii'aa o/*>>**a 13 1 or different production equipment. 2 Existing production equipment has been suitable 3 for non asbestos formulas. Generally speaking, the same 4 observations are true, are applied to spackling material's, 5 although the term also is generic and includes products 6 which never did contain asbestos . 7 Patching plaster , a gpysum product as we use the 8 term, has never contained asbestos. Thank you very much 9 for this opportunity to make these views known to the Consur, U) Product Safety Commission. 11 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, thank you very much, .12 M r . Bush . 13 Can you identify for the Commission what types 14 of substitutes were used when asbestos was taken out7 <. Vi> MR. BUSH: I don't know the formula, these 1400 *ITs;? potential alternatives that's been useu, Mr. Byington, but 17 I will attempt to get that information, I 18 COMMISSIONER BYINGTON: I think it would be very i 9 helpful to the Commission to have some understanding if 20 there is a particular binder that was found most useful 21 and maybe of the greatest use across the board, it would be helpful to us. One of the things that we're constantly faced with is what are we looking at in terms of alternatives. . r- Commissioner Franklin. cin i&ariing am petnut 14 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Do I understand from your statement on page three that you are at this point selling both asbestos containing and non asbestos contain ing joint treatment compounds? MR. BUSH: No, ma'am. We sell nothing but asbestos free -- COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay. MR. BUSH: Non asbestos products. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I wasn't clear from the way your statement was -- MR. BUSH: Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps this wasn't -- COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: All right, well w e 've got it for the record. Y o u 're not selling anything -- MR. BUSH: N o , m a 'am. ji COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: -- with asbestos*in it at this point. Okay. The other question that relates to what you have said here in the middle of your statement on page 3 is the implication that the non asbestos formula is perfectly acceptable to everyone who's using it and the implication further to me is that your sales haven't gone down as a result`of your change in formula. Is that a correct assumption? MR. BUSH: So far as the first question is con cerned, I think we're trying to say here that we -- that there is some resistance to the non asbestos compounds, but /? to .. S' 15 ! that we think this is just a normal resistance to change, there are no substantive reasons for this, that many of the people who were resistant to the asbestos -- non asbes tos products, are now using it and quite happily, and we see no problem in it. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: The reason I thought I iti that that was your conclusion was that sentence that reads,j i today our non asbestos products are sold to and used by j the same people that may have previously expressed a | preference for the asbestos containing product. MR. BUSH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: You're saying that's true but with some qualifications. MR. BUSH: I think that's what we mean, yes, m a 'am. ! COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Do you have any indica i tion as to what consumers think of the substitute? MR. 3-U3K : I don't believe we -- COMMISSIONER- FRANKLIN: How my presumption is you were-- not selling -- well, you've said that directly - tt>: consumers., selling to somebody else who sells to con- s umars. MR . 3y3H : Yes . COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: My question is, what do con suM r s . thin-k7 j/n&anif 16 1 MR. BUSH: We have no information or. that. I 2 think the typical household consumer would be someone with 8 little experience with the product, and not know the dif 4 ference, quite frankly. But rather the people who make a profession of applying these things would be the ones fi who might notice a change. But we have no -- we have no extensive consumer 3 marketing apparatus but rather we're primarily involved `A with major contractors. So I don't know the consumer re Ifi action . LI COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I hear again in your 12 statement your conclusion that you feel that our regula 13 tion is not going to, and I quote here, "appreciably dis 14 rupt the market." 15 MR. BUSH: Our experience, and that of our per 18 sonnel throughout the United States, has been that most 1,7 of the major producers now have non asbestos compounds, 13 and we see no impact or no slowing in construction or what 1:1 not, if you decide to go ahead with this. ) i COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: My question then would 21 be whether you as a representative of one of the major 28 producers, could foresee any difficulties that might accrue V) to small manufacturers. -'>/i MR. BUSH: I don't know, quite frankly. You knew, 0 \ 17 typically many businesses are teetering on the verge of collapse in any change that can cause them difficulties. We -- I have no information that would put anyone out of business. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay. But there do appeal to be some small -- MR. BUSH: Well, we say, what, seven -COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: -- sort of small business MR. BUSH-: -- or five or six. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Yes. MR. BUSH: Manufacturers, probably produce 55 percent of the total, and there are 95 or 94 other pro ducers, we say a total of about 100. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Yes, that's really my question and my concern -MR. BUSH: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: -- about the impact on the small companies . Thank you. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Do you know if the substitute that you're using is fibrous at all? MR. BUSH: I don't know anything about the formu lation, I'm sorry, Commissioner Pittle, but I'll attempt, as Chairman Byington asked, to get that information and sand- it to- you. Vj ti \^Qnrt j 18 1Jt COMMISSIONER PITTLE: The name of it is one thing, o 4 but certainly if the name turns out to be something of a trade secret I can understand your concern about it. But 4 I would like to find out if there is any fibrous content 5 to it . e Do you know if -- I guess when you're supplying i it -- I won't ask if you know, but when you supply the 3 other information, would you try to give an indication of S the kind of safety tests on the material that you performed 10 before you marked it. u MR. BUSH: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: On page 2 you made a com 13 ment that the joint treatment compound is typically, in 14 the past, have only contained a small amount of asbestos, 15 usually no more than a few percent. IS If there is a way you can tell us a little more 1l^i precisely whether it was five percent by weight or three 13 percent by weight -- 19 MR. BUSH: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- that would be very help 21 ful also. 22 Ar.d finally, on page 4 you mention that roughly 20 55 percent of the market is in the hands of five or six 24' large producers, roughly half o f it is five producers and (202J 37*4saa 19 the other half is with 93 producers. Do you know if the four or five other large producers market a completely asbestos free line at all? MR. BUSH: Prom their containers I've seen around town, construction jobs, and governmental affairs is my area, you know, rather than the construction business. Virtually all of them have asbestos free or non asbestos on the containers. But I'll get the answer. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: The other half then, the 95 smaller manufacturers -- if you have any knowledge about that that would really be very helpful. You made a statement somewheres on page 2,to tie that off completely, that there were well over 1400 possible synthetic and natural raw materials that could be considered. Of those 1400 on a group of 1400 that could be used as bonding agents, I mean, it's not like asbestos would: be- competing with 1400 other ingredients. MR. 3USH: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTOE: And use. Is that total different kinds of ingredients tirt' go into it? MR. BUSH: I believe this is all the ingredients. It was -- COMMISSIONER PITTI.S : So hew many different kinds of things are. there that asbestos, would be: competing with,* * -f iiio2i ! 1 Ii 20 ! i I i are there or.ly three or four logical substitutes, or 20 or 4(a} SO? Because that would help us to know more what the 0 -- what we expect to see in the substitutes, except I guess 4 from what you're saying, the substitutes have already taken 5 place and the industry seems to have regulated itself. 6 MR. BUSH: We spent, 1 think, an awful lot of money solving this, and you know, I would guess if we ,q gave you a list of 21, 20 of them probably aren't very good, and we discovered which one was. to COMMISSIONER PITTLE: And you found it. u MR. BUSH: You don't spend a lot of money unless 12 you hope to come to, you know, the best answers. 13 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Thank you. 14 MR. BUSH: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, let me follow up on a L i j couple of those that were passed up because they relate j 18 i to where Commissioner Pittle left off. If you could also j 19 | -- we can also give you for the record if you would like, a '20 list of a couple of those questions. 21 And that was, when you decided -- when you give 22 us the information an the substitute, one of the questions i is that if the formulation patented that you have, and 1" if so is it available for license , for some of the smaller manufacturers, which also may get back to. what Commissioner! /} vp cm * r. 21 Franklin wa3 talking about whare thsy may be able to work out a licensing arrangement, if that's agreeable. And one of the other questions that's been asked that we would appreciate your checking on when you give us the information on the substitute is that have there been any toxicological testing on the substitute, have you done any testing on the substitute that you're using,, and how are you monitoring your asbestos and your finished non asbestos compounds? In other words when you say some of these are asbestos free or non asbestos compounds, how are you checking on that, and do you really mean that they're totally asbestos free? MR. BUSH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Or do you mean that you're not using asbestos as part of your formulation and there may still be some contamination. MR. BUSH: You mean from another ingredient or something. Well, I can check that. we're -- CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, because that's what V in other words when we said they're asbestos free, that may mean that you are not overtly using asbestos as one of the ingredients in the formula. On the other hand, we're looking at whether or not the overall product is being checked and is it being monitored, and if so are we ,> //O ,_ 'k.Dariinu Lf 1 22 1 getting some asbestos through contamination, and what kind 2 of levels, that this might result in. 3 MR. BUSH: Yes. 4 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Commissioner Franklin. 5 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I wanted to follow up 6 one more time on the concern about what consumers may think 7 of the substitute product in terms of how it works, and so p on. 9 MR.3USH: You're talking about the household con 10 sumer . 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I'm talking about the 12 household consumer because, that really is where our concern 13 is . 14 MR. BUSH: I'll see if we have the information 15 on that. LB COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: We are talking about con L7 sumer products. Yes, I would simply ask that you wouid 13 provide, whatever you could for the record. I would further LL: follow up this question about toxicological testing, and 20 indicate that if you have dene such zesting in substitutes, l 2.1 that we should have, for the record, what- tests and what the 22 results were. 20 MR. BUSH : Yes, m a 'am, okay. 24 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON : Commis sioner ushr.er. COMMISSIONER XUSHNE.R-: On- page' 4 I'd just- Like to / S 4i p w i i t i ' f 23 1 clarify something, although your statement appears to be quite explicit. You say there are some -- 3 MR. BUSH; My problem is this is Mr. Helton's 4 statement, and I got it at 10:30 last night by aircraft, commercial I might say. fi COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: You mentioned that the < joint treatment industry is composed of some 100 manu 8 facturers, you literally mean manufacturers, formulators 9 of joint compounds. U'i MR. BUSH: I think we mean anybody who mixes? it i 1 up and offers it for sale, and that could be somebody in 12 a bath tub someplace, probably, that we may not know about 13 it, you know. 14 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Is there very much private 15 labelling? ' f"MR. BUSH: I don't know. I can find out what we do in that . . O COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: I think that would be- useful information. 2t MR. BUSH: Private consumer labeling you mean. COMMISSIONER KUSHNER; Yes. That was the only -<4. question. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON; Okay, Commissioner Pitfcle, you had one more question. COMMISSIONER PITTAS: Yes, I understand this is /O I an* rs orilna acuxtji 24 unfair to you because you're just going to ba a writer of questions, but -- MR. BUSH: No, I've got to be good for something. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Back when you did use as bestos in your compounds, do you know, are there just a limited number of suppliers of asbestos fiber used, or did you use a variety of people? The reason I ask that is because I'm trying to get a handle on the various kinds of fibers that we might expect to find in a speckling or a treatment compound like this . It seems to me I've got -- MR. BUSH: You mean a variety of types of a s s - bestos -- COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. MR. BUSH: -- or a variety of suppliers of the same type? COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Suppliers who may have a different -- who may say it's the same type, it might be either slightly different in sise or due to the processing by the asbestos manufacturer or supplier, might wind up seeing a different fiber in a line of products like this. MR. BUSH: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: For example, do you use only -- well, I wcr.'t even pick one, I'll just -- use only brand X fiber in your products , and if we ever tested your //cm*# /Vywinnr.} 1-7 ra*: -t*> **3 * 25 asbestos product we would expect it to be all alike and we would be able to trace it. Whereas if you'd used a variety of several different suppliers and it sort of all got mixed in together, the fiber might have slightly dif ferent characteristics and it may show up with different measurements when these things are tested. And without a complete history of how you've ever used 'this, just whether or not you have -- MR. BUSH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- and if you feel comfortable in telling us who, then that would be good also. MR. BUSH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: And lastly, two other short questions that were submitted. One is, was there any in- I I | crease in the cost due to this change in formulation in j terms of the product, at the sale, the retail level, or is it left to you any way, and if so could you give us some idea what percentage increase is due to the new formulation. MR. BUSH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: And secondly, in utilizing this newly formulized product, is it more time consuming, is it more difficult, is it at all mora difficult either to use or to apply or longer drying period, in other words: is. there any additional labor factors that would go into this ?n* fczporiing i^ompcintj 26 because of the absence of asbestos. MR. BUSH: Yes, sir, I understand that it is slightly, but we don't believe it's substantive. CHAIRMAN BYINGTOH: Okay, that's the kind of -- MR. BUSH: Which is a kind of judgmental thing. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. And you indicate that in your statement of approximately 100, if it's possible we would also appreciate your submitting to these questions the list of those that you know of, in other words you came up with iOO. We won't hold you to exactly 100, but we'd like the li3t of those that you knew of that you used to compile that approximation. MR. BUSH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, there being, no other questions we want to thank you, Mr. Bush. MR. BUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: We appreciate your coming. The next witness is Mr. Julius Nemeth of 3cnaex International. And I'd like to ask at this time that anyone who does not have at least 15 copies of their statement, if tjiey would at this time give them to Mr. Shelton Butz so that we could make copies now, rather than in the future. Okay. MR. NEMETH: Mr. Chairman, in that' regard' I have yCtampan a 2. 3 -^aasr 8 9 ID i i l X 12 13 14 20 !j M !i 27 just some prepared notes, should I -- CHAIRMAN BYINGTONi That's fine. MR. NEMETH:Should I back off -- CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: No. I MR. NEMETH: -- one person and let him make copies in the meantime. Would you prepare that? CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: What do you just have some, notes you're going to be reading? MR. NEMETH: Yes, I have just some -- it's a semiprepared statement with hand scribbled notes on it, so if you want -CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Why don't you go ahead and give yours, then after we're done we'll Xerox them. That's all . MR. NEMETH: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON:3ut if everyone else who has any kind of a prepared statement and doesn't have 15 copies, would you please let Mr. Sheldon Buts knew now so we can make copies during this period. Okay. MR. NEMETH: Fine, thank you. My name is Julius Nemeth, president of Bondsx International, and I want to thank the chairman and members of the Commission for this opportunity to appear and comment on the proposed ban for consumer patching compounds. Having, read the proposed rulemaking as published _"rc:n=? v.ei?lny am n14 28 m the Federal Register, it's .clear that the Commission has reviewed all aspects that have been presented to date, nonetheless since this hearing is scheduled to produce further comment from the original petitioners, I felt it advisable to comment on one or two points and to more clearly state our position as a small manufacturer. Now in our 95th year, Bonder International has acted in good faith in starting a voluntary reformulation program in early 1976, having more or less seen the hand writing on the wall. With the goal of converting our entire line to an asbestos free basis, as the Commission has pointed out, many factors enter into such a reformulation program, in cluding from a competitive marketing standpoint the im portance of providing the consumer with equal or similar quality and no major price penalty, while at the same time competing in the marketplace with a more favorably formu lated, asbestos product still available. Our first conversion to non asbestos formula was in August of 1976, the second in December of *76, and as of April '77 all production of asbestos containing paint sundry products was discontinued. We feel perhaps a trifle prematurely, but nonetheless mandated by the attention getting, though some erroneous media reports, which alleged an immediate ban and needless to say created /J ^ /O ^ amptxnu ! i li I I 29 considerable turmoil in the marketplace among some of our distributors and dealers in trying or attempting to estab lish a course of action. Since it appears that most of the Commission's data is based on occupational statistics, ->it probably would be difficult to document the statement, and I quote, "for many people, the major exposure to inhalable asbestos is in the home." Particularly in view of the acknowledged, many sources of exposure to asbestos, which exist in the environ ment today. Since we're told that the minimum threshold level of exposure is unknown, we fully expect and can ac cept the ban from the use of asbestos in wall patching materials, although again as a small manufacturer certainly more time for product testing would be desirable. j ! We are concerned, however, that the ban, if it must be, should be exactly as proposed under CPSA instead of under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Having acted voluntarily on the reformulation aspect, we're frankly looking at the economic impact and suggest it as l a product in use for centuries. Asbestos is not an imminent hazard, and I be lieve a repurchase program would place an unfair burden on today's manufacturers, who as a matter of practicality would end up with the total, purchase expanse. Ctrl a / K u t i o r t i f t a { ^ . u m p a n a 30 1 In any case, such a recall program does not 0it produce the complete desvired end result because of the r} other asbestos exposure factors remaining in the market 4 place . 5 We believe that any repurchase program would have 6 a drastic financial impact on the small manufacturers, ourselves included, with no real equity to the consumer 7 8 in comparing a recent unused purchase, and therefore re 9 turnable, versus earlier purchases already applied or 10 consumed. Our products and those of some other manufacturers 11 12 have in fact been properly ^labelled to inform of asbestos 13 content, thereby providing the consumer with a product 14 choice. la In view of the media coverage on a national 16 basis, it's inconceivable that any consumer of patching i 17 materials would not in the last several years beer, apprised L8 of the controversy. 19 Although it was published that 100 and 360 days j 20 were considered too lengthy a time period on effective date after the final ruling, the Commission staff researcher! 21 22 nevertheless indicated that asbestos free products can j i j prcbabl" be in distribution in about six months. j 23 | Under those circumstances, we respectfully j 24 i suggest reconsider ation of a.. 180 day effective: date , 1 2o -S'"-. O nxpdftu 31 possibly staggered from manufacturing to distributor, to final resale, to better facilitate clearing of all distri bution channels of offending materials, and to further minimize confusion over existing stocks when that date arrives. From a practical standpoint, even without a repurchase program, many manufacturers will, in all likeli hood, have to relieve their distributors of any remaining stocks of asbestos containing products, One final point that I would like to make con cerns the matter of the acceptability of continued contrac tor use of asbestos containing products, and the need for a clearer definition of suitable selling and buying pro cedures which do not place unreasonable burden on existing lines of distribution as far as determining the final user. The fact of the matter is, many contractors still do use, and many still prefer, asbestos containing joint cement. If asbestos containing, wall patching materials for contractor use are not to h.e banned, we suggest that labelling of this nature for contractor use, for industrial use only, should then, in fact, be suf ficient to place the consumer on notice and absolve any manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer of liability as to ultimate uses. One further means- of limitation might well.be in. f'/N?sporixn ? package size since the case of powder joint cements, in the case of powder joint cements, that 25 pound bag, and in the case of premix, the five gallon package, are more commonly though not exclusively contractor oriented. Thank you, again, fcr this opportunity and con- s ideration. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Could you be a little more explicit in terms of your request that we reconsider the 10 1 11 12 13 14 in 16 IT 18 || 19 20 21 22 II i 23 I 180 day time frame? The way it*s presently phrased it would be 30 days after the day of the publishing of the final notice, and it would relate to the manufacturer. MR. NEMETH: Sale and distribution, as I under stand it. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: So what you're talking about what be your problem that you're raising is not necessarily the 30 days for the manufacturer, i t 's the 180 days down to the time. MR. NEMETH: Yes. What I'm saying is chat your staff researchers indicated that it would be six months before you can have all non asbestos materials in distribution, so that if six months for that is a reasonable figure, then I'm suggesting that perhaps the 30 day figure should- perhaps apply for a manufacturing deadline, but to allow additional time for the materials that are cut there to clear channels. Particularly under this CPSA proposal, * w r trx. pctnU 33 which would not call for a ban In ether words I*m thinking of the enforcement and of this, in terms of clearing the channels out, that perhaps 90 days for a distributor, or 180 days for a distributor and a retailer might be a more realistic ap proach to have everything out. CHAIRMAN BYINGT0N: Okay, well I understand now, but I guess my confusion was that I'm listening to what you had to say without, unfortunately, being able to see it. You seem to be discussing that at about the same time I think you said something along about need possibly more time, reformulation tine. MR. NEMETH: I"m saying we can accept it. We would, from an internal standpoint, we would prefer more time for product tasting, but we understand tha situation and we have been testing and have been working, and we can- accept the ba n. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. dures . MR.NEMETH-: I'm just concerned about the proce CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: The severe economic impact t h a t y o u ' r e r e f e r r i n g t o i s r e a l l y r e l a t e d t o r e c a l l , and re formulation fima, you believed, you can inset the- 30 day and th e - - /) in si KiBorf/nr- C o m ^ anis 34 i MR. NEMETH: We are out of asbestos -~ CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Now. MR. NEMETH: -- now, yes. As of April we complete ly discontinued all asbestos patching type materials. We have reformulated -- let me say that again -we have reformulated to a non asbestos basis. We have not discontinued selling. But anything produced since April, the end of April, has been on a non asbestos basis. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: All right, if that's the case, that was one of the reasons why I felt the time frame should be shortened. I'm one of those who made the motion supported by my fellow commissioners, but I mean, one of my concerns and why I particularly raise it, and maybe they would have raised it as well for the same reason, was because of that. In other words, if you take April, let's say the end of April, and you start with May, by October you'll b e at the 180 day period. And my concern has been that wa have taken inordinately long -MR. NEMETH: I understand. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- in getting from there to H *3 2" w MR. NEMETH: Ya s. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: And a s I indicated, one of t h e : p r o b l e m s was t h a t t h e deeper t h e s t a f f and the Commission A Y? d -a Y:om.pa.rxti 35 got into i t r the larger some of the problems became, and we needed to clarify some of those in terms of the work that we are required to do prior to publishing a proposal. It took us a couple of months or so longer than we had originally anticipated that it would. And therefore since there was great, as you indicated, publicity, some of it unfortunately not correct, back in April when we originally made the original decision, and then the end of July 'when we published, I felt that we had already used maybe another 60 days, 90 days, which if you add the 120 comes not too far from the 180. And so even in your own particular situation, if you assume, as you said, you haven't been doing it since April, let's assume since the 1st of May everything that's Left to your place has been non asbestos? MR. NEMETH: No, because we discontinued production at that point and went into the production -- CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, so -- MR. NEMETH: But we shifted from inventory, so it CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: What sort of an inventory do you maintain? MR. NEMETH: Well, there would be in some instances there would be a 30 to 60 to 90 -- some items 90 days invan foxy.. i^ompanut 36 I CHAIRMAN BYINGTON : On hand at the time. 2 So production stopped as of -- MR. NEMETH: May 1st, for all practical purposes. 4 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. 5 MR. NEMETH: Yes. S CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: As of the first of May nothin? ( more was toeing produced. MR. NEMETH: That's correct. 8 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: But, effectively you would 10 have through on the 90 day thing, you might have through Li July -- L2 M R . NEMETH: We might be coming to the end of it 13 now, yes. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: All right. 14 15 MR. NEMETH: Which means there is stiil some out 1.8 m tne distribution channels. 17 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: 0 your point ist again if I understand it, no problem wi h the 30 days as long as 19 it's left at the manufacturer evel, but if it's not and 20 it's at the retail level as we 1 , there is going to toe a significant economic hurdon po .entially facing the smaller 21 22 manufacturer because of what's going to be left in the i'j chair? I .1 MR. NEMETH : Yes, and from a practical standpoint we wi rob ably, be asked' t take back from our. distributorsl Ah i - tv 3? plus we have the other factor of while we try to tall our retailers to turn their stock, we really don't know how much of it is still out there from six months ago that may never come to the front of the shelf to be purchased. And I'm thinking from an enforcement standpoint, two months down the road it's still there. If we then effectively have everyone go back and pick it up, they will then begin to look at their stock to see what is to be returned. CHAIRMAN B Y INGTON: Commissioner Franklin, did you want COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I wanted to follow up on this timing question. Let's say we were to publish a final ban in September. Now 180 days, it would be six months into the future, if I'm hearing you right -- MR. NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: The chain would be cleared by then, whether we're talking about -MR. NEMETH: Six months, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Well, we're talking about next March, I'm counting. Is there any -- do you think that s.p.me reasonable time like December or like October? What I'm getting at is, do you think the chain would be clear of asbestos containing material in SO days from the aparitna v_^am panu 71 U. 38 | 4i day we proposed the ban? Do you really think it 's going 2 to take the full 180? 3 MR. NEMETH: Well -- 4 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Because I too was one 5 who wanted it cut back -- 8 MR. NEMETH: Yes, and I understand the reasons 7 why, of course. Certainly from our standpoint, when a 8 final determination is made, we will make every effort to in9 notify our distributors and in turn all of their retailers to be certain that the merchandise gets moved out; with li the publicity there has been they may or may not. 12 I d o n 't know this for a fact, although frankly, 13 we have not had anyone come back to us at this point and 14 say, I 've got asbestos in stock in view of everything 15 that's going on, take it back. 16 j So the consumers are still buying the merchandise I ! 17 because it's out there on the shelf, frankly. So we j 18 i would, make certainly every effort, whatever the final I 19 ] determination i s , to get the distributors and the retailers j 20 to get that merchandise out front on the shelves, to be j 21 certain it is mo`vedout. ji i 22 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: What is the size of your 28 company in terms of sales volume? j i 7A MR. NEMETH: Well. about five million. j ."\ - ] - O COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay* Is this, your only 1 | \* /'u :ic:' arn&czrtij \! 39 business, the making of these kinds of -- j I MR. NEMETH: Well, powder paint sundries predomi-j nately, powder and paste paint sundries, all types of patching and resurfacing type materials. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Let me ask it another way. Is the kind of products that we're talking about here, we've identified patching compounds, is that the major part of your business? MR. NEMETH: No, the ones that you're identifying here now would be about 25 percent. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay. Are you a public company? MR. NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I have no further ques tions, thank you. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Commissioner Pittle. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. When you said that i asbestos containing products were still on tha market, j do you have any feel for what percentage of the" market j j today on tha retail shelves contains asbestos containing }| f products? t | MR. NEMETH: I'm -- COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Could you pull one out of the air? M R . NEMETH-: That w o u l d b e difficult"' to-say. .y ri s p a i 'i i / K t p c in is /? f> *.ft it f 40 i When I made the comment even earlier about the time element, t 2 I was making a general statement because I don't know how 3 many other manufacturers are out there who have, in fact, 4 converted or not converted to non asbestos. 5 COMMISSIONER KITTLE: Are you one of the five or 6 one of the 95? MR. NEMETH: Oh, I'm sura we're one of the 95. o COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Okay, I just -- 9 MR.NEMETH: I'm certain we are, in view of my 10 predecessor. H COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Do you mind -- can you tell 12 us what you used as a substitute? 13 MR. NEMETH: Well, calcium carbonates would be 14 one, types of clay w ould be another. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: They're not fibers then, in L 6 that sense . L"74 MR.NEMETH: I certainly hope not. j COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Okay, have you -- j in MR. NEMETH: I -- | I 20 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- tested? j I i 21 MR. N*-EMETH: No, we're in the process of going J 22 into further detail on this, but again it's a time consuming 23 thing, and to the best of our knowledge at this point they 24 are not. 25 Do you plan to do any kind . 2* H n / l .o cz n if 41 of tasting such as either an optical scan or M R . NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Back in the days when you did use asbestos, what percentage, by weight, roughly, was the asbestos in the final product? MR. NEMETH: Well, in the joint cements, probably a little lass than five percent. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Between four and five? MR. NEMETH: Yes, between four and five percent. Saw, that's an off the top. of my head judgment, somewhere in that range. Spackling compounds as such would never have had asbestos as an obvious part of the formulation, however, that's a little side element there that we have never put asbestos as such into spackling compounds. But -COMMISSIONER PITTLE: That must have been a generic term that's M R . NEMETH: Well, ncy this is part of that talc 1 COMMISSIONER PITTLE.: Ch . MR. NEMETH: - - p r o c e s s . COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oh, did you use talc? MR. NEMETH: Oh, yes. Not in the joint cement but in spackling compounds. COMMISSION PITTLE: Do you still use talc or is 4: / K e & a + i i n a ,o*n 42 'MR. NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: The termalitic {ph) count? MR. NEMETH: No longer, no. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oh, but you did? MR. NEMETH: Yes, earlier, yes. All that went out the window as of April. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oh, I see, in April -- MR. NEMETH: When the television stations and everybody, and our distributors, and everybody, began calling, and that was the first we'd heard of it. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I completely agree with you, the regulation through the press is probably not fair when there's n o t a change to evaluate all of the evidence. MR. NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: It's just something -- MR. NEMETH: Nevertheless, at that point -- COMMISSIONER PITTLE: It works both ways. MR. NEMETH: Of course it does, and at that point we dropped everything, which when I say that, when you do -- when you think you're on schedule, and then all. of a sudden from that point on everything becomes a crash program, why some of these things we're still catching up on COMMISSIONER PITTLE: We're; aware of: that, i-fc's* ^/vircnta /VS.ipar-u:rttf Ki'^,ompanu t-z c -i) i:> .133 4 I li!! e || ii 43 SsDJRothing I thinlc we all suffer with. Going, back to the testing,whether you use the optical or the electron micro scope, you don't have that equipment in your own -- MR. NEMETH: No. We've been sending the material out. We've had some materials out to independent testing laboratories to give us reports on, and we will be doing more of this. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Is that very expensive, that type of-- do you feel was that a $5,000 test, was that a ic in 14 W j! ii :m 1 i! C4 ij MR. NEMETH: Oh, no> no. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- a $50,000.00 test. MR.NEMETH: Nor, it wouldn't be that expensive. I don't have an exact dollar figure, but it wouldn't be in that range where we would be COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Less than a thousand. MR. NEMETH: Less inclined to do it, yes. I would say it would be less than $1,000.00. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Less than a thousand. That's to determine any fiber content of -- MR. NpMETH: Yes, there may be some people in the room that could answer that better than I can. I d o n 't know. wUitoiositsLh Does the -- your testing .I. just be- to determine whether there's any fiber' a: /I jYSJtt&ofimti '-..o 44 1 2 3 4 ii 5 ! 6 9 1 0 !| U 12 13 14 15 IS II i~ 18 19 |i 20 |l n I opposed to what the toxicological effects of any lingering dust would be on -- MR. NEMETHs Yes, at this point it would be basically on the fiber because as a small manufacturer, ! 1 i we really rely rather heavily on our raw material suppliers, in terms of testing data. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: And when you depend on them do you ask them for tests and say what have you done to assure me that I won't get taught for something that -- MR. NEMETH: Well, you don't always get too straighj an answer on that type of thing, it's difficult even to get material safety data sheets from some of the raw material suppliers. But we're accumulating a file over the time period and when you ask enough you do get it. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: If you were to receive back a large amount of asbestos containing products like you manufacture, like a year ago, two years ago, would there be any way to recycle that or reuse it, or would that be a total waste? MR. NEMETH: It would be probably an additional expense because `w e 'd have to go through special precuationary procedures, I assume, in dumping it, in large volume to one location, if it came in. Ip resume that scattered out the way it is 4cm />wportimf C-am *?jxni i 45 around the country, ours and everyone elsa's, the dumping process would be minute in terms of the other asbestos already in the environment. But of course it all comes into one location, and it all goes to one dumping location, then I suppose some type of special precautionary measures would have to be taken. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: So at this time your i company doesn't have any plans, any specific plans, to ! dispose of whatever might be returned from let's say a distributor who says, no, I don't want it? MR. NEMETH: No, we do not. We will -- we hope that doesn't happen, but we have no specific plans because we don't know the amount involved at this point. COMMISSION PITTLE : Okay. MR.NEMETH: And I suspect if it came to that, and we had a warehouse full, we probably have to contact some agency to determine exactly what procedures we should taka. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Thank you, very much. CHAIRMAN BYTNGTON: Commissioner Xushner. COMMISSIONER XUSHNER: I'd just like to follow up a bit on the testing that you say is being done. This tasting is simply to satisfy yourself that there isn't any asbestos in the new formulations? /? `/~! ,^ 'scrrts C\porCin& past if 1 4 8 9 > 10 LI 12 13 14 i In | 18 ; i*" i j 19 ! 20 I MR. NEMETHS Exactly. 46 i COMMISSIONER KUSHNERs And what you look for are what, fibrous materials, is that the -- MR. NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KUSHNERs I guess it would be interesting to me to know what somebody -- what kind of a definition the laboratory has of a fibrous material, what constitutes a fibrous material. I wonder if you could get that information for us from your testing laboratory. MR. NEMETH: Certainly. COMMISSIONER KUSHNERs Once you had decided on an alternative formulation, to your product, did you encounter any difficulty in getting the materials? MR. NEMETH: No, we -- COMMISSIONER KUSHNERs In what quantities you needed. MR. NEMETH: No, we have not had any difficulty in getting the raw materials. The hard part, w'~ trying to get all the characteristics to perform as. the gentleman before me indicated, the testing procedure to get all the same or similar characteristics of the finished product. We went through a number of them, of course, but on those we were working with now, we have no diffi cuitv in cet-tinn the raw materials . */' .. ,-r ,<se j ? **i17ia a m p a n .14 (20?.) 23-- 47 ] COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: It was my understanding & it was a fibrous nature of asbestos that imparted the desirable property, and yet now you are apparently being 4 able to formulate alternatives that don't have fibrous 5 materials, and I'm 8 MR. NEMETH: Well -- n COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: That allegedly don't have i 8 fibrous materials, and I'm interested in knowing what 9 the -- 10 MR.NEMETH: Yes, I 've made a note of that and i i we'll certainly -- 12 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- just what you really 13 mean by non fibrous. 14 MR. NEMETH: Well, what we mean by non fibrous. 15 This is a big debate -- 16 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Well your testing company. MR. NEMETH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Would you also address your Ot-nU self to a couple of similar questions we asked Mr. Bush -- A from U. S. Gypsum, in addition to those Commissioner Rittle has already raised, and that would be has there been an i i C. 23 affect on the cost in terms of this reformulation, and if it leaves you -- now, if you know what that's translated to in farms* of retail, w q -'d appreciate knowing that, .? */'? ,_ /'2 I iK.apvrdfU} j 43 But we would like to know what kind of impact, if any, there has been, in terms of cost, ana secondly, in terms of labor in the application of the compound. In other words, is the compound more difficult to use or more time consuming to use, et cetera, and therefore maybe a more labor intensive product than the prior product was. MR. NEMETH: Well, from our standpoint, because the bulk of our merchandise is in small packages, and goes to the consumer -- in other words, the bulk of our merchandise is sold through retail outlets, if the average do-it-yourselfer is the type of do-it-yourselfer that I am, he would not probably notice the difference because he is not using it frequently enough. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Correct___ MR. NEMETH: To really notice the difference and whan he's doing it himself five minutes or 10 minutes more or less wouldn't make that much difference. So we don't have that type of contractor experience. CHAIRMAN BYINGTCN: I think that that's true, d I think that's what Mr. Bush pointed out, that the V a or two times in my life that I might ever try it, I uldn't have anything to compare it to, so I - - MR. NEMETH: Yes . CHAIRMAN BY INGT CN : -- wouldn't know if- it took- i i i n t 2 -* ft 9 f 49 longer or shorter, but if I was doing it every day, then. I might. But you indicated a possible separation point between consumer and industrial, but you don't sell at the industrial level -- MR. NEMETH: We -CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- over 25 pound bag, and you -- MR. NEMETH: Well, we have it available, and of course through our distribution channels, some of the 25 pound size and some of the five gallon size and pre-mix might very well end up with a contractor, not on a direct sale basis, but through our distributors, so that's cer tainly possible. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: But isn't it true that through that same distributor, any consumer could go in and buy that 25 pound bag, or five pound container? MR. NEMETH: Yes, he certainly could, he certainly co u1d . CHAIRMAN BYINGTCN: Five gallon container. Ir MR.NEMETH: Yes, I only brought the matter up because of the comment in the Federal Register -- CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Correct. MR. NEMETH: -- to the effect that just labelling along should; net bo sufficient, and yet if in fact the ir>snporCi/i<j C-a m i?cxfzu ; m 50 1 contractor is going to be allowed to continue to buy asbes 2 tos containing products, then it seems to me unfair to 3 put a burden on that retailer to put him in the category of 4 a druggist and have to get signatures on where this material 5 is going to be used. 8 And even then you can't be sure because the 7 contractor using it in new construction may have a bag left 3 over that he gives to a workman, and the minute the workman 9 takes it home he's a consumer. 10 So we're right back to where do we draw the line, 11 and if the consumers know that this is for industrial or 12 commercial use only, and itv's marked that it's an asbestos 13 product, then that should become his problem, I think, or 14 it should be a total ban. 15 I certainly d o n 't throw that out as my recom 16 mendation -- 17 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Which is where we are right 18 now -- 19 20 21 is. 22 23 MR. NEMETH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- which is what the total ban MR. NEMETH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Do you have any idea of what 24 percent of your sales are vat the.;.25 pound bag, at the five 25 gallon" level? fQeportlng (Company 51 1 MR. NEMETH : I couldn't give you an exact per 2 centage figure, but they're small. They're small. 3 The bulk of our business is in the small package, the 4 gallon sizes, the five pound sizes. 5 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Do you label your product now 6 as being asbestos free, or non asbestos, in other words do 7 you say so on the package? 8 MR. NEMETH: We have on one or two products, we 9 are more than anything just dropping the asbestos warnings 10 that we previously had on the packaging. 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: And having nothing, in 12 other words, no warning at all. 13 MR. NEMETH: Yes. Some of them say non asbestos 14 because we began to promote those while we still had -- 15 w e 're still making both, and so we were offering a dif 18 ferentiation . 17 But as we go away from it we probably will just 13 drop the asbestos warning, ana on the assumption chat the- 19 ban will, of course, take effect. It really won't make any 20 difference as long as -- because they all will. 21 I COMMISSIONER BYINGTON: Would you be a iitcie 22 ific for our sta ff who have asked tha c --n reruns 23 ng out the aiarke tplace , at whatever time the ban 24 :a e s ez ie"ct, and we '1i *ea\Ta *hat -- y o u 've asked u.s to 25 r ar*d we did DOl nt out that we would take a look J- cme orlincj Compcii 52 1 at tnac. 2 But let's assume that the day arrives the ban 3 takas effect, and even if we assume for the moment it was 4 a staggered basis, and it took 30 days from manufacture, 5 and X number of days, 90, 120, whatever, 130 as you sug 6 gested, at the retail level, at that point in time, whatever 7 it is, what would then really happen to that which is 3 really out there? 9 Would you have it recalled, or would you reimburse 10 and have them dispose of it locally, how would you pro 11 ceed? 12 MR. NEMETH* How would I like to proceed? Or -- 13 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: How -- what would you like to 14 see happen? 15 MR. NEMETH: I would just like to suggest that 16 everybody throw away what thej have left in stock. 17 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Take care of disposal at the 18 local level -- 19 MR. NEMETH: Exactly. 20 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- in smaller amounts. 21 I MR.NEMETH: Exactly, because -- 22 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Then would you reimburse, 23 cr would you have to reimburse, or would you bs -- 24 MR .NEMETH: That would be a very ticklish orob -- 25 lain. I don't suoeose that the manufacturer is anv more at ^aporitng (Company 1 fault than the retailer or the distributor. It's a diffi 2 cult question to answer. I know what I would like to see 3 happen, again ,but I suppose market situations would dictate. 4 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0N: Also what your competitors 5 do? 8 MR.NEMETH: Probably. 7 CHAIRMAN FRANKLIN: But under CPSA there is 8 not the same kind -- 9 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: No. 10 CHAIRMAN FRANKLIN: -- of repurchase obligation 11 and -- 12 M R . NEMETH: Yes, I understand that, as a matter 13 of fact that was the point I was trying to make, and I 14 hoped that the ban would go forward on that basis, because 15 than at least it becomes a negotiable situation between 18 the distributor or retailer and the manufacturer. 17 CHAIRMAN FRANKLIN: I've got two more. 18 CHAIRMAN-BYINGTON: Go ahead, Commissioner Franklin. 19 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Just to reiterate some 20 thing that I really am very interested in, and it was V 21 mentioned by the chairman briefly here, and that is if 22 you do have any information that would be helpful to us 23 with respect to how a cor. guner used your reformulation, 24 whether he likes it or doesn't like it, it works better, 25 works worse or whatever. I think that's very important deportine} C^ompany 54 1 information for us . j i 2 Along those lines I'd like to ask you -- j 3 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Excuse me, could I say some 4 thing? I think what we both are looking for is that you 5 do, which unlike gypsum, probably have a closer retail 8 relationship or a consumer relationship because of the 7 nature of your product, and therefore possibly some of your 3 distributors may have received complaints -- 9 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Or may have some idea -- 10 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- or written you. 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: -- about the efficacy, if 12 you will -- 13 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: -- of the new products. 15 MR. NEMETH: The problem is since we just -- well, 16 I can -- we discontinued everything as of May 1st, sc 17 some of the things still going out since May 1st -- 18 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Ye S'. - 19 MR.NEMETH: -- were still of the old type. Cr. 20 `wo of the products, one in the powder joint cement, that l 21 was dis ccn cinued and switched to non asbestos last August, 22 the gallon sire of pre-mix joint cement has been on the 23 market since December. 24 And we have had no adversa comments on either, of 25 those two products. ^uporling (Company 55 1 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I have a further question 3 here, and I 'd like your reaction to the statement that13 4 an our proposed ban. I quote no'v, "for purposes of this 5 assessment, -the Commission considered the use of patching 8 compounds by a consumer, for six hours a day, four times a 7 year, to be high yet reasonably foreseeable -yearly exposure. 8 Do you think we 're in the right ballpark with 9 10 MR. NEMETH: I think that it's high. 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: You think it's high. 12 MR. NEMETH: Yes, but -- 13 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: What do you think it 14 should be? 15 MR. NEMETH: I'm probably in the same position 18 that you're in in trying to make that evaluation. It's 17 high but it's -- I don't want to say it's unreasonable 13 because I think it is high, but tc try to put a lower 19 figure on it, again I weald just be guessing, really. 20 CHAIRMAN 3YINGTCN: Your lower fig-are wouldn't be 21 any more defensible than that position, is that what you're 22 saying? 23 MR. NEMETH: That's about right. 24 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Co you think that your 25 p tint cf.. view in what you have done, wi th respect to your _^}cme /^eporlinQ dompany 1 voluntary reformulation of this product is similar o what 2 other businesses, of comparable size that make this product, 3 have done? 4 MR. NEMETH: Difficult to answer. I -- we don't 5 really fraternize with our competition too much, and -- 6 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Well, I understand. 7 MR. NEMETH; Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER FRANLIN: Why you are not. 9 MR. NEMETH: So it's difficult for me to say 10 that, other than what I might observe in the marketplace, 11 and there are other small manufacturers around. And when 12 I was making some of these comments I was talking about all 13 of us really as a whole, not necessarily what our specific 14 position might be in terms of the turnover and what have 15 you. IS More difficult for the small ones tc reformulate 17 and to switch over. I think in talking to one or two 18 people, just casually, they thought this whole thing would, 19 blow over andgo away, so there may be a few-who have* not 20 reformulated, and that's just a guess on my part. I 21 really wouldn't knew that for a fact. 22 But I know that the thought was, oh, well, you 23 know, it's never really going to happen. 24 COMMISSIONS?. FRANKLIN: But in other words, in 25 your comments, particularly as they relate to the effective Reporting dam pang 5 1 date of this regulation, you feel that you were speaking, 2 at least more or less, for other small manufacturers. 3 MR. NEMETH: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay. 5 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Commissioner Pittle, you have 6 one more? 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I was curious bv the fact 8 that you have, and I'd just like to know what your thinking 9 is, why you dropped the asbestos warning. I understand 10 why you dropped if it doesn't contain it, why you didn't 11 take the next step and say, this doesn't contain asbestos. 12 And that way it would be, you know, would grab the consumer'Js 13 attention -- 14 MR. NEMETH: Well -- 15 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- to compete against all 18 the other products in the market containing asbestos. 17 MR.NEMETH: We have put that on a few products, 18 but in view of the fact that we -- the remaining 'products 19 that we got out of on asbestos were as recentlv as April, 20 we anticipate that we're very, very close at this point t< 21 k a complete, non asbestos situation, so that everybody is 22 going to be in. the same ballpark. 23 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: All right, in other words 24 do you believe that it's going to be- that soon before you 25 couldn't buy asbestos contai kU t w .3 -ii.n the market, cme ttporiiny Company 1 j. in:ci redact KL..\.....i..CW^ iS Cj0tXo4.V-Jbe , X :T;3Sn i Ju_0u 2 Hvi*-iia vl* d Vfia* ? 3 X * A* METH : I 'm terry, I don't sAJ* O 4wlwd*d 4 Or*AtW/*'.H*tAr* *7i.uiu# ns way I 1 UHu*t!rO v li 5 i -- -- o uO'i^ 0 take quite a whil e for the"-- some numb 5 :hfc two f~1 '3*1* \n'5- ->l-->c,<-- __ 7 -b 3 SION ER PITTLE: Two 1 gures for the month 9 sO.'.^riC'.v s u r ^ f c n s r c & r & n o h o n ^ j & r n y ~ i. u. iti 10 regulation wasn't in existence but just naturally were to 11 cake r.'iace - - 12 MR. NEMETH: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- it would take 24 months 14 A-.d it would seem to me if you had a product that didn't 15 av ~ this undesirable characteristic that you'd -want to IS ucvarcas e cr.a - an u pusn at t to raacr* cut ur.c qt,,e - 0 2 17 tcr.surr.ur 1s attention and try to steer them toware YOu 13 19 V T*M7T**U id / v/e n a v f* 'lf: .n.-tn on sc:n2 spa- 20 d especially one or two brand new 2.1 .~ a hi 22 23 24 25: ^r.a.c" ,3 ...:3 n- 1 ti -t-ca-vt i.t i-'-_i*cj non play up the nor. asbestos - y 3.n U - J U / . v , a ^ --- ji > --X C a i n c ii i y .1.11-j <?eparliticj C*-ampOLftif 59 1 on automated equipment with overwrap type packaging, which 2 is the easiest way, I guess, to describe it would be the 3 type of packaging that goes on a cracker box. Every box 4 is individually wrapped, and it gets very costly to be 5 changing labels, directions, which we've had to go through 8 quite a bit of this in recent months, recent years, as 7 various regulations have come out. 3 It gets very costly to completely scrap labels, 9 we buy them ir. enormous quantity, ana to throw them out 10 and redo the place and reprint when we see this non asbestos 11 thing taking shape the way it is any way, probably an 12 economic consideration as much as anything else. 13 We've evaluated that, and on those where we felt 14 it would be advantageous to say non asbestos, we did it. 15 On others where it didn't make any difference because the 16 whole thing was going that way shortly any way, and it was 17 a standard in the line, we just didn't do it because in 18 si;; months it would-be redundant to say nor. asbestos, we 19 assume, or 90 days, or whenever, it will be redundant to say 20 non asbestos. 21 V COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I see. It seemed to me if 22 you were going to have space, that you had asbestos warning, 23 and when you redid your labels, to take that out, but 24 that's a decision I wasn't part vf-- 25 MR. NEMETH: Yes.. _s$cme j^eporling dompary 6C COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- and I don't know all the 1 2 parameters. But you could have just stuck in there no as bestos . 3 And I'm just wondering, there is not possibly 4 products that you'd be competing with yourself in terms of 5 one product you had out, would have asbestos in it and 6 another one that wouldn't. 7 MR. NEMETH: Well, only in an overlap situation 3 where -9 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Overlap. 10 11 MR. NEMETH: Yes, only where we had discontinued 12 and still had some of the old in stock. 13 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I see. Okay. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Thank you very much, sir, we 14 really appreciate your coming down. And if you could, the 15 bits of information that we were asking, if you'd get us, 16 and supply that. 17 MR.NEMETH: I will certainly try to. 13 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Thank you, very arch. 19 20 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: May I make a remark? 21 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN : I just wanted to add thanks to your coming. I think f*y^*\vkf jtos ^ ocUb'ie of 23 24 oiyss of v <2v ? don't yd e s t i 6nru h cf in th xou1a.- otrv decision it*.2 k in o crccess , one" o'H ' t *5-rn is sm &1,1 25 61 1 business . 2 And I appreciate your coming and taking the time 3 and making your views known. The other is consumers. 4 MR. NEMETH: Small consumers don't come either. 5 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Yes, small consumers 6 don't come either, I quite agree. 7 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: The nest presentation will 8 be made by Mr. Rhodes of the Union Carbide Corporation, 9 and it's my understanding that Mr. Rhodes has asked that 10 of his 30 minutes he would like to make part of his presen 1211 tation now and part of your presentation later? MR. RHODES: That's correct. 13 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, go ahead and proceed. 14 MR. RHODES: I have 15 copies, but I would like 15 to request that they be given to the Commissioners and 18 staff only until I've completed my presentation. Is that 17 18 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Fine. 19 ere con CwiTr*2cl ---- you're saying that the 20 of this thing ral ates to, the press car. 21 you 'rft 9ciTiw g i ough it? 22 RHODES : I would prefer m a t I ne iJ.ie^< 23 y pX'Qii'Sntliiu.a.Or* <2GIT! be made generally 24 avii.asu 25 :HAIRMAN BYINGTON : Well, I think -- _s4cme $ tporiiny Company 6 2 1 MR. RHOaES; I t s p l i t s i n t o t w o p a r t s . I ' d l i k e 2 to p r e s e n t i t b e f o r e i t ' s r e l e a s e d t o t h e p r e s s . I s t h a t a 3 problem w ith you? 4 CHAIRMAN BYINGTQN: W e ll, I t h i n k t h e y o u g h t to 5 have th e o p p o rtu n ity to go through i t th e same tim e th a t 6 we 'r e g o in g t h r o u g h i t . I m e a n , t h i s i s a p u b l i c m e e t i n g 7 and y o u 're going to make a p u b lic s ta te m e n t, and you know, 8 I think it would be a p p ro p riate if they were given at le a s t 9 a copy of it to follow along as y o u 're going through it, 10 yes. . H MR.RHODES: Y e s. 12 C O M M I S S I O N E R PITTLE: There may be people who 13 w a n t t o w r i t e questions up at the end of the presentation, 14 a n d i t ' s k i n d o f hard to follow, a thick document like this, 15 orderly. IS CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Why d o n ' t y o u m ake sem e m ore 17 for la te r. 18 MR.RHODES: I d i d n ' t mean i t to be a l l t h a t 19 complicated. 20 O k ay , l e t me b e g i n by i n t r o d u c i n g m y s e l f . 21 My name i s H a r r i s o n B . R h o d e s , a n d I * m - s p e a k i n g c n b e h a l f 22 of Union C arbide C o rp o ratio n where I hold the p o s itio n of 23 n a g e r i n t h e " C a i i d r i a " A s b e s t o s B a p a 24 education is in the fie ld of chem ical 25 j"j _*. Oo 'lXdCl a d e c r e e o f D o c t c r o i S c i . e n . c 9 . f.r.o mMcm* 63 1 C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y . T he p a s t f o u r y e a r s my a s s i g n m e n t 2 has been in the area of asb esto s h e a lth and reg u la to ry 3 m a tte rs, and has also in clu d ed re se a rc h on m on itoring te c h 4 niques . 5 I am also currently serving the Asbestos In 8 formation Association, North America, as chairman of the 7 standards and technical committee. Union Carbide Corpora 8 tion has been actively engaged since 1963 in the mining 9 and milling of asbestos for facilities in Central Califor 10 nia . 11 The asbestos fiber produced i s marked throughout 12 the United States and in -many foreign countries. One of 13 the principal applications for. asbestos in this country 14 h a s been in tape-joint compounds. 15 We d o n o t ourselves m a n u f a c t u r e s u c h c o m p o u n d s , 16 h o w e v e r,n o r do we m a n u f a c tu re any o t h e r a s b e s t o s c o n t a i n 17 ing f in is h e d p r o d u c ts . As a co m m issio n ers a re w e ll aw are, 13 th e re has. been a trem endous flo o d of paper generated in 19 re la tio n to the asbestos regulatory m atters under con 20 sideration here. 21 We b e l i e v e t h a t s e v e r a l c r u c i a l i s s u e s h a v e 22 beer, l o s t in th e flo o d , and w ould lik e to tak e the o p p o r 23 tu n ity today to address these issues as follow s. 24 F i r s t , a look at a ll of the com m ercial and 25 c3 its urnsx s>x o o s u r s d a t a a v a i l a b l e , - t o d a y , i n c l u d i n g s o m e feporln Ciompa nu 64 1 recent consumer tests, and also some OSHA compliance in 2 spection results. An examination of the risk estimation 3 model proposed by Dr. Bayard of the CPSC staff in 4 terms of actual consumer exposure. 5 Third, a discussion of the elimination for reduc 6 tion of unreasonable risk of injury as required by the - 7 statute in the absolute zero risk regulatory approach that 8 is advocated by the petitioners. 9 Fourth, the direction of your attention to the 19 fact that asbestos, of one type or another, is present 11 throughout the air, water, and earth of this planet, and 12 the overwhelming consequences of a ban of ubiquitous 13 material such as this without a precise definition of what U is banned, a well specified, analytical procedure, at 15 seme allowable levels other than zero. l(i Fifth, a presentation of a suggested alternative 17 approach to protect the consumer from unreasonable risk of 18 injuries, which is more realistic, more workable, and more 19 enforceable in the proposed total ban. 20 And this talk splits very nicely into the techni- I. 21 cal areas and a discussion of the regulatory problems. 22 I will address for the first portion the technical matters 23 and present the information. 24 Should be emphasized that this discussion will 2o dead directly wd th and presented in terms- of tape-joint 5 5 1 compounds. Spackiing compounds are similar in composition 2 and use, but are applied in so much smaller amounts that 3 the potential for significant exposure is virtually non 4 existent. 5 Emberizing kits are outside the field of our 6 expertise, and will not be considered. Gypsum wall board 7 was developed about 1330, 1900. It did not come into wide 8 usage until World War II when the need for houses and other 9 buildings made this quicker, less complex construction 10 method very popular. ll Usage has grown substantially since that time 12 and dry wall construction is now used in the majority of 13 residential and a wide variety of commercial and public 1.4 buildings. 15 Initially, ordinary piaster was used to embed Ui and cover the tape to make the joint between the boards, 17 but in the mid-forties specially formulated dry mixtures, 18 with, casesine as. the binder introduced. 19 These mixtures typically contained 10 to 15- 20 percent asbestos. We have been told that the plaster at k 21 that time also contained asbestos. And let me digress for 22 just a moment at this point. There seems to be a mis 23 understanding that `the asbestos is used as a binder in 24 tape joints. 25 The binder is a casing, a glue-, a vinyl acetate, Jlone Reporting Company 6 6 1 something of that nature, vhich makes itself hard. The 2 asbestos does not function as a binder. 3 To continue, ready mix, that is wet compounds or 4 mud, were introduced in the mid-fifties, were in broad, 5 general use by 1960. The asbestos content of muds in 6 general was high until about 1970, dropped during the seven 7 ties to approximately the range of two to seven percent. 8 Tape joint compounds containing asbestos are 9 thus not new but have been in widespread use for 30 to 35 19 years, and I certainly wouldn't quarrel with the previous 11 speaker, who said 50 years. 12 Over the first 15 years of this period, the main 13 material used was provided dry and contained relatively 14 high levels of asbestos, that is 10 to 15 percent. The 15 Commission's consultants, A. T. Carney, Incorporated, 1(4 estimates that today's annual value of shipments of 17 patching compounds is $80 million. 18 In an average price of 4.50 per can, this is 19 equivalent to about 18 million cans. The formulations we 20 have seen cost about 20 to 30 cents more per can for raw \ 21 materials to replace asbestos, so that the added burden 22 just to cover raw materials cost is about four and a half 23 million dollars annually. 24 This cost, plus any percentage mark ups used, 25 would he added to the cost of the structure and would Jlc Reporting ompanij 67 1 carry the normal finance charges over the life of the 2 indebtedness. 3 It should also be noted that about 10,000 tons per 4 year of asbestos, with a product value of about one million 5 dollars, were used in this application prior to the decline 6 that has resulted from actions by a variety of governmental 7 agencies. 8 We believe that the total five and a half million 9 dollars annually represents a reasonably reliable, minimum to estimate of the direct, economic effects of the replacement 11 of asbestos and tape joint compounds. 12 The added effects of the poor performance of many 13 of the asbestos free muds has not been considered here. 14 In the assessment of the risk that needs to be related to 15 this cost burden, it is important to have a reliable esti 1(> mate of the level of consumer exposure. 17 All of the available information or. exrosyr has 18 beer, assembled and is documented in -- and discussed in 19 detail in an appendix to this presentation, which will be 20 submitted prior to the August 29th, 1977 deadline for 21 written comments. 22 Only the key results will be summarized here. 23 The date presented are contained in five reports,. First, 24 the tests conducted by Rohl et al at one location in 25 New York City. This is the data cited by the petitioners. sQcme l^eportinij Ciom/ja/tu 68 1 Second, a survey of a variety of sanding condi 2 tions made by Rhodes and Ingalls and cited extensively 3 by the Asbestos Information Association, North America, 4 in their response to the petition. - 5 Third, data from state and federal OSHA compliance 6 inspections compiled by Equitable Environmental Health, 7 Incorporated, as part of a study of asbestos exposure in 8 the construction industry. 9 Fourth, a report submitted to the Consumer Product 19 Safety Commission by Union Carbide Corporation on July 14th, 11 1977, covering consumer exposure during a typical spackling 12 and a moderate sized, dry wall installation operation. 13 And fifth, a study by Union Carbide Corporation, which has 14 just been finished, on another consumer installation of dry 13 vail in a large room, including the ceiling. IK The results of this survey are summarized in 17 two figures you are now receiving. Now, those are at 18 tached to the back of the report. I have these. Would 19 you like some additional ones or do you want to switch 20 V 21 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0N: That's okay . 22 MR. RHODES: Figura 1 shews along the vertical 23 axis the airborne asbestos concentration. The fibers per 24 cubic centimeter longer chan 'five micrometers that occurred 23 in the breeding zone of the operator., during the sanding _ A cme feporti nifqf dCtom pany 69 1 operation - 2 Usually a number o samples were collected at 3 each location in a dark bar showing the range of concentra 4 tions found, with the arithmatic average of ail samples 5 indicated by the arrows. 3 The data or. the left are those of Rohi, that were 7 cited in support of the petition. .They were obtained in 8 one test in New York City. Note that an exposure of 20 9 fibers per CC for four days was used by Dr. Bayard in his 10 projection to risk, to be discussed later, and the scale 11 on that chart runs from zero to 20, so the top line on 12 there is 20 fibers per cc. 13 The next group of results were obtained by Union 14 Carbide Carbide Corporation in a survey of commercial 15 operations in eight different cities. Results rar.ce from IB .2 to three fibers per cc. 17 These fiber counts have been spot checked blind 18 by two other labor-stories . The EEH and OSHA compliance 19 data are shown next, and they fall in just about the 20 same range as the results of Union 'Carbide. V 21 Now, I might interject, over towards the left 22 of that -graft, Minneapolis, Minnesota was an asbestos 23 free mud and wa 1re i n d i c a t i n g se ver al tenths of a fiber 24 per. co, which may or may net be asbestos. But. it does 23 shew up in the phase contrast monitoring procedure, -sQcme f*\ej}ortincj (^ompanij 70 1 And there's another one about in the middle of 2 Denver, Colorado asbestos free. It's the same sort of 3 problem. W e 're not saying that those contain asbestos, 4 but we're saying if you run it by the OSHA inspection 5 procedure, there are fibers in there which must be counted 6 as asbestos . 7 The consumer use data is shown over on the far 8 right. The first case is for extensive spackling and the 9 installation of three panels of dry wall. The second is 19 for three walls and a ceiling in a large basement recrea 11 tion room. 12 The latter m u d contained two -- 2.6 percent 13 asbestos by weight on the dry bases. Exposures in these 14 tests were only 2/10ths to one fiber per cc longer than 15 five microns, which correspond roughly to the lower end 1(1 of the range found for commut-- commercial use. 17 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Excuse me. The three panels 18 of dry wall you just referred to, is tha,t- -- 19 MR. RHODES: That's the one-- 20 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- the study in the -July 14th 21 MR. RHODES: That's in the July 14th, and the 22 picture there installing it myself. There are two other 23 operations in tape joint installation that present the 24 ossi.Id iXitiv o? ^y.-osu'''^ tio t QQ ffotrm osb^stcs if1, sif 25 The addition of dry powder product water, and cine Reporting (Company 71 1 the clean up after sanding. Data for these operations are 2 shown in figure 2. Here, in order to get the raw data on 3 the graph, it was necessary to run the scale from zero to 4 60 instead of zero to 20 as in the previous figure. 5 Otherwise the graph follows the same format and G shows a very similar pattern. The raw data are far higher 7 than the OSHA results, and the consumer values are below 8 or in the lower end of the range for commercial use. 9 It is very important to understand that all of 10 the concentrations shown occurred during the active pur 11 suit of the particular operation, sanding, wet out, or clean 12 up. 13 These operations generally take place for a U moderate portion of the day, with concentrations at much 1.1 lower values for the rest of the eight hour period. Eight IG hour time waited, average exposures were calculated for 17 the two consumer installations, and the highest exposure 18 found was 2/10ths of a fiber per cc greater than five 19 microns for two days, while asbestos containing dust was 20 '.'eing generated. 21 One o; your staff members, Dr. Stephen Bayard, 22 has developed a model to estimate the risk of respiratory 23 cancer from lew level exposure to asbestos from taping 24 compounds. This modern model is patterned on that pre 2.1 scribed in the paper by Rhodes and Henderson, except that" J l cme f^eportinuqj ds^tomfjanij I Dr. Bayard has made an assumption that the effective dcse 2 is cumulative. 3 This shows a geometric increase in risk into the 4 model. We question whether there is any basis for this 5 assumption, we do not feel this is an appropriate place 6 to debate the issue. 7 It is of more interest to use the model, which is 8 heavily biased towards predicting a high risk, with the 9 exposures just noted for consumer use. That is 2/iOths of 19 a fiber per cc TWA for two days of operation. 11 Following Dr. Bayard's directions on page 3, part 12 C of the reference which we cite, for the highest time 13 waited average, of 2/lQths fiber per cc for two days 14 found for consumer applications, we obtain an annual 15 exposure of .004 fibers per cc per day for one year. U) A mean latent period to tumor of 621 years, and zero 17 deaths of asbestos induced cancer in the 40 year period 18 considered. 19 If the- period examined is extended to 100 years, 20 the number of deaths predicted would be .000003, which is 21 still far less than a single death. These- risk estimates 22 are probably on the high side due to the assumptions used 23 in the model. 24 Since an sctposura of .004 fibers per cc par 25 day is indistinguishable from background, the values are $cme l^eportina ompanu 73 1 not unreasonable . 2 It is also instructed to point out that if we 3 assume an exposure of five fibers per cc for two full 4 eight hour days, which is well above the level found in 5 commercial use, the yearly rate becomes .1 fiber per cc . 6 This yields a median time to tumor of 212 1/2 years, and 7 an asbestos induced cancer rate of .02 deaths. 8 We question whether these are the unreasonable 9 risks referred to in the statute. Now, at this point I 10 will skip to page 12, I believe it is, and cover the rest 11 of the technical matters . 12 I would like to start by pointing out certain 13 practical aspects of enforcement of the ban-as proposed 14 in the Federal Register, and I'm getting the'impression 15 from what's gone before the Commissioners may already be Hi well aware of thi3 problem. 17 These particular questions were discussed at 18 great length, and unfortunately; generally were not solved. 19 The recent meeting in Gathersburg, Maryland conducted by 20 the National Bureau of Standards,and since several of your 21 V staff members were there I will only touch upon them 22 briefly. 23 Since the promulgatian of the OSHA asbestos 24 recu1afelons in 1972 chare has been a continued debate on 25 -s$cme l^eportinq Company 74 1 what is asbestos, what is an asbestos fiber. Asbestos, 2 when narrowly defined in a way that will satisfy the most 3 precise mineralolgist, is ubiquitous in the atmosphere, 4 although generally it occurs at a very low, but not zero 5 concentrations . 6 When the definition is broadened to include all 7 amphibole chips, which are longer than five microns, and 8 have a length to diameter ratio greater than three, you 9 will approach a condition aptly described by D r . Malcolm 19 Ross of the U. S. Geological Survey at the NBS meeting of 11 shutting down the face of the earth. 12 Particles of this type are everywhere, and would 13 contaminate any product containing a mineral. The EPA 14 faced this problem in 1973 and in writing emission 13 standards for the spraying of asbestos containing products. 18 And decided to treat it by setting a one percent by weight 17 maximum limit. IS Their reasoning' was as follows . The intent of 19 the one percent limit is to ban the use of materials 20 which contain significant quantities of asbestos but 21 allow one use of materials which would one, contain trace 22 amounts of ashes tos which occur in numerous natural sub- 23 stances; and two , includa very small quanti l 3 or asbest 24 .23 added ts materia, 23 a f . ^4cme deportine} C^<ompanif 75 1 In order for any action by the- Commission to be 2 workable and enforceable, we believe it is absolutely es 3 sential that you provide a definition of asbestos which 4 states exactly what mineral species and what form of these 5 species are included, and specify what particle dimensions 6 constitute an asbestos fiber. 7 The present definition of the proposal could be 8 applied to rock that covers most of the surface of the 9 earth. In addition, an analytical procedure of the levels to of impurities that are acceptable, as measured by this 11 procedure, must be specified. 12 Without these practical definitions, the ban is 1.3 virtually universal and completely unworkable, and I will 14 conclude this portion of my remarks there and I'll be 1.3 happy to try to answer any questions in this area that 1(5 you may have. 17 CHAIRMAN 3YII4GTON: Are there any questions at 18 this time or do you want to reserve, questions. He's going 19 to come* back 20 MR. RHODES: I'll be here. 21 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: He'll stay the whole thing 22 ;ut s wants to reserve the second part of his time for the 23 24 CCMM T5STON **** ^ like to ask him one 2.3 C * c- n % ~s4ctne Reportingi<.f yC^companij 76 Just to pick up on the top of page 6 of your statement, and I'd just like to check into the reasoning of how you calculated that, on page 9 and 10 of your July 14th submission when you went into more detail about how you arrived at that, you have an equation for time wait averaging which essentially multiplies the amount of time you spent in one procedure, and then the measurement. MR. RHODES: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: You added to that the amount of time spent during another procedure, cleaning up, and so on, and then you divided by 480, which is the equiva lent. ' MR. RHODES: Yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: And you come out with a number of .02 fibers per cubic centimeter, which you felt was greater than five microns. And I don't understand why you used the number zero for the greatest portion of time, namely something on the order of 387 minutes. MR. RHODES: Well, on that particular one the man who was doing the sanding left the area and went into V work, and he has no exposure other than background. COMMISSIONER PITTLEl understand that, but I mean, I got that from the text of i t , and the only th ing i.3 , If c iti^o'i^ V7sic 1 ivine i.n that house or were epe ndi ncj some nv tih0,u^ ^ implication' of this is*- that if- vme M eporling C om panij 77 somebody were to work in the room much longer, then you would have like a double or triple the exposure. MR. RHODES: There are data there, presented there, which indicate what the exposures were after the working period, in those rooms. They are area data, there is a complete survey of data throughout the entire day in three rooms in the house. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I note that. MR. RHODES: It really would not make any measuraable difference if you used 005 or 006 for that remainder either. COMMISSIONER PITTLE; Well, I don't know what you mean. Is that what the measurements took place, if those are the measurements -MR. RHODES: Measurements were taken. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: And they were 005. I got the impression -- M R . RHODES: Wait, I'm talking about after opera tions -- COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. I MR. RHODES: -- where dust is being generated. There is a complete series of measurements for the entire -- there were personal samples taken during the operation. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: R ig h t. MR. RHODES: There were area samples in the rooms sfl-nme l^euortinQ C^ompamj 78 1 of the house, three rooms of the house, for the full day. 2 Now if you wish to recalculate it, and using the area, why 3 it's not hard to do -~ 4 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: No, I -5 MR. RHODES: -- and it will make very little dif- 6 icrencs 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: But that leads to a sort of 8 a statement in your today's statement, saying that eight 9 hour time waited average exposures were calculated in two 10 consumer installations, and saying that the highest exposure 11 was .25 cubic centimers. 12 MR. RHODES: For two days. 13 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: For two days. 14 MR. RHODES: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: That is predicated on the 16 fact that y o u 're assuming, I mean, I don't know that the 17 number might turn out to be just double. 18 MR. RHODES: No, the.. -- 19 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Do- you think that's in- 20 signi ficant 7 \ 21 MR. RHODES: It's not a matter of thinking, you 22 can calculate it right from the numbers -- 23 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Nail, I -- 24 MR. RHODES: -- and see '.hat the differences 25 J - cme $eportin<f ompcintj 7 9 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: All right-- MR. RHODES: New, let .-ne -- the 2/10ths of a fiber for two days occurred at the large, full room instal lation. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. MR. RHODES: And those are calculated completely for the -COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oh, for the entire -- oh. MR. RHODES: -- entire day, with some of the back ground. Now, we had a point three in the small operation which actually occurred when there really wasn't any asbesto > being used per s e , wasn't carrying out the old dry wall and preping the old plaster, to install the spackle. I assure you I'm not playing any games-COMMISSIONER PITTLE: No, no, I'm trying to under stand . MR. RHODES: We are -- COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I'm looking at the -- I'Ll have to read today's submission over much more carefully. I'm responding to the sentence that you're talking about, V eight hour time waited averages being. .2, and I've looked at July 14th and it has eight hour sessions in which you come down to 102. Maybe there's a slip of a typo there, M R . R H O D E S : I d o n ' t guarantee-" that t h e r e i s n ' t . j l c me f<?eportin(j (Hompantj ] 80 but I sure hope there wasn't. 2 COMMISSIONER PITTAE: And in the calculation of 3 the .02, in your July -- you are saying, by golly, the 4 person wasn't there and therefore he wasn 't exposed i Ci and the substitution in for a zero in for the exposure to 6 the consumer or the person strikes me as very heavily 7 dependent on what he happens to be doing when he finishes 3 I j cleaning up. S If he leaves the room, then the exposure goes '10 down, which is natural to that person. But we were more il interested in assessing, Iwould want to read that as as 12 sessment of what the possibility of exposure is if th 13 person stayed in the room longer. 14 MR. RHODES: The information is there. COMMISSIONER PITTAE: Well, I -- 16 MR. RHODES: We'll look at that if we want to t lock -- see, you're talking -- you have a problem, and j j \ i if you're* applying, an OSHA formula, you'te calculating eight j 19 hour TW A's of workers, because you want to relate that j 9C to the OSHA compliance data. ') And you know, we're -- where do you make your O'c, adjustment? What I did was report everything, and the 2`\ information is there, and T think I am correct in saying that those numbers, after the operations are so small that when you would put them in there, even though you multiply / > f - S 4 fa r a n a o > n j x r u t Si 1 hem by a lot of hours, a lot of m i n u t e s t h e y are very 2 low numbers 3 JUDGE PITTLE: May I will pursue this with you 4 after. 5 MR. RHODES: Good, I'd be glad to. 6 CHAIRMAN BYINGTOM: Yes, Commissioner Franklin. 7 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I hear you questioning 8 our risk assessment, and it's not clear to me from your 9 statement exactly the magnitude of that. What I'd like 10 to do is ask you the same question and ask the gentleman 11 from Bondex, and get your reaction to it. 12 To this statement in our Federal Register notice 13 says, for purposes of this assessment the Commission 14 considered the use of patching compounds by a consumer 15 for six hours a day, four times a year, to be high, yet IS reasonably foreseeable yearly exposure. 17 Now, what do you think of that statement? 18 MR. RHODES: Well, the main point cf the data 19 chat I presented is that that's highly unlikely. 20 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Too high, yes. I 21 MR. RHODES: The numbers that occur during the 22 actual Deration were somewhere in the tenths to, I think 23 we r.cia a one or and a quarter or one and a half, 24 { x*i--j zhe -c1saa up operation , 1;; zi\iz 1arge operation 25 cnu nan nc* niz wir rs o cic ^uportincf (^ampa/tif 32 1 c- the sanding on a ra th e r la rg e re-creation rooa, in c lu d 2 ing th e c e ilin g , took som eth ing la s s than two h o u rs. 3 And th e ex p o su re f o r th e rem a in in g s ix hours 4 w a s - - I can' t quote it off 5 was quite low. So tn a t the 8 t h a C ir i 5 -a ci S3 3 ssaant, I 4t*.VA. 7 COMM ISSIONSR 1i,?rpwii Mi,- 8 MR. RHODES : Base 9 and commercial informat ion . 10 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I understand what you're 11 saying about the six hour time period when there was some 12 exposure, but what do you think about the assumption of 13 the four times a year type use? 14 MR. RHODES: In the installation of dry wall, you 15 3 t Off by burying the tape-- now , if you're going to 16 use dry mix, you have to mix up the dry mix. I don't thi 17 7srv many cen sumers use the dry mix for big jobs, 'they'll 18 U3 * tha r;c*.L 2.3 19 'Mu bury th e tape, and then come back over it 20 *(,f - c ' ngle coat, and while i t 's still wet, and you V 21 let that d 2TV / and all o f vds shrink, so they - - 22 T 3 <*. V r*ov.7 whs th er you 're aware o f it or n e t , but the 23 boards ar a g roov3d wher e you buck the boards together, 24 so there' c gr oeve ir. t hers, a oh* -- " A* y* *t Q ' t 1^ 25 f i l l i n a w ith the tape and w ith th e sue ^ A c m a f^ e p o r lln g `C o m p a n y 3 3 1 So that the first step is to bury the tape and 2 it., and then you come back through and a day 1ater 3 t 'S .ary or has shrunk some , and put another co at or., 4 hat dries you come in and sand, and follow it with 5 a third coat, and then you touch up the third coat with a 6 little sanding where you may have net cleared the edges 7 properly. 8 So that in a installation of dry wall, according 9 to the directions on the box, and according to the way the 10 commercial operators run, you really have two days, in U which you're actually doing sanding and raising the dust 12 and cleaning up. 13 So if you -- I think I wojild agree with Chairman 14 Byington that if you do that once or twice, during a life 15 time, that's -- it's a reasonable- estimate of how often 16 you're going to be involved with the thing. 17 How often do you finish a room? 18 COMMISST0MSP. EHAnELIN : So what ''ou'te saying is 19 that our assumption here of four times a year that one 20 would he -- 21 !R. RHODES : I think it's -- 22 OMMXSS IOEEP. FRAMKLIN s -- would be going through 23 24 25 r* >-./*t eve x rr*ry r:3lbch inc?,' wou 1 ba-. boo $vpoth%% (l.iompany 1 RHODES Yes 2 You're talking primarily where you're installing 3 a few panels of dry wall too. I do n 't think even your 4 staff believes that running a two foot crack with speckling 5 compound is going to generate any significant amount of 6 ?.sb^stc s 7 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Yes. 8 MR. RHODES: I think they made a statement to that, 9 effect, either in one of their briefing packages or in ; 10 the Federal Register notice. 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I have a couple more 12 questions but on another subject, if you want to follow 13 this up. 14 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: I would like to follow 15 *l-i A *a >1 y 16 Do you have any explanation for the discrepancy 17 between the Rchl data on exposure and your own? 18 MR. RHODES: I suspect possibly that they were 19 -- it was taken in '74 thereabouts, that they were using, 20 one of the hiah asbestos content muds. Beyond that I -- 21 there's r.ot enough information given in their discussion 22 of it to make any kind of -- 23 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: What would have been the 24 level of asbestos contained in the materials that you 25 used or that are cited by and large, in the other -- _s4cme Reporting (Company (202) 520*4889 8 5 1 MR. RHODES: They're probably -- 2 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- instances here. 3 MR. RHODES: The one material that we know what 4 was in, we had the formulation for, the manufacturer 5 supplied that. 6 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes. 7 MR. MODES: That was 2.5 percent, on a dry basis. 3 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes. 9 MR. RHODES: The first material, if yo u'll pardon 10 the expression, was the U. S. Gypsum that I bought off 11 the shelf with an asbestos label on it. when we were 12 suppliers to them I believe they went around four or five 13 percent, but Ireally don't know, and it's a dickens to 14 try and analyze for asbestos in mud at that level. It's 15 just a major analytical job, at least w e 're finding it that 18 way . 17 3c I can only guess that it was four or five 13 percent in the first test. 19 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: What-- 20 MR. RHODES : One' thing I would like to pi O U; 21 is that the OSHA- compliance people had pretty much 22 same numbers, the same range of numbers that w e 're 23 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes, that's evidei 24 the dec. Iov; e n ;a er^eun 25 as be5 os en,t of the w t,r - ^}cme j^e.eppoo''CUmneiff Kd^oompciny (20528-4386 O G 1 used,later, and the earlier materials that Kohl might 2 have used, would have been of the order of four or five. 3 Though probably not.as high as five because they didn't 4 go above 20 percent, asbestos, even years ago, did they? 5 MR. RHODES: Well, the information I quoted was 6 given to me by orie of the large manufacturers, and a m an 7 yhe'd been in it for many ysars It was X0 to i.5 percent* 3 in the earlier. 9 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Okav, 10 ME. RHODES: Actually, it didn't drop too much n until the seventies. 12 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes, I guess I have diffi 13 culty ascribing the difference between Rohl's results and 14 yours, or these others which are differences of the order 15 of perhaps 1C -- 16 MR. RHODS: Well -- 17 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- to a difference in as 18 bestos concentration -- 19 MR. RHODES: Well, I don't wane --- 20 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- of two, or possibly 21 three. 22 MR. RHODES: I didn't wane to get too much into 23 don't mean to critique Rohl's results, I present them 24 o" are. But I would poi nt oat 25 fepatirt (Company (202) 28*4339 8? 1 one and one and a half minute samples, and those are 2 notoriously variable . 3 COMMISSIONER KUSHNSR: Yes, 4 MR. RHODES: And if you look at the meaning values, 5 you find that the mean value for pole sanding, which is 6 the standard commercial sanding procedure, is 10 fibers per 7 3 The mean value for the hand sanding, which is 9 the way the consumers sand, is five fibers par cc. So 10 they*re not viewed in that manner, they're not that different 11 than the biggest numbers that we got around three, and 12 OSHA, three and a half, and OSHA around three and a half. 13 And that was run, I understand, as a test. Our 14 data were all obtained where we went into a commercial 15 location at the -- this was all done in cooperation with IS dry wall contractors where we went in and attached a 17 sample to the fella's back. He didn't really know what 18 we were doing . 19 We were measuring the dust that he was breathing, 20 .and then faded into the background sc that ha would -k 21 told him to do just what he normally did. We emphasized 22 to cjat it, erat results in the manner that ths 23 msn v,Tsrs actua11^ wo rk inc . 24 Th3 contractor wanted to 51nd out what kind 25 of dust lev sis the v war o $xoos in<t people- to* 38 1 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Thank you. 2 MR. RHODES: It was not set up as a test. 3 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Any more? 4 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Yes, on page 3 two ques 5 tions . You make the statement that we believe the total 6 of 05.5 million annual presents a reasonably reliable 7 minimum estimate of direct economic effects cf the replace 3 ment of asbestos in the tape joint compounds. 9 Annually for how long? What kind of a calculation 10 is this? 11 MR. RHODES: That's a very good question. You've 12 really got the 10,000 tons per year of asbestos is no 13 -- is much higher than it's now being used. The panic 14 button was pushed here, in the last several months, so that 15 T doubt if really there's anybody in the country -- I 16 wouldn't say that. Any of the bigger -- 17 T know none of the bigger manufacturers are using 13 asbestos. That was the amount that was being used before 19 the serious inroads began with the concerns for GSHA, and 20 the various -- the regulatory efforts that have gone in. .21 I would not mean to imply that the Consumer 22 rcduct Commission's action was going to result in an 23 aftact of 10,000 tons a year of asbestos.. 24 per can 25 -dcm feeppaotrltUnniqj i(j*!c.ampantj 1 was given 'to a a , and I think was giver* to your consultants, 2 as representative of the kind of additional cost that 3 it was going to be to use adepolgite, which is one of 4 the principal placements that we are aware of. 5 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Where did the 5.5 million 5 dollars annually come from? 7 MR. RHODES: Th at 's $1 million for the asbestos, 3 cents a can for 18 mi Ilion cans. 9 COMMISSIONER FRANKLI N : Oh, I see. 10 MR. RHODES: Has my arithmetic gone bad on me? 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Well, I -- I still 12 don't understand. Are you just projecting this -forever? 13 M R . IXODES: No, right now -- 14 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: What -- 15 MR. RHODES: Right now it's costing, to the 18 bast of our information, about a quarter of a can to 17 asbestos out and use a substitute. 13 COMMISSIONER f r a :TKL-IM : Okay, I see 19 MR. RHODES: And that's a direct" e-f 20 *-4r>*;--i -r*p` -*11--**,Vvw;.uu.^ **C* o f rJ\4* VwV*1o c;`Vy t~ i 4-n 21 ivelopment for the Rohl mass rial, costs for the asbes tc 22 re formulation: 23 'RANKLIN : We 1 now, is that ax - 24 should you not 25 her, some kind o: cme f^cporiin^ ^ompcinij 90 1 economy scale or some other factor that over a period of 2 time you know you're going to -- 3 MR. RHODES: Actually, again, from what w e 've 4 been able to learn, the supply of some of these materials 5 is fairly limited. The atapolgite has only, I believe, 5 three producers. 7 And a massive switch to that material is something! 8 you should explore, I believe, as to what -- 9 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: You mean it could drive 10 the price of that material up? 11 MR. RHODES: The price of atapolgite, quite 12 easily could go up, when it becomes a very popular asbestos 13 substitute. 14 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay. 15 MR. RHODES: Again I'm speculating, this is IS secondhand, what I pick up around the industry. 17 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: The other question I 18 have relates to the next sentence where you make a comment 19 about the poor performance of many of the asbestos free 20 muds. What do you mean by that? 21 I. MR.RHODES: That subject has been touched on a 22 number of times this morning. We are told by people in 23 the industry that the asbestos free muds vary very 24 considerably in their comparative performance with the 25 asbestos containing muds. f^tpafU n^ (Company 91 1 There's a -- first of all there's a tendency 2 for them to be harder to draw in the sense that, you 3 you *re putting them on with a wide knife and you slap 4 on, and bring it down. And if you want to go back, if it isn't exact -- 5 First of all it's heavy to use, it feels heavy 6 to the worker, and if you want to go back and remake a 7 pass over it and touch it, it tends to be difficult to re 8 work . 9 10 The other areas, and I think your first speaker 11 indicated that the formulation of a mud of this nature, we 12 call it a mud, is a fairly exacting balance of a lot of ingredients, and it has to be climate adjusted, it has 13 to be in some areas adjusted to the way they're -- whether 14 they're using primarily hand tools or aims tools. 15 And it isn't ill that easy to taka a product 16 that's evolved over 30 or 40 years and come up with a 17 material that performs in the same fashion. 13 Have I answered your question or am. I -- 19 20 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Are you saying there 21 really is consumer concern about -- 22 MR. RHODES: Well, I would agree with the gentle- ciar. -- speaking as a consumer now, the fella that does 23 \ t. ot* tvl cs in Yiir 1if-tj t*.in c s z*o 24 c notics t*t"*;j V COT.?.1?TCI nl q r1,1 V^-V tsXl tlllQ <i1.ffSrO'H'CS 25 ^ 4 c m e eP oriiny C om pany 92 Our reaction, the reaction of the couple that 1 2 id the full room was that a man will oniy do it once in his life time, the next time he'll use paneling, some 3 thing of that nature. 4 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: He'll let his wife do it 5 or something, 6 MR. RHODES: Mow it -7 CHAIRMAN 3YINGTCN: First and last time. 3 MR. RHODES: It is for a reasonably skilled con 9 10 sumer, it's much easier to put in paneling. At least that's my own personal consumer opinion, and they're going 11 12 to dry wall, those four by eight things on a ceiling are a real dog to handle. 13 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: For the record, you've ad 14 dressed the one area on poor performance that you mentioned 15 but you also made a statement that you were concerned 16 about the utilization of the term binding with asbestos, 17 ar.d that that is imcrooer. 13 Mould you elaborate in terms of what would 19 20 be properly be addressed as, for the record. 21 MR. RHODES: Nall, the binder , in normal, termi 22 nology, the binder is the glue, the plastic, I could use that term loosely, that glues the whole thing together. 23 The asbestos is in there for a number of things, to make it 24 easy to trowel, the description, that I ' giverr, the asbasx 25 92 1 muds are slipperier and they move more eas ily under the 2 trow el. They also tend to feather better, and the asbestos 3 di3Q reduces shrinkage , so that you don't gat cracking. M o w , I don't mean to imply that all the non as4 5 bestos muds have not solved these problems, but they're 6 varying degrees, and it's quite a research program to come 7 up with a good asbestos-free mud. So I was really merely making you aware of some 3 misuse of terminology in soma of your reports. 9 10 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: I appreciate that, and that's why I say for the record. 11 MR. RHODESr Does that answer your question? 12 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: That's fine. Commissioner, do 13 you -- 14 15 MR ,, RHODES: The asbestos also serves- in the northarn part of the country, the muds tend to freeze 16 17 out on the jobs, and warehouses and that sort of thing And one of the big problems they had to'overcome on th ase 18 19 non asbestos muds is the one freeze ruin s it, whareas the asbestos muds, you can stir them back together aft a 20 21 freeze or two. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Commissioner Xushner. 22 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes, Can you identify 23 24 the specific chemical or physical characteristics of a-bentos that would `underlie its use in these compounds? 25 ^ompanaf 94 1 MR* RHODES: Yes, I think I did that in the AIA 2 presentation, but I'll be glad to hit it here, hit the 3 high spots, Asbestos is made up of very, very tiny, hair- 4 lika fibers, and when you mix them in the mud they fora a i 5 loosely floculated network that gives it body. 8 And when you trowel it or work it, the fibers 7 come apart, they're so loosely attached, and the material 3 becomes thin, which allows you to move it with a trowel, 9 rework it, and feather it, and that sort of thing. 10 On the other hand, as soon as you take the 11 energy off you stop pushing it with a trowel, but the ; 12 fibers refloculate again, and it stays in place, and it's 13 this property that people are trying to get without ata.- 14 polgite, lastinite, and a. number of these other fibrous 15 mineral species. 16 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: You would look for sub 17 stitutes in other fibers -- 18 MR. RHODES: As far as I -- 19 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- material. 20 MR. RHODES: -- am aware, the .main candidates V 21 for replacement'are, other fibrous minerals. Atapolgite 22 is, I think, one of the leading candidates. It's -- they 23 have fairly long needle-like crystals, look a little like a 24 pencil, car., that general chape. 25 I thought' of b rin g in g along soma p h o to m icro g ra p h s, Reporting +ompuny 95 1 but I did not. I didn't really want to get into the subst 2 tutes area, that was not ray principal point. 3 COMMISSIONER KUSHNSR: Do they tend to have the 4 same kind of properties as asbestos in terras of the fiber 5 bundles appearing to almost continuously be able to sub 6 divide it into finer and finer -- 7 MR. RHODES; The atapolgite -- 8 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- fibers. 9 MR. RHODES: -- tends to be single crystals. 10 They normally do not -- they're in the form in which they 11 were grown in nature, there's no real tendency for them 12 to split into finer and finer fibers. 13 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN; Is there performance, of 14 the performance of the compound, is it similar to that 15 which contains asbestos ? 16 M R ,RHODES; I can only tell you what I hear in 17 the field. 18 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: What do you hear? 19 MR. RHODES: It's r.ot quite as --it varies with 20 > manufactures it, but in general it does have some de 21 cencies-. And I think the USG gentleman indicated that 22 has not bean totally accepted as equivalent. 23 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: So that your comments 24 non asber fees muds would apply. 25 MR. RHODES: To the commercial, commercial us^ar.s ^gpoftincf {Company 1 COMM XSSI ONER FRAN KL IN : To what we 've just been ou t, ata polgite. 2 MR . RHOD E S : AS far as I know - 3 COMM ISSI ONER FRAN KL IN: Contain ing -- 4 MR . RHOD E S : -- th is is -- we ha ve looked at some 5 The ans w 2r is ye s , the atapoIg ite , although 8 there -- I will say that I think there is one that comes 7 pretty close. They've used soma other things -- 8 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: To be equivalent in per 9 formance . 10 MR. RHODES: To be equivalent, yes. It 12 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: The rest isn't. MR. RHODES: It varies quite a bit. Again, as 13 the USG speaker indicated, developing a new compound with 14 -- that has to meet these 14, 15 criteria, is a major re 15 search project. 16 The companies which manufacture these compounds 17 have no incentive to use asbestos, other than performance 13 in the marketplace. Most of them would rather not have to 19 have all the control equipment in their plants, they'd 20 rather get rid of the problem if they could find an easy 21 l way to do it. 22 And they've beer, working on it since-- some of 23 them s i.-.cj 1970., or thessabouts , and they 'ra just beginning 24 emits new 25 4cme ^eporlinfl Company 97 1 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Obis is curious. Maybe 2 you and I are hearing the discussion differently, but I 3 thought the mar. from US Gypsum was coming down and saying 4 he thinks that the substitutes are going to be okay, there 5 is a little resistance, but he thinks the marketplace is S accepting them. 7 Ar.d I hear you saying something different, I 8 think -- 9 MR. RHODES: Well, the marketplace may have no 10 choice.,, the way things are going. 11 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay. 12 MR. RHODES: But I was talking to a competitive 13 manufacturer on Friday, and he indicated that, yes, we can 14 go with one, we've got one that we think is better than 15 some that have been discussed here.. But we're not happy 16 with it as an equivalent replacement. 17 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN BYINCTON: Commissioner Rittle. 19 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. Just so. that I make .20 sure that I'll be reading the right things over lunch, 21 the Ju 1y 14th submi ssion by you has da alt with some a;<p 22 rfion ts run on June 2. t n. That is the er.t that 23 n.2T3 v oporting on th f* top of pa ga f , th o a?C7Va* hour time 24 3*3 jy.ov'soo clU 1.H CJ 3UOOS11 ^ *? 25 $porllfttj C.ampan^ 98 1 M R . R H O D E S : The top of p a g e 6 . 2 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Six of your statement. 3 MR. RHODES: No , 4 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: That's not the July 14th 5 MR. RHODES: We have since installed a full 6 r o o m a n d that report i s being frantically written right now 7 t o submit before the August 29th deadline. 8 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: You're just giving me time 9 to enjoy my lunch. 10 MR. RHODES: But these two -- as you might 11 expect, we did a whole room. We got some higher TW A's . 12 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. 13 MR. RHODES: And those are the -- 14 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Then when we come back I 15 w i l l be sure that I'll still have the same questions about 18 t h i s report as to why there are zeros, but let's move on 17 t o t h e o n e o n t h e t h i n g about some of the testing proce 18 d u r e s . This might be the right time to answer the ques..;- 19 20 The p e o p le who w are in v o lv e d in t h i s e x p e rim e n t, 21 w o r e t h e y y o u r I;e m p l o y e e s , o r w e r e t h e y a t e s t i n g g r o u p ? 22 MR. RHODES: One o f them w as m y s e l f . I r a n i t 23 i n my own b a s e m e n t . T h e o t h e r i s a m a n a n d h i s w i f e who 24 are employed as g u e sts. 25 C O M M I S S I O N E R P I T T L E '.: D i d t h e y h a v e a n y -- d i d - y e n cme /^eporling dom party 99 i or they have any sort of special, or unusual ventillation 2 equipment in their house, an attic fan or -- 3 MR. RHODES: I did not have any, nor did they. 4 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Is that the recommended 5 way to use that, I mean, are there any special precautions 6 to take when you -- 7 MR. RHODES: Well, I'm sorry I didn't bring a 3 bunch of pictures, it's dustier than the dickens. The 9 operation is -- the main ingredient in the mud is limestone, 10 and i t 's heavy. 11 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: I've used it more than 12 once in my life -- . 13 MR. RHODES : You know, you sand it and it's 14 dustier than daylights. 15 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes. 13 -SR. RHODES: But they did not have any, and I 17 did not have any in the way o special ventill at ion. 18 COMMISSIONER KU SHI' HR : W h e n you made some of your 19 measuraments, you, at 1east on the July 14th report, you 20 apparently measured them by using two different techniques. 21 MR. RHODES: We measured them, primarily by the 22 prescribed HIOSH-OSHA -- 23 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: C t f H 24 V? T? f \ t ? T . _ - standa t. 25 C0M M IS S 10VtER KUSHNER: That's the optical (^ampewy IOC 1 scanning. 2 MR. RHODES: Opti 3 then with a technique we 're 4 electron microscope. 5 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: I see. 8 MR. RHODES: That was primarily to satisfy our 7 selves that, there weren't a lot of little fibers that we 8 ware missing under the optical because I was afraid some 9 body would ask that question. 10 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Well, let me try to ask it 11 if I've got this thing lined up right. Your microscope 12 had a magnification of, it could have gone all the way up 13 to 25,000. 14 MR. RHODES: Yes, well, the scanning scope could 15 have gone up to about 2 0 ,0 0 0 , without losing resolution -- IS COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: I see. 17 MR. RHODES: -- on thi3 particular samples. 18 Working off those filters in. a scanning scope is a technique in itself. COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Is it mere difficult to do it, let's say, with that piece- cf equipment with 20 ,CC0 ths opposed to 1 0 ,0 0 0 ths? MR. RHODES: You lose field area. See, the higher your magnification, the smaller area you're looking at. COMMISSIONER. KUSHNER: R'iaht . 4cme ^eporl'.ny Com pany 1 M RHODES: And the longer you have to scan t 2 COMMISSIONS?. PITTLE: To get the same area MR. RHODES: to satify yourself that you've 3 covered enough area so you've got some sort of a repre 4 sentative sample. 5 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Well, the reason I'm asking, 6 of course, is that I was struck by the fact that you, in 7 comparing some of the samples, you tried to add some infor 3 mation about this controversy about what's the best way to 9 measure this. 10 MR. RHODES: Yes 11 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Material, that you made most 12 of those down at the lower resolution areas, and I wondered 13 why you didn't try it from maximum resolution. You're 14 telling me now it's a matter of time to get the feel. 15 MR. RHODES: Well, you've got to look at enough IS fields so v o u ! 'feel you've got a representative area 17 The bigger you go the more fields you've got to look at. 13 COMMISSIONER PTTTLE: Yes 19 MR. RHODES: And this whole question of scanning 20 in transmission .scopes got beaten around for about three 21 days , last month 22 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Well 23 mo ^ RHOD5S i nnd ii^*s ?,T ifroin b^i routine 24 25 102 1 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Well, that may be one of 2 the reasons why there is this vast difference, possible 3 difference, in the data between Rohl and yourself and 4 OSHA . 5 MR. RHODES: Rohl was using -- the data, the Rohl 6 data that I have presented by the same OSHA technique. 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: The same OSHA technique, 8 they did not use any sort of scanning -- 9 MR. RHODES: No. Let me make it clear, all of 10 the fiber count data that we have reported has been by the 11 prescribed OSHA -- 12 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oh. 13 MR. RHODES: -- NIOSH techniques, and Rohl'-s.-.data 14 are by the same technique. 15 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: All right. 18 MR. RHODES: The locking, and I will comment that 17 there's a lot of problems wi HA-n i c e :;tr* ^ i ,, 1 13 fiber counting technique. There 's a -the Asbestos 19 Information Association has got a big , round robin that 20 they'ra crying to get off the ground, and i t 's a major 21 problem, with enforcement, net so much in the cry sat ile 22 asbestos industry, but when you get over into talc and impurities. 23 It isn't all that ard to get a pretty good 24 recognition of crysa tile, optical.ly, a reasonable percentage 25 _s4cme feporm y Company 10 3 1 of the time.:. But when you start throwing the amphabol 2 chips in there it becomes a very difficul problem to 3 decide is it an amphabol or isn't it. 4 There's really no good way until you get into 3 some fairly involved petrographic, microscope techniques. 8 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Well, I can't put my finger 7 on the exact location, but apparently Dr. Selikoff has 8 written somewhere in an article or a report that he feels 9 that you need to multiply 1 0 0 to 200 as a nullifying factor 10 to sort of take the optical scanning data and make it match 11 with the microscopic data. 12 And you address that in your report by saying 13 that you didn't think it was that great of a multiplicity. 14 Do you have any -- 15 MR. RHODES: Well, in -- 15 COMMISSIONER PITTLS: -- feel for the number? 17 MR. RHODES: Well, the thing you want to recog- 18 " 12 3 iz ^h "ti x *hink I 've sean that *-3*S2T2H CS YO w*2T 19 ta^k i n about in one case using raw asb.es tos fiber, 100 20 percent asbsstos fibs r , sbaking it up, and you car. get 21 whole '.vide range of fiber sizes. 22 In these sanding samples, the only thing you're 23 sae in what you break loose out of the binder. And the 24 i . . > ass , T suspect, are very small fibrils, are much 25 harde to break cut than the longer fibers . /4cma npo*ttn% (^ompatiy 104 1 Now, we went around with Slikoff or, this*, on 2 spraying work, and I did the same sort of thing, and could 3 not find, at least in our techniques, any great multiplicity 4 of vary fine fibers. 5 New, I don't say they don't exist in the raw 6 asbestos, than these materials where you've -- 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oh. 8 MR. RHODES; -- mixed them with a binder and re 9 leased them by sanding. It's a -- as far as we can 10 CCMMISSIONER PITTLE*. The measurement technique n is highly sensitive to the material that you're measuring 12 in terms of -- 13 MR. RHODES: No, I think what's there is highly sensitive to the history of the material you're looking at. 14 15 It's a little bit different point of view. 16 COMMISSIONER PITTLE; Well, I think his numbers 17 ware something like a multiplicity anywhere from 200 to 18 1000, and you said ya u didn't think it was quite that high 19 MR . RHODES : Well , if y o u '11 look at the mi .OC 20 criteria docurnent, the recent 0*13 0 T\ the appropriate 1Q 'f**1 21 they review somey conversion factors from nanagrams to 22 fibers loncer than five microns, and the number -- their conclusion is that there is no consistent conversion fac23 24 /rs-M T C.<5T Q*.TTTT> D T T ' T ' t . D X Q -- - X h 1 k X WcLTlfc 25 ^4em a j^9pofiin% Cfompany 105 1 to save this until after I read the report -- 2 MR. RHODES: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: -- because there are still 4 some things that are on the surface out here, like, for 5 example, the substitute material. Is that as likely to 6 be airborne or free form as the present asbestos? 7 In other words, it may match up with all the other 3 14 qualities and I don't want it to match up with 15 quali 9 ty, namely causing seme sort of a respiral disease. 10 MR. RHODES: I don't really have enough back 11 ground in that area. Some of these materials tend to be 12 quite' dusty . 13 MR. PITTLE: Are there any toxi -- long term, 14 chronic studies going on on the -- at least the one that 15 you've mentioned, atapolgite. 16 MR. RHODES: I believe NIOSH has got some things 17 going. You have to understand basically we're in the 18 asbestos business. 19 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I understand. 20 MR. RHODES: And some, of these areas of toxi- t, 21 cology for substitutes we run into talking to people, but 22 we -- 23 .M.MT. 3C Jc XT nv MiiuC T5 .*73 x7 * .iXTi7u7 ,. Iivux6 f *ias c**y ^ 24 body mentioned chat they 're doing any 25 MR. RHODES: I know that NIOSH baa a couple of J l cme ^eporlint^ (pompar 06 1 studies going on atapoigite. What they found, I couldn't 2 tell you. 3 John Dement probably is a good contact there, 4 in Cincinnati. I have enough trouble following the ones 5 that are directly involved. 6 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Very helpful. 7 CHAIRMAN BYINGTCN: Okay, well the staff and 8 some of the other commissioners also may have some 9 additional questions, as you complete your second portion, 10 vie'll save for that. 11 There was one question that was submitted, that I 12 bring .up now, and that is, has Carbide done any morbidity 13 or morbidity studies on the dry wall workers exposed 14 in the first 30 years or so? 15 MR. RHODES: Me, we have not. 16 CHAIRMAN BYINGTCN: Okay. 17 MR. RHODES: We've only been involved for 10 or 18 1 2 years hare-, really, on any kind of a. scale. 19 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0N: Would you be willing to 20 provide to our staff a list e,* A.V e people who make tape V 21 joint compounds that veu sell asbestos zo 22 M R . R H O D E S : O u r p o l i V i n t h e p a s e has he 23 t. h cl t a d i d n o t g i v e t h a t kind Q f i n f o r m a t i c n , h u t I 24 this point in time the answer, I cun give you right of: 25 <n f*?**.-'-i of my head, there aren't- any. em s orlln^ Com p uny 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18, , 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1G 7 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. MR. RHODES : That's off the top of ray head. I'll check that but I think -- CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: selling to anybody. Because you don't think you're MR. RHODES: Within the last week or so, the last of the Mohigans, decided he wouldn't dare taka a chance on it any more, so -- CHAIRMAN 3YINGTON: Okay. Thank you, we'll call you back here shortly. MR. RHODES: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: The next person is Svedeen Gibbons of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Yes, Miss Gibbons, do you have a copy of your s tateraeht ? MS. GI330NS: I'm sorry,it's not prepared in final form, yet, and I can submit one later this afternoon. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. MS. GIBBONS: My name is Svedeen Gibbons, I am an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and I thank you for the opportunityto speak today on the recently published proposed rules to bar. consumer patching compounds containing respirable free form asbestos. On July 15th, 1976, NRDC filed a petition with CROC reguastino it to issue an order declaring consumer. 4cm<t !<fepori*n% 10 9 1 patching compounds containing asbestos to be banned hazar 2 dous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. 3 The Commission granted this petition on April 4 23th, 1977, but has proposed to ban these products under 5 Section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. I would 5 like to speak today on four issues concerning proposed rule- 7 making, namely the evidence regarding the unreasonable-, 8 of injury to consumers, prevented by asbestos-containing 9 patching compounds , the environmental hazardous associated 10 with asbestos substitutes, the effective date of the pro 11 posed regulations, and the wording of the proposed ban. 12 NP.DC believes that the Commission has correctly 13 determined that asbestos containing patching compounds 14 present an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers. 15 This finding was based on a review of experimental data 16 and human experience information on exposure to asbestos. 17 The Commission has calculated an assessment 18 on the- risk of consumer exposure on the basis of data by 19 Dr. Rohl and his colleagues at the Mount Sin air School of 20 M <5 cii c i n * V 21 Dr. Rohl's work on exposure to asbestos in the 22 use of consumer speckling, patching, and taping compounds 23 was cited by NRDC in our petition tc this Commission. 24 This testimonv was drafted, before the representative 25 ^ Union CrVirbi-'ic 3neks* .Acme J^eporliny Com pany 109 1 The results of the five day study of consumer 2 exposure to asbestos in the spacklir.g and dry wall renova 3 tion operation. This, I understand, is different from the 4 information which they summarize in their statement today. 5 But in this earlier experiment, they found that 8 exposure level to the consumer of asbestos fibers longer 7 chan five microns did not exceed at any time 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter. 3 9 This study contrasts with results obtained by 10 Dr. Rohi who found that amounts of asbestos longer than 11 five microns in the air during and after dry wail construc 12 tion operations, with asbestos containing patching com 13 pounds, ranged from 2.5 to 19.8 fibers per millimeter, which is the same measurement as cubic centimeter, and 14 15 chi: fiber counts during mixing of the patching compounds 15 ranged from 35.4 to 59.0 fibers per milliliter. 17 Obviously the results from these two studies are 18 widely disparate, and we believe that they are so because 19 of at least two differences in technique used by Union 20 21 The fallowing information, which I'm going to 22 e , is obtained through a telephone conversation of Dr. Kohl's colleagues at Mount Sinai School of 23 l ty .A V. j . '-J ? o tn uxoert in chemical 24 * IT1.*1j $ J25 ^A cm i departing C?ampant UC 1 First, the Union Carbide study does not reveal 2 that the patching compound was analysed to determine that it 3 did in fact contain asbestos, or how much asbestos it did 4 contain. 5 This must be done by X-ray defraction, evidently 6 It *s a very complex, analytical technique, and the peaks 7 that you see for asbestos are very similar tc peaks that 3 you see for chloride. And chloride is found in asbestos 9 containing compounds. 10 Second, and most importantly, it appears that 11 Union Carbide did not use the NIOSH counting technique. 12 The NIOSH technique dictates that any fiber longer than 13 five microns, and in a three to one length to diameter 14 ratio, is counted. 15 Carbide only counted crvstile fibers, 18 It is evidently extremely difficult to identify which 17 fibers are crys atile and which are not, even with a 18 'polaricing raie: oscope , which is presumably the type of 19 ru n a n t would be used if you wanted to attempt 20 experi 21 This is' precisely why the NIOSH counting tech- 22 n i q u e is widely used. Union Carbide did not use a 23 polar r\g "1 Ic^OS^OwS in lwtSiO'wi.C? wO G5 tST HlHO *.y1 c_G 24 fiber %f<52T r\^b?st.cs 25 D r . Rohl's workers wcuid like tc knew hew they .scme feportinj (Company Ill did determine it- Union Carbide also did not state how ssanw fibers ware collected and determined to not be crysatile. This might be very interesting information. Finally, as Commissioner Pittla brought out, the time waited average of .2 fibers per milliliter was based on an occupational standard type technique formula, and it's not relevant to consumer situations. Union Caribide measured the average eight hour exposure to the person who did the job and by figuring in the fact that he was out of the house for over sis hours. Even if we assume that Union Carbide sampling levels are correct, which we don't believe is true, the fibers present an unreasonable risk to health. If we calculate the time waited average, assuming a consumer remains in the home, for the total eight hours, we arrive at .03 to , 1 fibers per milliliter. If the consumer is reasonably active during this eight hour period, he will breathe ir. a total of four cubic meters of air., or 120,000 to 400,000 asbestos fibers longer than five microns. In addition, for each five micron asbestos tear, there are conservatively speaking 50 to 1 0 0 times ?.5 T.2,T1 itn? ak 'c c This means that the consumer would breathe in ,,Mem* ^aporiincf (Company 112 1 an additional 12 million to 40 million smaller asbestos 2 fibers. 3 We believe that if the Commission determines not 4 to proceed with the rulemaking on the basis of Dr. P.ohl's 5 study because of the Union Carbide study that they wait 8 to make that decision until Union Carbide's study is pub 7 lished, and there's sufficient time for critical scientific 8 review of it. 9 I'm not advocating that you delay in promulgating 10 the ban. Industry affected by the proposed regulation has 11 expressed concern that other fibrous minerals substitutes 12 or asbestos, such as, well, lastinite, atapoltite clay, 13 and fibrous talc , may present adverse environmental health 14 effects. 15 Although this issue is significant in itself, 16 it is not particularly relevant to this rulemaking. 17 " 3 evidence has been presented which shows that such a 18 fibrous m i n 3 ra 1 m u s t b e substituted for d3i2StoC5 .n C a t e r . 1 19 compounds 20 On the contrary, it is clear that effective V 21 patching compounds need net contain fib rous minerals. 22 industry has enumerated the properties of asbestos which 23 it consid ers to be the m u ^ t . v a u u ^ */ u c . the preparation of 24 1-' a 25 These, include good 2 C _Acme feporiiny Company s< ia ./ta o a 1 ; t r i c i t y , r a r e a i* ** a _ a a - - 2 iaaci-T'iiicy / itq u:jnn<73 s c z .Im r / xc 3 impermeability , ana relative impermeability 4 'ungas * mildew and vaoor . 5 -Ovv vtt2T Via onlv relevance o: these characterise 6 .swiib -at> 7 ontrihute co 2 :*; overall effect of f'r - -7 8 ;o::icouncil * T*.-..v . 3 a product w c\ier. is ae3.a iy acp3 rec*/ 9 'vorhuble and durable . 10 What must be stressed is that neither asbestos 1 1 nor other fibrous minerals are necessary to achieve an 12 effective patching compound. Patching compounds already 13 exist which do not contain these minerals and which are 14 as affective as asbestos containing products. 15 If the 15 patching compounds sol 16 `.ts , sampled by Dr. P.ohl and his colleagues, five were 17 to contain asssstos , *Ci JAS- 18 .rt;2rau. j UCa ac trcz" , v3,^ 19 which cerforra the seme functions as asb.es cos 20 21 minerals, cost, probably they contained calcium 22 23 d T; :i totally 24 25 f^jpoftincf C,u>np3.nuf (202) 9 -4 8 3 3 1 Thus, while the Commission should study the 2 possible adverse environmental health effects posed by 3 other fibrous minerals to consumer, it should not refrain 4 from promulgating the proposed regulations in final form 5 as soon as possible. 8 It is, of course, hoped, that industry will act 7 responsibly and not substitute suspect fibrous minerals 8 for asbestos in their reformulation of asbestos containing 9 patching compounds. 10 The Commission has the authority to set the 11 effective date of the proposed regulation, the proposed 12 ban on patching compounds containing asbestos, as the 13 date of promulgation of the final regulation rather than 14 30 days later as now proposed, if the Commission determines 15 immediate effectiveness is within the public interest. 18 And I do see, believe, that such a finding is 17 supported by the evidence already before the Commission. 18 No evidence has bean presented which shows that the 19 rds,k' to an individual -- sorry, in fact, the Commission 20 has a1 readv determined to promulgate a ban effective on 21 final publication on fireplace logs and ash containing 22 asbestos. 23 An immediate ban on patching compounds is no 24 toss irs ths public interest . No evidence has been-, present" 25 " 5.3h shows ^vo v ? \ hc**schojLdl _s4cme J^eporiing (Company (202) 28-4983 115 1 from uso of an asbestos containing patching compound in 2 the normal repair operation is any less than that from 3 exposure to fireplace logs .and ash. 4 In fact, more households use, most likely, 5 patching compounds, than fireplace logs and ash. Every 6 day's delay of the ban exposes more consumers to an un 7 reasonable risk of injury. 8 The Commission itself has estimated that the 9 increased risk of death from respiratory cancer induced 10 yearly is between 10 and 2,000 per million. In addition, 11 these substances present other risk of injury to health. 12 Consumers will not suffer in any way from an 13 immediate ban because alternative products performing the 14 same function are presently on the market at a price 15. comparable to asbestos containing patching compounds. 18 The impact on the asbestos industry from the ban 30 days 17 earlier than proposed will be relatively insignificant. 18 The. industry has stated that the amount of 19 asbestos sold for patching compounds is 1C ,000 tons, 20 and that th is is a high figure at this po: f -t.3 21 arnount is only one percent of total asbestos sale 22 Assuming equal amounts are sold each month, 23 one-twelfth of a percent, of the t o t a l asbestos 24 t --.'111 be affected b" a bar. 30 days e a r l i e r than 25 reposan, ^4em ftsaporltncf (Company 7 * 1 As we heard today, sene patching manufacturers 2 have switched to non asbestos formulations, thus in the 3 period during which the Commission has worked on this ban, 4 manufacturers have eliminated much of their potential 5 adverse economic impact. 6 The point of this rulemaking is to protect the 7 health of consumers, not to protect manufacturers from 8 any adverse, economic impact. There are always costs and 9 benefits to regulation. This is a relatively small cost 10 associated with the ban effective upon final promulgation. 11 However, in the alternative, should the Com 12 mission not make the final ban immediately effective, it 13 should prohibit manufacturers of asbestos containing 14 patching compounds from stockpiling these products. 15 The Commission has authorized to issue such a IS ruling under Section 9D2 of the Consumer Product Safety 17 Act. Such a rule would prohibit the manufacturer or 13 importation of these products between the date of promul 19 gation of the ban and its affective date, at a rats which 20 it significantly greater than the rata at which the 21 product was produced or imported during a base period 22 prior to promulgation of the ban. 23 Such ?. rule is in the public interest and 24 ? ^ ^ n o t ci V Q S 1 ' T .3. G C tZ ttl3 H 1* -?* V/*iO 2T<2 t O 25 course, expected not to increase manufacture of"these cme feporltnq Ctompanij 117 1 Proaucts urine cne :er: before the effective date of the 2 ban . 3 Finally, I would like to request several changes 4 to the wording of the proposed regulation to better raflect 5 the intent of the ban. In the proposed paragraph 1304.1A, 8 which describes the scope and application of the ban, in 7 the fifth line of the paragraph the words and designed for 8 use are presently there. 9 Vie request that these words be deleted. With 10 this deletion the paragraph will read, Consumer Product 11 Safety Commission declares that consumer patching compounds 12 containing respirable, free form asbestos in such a manner 13 that asbestos fibers can become air borne under reasonably 14 foreseeable conditions of use, are banned hazardous products 15 The words "and designed for use" are unnecessary 16 and cause soma confusion in the paragraph as it presently 17 rsads. In addition, the definition of free form asbestos 13 in proposed paragraph, section 130-4.3 presently reads -- 19 shall I read it for the record or are you following it on 20 your caper? 21 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Repeat where you are, 22 acaan . 23 M S . GIBBONS : Ok osed paragraph 1304 ^swr i 24 m 25 fepotincf Cttmpan*f LIS 1 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: All right, why don't you 2 indicate, like you did the last time, what change you'd 3 like and then read it as it was changed. 4 MS. GIBBONS: Okay. NRDC would like to see 5 the words in the fourth line, those from which fibers 6 deleted, and that the words of the product inserted at 7 the end, of the definition. 8 The definition would then read, free form asbes 9 tos is that which is not bound, woven, or otherwise locked 10 in to a product by resins or other bonding agents, or 11 which can readily become airborne with any reasonably 12 foreseeable use of the product. 13 Finally, in paragraph 1304.4, NRDC believes that 14 hazardous which arise from asbestos fibers are not limited 15 to lung cancer and mas athe 1 ioraa, and therefore would 16 propose that the paragraph be rephrased to read, on the 17 basis that air borne asbestos fibers present hazardous, 18 including lung cancer and mesathe.I ioma. to the public, 19 consumer patching compounds containing respirable free 20 form asbestos are banned hazardous products. 21 I've appreciated this opportunity to present 22 NRDC 's views on the proposed ban, and I thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: All right, first of all, 24 chough, by the end of the day you will have a full copy 25 o w:idt. n 4-cme R eporting C om pany 119 1 MS. GIBBONS: Right. 2 CHAIRMAN B1INGTON: We also have a copy of the 3 transcript and will make sure that the staff then has a 4 copy of ycur proposed changes as well. 5 Also I have attempted to make a couple of notes S since we don't have a copy of some of the concerns you 7 h ad on the Union Carb ide tests. But I would prefer that 8 raco.er -- instead of using my notes, if i t 's possible for 9 you to outline specif icaiiy what your concerns were, that 10 w x i<7\ ad not tested for asbestos in the compound and 11 not use a NIOSH testing technique, they did not use a 12 polarized microscope. 13 MS. GIBBONS: Right. 14 CHAIRMAN BVlNGTON: And I think there were maybe 15 n one or two other ones that I might have missed. 16 MS. GIBBONS: True. 17 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0N: If we could have these, since 18 r. Carbide representative will be back with us, 19 we jnt try and deal with it directly and let them comment .20 would on any of those things that you've raised. 21 22 MS. GIBBONS: Sure. D! ^ you want that in writing 23 ;1 1 vo 24 >1 : If y o u 'd just give ms a 25 $pofttt* {Company 1 MS. GIBBONS: -- like as to state it now? 2 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0N: No, if you'd just give me your 3 written nota with the four or five questions/ or whatever 4 he number of them are , then we would proceed from there. 5 nd one of them,I th ink -- one or two of them he may have 8 orasriantad on, let's -- you know, let' s comment cn it, and 7 again, if he feels it's necessary that the record -- 8 MS. GIBBONS: Fine. 9 CHAIRMAN 3YINGCCN: Commissioner Pittie. 10 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: It might be helpful if you 11 had an estimate of how you think the results would have 12 been changed. It would be*only a guess any way because 13 you don't have the quantitative data that -- 14 MS. GIBBONS: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: My question is -- ie MS. GIBBONS: I don't think that -- Dr. Nicholson n who gave me this data, and ha didn't have enough informa is tion to know hew much the results would have beer, changed. 1! CHAIRMAN BYTNGTOH: Okay, 2\ COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: I have a -- do you have V 2 any other information about consumer acceptability of sub 2 stitute compounds containing no free form -asbestos? MS,GIBBONS: I have my own experience, and -- a T3TiI. LT*7: Wsll/ 3lT& Otlh-SMT t520plr; T S - l d t ^ hair pvn , b'-t <]o shead* _Acme t2*portin$ Company 121 1 MS. GIBBONS: I used a patching compound before 2 that I didn't know that it contained asbestos, or didn't 3 contain asbestos, and found out later that it did not 4 contain asbestos. It was fine, it did the job. A 5 terrible job. 6 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: But you're not attribut 7 ing that to the product, is that what you're saying? 8 It worked, in other words, it worked well enough for you. 9 MS. GI330NS: The crack is no longer in the wall. 10 Dr. Nicholson uses one product, which does not contain 11 either asbestos or plating mineral, and uses it frequently, 12 and finds it to be totally effective, as their samples. 13 I would imagine that consumers don't know the 14 difference . 15 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: That seems to be what 16 some other people have said this morning too. 17 The words that you wanted to have dropped out 18 --it _ u ' J A ** 19 MS. GIBBONS: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: -- and designed for use-. 21 MS. GIBBONS: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Could you expand on ycur 23 *asor. in' tV 7T*5 51 Ii1 1 1 5 TT.CX*S 24 MS# GIBBONS: As it now wo *no ttilkinc? ibcut 25 the mission talks about patching compounds, which f<\*portiny diompatug 122 1 contain asbestos, ar.d which are designed for use in a 2 manner such that asbestos fibers can become airborne under 3 reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. 4 It is perhaps an -- arguably, a contradiction 5 between designed for use being one standard and reasonably 6 foreseeable conditions of use being a standard by which 7 to judge whether this is a banned hazardous product. 3 COMMISSIONER FRANKLINt I see. 9 MS. GIBBONS: We think that the intent of the 10 rulemaking is that products containing asbestos from which 11 asbestos fibers are released during reasonably foreseeable 12 conditions, under reasonably foreseeable conditions of 13 use, and that whether it's designed for use in that way 14 is irrelevant. 15 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Okay, thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN 3YINGTGN: I thank you very much. 17 Was t h e r e a c u e s t i o n ? 13 I t h a p p e n s a t t h e m o m e n t t o h e a out 10 minutes 19 t o 1 : 0 0 . i t ' s m y understanding t h a t P e t e r Simpson and. Sober 20 h a t c h r e a l l y w a n t t o o n l y a d d r e s s t h e s a c a 1."2..1T. THo.7L*3JTj. f 21 i s s h a t c o r r e c t , M r . R a u c h I s e e nodding. Mr. Simpson 22 23 f the Com m ission has no o b je c tio n , and sine; 24 ;o have to come b a c k , can we ta k e th o se two 25 ir--1 o u t o f o r d e r r i g h t s o w s o t f t e y .-,,' - V e a c n e , ^eporlinq ompanif 123 1 and then the r'3t 0 1 u h G people who \> 7 i l l want to -- then 2 M r . Castleman. And then we have Mr. Rhodes to come back 3 aga in . 4 So what we could do is to take Mr. Simpson and S Mr. Rauch now, and possibly do that in the next 20 minutes 6 or so, taka a break for approximately one hour, and we'll 7 resume at 2:00 o'clock, and Mr. Castleman could give his 8 comments, and Mr. Rhodes could wrap up and wa could attempt 9 to be dene within an hour or so . 10 Is that agreeable? Okay. First of al-L, Mr. 11 Simpson. 12 MR. SIMPSON: I 'm Peter Simpson and I'm with 13 Rustic Crafts Company# and we're manufacturers of electric . j 14 artificial fireplaces and electric logs. And we're respond- 1 15 ing to the news release and the accompanying consumer IS alert of July the 21st, and the proposed rulemaking concern 17 ing respirable, free form, asbestos. 13 we ar e most distressed at the wording OS .11 19 all three cases as the wording imolies that all artificial 20 fir--ol 5,cfis and. all artifical logs arc harmful. And the 21 V -- this woreling is r.ot only unders tandabl e to 22 the consumer concern, but an actual stopping of consumer 23 24 25 3. rt' ?<j : to ar ` ricial is replaces w itho ut spec iic m/Qctna repofiin% Oompant# 12A 1 electric fireplaces and electric logs has alarmed the 2 consumer who already owns our products, and is causing the 3 prospective buyer to decide against buying. 4 We've manufactured electric, artificial fire 5 places and logs for over 35 years, and feel that we have S a safe, sensible, energy saving alternative to gas logs 7 and inefficient fireplaces. 8 The electrically operated, fire simulator in our 9 log creates a very realistic burning affect. A portion of 10 our electric logs and. a portion of our fireplaces are 11 decorated with an artificial ash bed made of vermiculite, 12 a product which we are told is totally inert, inorganic 13 and non flammable and which your office has indicated is 14 completely safe and acceptable. 15 Neverthaless , since a news release of July the 16 2 1 st, we have received numerous calls from the media, from 17 r sindividual retailers, and from consumers expressing 18 concern over our. products. 19 We feel that we did have an opportunity to 20 convince these callers of the truth of the situation, 21 v and we spent additional money to notify our major customers 22 and our sales reps as to the truth. 23 But we're most strongly concerned about those 24 ^ r-C u m O r g v 3C 1CS TTl^ 1.V 1*0 O ID`-JV i tl foQ C iiM S * V*S 25 been afraid, because they've bean made afraid by the Jl cms ^eporlincj (Company 125 1 2 Ws have a very highly seasonal business. We 3 are most successful during the six months in the winter 4 when people start thinking about fireplaces, and our 5 selling season is only about two weeks away. 6 And we request that the -- that our products be 7 specifically excluded from this proposed ban. Ar.d it be 8 written into the rules of the Register. 9 We also would like the exclusion to be included IO in a press release so that our consumers know that they il have a safe and economical substitute. We, or at least I 12 read through the news release, when it first came to us, 13 I wrote here and asked for it, and in reading through it 14 I tried to think of it in terms of a reporter, and also 15 as an editor, as to what actually might happen to the news 15 release when it was printed in the newspaper. 17 And by clipping out certain words, I came up 13 with the, the news release could have read, artificial 19 fireplace emberizing materials, ash and embers, are used 20 i n a r t i f i c i a l fireplace systems for decorative purposes. 21 Asbestos fibers are released into the air when household 22 a i r currents disturb t h e a s h . 23 .bout th ree :our cays .2 :ar x was reading 24 our lo c a l p a p e r, the Burger. R ecord, vh 25: ..1 -on 27wi.c"uX&z n6W"Sppor / ne* cnis is now itiing {pompan# 1 came cut. 2 They had interviewed the state commission of 3 consumer affairs, the director of that department,and 4 it states, the director of the state division of consumer 5 affairs is urging Mew Jersey consumers to join a nationwide 8 campaign to discontinue use of and safely dispose of 7 speckling compounds and artificial ash and embers, products 3 containing inhalabia asbestos, and suspected of causing 9 cancer. And that was the first paragraph. 10 The federal Consumer Product Sa-fety Commission 11 is planning a ban on the products, however state D. C. A. 12 director Adam K. Levin notes that the ban will not become 13 effective until some time this fall. 14 He's quoted as saying, these products are ex 15 tremely dangerous in that they have the possibility of 18 causing cancer when inhaled, and inhalation occurs rather 17 easily. 18 And a little further or. in the article,:, the 19 statement -was made, the artificial ash and embers are 20 used in gas burning and decorative fireplaces. At high 21 temperatures the asbestos in thes a prod acts 22 glow similar to that of real embers and ash 23 An,u the next parag raph, dangerous 24 of these products can occur-, says La vin, when they are 25 sprinkled on the fireplace floor, when glue is used to J k me ^eporilntf dompamj 2 / 1 attach the product to an artificial fi epiace , and then. 2 household air disturbs t'na ash. 3 The whole middle section of the consumer alert 4 and news releases missed out, and ended up with just that 5 statement. 8 The quota from the proposed rules from the 7 Federal Register, the product is also glued to artificial 8 logs, either at a factory or by the consumer using an 9 emberizir.g kit. Asbestos fibers are released when the 10 emberized material containing asbestos is sprinkled on th'. 11 fireplace floor and when ordinary household air currents 12 and downdrafts cause the asbestos in the simulated ambers 13 and ash to become airborne. 14 This product is used on artificial logs and on 15 fireplace floors beneath them to simulate light embers and 16 ash. There are three kinds of artificial fireplace logs 17 available on the market presently; the electric flame 18 simulating artificial logs , of which we manufacture one 19 kind made out of cak wood , and VjO*"S are the compressed, 20 synthetic logs generally made from saw dust, and I think 21 i t 's a wax sludge, and gas burning, artificial legs. 22 Now, the proposed bar. concerns the third type, 23 the gas burning, artificial lees. Type or.a , our logs, 24 and type two, has been specifically e-aciuded in the 25 wording of the Federal Register. mMcm* ^poriiny C^amparty 1.2 8. 1 N o w , these saw dust and wax sludge logs are 2 actually burned in the fireplace, but they -- in the actual 3 wording they have been specifically excluded, although they 4 do net contain asbestos, and I don't think they ever have 5 contained asbestos. 8 and we are asking that the -- as the commission 7 specifically described and excluded those compressed logs 8 to prevent unfair and unwarranted negative consumer reac 9 tion to that product, we request the same exclusion for the 10 very same reasons. 11 We are only a small b u s i n e s s , and we look to the 12 agency of the federal government for support, and we 13 feel that this wi-11 have a negative effect on our busi 14 ness. 15 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Are there other manufacturers 16 of electric logs as well, besides yourself? 17 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, there's another manufacturer 18 of wood logs, and there's a manufacturer of fiberglass or 19 I think it's structural foam cast facing to the log. 20 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Well, is it your position 21 then that none of the people who ar mak ing the electric 22 type are using asbestos, and that is exc lusivaly the 23 gas? 24 M R . SIMPSON: Shat is vhac v ..ncerstar.d . Me 25 have never used asbestos, an C V v: v50.j? ^ pretty fair eye cme r^eporilng L.ompantf 12 9 1 on what our c o m p e tito rs are doin g, and they use the same 2 m a te ria ls and i t ' s v i r t u a l l y the same te c h n iq u e s. 3 So t h a t w h at y o u 'r e r e a l l y a f t e r i s an a d d i t i o n 4 to the exem ptio n, in o th e r words to have i t where wt have 5 a l r e a d y ex em p te d c o m p re s s e d lo g s t h a t a r e b u r n e d , we w o u ld 8 like added in there e le c tric . 7 MR. SIMPSON: T h a t 's c o r r e c t . 8 Sea, the im p lic a tio n ,we c a ll them a r t i f i c i a l 9 f ir e p la c e s and a r t i f i c i a l lo g s . The m ajor m erch an d isers 10 who m e rc h a n d ise o u r p ro d u c ts th ro u g h t h e i r c a ta lo g u e s and n the r e t a i l o u tle ts , have re fe rre d to them as a r t i f i c i a l 12 f i r e p l a c e s , a r t i f i c i a l logs, or d e c o r a t i v e f i r e p l a c e s . 13 W o r d i n g that's used i n the same way r e f e r r i n g 14 to the gas logs th a t you were s p e c ific a lly in te re s te d in . 15 CHAIRMAN 3 YINGTON : C o m m i s s i o n e r K u s h n e r . 16 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: P e r h a p s I m i s u n d e r s t a n d 17 JWU but: I d o n ' t i n t e r p r e t o u r r u l e s a p p l y i n g , t h a t i s t h e 18 2- o ban, as applying only to a r t i f i c i a l Iocs intended 19 V* usa i n g a s b u r n i n g s y s -S.aS 20 As I r e a d i t , th e b a n w o u ld be a p p l i c a b l e t o l e g s 21 ta ining or bearing re sp irab 1 a , ^v . fr.r^ asbe stos , 22 ardlass the kind o f system that thev were in . 23 T includes de carat ive fir?rlace logs , a-,r--.ua yu. 24 f i r e d , d e c o r a tiv e system s sim ply as an 25 acn Idi5 1. to jftpofiiny dampany 130 1 N o v , what is the -- what kind of assurance is 2 there that manufacturers of electric systems would not 3 oe finding it attractive under certain circumstances to 4 decorate the logs with asbestos bearing materials? 5 There is nothing inherent about the electric ones 8 as opposed to gas one, to make the use of asbestos bearing 7 embericing materials more or less likely. 8 MR. SIMPSON: Except that first of all the -- 9 whan you talk about decorative fireplace systems or arti 10 ficial fireplace systems there are only two ways -- three 11 ways of doing it. 12 There are gas logs. 13 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes. 14 MR. SIMPSON: There are artificial electric logs, 15 and there is something that is totally consumed. 16 COMMISSIONER KCSKNER: Yes. 17 MR. SIMPSON: That would be wood, of the compres 18 sed logs that have already beer, mentioned in the Register. 19 And there is no -- we use 7*6rmicular, we've bq en us ing 20 it all along . It satves purpose well. We have no 21 there's no advantage for US to use asbestos because 22 nob bb6'ir3 n o h e a t .-tor; e x&b e d 23 T h e f l a m e a f f e e t *? rz c v a a t a d w i t : h a 4 0 w a t t 24 1 a m p a r d t h e c 1 o o k m o t o r f it**73 4 v 0 ? ]_-\tgg to s i m u i a t e a 25 b- u T r. i r, tr 2 f f^ ch * U .. a. j. % rr.3 t e r i 1 ^f'-.J *<J /S _ ,, . j. o u t s i de ^eportiny Company 131 1 has to be clear, or at least somewhat clear so that you 2 can see this light. 3 And asbestos -- I couldn't see any advantage. 4 We wouldn't consider it, we would never have considered 5 it because it would serve no extra purpose. 6 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Commiss loner Pittle. 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I must say I misunderstood 3 you when you were talking about as efficient a system. I 9 thought you were talking about a system of providing heat 10 to the room. 11 MR. SIMPSON: Well, they are used in conjunction 12 with electric heater, or they can be used. 13 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: No, I -- 14 MR. SIMPSON: But I understand, yes. 15 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Because I was under the 16 impression you had an electrical heater as opposed to a 17 -- the only thing electric is the rotation of the foil 18 o v* w l i 3.*Z T" f5 O V 2. C 55 3 . 3 t V ? 4- V? C U 1 d s K i . HQ O H 19 to refiact , -to give the- appaarancs of 20 MR.SIMPSON: That's correct. 21 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Oka'-'. Sc there's no 22 reason -- I can understand why you would have no -- you 23 don't get ertouvh heat to cause anything to clow. 24 MO t CTVpcON? ThlS"'"*? i ^np.q 't'Vja 7*1CW is 2S created by the color of the lamp or the bulb that's i,n %sgpariln<f dtompaftg 132 1 log'.. . 2 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: So your concern is just 3 to make a distinction, so that the word artificial fire 4 place, where in one case it's artificial in terms of 5 it's even artificial in terms of giving off heat -- S MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: As opposed to another one 8 that gives off heat but i t 's artificial, because there is 9 no chimney that takes -- yes, there is a chimney too. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Doesn't have to be. We -- 11 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: It i s n 't a gas fireplace, 12 doesn't it have -- 13 MR. SIMPSON: A gas -- most all of them have to 14 be vented -- 15 MR. PITTLE: That's right. 16 MR. SIMPSON: There are one or two that are not, 17 and have not been vented. 3ut -- 18 t i'<ill.1 * \ * rr.e ic s r r . 19 the consumer's mind, he or she doesn't make a differentia- 20 tior. between what kind of artificial y o u 're talking about 21 22 Tour product, which we have not -- if what you 23 24 . . i t _ uliid in here in terms of i image as. 25 .e consumer is concerned.. ^eportlnif Company 1 MR. SIMPSON: I have -2 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Fine, you'll show them? 3 MR. SIMPSON: These are just a picture of the 4 catalogue, the product that we're talking about. It is 5 free standing, it is not vented, it can be used in conjunc 6 tion with electric heat, forced air heater that fits in 7 side the fireplace. 3 That log on the lefthand side, that one standing 9 up, is the artificial log. It's a decorative fireplace 10 system. 11 But I spoke of the media, I got a call from 12 Oregon from a manufacturer out ther.e who uses my products 13 in conjunction with his, and <rhe had been called by the 14 local news station asking why he was selling these products 15 when he knew that they ware dangerous . 18 And he immediately got onto ate to find out if 17 were, and that's when I really got to hear hew we got 18 sIda swapped hy this proposed ban. 19 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Nell, I would suggest that 20 before you leave today the Commission would certaninly 21 XXyC.2 to consider your request. But I think that one of 22 ehe things that's going to be ne cess:iry is some consults 23 cion with the sta ff to determi na how iia appropriate 24 ing can be se t up -- 25 SIMPSON: Yes. ]f<pariinta dompang 1 w*5*A* 1 CHAIRMAN BYIMGTON: -- for the Commission to 2 consider, so it would take care of your problem but would 3 not develop a very large loophole -- 4 MR. SIMPSON: No. 5 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- as Commissioner Kushner 6 indicated might be developed if it weren't properly ad 7 dressed . 8 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: So I think the Commission 10 might, you know, in considering this, would like to make 11 sure that the wording that we come up with is not only 12 agreeable to our staff but does solve your problem without 13 causing a major problem elsewhere before we could go any 14 further 15 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Is the vermiculate coated 17 onto the outside of this log in the center? 18 MR. SIMPSCK: Y e s , it is 19 CHAIRMAN BYTMGTON: And also -- 20 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: How is it attached, with 21 7* CT '* A**' ---- 22 MR. SIMPSON: With a glue, with a particular -- 23 i t 's a wood glue that we've used, in our -- in the making 24 f V V> o ^ 1 ST C 1 c. .V'3 * W O U .*5-2 i *Z b O b O T . d t O u. Jl*5 i-O C i t * 25 _y4cme f^eportlny Company lib 1 I brought ana with rue if time someone 2 wants to taka a look at it. It's also, if you look at 3 the front of that picture , underneath that log ther e is 4 a littla dark area. That's vermiculite that's bein g glued 5 to the floor of the firepla ce and then sprayed with a 6 black enamel paint, to also act as a reflector and simulate 7 gmKore 8 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, thank you very much, 9 Mr . Simpson. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 1 1 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, can you come back at 12 2 :0 0 . 13 Okay, we'll adjourn until 2:00 o'clock, and then 14 we'll take you and Mr. Castleman and those two others. 15 (Whereupon, at 1:00 the hearing was adjourned 16 for lunch.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ^Icma fistporting (Company 136 1 L L L L . I L L 2 2 :I s ~ s s L 2.il 2 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: U. S. Consumer Product Safety 3 Commission, public meeting on asbestos, and for the 4 information, the public commission is scheduling for it 5 self in closed session a meeting late this afternoon to 8 discuss with its lawyers legal situation relevant to the 7 recent appellate court decision on the Tris case. 8 And therefore we will attempt -- we've been 9 achieving to wrap this up by 3:00, but we would be as -- .10 attempt to be as close to 3:00, 3:30 as possible, so we 11 can resume our meeting shortly thereafter. 12 So we will now proceed, and Mr. Robert Rauch 13 of the Environmental Defense Fund, is next, and you want 14 to talk about emberizing material. 15 MR. RAUCH: Mr. Chairman, Commission. With me 18 is Mr. Barry Castleman, whom you will be hearing from 17 independently a littla bit later, who is acting and 13 in his prasen t capacity uo a ^O & w-- i* 19 I w ant to be fairly brief this afternoon because 20 a r.umber -of these issues I have covered with you in 21 previous statements, but T must say in reviewing the news 22 release which was sent out on the 21st cf July, and 23 24 25 ,,//v}c--m----e- j^epo ritnq d i omparty 1 category of w ater under the dam. 2 T here are some co n cern s w hich fra n k ly I w ish I 3 had n o tic e d e a r l i e r , and I guess -- I hops you do when you 4 hear them. I 've review ed the vario u s le tte r s which you 5 s o lic ite d , to g et ad v ic e , b e fo re the p ress re le a se was 6 issu e d , and a number of them -- f i r s t of a ll suggested 7 th a t the press re le a se , or inform atio n going to consumers 3 c o n ta in e d soma means fo r id e n tif y in g w h ether in fa c t the 9 consumer has asbestos in the fire p la c e . 10 M o w , y o u just heard- f r o m t h e i n d u s t r y w h i c h 11 m a n u f a c t u r e s electric fireplaces, which apparently utilize 12 vermiculite, and frankly I don't think if you gave me a 13 fireplace I could tell you whether it contained asbestos. 14 A n d I h a v e seen the m i n e r a l on a n u m b e r o f 15 o c c a s io n s . I'm ju s t w ondering hew many people at th is ' 18 sta g e , given what the Commission has re le a se d , can a c tu a lly 17 determ ine whether they have asbestos in th e ir fire p la c e . 18 And- f u r t h e r m o r e , i f t h e y ' r e i n d o u b t w h e r e do,, 19 t h e y go: t o g e t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . Mow, t h a t c o n c e r n was 20 ra ise d bv a number of d iffe re n t w rite rs , 21 m ost p ro m in en t of w hich is Mr. W ilkinson who was the 22 s u p e rv is ory indus t r i a l h y g ie n is t from th D epartm ent of 23 24 The se n , ~:'2Tkc-'txT. d Iso 'S.i-S C* 3.y . h' i l k i n s o a . 25 or W i l k i n s o r vas t h a:t thi,s 'o p er a> i cr. a i d . o n l y b e Mema faportinf C om pany 138 1 attempted by responsible, non smok ing adults. Now, 2 Mr. Castleaan perhaps can add some thing to this, but my 3 unuerstanding at least the re ason for this is that 4 studies have shown that there is a very high incidence 5 of cancer and other forms of asbestos related disease in 8 those who smoke in addition to being exposed to asbestos. 7 I think Dr. Wilkinson has raised a very real 3 question hare as to whether smokers should attempt the 9 removal of these ashes. Again/ something which from what 10 I've seen was not reflected in the Commission's press 11 releases. 12 Now, the reason this is a particular concern 13 is contained in again D r .Wilkinson's letter, this is page 14 one, the sixth paragraph, and I'll just read it verbatim. 15 My own opinion is that responsible , non smoking adults 16 following specific instructions, can remove the asbestos 17 with a very minimum risk. 18 But then he goes on to cite what he believes 19 are the estimates of exposure. My estimate is that a 20 complete clear, up can be done in less than 15 minutes 21 with a potential exposure to an air concentration that 22 OU.1-3 V3,XTV xX*CT. OTIS 0^tl million, that is four fibers 23 *">XV Vv -- t"0 1 n-J m*.iJm1v.^X-- *; *-*V*Crt;4- is 354 fibers 24 i * r pn^ i i ""1 D^ ^ 25 Then he points out in 1976 OSHA limit, this is feportin} Com pany i the present one, for asbestos, is two fibers per cubic 2 centimeter with a ceiling exposure of 10 fibers per cubic 3 centimeters. 4 New,Barry has informed me that OSKA has the 5 proposal out right now to reduce these so that the ceiling 6 concentration would be five fibers per cubic centimeter, ; 7 not to be exceeded in a 15 minute period. 8 Now, what Dr. Wilkinson is saying here is that 9 during the 15 minutes it's required to remove the ashes, 10 in his judgment a maximum of 354 fibers per cubic centimeter 11 could be released. Almost 70 times the OSHA proposal. 12 Now, it was because of this information, this 13 estimate, that Dr. Wilkinson concluded that, "Before this, 14 or any other type of solution recommended publically, I 15 believe it is imperative that it be tried out in some loca 16 tion in which the potential exposures can be documented 17 under different circumstances and unforeseen problems 18 worked out. 19 Now, to my knowledge, and I would like to be 20 recced, no such tests were conducted prior to the 21 t release was issued. Nov;, believe me, I really regret 22 ng ng .nsse ir,^ up at ],cir*., .c';v ..w a Xy 23 should have been made much earlier, a the extent than 24 I personally didn't make them earlier sorry because I 25 certain. would have. ^ 4 emu Reporting C*ampansA 140 1 But I th in k w hat may have h appen ed h e re is th a t 2 in g e ttin g a ll of these l e t t e r s , most of which did conclude 3 t h a t co nsu m ers c o u ld do i t , we d i d n 't ta k e a c lo s e enough 4 look a t some of th e d e ta ile d o b s e rv a tio n s , and if Dr. 5 W ilk in s o n is r i g h t a b o u t t h i s e x p o s u r e , and o f c o u rs e we 6 ^u / i no way or anow ing , X assum e i t ' s j u s t an e s tim a te 7 on h is p a r t , we are ta lk in g ab o u t a s in g le ex p o su re, p o 8 t e n t i a l l y 70 t i m e s t h e OSHA c e i l i n g . 9 Nov/, th e l a s t p o i n t as f a r as th e i n s t r u c t i o n s 10 g o I w a n t e d t o - m a k e w a s - made by D r . O ' N e a l B a n k s , w h o 11 i s t h e c h i e f of the Maryland Health and Safety Industrial 12 Hygiene Department. 13 He pointed out a problem which the gentleman who 14 j u s t p r e c e d e d m e d i d n ' t specifically a d d r e s s b u t w o u l d 15 come up w ith h is p r o d u c ts , and t h a t is th a t i f you have 18 an e l e c t r i c a l f i r e p l a c e w hich has th e v e r a i c u l i t e in i t , 17 and do t h i s by m is ta k e , n o t know ing th a t i t c o n ta in s 18 v e r a i c u l i t e and a s b e s to s , the- a p p l i c a t i o n of- water.- tot th e s e 19 ele ctro d es or w iring or whatever- is used, could pose a 20 prvjcis-m 21 .And a g a i n X t h i n k t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s p r e s s r e l e a s e 22 a n nor p o i n t cn xs o u t . wow, I to n t xr.cw now s e r i o u s 23 the problem would be, but ap p aren tly Dr, Banks did fe e l th a t 24 i t was p o t e n t i a l l y a p r o b l - nc v; s e r *t vj7 25 frankly d on 't know. J cm i orliny Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 ! 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 il But these are f have , and w hic V, u 1 .A * A U j. U / if -r O A. - you knew , to r squast th a t be a ssig n ed to do t h i s . Now, I under s ta A A -.or a d o r n t t h a t s u g^gga es s t i o n . A d m i t t e d l y , a l l t h e a d v i c e she re c e iv e d su g g ested th a t homeowners could do i t them s e lv e s , and the teams would have been ex p en siv e. Mowever, we do feel, based on the inromation I just presented, that a number of steps should be taken at this point. Number one, we would recommend that a test be run as suggested by, three of the people who corresponded with you, and I can go over them. Dr. Clark Cooper mads this recommendation, Mr, Harrison Rhodes, from whom you heard earlier this morning, a-n-d of course Dr, Wilkin son . All of them indicated that a tost was necessary be fore this was recommended, and I think given Or, Wilkinson's estimates, particularly, there is a need to trv it and to try it both with someone whc would do it carefullv and someone.-who would do it carelessly, as Dr . Cooper has sue gested , To ost cin 1Ae% O "5 ViSt WH1t IT-- we talki about, T O h " W A ^s vou kr.cv , C*f .t,^ 7^c1nt I made 0. \ i.GT W<2.S th at, for example, j US 41 _ O. i1-U potting Company 14 1 soak the ashes through sufficiently first, this is not 2 an area where we can try trial and error. As scon as 3 someone pokes that plastic shovel in or whatever, and 4 lifts up the ashes, if it isn't soaked all the way through 5 you could have a problem. 8 I think it's this type of sort of carelessness 7 that we can expect of. At least we ought to know the 8 parameters of what we're talking about in terms of expo- 9 s are . 10 All right, the second suggestion, and this 11 really goes to the problem of how many people actually 12 know, despite the press release -- let me add., I haven't 13 reviewed all of the papers in the country, but the one 14 that I did see was the New York Times, and some of you 15 tnsv h3.v$ sn it* 16 It gave the story, barely two column inches, 17 buried on a back page with the heading, who burns fires in 13 v, e?? sor?oth.ino to t ictt s f fs e t was reali'1' rather 19 comical in the heading. 20 And to my knowledge, at least, the stories that 21 I have seen, none of them have actually printed the in 22 structions. Now, perhaps you all have seen storias to 23 that e f f e c t . Vic gen erally review t h is through national 24 25 \^V --- VuO/j. .s3upposed to get these instructions _s4cme feporliny Company >`Y 1 So the second step that we are going to suggest 2 is that at least for those manufacturers and distributors that do have records -- now, admittedly it's probably 3 not a la rge number , but you ask them to notify purchasers 4 o f whom they have records . It won't be everyone, but 5 you at at leas c some of V . ' - i l l 8 I suspect, although I have no way of proving, 7 that a lot of people still don't know about this, and it's 3 vary wasy for us in dealing with this constantly because 9 we've bean exposed to it over and over, to think that 10 somehow everyone else is learning about it too. 11 But as we all know, that is not necessarily the 12 13 case. Third, and this is undoubtedly the most contro 14 versial, we still would like *to see at least for people 15 who smoke and for the elderly, the option of calling a 16 central number and getting someone else to do the removal. 17 o v .V w- nV*U- u4. s o m e o n e e l s e d o e s n ' t n e c e s s a r i l y u . v e t o b e a 18 , s p e c i a l l y fo rn e d te a m . 19 It occurred M *X* * m o r n i n g V j, c p e r h d p 3 20 21 1 o c a 1 f i r e d e p a r t m e n t w h o ' s u s e d t o . h a n d ! i n g d a n g e r o u s m a t e r i a l r? i <'j h t b n b 1 a t o d o i t * i i i c r a -rj a n u m b e r 22 sple who could do it, presumably who wc\ 23 ;are ;v c o u l d understand the i n s t r u c t i o n s , wV 24 V'- ..-tv-.-. not 25 ^/}ema f^ep-otltny dta m p a t t y 144 1 be able to do no. 2 Fourth, we would hope that you would make, once 3 the tests are completed, and assuming that they are 4 completed satisfactorily, another effort to republicize 5 this problem, and the steps that are needed to correct it. 6 One thing which I think would be very dramatic, 7 and I don't know whether any of you have considered it, 3 but I think it would be very effective, if one of the 9 corr.mi33 ioner s themselves was filmed removing these 10 ashes, from a fireplace. 11 Now, I say that really not in jest because a 12 lot of people may take the attitude, well, it 's fine for 13 you people in Washington, without gas fireplaces, to tell 14 us how to do it. But have any of you ever done it your 15 selves? 18 frankly, I would pause myself before I tried it. 17 I v/ould be very, very careful. And I daresay that many, 18 many people who are going to try it don't have as much 19 information as I d o . 20 I think also , and I under stand ' u; c*. cur office 21 of media relations has taker, a number of steps to publicize 22 it, that perhaps distribution of - fi1m , whoth sr you're a 23 Commissi onar or someone else, j* A V O ul * T ** m" r~\ t ****y* if, radio 24 -pots C O . 1. c l 1r1 .2 . 1 ^ s ^ 25 */ r- n * ps * / c \ ;o ^ y i rf. th'.'- I dor.'t think ^s4ctne ep o rlin f d o m p u n y (202) 528*4883 1 the issue of a press release alone is enough to do it. 2 We're talking about 300 to 500,000 homes, presumably, that 3 have these in them. 4 I would be vary, very surprised if more than 5 five to 1 0 , 0 0 0 of them were removed as of this point. 6 It's just a wild guess but I would be very surprised. 7 An effort of this magnitude requires a continuing effort 8 and one I think in this case probably needs some modifica 9 tion. 10 And let me just say in closing that despite these 11 concerns, EDF is very pleased by the Section 8 ban which 12 is being proposed by the Commission. We're pleased that 13 the effective date is, when the final regs do come out, 14 and we think that you have taken a number of very important 15 16 And I don't mean by this criticism to suggest 17 that you haven't done anything, or at least we're not 18 moving in the right direction. At this time I 'd be 19 happy to answer any questions, and refer the scientific ones 20 21 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0H: First of all, Robert, are 22 you aware that the press release is not the only part of 23 ^ a nrorTram'5 24 mt>_ RAUCH: Yes , T am., r irht. 25 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Because vour statement J cma t^ep-otitnfy (^ompattif 146 1 indicates that you felt a press release by itself was not 2 sufficient. 3 MR. RAUCH: Right, I do understand that other 4 steps have been taken. I don't know exactly how it 5 stands -- 6 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: The Commission agrees with 7 you that a press release was not sufficient, and the office 8 of communications have taken a broad approach to dealing 9 with this program through a large number of media with 10 a whole series of programs, short of a film. 11 MR. RAUCH: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Just wanted to ask for a 13 clarification of the -- your suggestion number two, which 14 followed from your observation that the newspapers hadn't 15 given the Commission's press release very much play, and 16 I guess what you are s ugges 17 Commiss i o n ' s g e ttin g in tcu 18 MR . RAUCH: R i g h t 19 3MMISSIONCR KU3HNE' 20 21 COMMISSIONER KUSKNER: And I d i d n ' t know w h at you 22 w anted us to do - - 23 MR. RAUCH: I t h i n k - - 24 COMMISSIONER KUSIINER ; And w h a t we ' r o s u g g e s t i n g 25 4cm e deportine} C om pany (202) 28-4888 1 HR. KAUCHs Right. I think the first step would 2 be to gat in touch with both manufact urers and distributors. 3 As I understand it from the Fireplace Institute's letter 4 to you, there are some vendors that send out warrany cards, 5 some of which presumably have been re turned, and which 8 could be used at least as a start to begin reaching some 7 OiOpi,S * 8 I think at the same time, of course, these 9 manufacturers, and particularly distributers, could be 10 urged to send out the instructions with notification, as 11 well as perhaps post signs in their outlets. I don't know 12 how often people would return to them, but in other words 13 have some way at the local level to reach these people 14 who have the fireplaces. IS I just -- I could be completely 'wrong, but I 18 don't think at least the national media cover age I've 17 seen , has been vary effactive. And there may have been a 18 * -v U '" O `2 tl * l <a w ; 1 2l V & I* *t seen, but I h e v e n 't bean - - when I 19 .3aw this little story in the Times , as X sard, X was rather 20 w a 1. 3 cl urbed. V 21 ' M % ^ r ^ T ^ V C ? . PITTLE: I 've had a cones; n about 22 r.ot seeing veri* many stories myself , and I asked the 23 director o: our media relations, Herb Coster, to keep a 24 separate file on all the clippings that came in on this 25 stc rv . _s$cme f^eportin^ (Company 143 1 he was already doing it , but I think ther 2 feeling on the part of the Commission to really make sure 3 that -- at least in my mind, any way, it's an open question 4 If it doesn't succeed then we can gat very many people, 5 to ba awara of it, through the print media and possibly 6 something through the electronic media, w e 're going to have 7 to try something else. 8 MR. RAUCH: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I completely agree with you 10 that with 300,000 homes, or whatever the exact number is, 11 that a two inch story -~ but it turns out there are some -- 12 13 you just weren't reading some of the other, bigger news papers . 14 Because there have been some fairly good sized 15 articles, at least according to his file, that's growing IS by the day. 17 MR.. RAUCH: Yes. Have they included the instruc 18 tions, Commlesioner Rittie? 19 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: That depends OR w h o 's get 20 the space at the time they print the article, and that's 21 something we have no control over. 22 MR. RAUCH: Yes, I understand, I was just cur23 24 r.^M',]TCC!TQMi?u V>TfTm`r77, p +*V ,rt rn rt s* j, if f K g y 25 l^eportinq C^ompafasjf 14 9 1 aren't there is of no value tc us if ---- in heir.g satisfied 2 that that's all we do 3 M R . RAUCH: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Because there nay be some 5 way to get these things published at a cost. But they 6 will have to be done now. 7 MR. RAUCH: Yes, I was just concerned that some 3 how we don't let this matter rest with the initial effort 9 that was made, particularly if we find that not as much 10 is happening as we had hoped. 11 I think that this is -- it is a serious problem. 12 When I first came to you we thought this might be, you 13 know, 20 or 30,000 fireplaces. But the Fireplace Institute 14 was saying 300 to 500,000. You talk about an average 15 household of three people you're talking about potentially 16 1,500,000 people that are exposed. 17 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: That's with the fireplace, 18.. but not necessarily with, asbestos "inheriting materials 19 laying underneath, is that -- or do you believe-- 20 MR. RAUCH: I thought the estimate was-- 21 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: that: athere's a one to 22 one relationship? 23 MR. RAUCH: W e ll, I t h o u g h t th e e s t i m a t e c o v e r e d 24 asb esto s co n tain in g h its , I t 's rig h t in here. 25 It. says here, in the past four or. five years, disporting Company i -n 1 m s t i m a i a d 3 0 0 t o 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 f i r s p i a c e l o g / a s h k i t s h< 2 been so ld . There were 3 '72, in 1977 th ere are 4 v 0MMISSI0H2R 5 MR . RA C H : 6 clear that the tenor o asrestos asnas 7 I t h i n k we co u ld check place In s titu te ea sily 8 enough and f in d o u t fo. 9 HIAIRMAN BYINGTCN; I d o n ' t m ean t o b e d e f e n s i v e 10 a b o u t o u r communications program/ b u t I t h i n k f o r t h e 11 r e c o r d we ought to indicate that now all the Commission 12 feel a s you do in terms of getting the word out. But there 13 h a s been a lot of other things. 14 O n e , there has been a whole s e r i e s of picture 15 g r a m s t h a t a r e g o i n g o u t to w e e k l i e s t h a t can r u n t h i s 18 type of thing. 17 MR. RAUCH: Y e s. 13 CHAIRMAN 3YIMGTCN: C h a t y o u w o n 't s e a i n th e 19 normal d a ilie s , but w ill cover a g rea t percentag e of the 20 households in America through w eeklies. , 21 MR. RAUCH: Y es. 22 CHAIRMAN 3Y2NGT0N : T h e r e h a s a l s o b e e n a m a jo r 23 r-A 'o s t a t i o n s a n d t o t r y a n : 24 you a n ' t g e t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d i t w a s g e n e r a l l y 25 law yers tn a t you i -3 /-+ - a J J l cme %%eeppcorting C om panu 151 1 media very well to tell people or s h o w people how to do it 2 because they need something in their hands. So the effort 3 here again was to get people to call us or write us and 4 get the instructions from us . 5 MR. RAUCH: Yes. 8 IMGTON: So I think a fai r analysis 7 ought to be, which is what I hope we're trying to do, it's 8 a little difficult in the way it operates, but it keeps 9 some track on how man y calls we're getting and number s 10 we're sending out in terms of our hotline and othe-r areas 11 as well. 12 MR. RAUCH: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Plus we've used consumer 14 organizations and consumer affairs officers and the 15 star a and local level across the country to try and dis 16 tribute that. 17 And we 've go t no way of !know i.nc7 hew successful 18 O id might be , or are. 19 MR . RAUCH : Mr . Chairman f T- ,U4 -i. dn 't really mean 20 by that that your madia office had not been 21 cine anything, and I was made aware this morning of some 22 f the fh iacs you ''ere doing. 23 T J - V ink my only con C-T l\ 3 that some effort ba 24 . a on q q r > inuin g basis to ? n ,4 J.t jUst ho w effect1ve h 25 ? at al 1 p ossibis , V e i * tm W" * yJa* <O * the file and monitoring ^ }c m $ 4porting Clotnpang 1 c. 1 and so forth, and than if it aopsars that further efforts 2 ara necessary to keep an open mind on them. 3 CHAIRMAN BYINGTGH: I agree, I don't think we can 4 rely on the Times to gat the ash out. 5 M R . RAUCH : I would -- as I said , JvUVvc.a --cJ*L?rst point 8 mate bout actually tasting this, Tj- +v irh fr ankl y v0 u 1 7 d idea, given the fact that t!iree of pour corarnen- 8 tafors did strongly suggest, including the term imperative 9 at one point, before we got too much further with this IO program. n Tha test would be simple enough. 12 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Well, that's not what w e 're 13 told -- 14 M R . RAUCH : Really? 15 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON : We're told it will take 18 a minimum of three months by the time you conduct it, run 17 it, and coma back with any kind of analyzed results worth 13 19 And on ^cksons whv Z cer t3.1r,1v vot^d noti 20 'to 'do +*hp test inc 5 b 5c3u-- Z wssn *t intores t0 cl 1.n 21 r,j t1nq th re e tncn th s / ^ncl if x *m tc 1cl th t '2c month s X *XI. 22 7 usr3 n123 it will, rreb1b 1v iun four or fivo * 23 nut I'm 7 ust not interested in running -- in 24 waiting for ar.vwh er e from two to six Tnonths , whatever the 25 figure happens to be, two months., three months, five:montlvs feporitn Company 15 3 1 to wait and see whether or not or what the concentration is 2 when the basic thing was to get it out. 3 And 4 MR. RAUCH: Well, I'm certainly not one to suggest 5 the Commission should delay, as you certainly know, but I 6 would hate to think that the cure in this case was worse 7 than the problem. 3 And you had had three fairly respected people 9 when you solicited their views, tell you you needed to do 10 that. And as I said -- 11 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON s We also had 15 others that 12 didn't think so. I mean, you. k n o w , we got 20 some responses 13 I guess, is the problem. 14 MR. RAUCH: Yes, I've looked at them, and I think 15 that, you know, some people obviously didn't even think of 15 it. I guess it's not a question of them saying you shouidn ' 17 do i t , it just didn't occur to them. 13 'iou know, I don't know if -- I can't imagine it 19 caking three months to run a test. Tests were run o n the 20 Rockville asbestos problem with the reads in a much 21 shorter rime than that, I mean, it's not that difficult. 22 And these would be under much more controlled conditions. 23 24 25 f^gportin^ . dum pany 154 1 2 HR . RAUC K : Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN B'iINGTON: Mr. Castleman. 4 MR. CASTLEMAN: The statements I have to make 5 at th is point are my own, they do not represent anybody 8 e l s e . I have worked on product l i a b i l i t y s u i t s against the 7 asbestos industry and I think i t ' s important for the Com 8 mission to understand the la r g e r context of i t s ban in 9 terms of pro te cting people from asbestos hazards. 10 And how we got into this f i x w e 're in in the 11 f i r s t p la ce , and why a product liability law is proving 12 t o t a l l y inadequate to protect consumers, and why bans of 13 t h is sort are really needed. 14 Up u n t il this time, the only recourse a consumer 15 had under the law was the right to sue manufacturers a ft e r 16 he was in ju re d , and this just hasn't been very proteotive. 17 The- latency of a di; ease usually on the order of 3o vears 18' or more from the. t i l e of the parson' s being in jured, and 19 hoeV'or sold him u.iC. w/XWvt Ww ' rna.de a 20 buck for selling it to him. \ 21 And there are now hundreds of thousands, of people 22 who ar e expected to develop car.cer, and are developing 23 can cer, as a r e s u lt of exposure tc asbestos products. 24 Most of chase oeosls vara not warned that the products that 25 ^eportintf (Company ^isi; 1 The first time that I know of any asbestos 2 product bearing a hazard warning was 1964, and that was 3 insulation material, and the warnings were put on only 4 after Selikoff's landmark paper was published showing that 5 something like 40 percent of the work force was getting 8 v/iped cut by occupational cancer and asbestosis. 7 There were many case reports earlier going back 8 to 1933, the first case reports of asbestosis, among insula 9 tion workers. And it was well known at that time that 10 asbestosis was a fatal disease. 11 A lack of hazard labeling on asbestos insulation 12 is analagous to the lack of labeling on asbestos containing 13 dry wall patching compounds. Dry wall patching compounds, 14 to the best of my knowledge, bore no hazard labeling 15 U *1t i t Q 7 c 18 And the manufacturers made no effort to determine 17 the extent of the asbestos hazard that the product's use 13 entailed, leaving this, instead, to be done by unions and 19 medical researchers, and the products endangered the 20 "tenoral public as well , not just the work force that applied 21 4- rr^ ' 22 An ^ ^.1r.?.\ I.v t suId s 1.1 v*13s w vzt v 2.v s v s i.3.-ifc1o 23 o ~ tv,,-r1s f ^ r*o m 35 Tnsnuisc'tuT* 24 1 T: \ ,3.T. *1~ ^ * *! O W^^T! 1. S C U S t C . v ? ' * ? ? , b c u t n 2TC LUC *Z ViS Z 2T(1S / 25 !;^ <7 .1r. 1 S T.*'?11 3 1*-.7TT*S*3 +!O COT,C.`iC u S3 tlUClis S' of. f^eportintj C^ampantf 156 1 hazardous of asbestos, and I'm talking about in the 1930s 2 and 1940s when they started to find out about this from 3 other sources, and they probably knew about it'long before 4 that, has lad to the proliferation of asbestos hazards 5 that will be with us for the next 100 years. 8 And I am enclosing a statement for the record 7 which I originally wrote in response to a proposed bill 8 on national product liability, and it goes through some of 9 the history in the asbestos industry, and I w o n 't read the 10 whole thing, I 'll just sort of skip through it and pull 11 some parts out of it as I go. 12 Asbestosis was recognized by Pliny the Younger, 13 a Roman historian of the first century A.D.. The Romans 14 noticed -- this was slaves weaving asbestos, and they 15 noticed that they were using up these slaves awfully fast, 16 and no matter how much they whipped them they couldn't 17 gat them to work. And they figured out it must be asbestos 18 they, were breathing that was killing th am. 19 And they even providsd re a irators for these 20 slaves. "07, in 1913 the U . 3. Department of Labor Statis 21 tics monograph mentions that the insurance industry had 22 a l r e a d y picked up on the fact t h a t asbsstos workers were 23 a t i k o f f a t a l disease t o the extent chat it wasn't & 24 to bet money on them living, 25 or life insurance by tha inn a - J eme f^eporln^ om panp  r, *7 1 based cr* the little data that was available to them. 2 That was six years before the first case of as 3 bestosis was published ir. the medical literature. And as 4 I mentioned, the first case of asbestcsis among a product 3 user, that is a man who worked with insulation materials, 6 I suppose someone who worked in a manufacturing plant, was 7 published in 1933, and that was in the American literature. 8 There was also two cases published in the British 9 literature in 1334. In 1942 a couple of cases were publishes 10 in hew York, insulation workers, who had both lung cancer 11 and asbestosis. One.of these men was employed with a major 12 asbestosis company# according to the medical article, up 13 until a few months before he died, and his asbestosis killed 14 him in a very short time. 15 If ha hadn't developed lung cancer, according to IS the article, according to the last few years of life, he 17 was almost completely exhausted after climbing one flight of 13 stairs, and ha had frequent bouts of coughing day and 19 **** -tli ^ 20 And it's pretty amazing that the asbestos industry 21 never did any studies on the product, on the users of its 22 products, such as these insulation workers, before 1964. 23 Tho ir.dustry did pub 1.1sh a few things ir- tha 24 1 i ts ::a t u c e , b u t th ey w er ar. *t /er y */ell d esigr.ed st u dies , 25 rj'5. u i c '* v 3 r * w ^ :i 1 *! *' c 2 5 n.s i.vv* L n ti u.2rtd 7?Vi^ r; Z. w&s ^ 4em a j^oporiintj C-am pan^ 15! 1 w r i t i n g my m a s t e r ' s t h e s i s on m e d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e o f a s b e s 2 tos in 1971, I knew noth ing about the p o litic s of s c ie n tif ic 3 a r t i c l e s and how they g e t p u b lis h e d and who w ants to p u b lish 4 what to p ro te c t him self. 5 But I was s tru c k by th e f a c t th a t th e re w ere two 6 - <i H :.: 3 * Z*t X s e e m e d t o b e o n e g r o u p o f p e o p l e t h a t w e r e 7 always g e ttin g p o sitiv e re s u lts and another group of people 8 th a t were alw ays g e t t i n g n e g a tiv e r e s u l t s , and ask in g new 9 questions that seemed to try and get everybody off the 10 tra c k , of the fa c t th a t the s tu f f was cut th e re k illin g 11 people. 12 New, the marketing of some of these products that 13 h a v e c a u s e d ^ o a d e m i c s of asbestos, probably would n e v e r 14 have occurred had the indu stry done the kinds of studies 15 th a t i t should have done in the 1930s, and th is is the 16 reason I'm saying a ll of th is . 17 lo t of th ese problem s never would have a ris e n . 18 ?. g o o d e x a m p l a i s t h e u s a o f s p r a y e d f i r e p r o o f i n g i n s u l a 19 tio n , which was in tro d u c e d in the 1950s, and they had snow 20 f a l l s i n t h e s t r e e t s o f Mew Y o rk f ro m a l l t h e s p r a y e d f i r s - 21 i a1 1*35XHCJ blown onto the g ird e rs of b u ild in g s 22 *z3 d pa5*327'* three blocks , another 60 story 23 th 0 s t u f f bei ng 3 pr aye rl a l l over the p lace . 24 * v :.0 Oh-^\r p*^-3 enclose 25 i? 'c^ w s **-1,9 ] i v bin n gd \ r* 1^^ 3 ov *zb1 i. or.rsilts X _Acme feporliny Company 159 1 P r o t e c t i o n Aenc y . But th e r e w ara s i l lio n s of o e o sle who 2 worked in those b u ild in g s , tra d e s w o rk ers, th e re were 3 o th e r p eople w alk in g by who w ere exposed to th is a s b e s to s . 4 This is a product th a t never should have been sold in the 5 f i r s t p la c e , and now th a t p e o p le are s t a r t i n g to g e t a s b e s - 6 to s is from having worked w ith i t , i t ' s problem to even 7 find out w h at's become of the com panies th a t m anufactured 8 9 And o f c o u rse t h e r e 's th e r e s i d u a l problem o f 10 the asb esto s m a te ria l th a t is sprayed on the in sid e s of 11 b u i l d i n g s and in duct work, and now a s with the ULCA dormi 12 t o r i e s and the school house in Lander, Wyoming, and this 13 i s an article about the Yale architecture building had 14 t o b e c o m p l e t e l y renovated. T h i s is i n the medical litera 15 t u r e o f h o w t h a t was done. IS I'm sure' your staff has a copy of this. This 17 ui te mess , we 're stuck with aI 18 ng th is mat er ial and it's not ju 's ht 19 psopl da who J-A*'*' these buildings 20 ;;:cw , I 've gone through 30 21 or ascestos magazines, and used otner sources , . -ur yjf a n a 22 run down seme o f the prod ucts that "11"/g c-asn s c *q ; and 23 ' think we 'll 3Ventudily find larg - &oPuiatiens at 2Ti3 24 irum such chi C.qz as dry .va--* compo ..~,3~ caX-i. I -y / 25. tsxtura'd ai:;-ez-/ irooming -wvleking s. t dampaiitf 1 Armstrong makes a flooring backing that contains 2 asbestos, so if you have to rip the flooring off, vinyl 3 flooring off of a floor, then you've got to find some way 4 of scraping or sanding that backing, and the backing 5 needn't contain asbestos, I would think. 6 Asbestos has also been used in tobacco and 7 cigarette filters. There's even an article in the medical 8 literature on people who developed asbestosis from making 9 cigarette filters. If -was used for filtering intravenous 10 drugs until about a year and a half ago when the Food 11 and Drug Administration took the suggestion of the 12 Environmental Defense Fund to deal with that problem. 13 And children's modeling compound is the only 14 product I know of that the asbestos industry has said, 15 does not contain asbestos. And it was in 1971, the 18 Asbestos Information Association put cut a press release 17 and told a whole lot of people who run bureaus of education, 18 things like that, that they should got rid of any of these 19 aus ana not use asoestos to mane paper macr.e ana 20 S Z 'u Z Z 21 And that came out of 22 East 40th Street, which 22 JL& u.. r .\ the John s-M.anv ills corporate head- 23 - S.1 - 1 * a woman who was making 24 ing comneunds using Johns-Mar.ville asbestos , 25 J - cme l^eportiny Company 1 G1 1 controlling these hasards on their own. 2 Okay , so Ta.IdM.J* Jus - meKcior. tnat prcduct liability 3 ff J? A-_U .>w i. all in the case of consumers is v ery often un- 4 recognized. In the case of people who wor ked with these 5 pro ducts often, it is recognised and i t 's become a rather 6 subs tant XuX thrs at to some members of the asbestos indus - 7 8 This is a 10K form from the Johns-Mar.viiie Corpora 9 tion. They mention that as of '.March of this year they 10 were the defendant or co-defendant in 271 suits alleging 11 damage to the health of persons exposed to asbestos. 12 Most of these are product liability suits from asbestos 13 for insulation workers who were never warned that the 14 stuff could kill them, and who are now dying. 15 This -- the threat of ail these lawsuits has IS apparently been taken quite seriously by industry. This is 17 a bill, H.R. 3689, was proposed by Congresswoman Millicent 18 Fenwick or. August the 2nd, 1977, a week or sc age, two 19 weeks ago . 20 Ar.d this bill i~ called *ViO Ashes to s Ha 1th 21 Haze,rd Compensation A c t , an d this X3. going to be a corapen - 22 sat ion act just to pay off poop 1S who disease. 23 J 4-Vft c.^T'fc tXii.'v *trikes Tn X~ se ct ian 20 5, 'which rsxds 24 ` p ** -- rofx CJ^ y ***.p --* ~r* p 4" ~ X X ^ ^ i. HI 25 *q v- V rv/af f; s rj UT S IIiXTv ^ ^ *X s X O H. O ^ctl # 5 h 3 XX mMcm* fepofU n ^o m p a n tf U021 23*4339 a6 2 1 be allowed* tc recover against the manufacturer, distributor, 2 seller, contractor, or applicator of asbestos materials. 3 So that might be the end of product liabilities, 4 if that thing gets passed. I. haven't had a chance to 5 road that bill ever thoroughly, I just received it, but 6 p.-.rt of it does strike me. 7 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: In the interests of time 8 could you summarize, deal with the areas that directly 9 relate these two bans with this meeting, and then any 10 other products . We will continue to appreciate any more 11 information that you have. 12 MR. CASTbEMAN: Okay. Now, the absence of any 13 members of the asbestos industry to testify today,except 14 for Union Carbide, suggests to me that the industry is 15 really decided that this product, this dry wall patching 18 compound, should not be made with asbestos. 17 And I have some remarks about the carbide data 18 that you received on July the 14th, dated July the 14th. 19 I first note-that this is data- from an interested party, 20 as was. the earlier data sent in by, the Asbestos Information 21 A s s o ciax -or*. 22 I did not know until today that the parson who 23 d_d eha job was the was a cnairaaa of an asoestos 24 i.to . sUn da rd s ccmmirt^e , d. :>Gr 2O i 4~,r.l ,, ;roSOG1S--GG. sail lug ashe: to you, ;vnd to _Acme ^ 1e2p02o) ri S l 3 ny 6-4 9 3 C 3 o m p a n y .v' i n. *3 1 of dry wail patching compcunas. 2 mare no attempt chat I could see to squar; 3 this with the values reported by Rchl in the Kohl .ai-.ser. 4 I point out this paper had to undergo peer review prior to 5 being published, and certainly dees not contain some of 6 m s vary guus ticaatie aspects u wiil awluue to in tue 7 Union Carbide submission. 3 They used optical microscopy, out of doors and 9 in the home, for determining background asbestos levels. 10 This is totally inappropriate a way of discovering- back 11 ground levels. This is a very coarse method, only.-)' measur 12 one fiber in 100-or one in 1000, from wh at 's there. 13 And yet even with this coarse method, if you 14 take a look at the data you'll see higher values for 15 the asbestos levels inside the house than outside the 15 house, and there was nothing natural about the asbestos 17 levels inside the house, and the use of this term in the 18 -c r *" -P ' and a da3criptier i-b .10 U is c,o ti ;-i.^ a--.. 19 O c 1 n * :s is misieaci1U-,.i 20 Tila hO u; had had a dry' wall jc **. /ai A^, ^ f--: J.jr f ti**-1nia. 21 bathroom renovation in 1975, with extensive use 22 containing patchin< 23 y i~ o T.,' *-- . ' J c^i v*-i iAl .3 4 t Mi .:* n -.j ^-c. ;; VJ c on*4w-,w.. :he athing 24 b V ^ 1 V.> ' mmn:1iCn. f'iVIi*1Ui 25 Then theyr had a gas log installed in'63 with /nst d e p a r tin g (^ a tn p u n y 164 1 usbastDo oil it. Operator and area samples were taken 2 during the mixing of the powder with the water, mixing of 3 the speckling compound with water. But the operator's 4 exposure during this 17 minute step mentioned on page 3 5 was not reported. 6 It appears to have been included in one- of the 7 eight hour time waited averages. The peak value that 8 this person had during the 17 minute step is net reported 9 iwSej. . 10 I'd like to know what that exposure w a s , The 11 time waited average is for sanding, were both computed on 12 the basis of consumer spending something like six or so 13 of the eight hours outside of the house, as you pointed 14 out that's probably not the sort of indicator that you 15 would want to use in deciding whether there's an acceptable 16 3 rC* 17 You'd want tc lock at the more -- if that's a 18 very foreseeable, that the consumer stays in his house. 19 '.r.d you would get values then of several times as high 20 as the ones reported in the cover letter. 21 And this is ths sort >5 thine ih2.h would vsr 22 t uh ^i ^ ^d ir cx scientific ^c-'* 23 - ^ha>-^ `7 .-- Carbides claim n arrow 24 fiber*? th-a 25 thirds in not supported ^s4cma r^epotlinq C,ompant 165 1 s V o r. 1* seen, haven't had a chance to lock 2 through what they've brought in today very carefully, but I 3 acn't believe they brought in any data about electron 4 microscopy by way of saying, for example, how many fibers 5 you see by electron microscopy for every one you would 8 by :ical microscopy. 7 And this was reported by Salikoff as being 200 8 to nearly 1000 -- not Selikoff, Rohl, by being in the 9 range of 200 to 1000. So that's for every one you see 10 by optical microscopy , you'd find that many more i.f you- 11 looked at it under an electron microscope. 12 And Slikoff's people used a 25,000 power magni 13 fication transmission electron microscope. They are 14 also the world's leading authorities on analytical methods 15 for asbestos, and so I would, having no other data, have 18 to assume that the 200 to 1000 multiplier applies in this 17 case as well as in the case of the paper that they pub- 18 T. \ eo 1yi 19 Scanning electron micr-oscooy car. be used to 20 magnification of 15,000 power, Carbide pointed out, in their 21 oral statement today, they said 2 0 , 0 0 0 . They only described 22 one sample that they looked at at all, in the 15,000 22 power, and the sample was described as number M 3 0 . 24 And I'd like to know what kind of sample that was 21 and I'd like to know more about what they saw under that _s4cme HZeportiny C om pany 165 1 microscope. Their method for SEM analysis appears to be 2 limited to the 1500 to 2000 power range. This is a new 3 method they're talking about developing, and this is only 4 several times more powerful than an optical microscope, 5 which runs at about 400 power. 6 Why don't they use 15,000 power and count more 7 fields? That way they'll really see what's there, or 8 at least they'll see a lot more what's there. The scanning 9 electron microscope technique used makes a millipore 20 filter into a- thin film before scanning, for fibers... 11 Well, fibers that were trapped in the middle of 12 that filter, when a filter gets collapsed, are going to 13 wind up in the middle of that film. And they might be 14 hidden from view from a scanning electron microscope 15 if the -- the scanning electron microscope sees about the 16 top micron of surface, according to people I consulted, 17 and if the fiber is a small fiber, especially, but at 18 3. Ur.G'2i the top micron, surfs: o / scnn ir.vj 19 electron mic 3CCpS X3 net gcir.g to se - i " 20 30 this method will unde rcount fibers , 21 pecially undercount real small 22 I'd like to know hew thick the film was, that 23 ooka cat, under the scanning electron microscope, 24 25 tosucpa . ampantjf 16 7 1 -- I Iso been told that aillipcra filter materia 2 XS C(*3i-Y ileiVl2,^C. by electron beams, and swelling of the 3 film would impede analysis. In contrast, nuciepore 4 filters are not so affected. The samples could have been 5 transferred to nuciepore filters with deposition of the 8 asbestos fibers entirely on the filter surface. 7 V?as swelling a problem, was transfer considered. 8 Low temperature ashing would have removed the millipors 9 filter raitti:.ns, making it easier to view the fibers. 10 Yet no ment..on of the use of ashing appeared in the re- 11 por t . 12 How, if we used the figures of Roh et al of 13 200 to 1000 small fibers for every one you'd count with 14 the optical microscope, and the number -- the peak number 15 reported by Carbide, the number of fibers you coma up 16 17 Carbide reported 300,000 large fibers, physical 13 and optical microscope, on a time waited average basis. 19 That was th e maximum they reported. 20 ricd so from the Mount Sinai paper, that means 21 3 3 3 t. r-o 3i::`million to 30 million asbestos fibers 22 3 o V* vr^33 3 -jncter of air, total fibers. The average 23 persons hr iths about one- cubic meter, a little less than 24 chat, par h o ar. 25 2 od those amounts of asbestos are. certainly ~s$cme J^eporltny C o m p a n y 163 1 not Borsai bac?-: 2 rnaintained . lavais not. as Carbide has 3 Whan Carbide or its commercial customers for 4 asbestos fiber make a product that does not expose con- 5 cuvners to asbestos levels above normal background, would 6 acres that's no basis for banninc the orcduct as a con- 7 sumer hazard. But this is not such a product. 8 It's not mentioned whether the product used for US 9 Gypsum is made from asbestos from Union Carbide's mines. 10 T understand the carbides, asbestos is fiber of an unusual 11 ly small dimension, and this is the fiber in the product 12 it would be especially difficult to get -meaningful measures 13 of exposure with optical microscopy. 14 The product was made in 1974 and took three years 15 to reach the consumer, I know. Was U .S . Gypsum a customer 16 for carbide asbestos in 1973, '74? 17 The dry wall job was.reportedly done by a 18 iC-3.1 'ZOnS'.XT!O'X W.1*; tlVlO COTi5-V* *2T W ni T*?Sf)! .'3LtO2T 19 t 1m t h i n k ! tier n o w 3.b o -it*, t h ---- n o t t h e j o b t h a t w m s d en * * 20 by'M r. R hodes, b u t th e job t h a t was dons by th e o t h e r 21 snvnlev 22 ^r.d T*Ta think!no , X wsi$ z,ti of 23 OO Carbide and T W 0 0? do ino - joh on ray hous , wh aV 24 1^ r* *V,w*^ V* *ay h*33 d wh \^ T was doinq th*3 iofe ^ind 25 ht thrtl!tT ? th *3 job T do be rl^^ t<?.d bv the fi'.ct *Acmn $poritncf d<unpantp 169 1 that there's all this monitoring equipment around. 2 And the fact that I worked for a company that 3 is obviously looking for a certain result from the testing. 4 The highest exposure reported was that of a person who 5 watched the work close. This shows one way that the risk 6 is transmitted to other members of the household. 7 Use of fiber shaped substitutes for asbestos 8 is not necessary, as some products on the market for years 9 have non had fibrous ingredients. Non fiberger.ic, nor. 10 carcinogenic formulations already exist. 11 The concern over fibrous clays is primarily a 12 result of their impending substitution for asbestos, not 13 a result of documented health effects that are caused 14 by these substances. It is unlikely that any substitute 15 for asbestos now being considered will rival it as a health 16 hazard to man. 17 Carbide has asked the Commission for a one percent 18 tos ana dry wars patoning compounds, nove-vej 19 no data was supplied to the 20 these compounds would entail 21 Moreover, no reason is offered for why 22 ommissror. sr.oula deem compour.as c a c r e than one percenti 23 24 25 i J : cme f^eporiing C^ompuny 1 - *i -3 'o a Irt: der of magnitude, whether you 2 have one par rant asbestos in the product cr three or four 3 percent. And it 's not going to -- you're not going to 4 reduce the risk by one hundredfold by going down a few 5 percent ir. the asbestos . 6 Carbide's other request to the Commission was 7 to require warning labels on all such compounds, whether 3 packaged for commercial or consumer use. I believe they 9 would put warning labels cr these products voluntarily 10 any way, if only to protect themselves from product liability 11 suits. 12 But since they like to calculate time waited 13 averages on the basis of the consumer being out of the 14 house, perhaps they'd be willing to put a warning label 15 that tails the consumer to get out of the house when he IS gate through speckling his house. 17 A one percent limit would enable manufacturers 18 to work off existing stocks, with higher asbestos contents, 19 by dilution. Unlike a ban on asbestos, this would mean 20 there is really no economic impact on the industry. Of 21 course the public health risk would be extended indefinitely 22 .~b. a une percent level of asbestos 23 gw I *vo e v e n t r i e d t o c a l c u l a t e w h a t i t ' s 24 4. a- % . be able to re on ina asbestos 25 use in these oomr cwr.ds , how much mono'* they would make fcispttflincj C?ompaay 171 1 w man1/ people would probably die as a re 2 sult. 3 And I've tried to use industry figures. With 4 the .Asbestos Information Association comments that about 5 10,000 tons cf asbestos were used in tape joints and 6 similar compounds in 1975, and fallowing publicity after 7 the Mount Sinai 's medical group paper in August '75, use 8 of asbestos in such product** has declined. 9 And Johns-Manville, the largest asbestos company 10 in the western hemisphere, stopped selling asbestos for 11 use in tape and patching compounds in 1976 . Johns-Manville 12 attorneys were no doubt mindful of their company's poten- 13 tial liability in the event of a baf^\ recall order on 14 dry wall patching compounds containing Johns-Manville 15 asbestos, 16 Such ban had been requested by the natural 17 urc-?! Council, in Its cvncl ths Com-* 18 ;T2 15 ^ * O w V'*! * 2 d ^ r o <5 t ^ O ' n S u ^ a d T 3 <v" S i** q 19 t!i2 Cor:su r n P r o d u c t Ss f 1 v Ac** * 20 Since 1976 that has become a part of Johns --Manvill 21 colicv not to sell asbestos fiber for what they calle-d 22 i *** n *- ~ -- -* e *, *- ;s r; & <? .1 r* 'd ** Q -* o c r-s ^ r* t g n^ ^ O 2T 23 sp'cbiir.r- compounds, joint compounds, has been discontinued. 24 ^ V ^ 4 n e V ^ En.y ng v-wici 25 2, >7 1\ ''51 Ch omnc'ir.ds is Union Carbide-. ^Mcrm f^eporlinfy Ciompuny T *7 *> 1 whose California asbestos nines constitute a mi 'or source 2 of income for the nation's second largest chemi al comean ft 3 It's not even mentioned in their annual report, the word 4 asbestos . 5 Unlike Johns-Manville , Carbide does not have 6 an enormous caseload of product liability, worker's compen 7 sation, and other asbestos disease litigation at this 8 time. 9 Let us assume that everybody but Union Carbide 10 stopped selling asbestos for use in dry wall patching 11 compound, and make an estimate of what this business would 12 be worth to Union Carbide. 13 As noted, the industry estimates for the market 14 ara 10,000 tons per year, before the hazards were reported 15 in the sciencific literature, and before pressure was 16 brought on public agencies to --on this agency to ban this 17 pi >U i- 18 The Ashes tea Information Association estimated 19 an average asbestos content for dry wall patching compound 20 hree percent, and Carbide wants the Commission to 21 ap ova of compounds of one percent asbestos for continued 22 23 io an outstde estimate or tne remaining market 24 25 ons ce* ysia rxxoii iSw^S cos xs. ^ 4 em e t<?aporinq C *om panty 1 shore, thin fiber wieh an approximate sale value of $50.00 2 a ton. And at this price, assuiaiga that Carbide has the 3 entire market, that is that nobody else would sell asbestos 4 for these purposes, the annual asbestos sales for patching 5 compounds would be 150,000.00 . 6 Carbide'1s-3 '1X0o7/6V< racvtte coff return was sever, percent 4 7 2 f SO we 're tal 8 of $10,500.00. They have over 150,000 stockholders so 9 tha return of the sale of the 3000 tons of asbestos per 10 year amounts to seven cents per stockholder, per year. 11 Dr. Selikoff suggested that if the products 12 are not banned, the government might consider just giving 13 the $10,000.00 to the stockholders of Union Carbide and 14 let them keep the asbestos. 15 On the other side, the Commission has estimated 16 that the lung cancer risk is between 10 and 200C per 17 million. In other words, with each exposure, consumer 18 incurs a life time lunc cancer risk of between one ir. 19 rs* <>n a 20 CtO2 3 n o t 21 account of r:isk of other forms of cancer, such as 22 mesathelioma, however X do not belie taut m e r e us yet 23 O-u -- < }- r a y r\ a muen assurance 24 a x n si: 25 a- joh. _s4cme $ 'eportlny Com pany t 1 2 "ith the caveat that it's probably within the 3 range of 10 tirr.es as much to 10 times as little that figure 4 A way of confirming something that gives me soma assurance 5 that I'm in the right ballpark is to assume that the risk 6 is 1inaar with dose, that is, if you take this chance five 7 times you have five times as risk as you do if you're doing 3 9 And this is 24 hours of exposure, so let's assume 10 that somebody works with the stuff 24 hours a week , does 11 it 50 weeks a year, so he takes the risk 50 times per year, 12 that's a one in 10,000 risk times 50, and le t's say he 13 does it for 20 years, that's 1000 times he takes a one in 14 10,000 risk. 15 So as a vary rough figure it's one in 10, his 16 risk would be after doing this for 20 years. And that 17 seems, roughly speaking, reasonable to me. 16 "Tew, for cvsry one million such exposures from, 19 consumer and commercial application, dry wall patching 20 compounds, the expected number of eventual cancer cases 21 would be 100, one in 10,000 risk, a million people, 100 22 *05 ]0 00^ 23 i n < j s t a r y e s t i m a t e d ft 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 t o n s o f c a t c h i n g 24 ;o ^ r ~ o v d w i t h t h r o e n o r c e n t -vs b e s t o s w a s r r e d u c e ' i n 1 9 7 5 . 25 A ssurin'' th t C arbide ' s one oar cent lim it is accep ted by 175 1 the Corliss io n, it is likely that millions of dry wall 2 renovations per year world continue to be done with as 3 bestos containing material. 4 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Mr. Castleman, could you sum 5 marise. You asked for 15 minutes and you're about 40 al 6 ready . 7 MR. CASTLEMAN: I'm sorry. This is about all I 8 have to say. 9 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, will you supply copies 10 of this to the Office of the Secretary, so the Commission 11 will have copies? 12 MR. CASTLEMAN: It's a bit of a mess, but I've 13 already supplied it. I don't type very well. 14 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. I looked through the 15 package that we received, and I didn't see the material that 18 you were using as you go through here, but -- 17 M R . CASTLEMAN: Well, it's here out of order. 18 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. 19 eV CASTLEMAN: Til 's als o a br cch ura from c 20 company that has asbestos mines that 's cut sel ling ashes 21 tos, just ilk.2 it was the best th 1ng in the wo rid. 22 :hat's Grant Wilsn. 23 COMM 153IGNER FRANKLIN: Excuse me, for a moment 24 25 N : 9 :nai ^4-erne ^eporilny Com pany 1 n~C-Mi-iIS31UN Ea FRAiiKL : Ckay , ouay . ou ve go c 2 it all in here, but out of order. 3 HR. CAST LEHAR : Yes. 4 I n order - - t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s p r o p o s e d a t o t a l 5 ban on asb esto s in th ese m a te r ia ls , not being ab le to find 6 a n y r c a t a s o s s e r e s t o t n e s e m a t e r r a i s t n a t a r e n * o a c c e s &i 1 7 to consumers. 8 In order for Union Carbide to continue to sell 9 es tos for patching compounds, in the event char n e 10 Commission follows through with its proposal to bar. 11 asbestos containing compounds, patching compounds, Union 12 Carbide would have to make special arrangements for its 13 commercial customers to create new channels of distribution 14 chat will be on the Commission's authority. 15 I take this occasion to urge Union Carbide not IS to prase its case before the Commission, or try in other .'b - 17 ays to foist these dangerous products on the American * 18 19 I urge Carbide to cease maintaining, even 20 arc.ar tns rest of tua esn esros anaucury aas yoi.c -- .er*c , 21 that asbestos is safe and essential for use- in patching 22 '-> O Hi O c* 1 hi 3 23 24 25 ** ^ t a. -/o ? i \r ,L IT w*> 3OHi6 rv -- : r V\ t fiportinf (^jmpanij 1 cancer themselves, or having anyone else get cancer, for 2 ro;:i even cents per year. 3 And I urge the Consumer Product Safety Commission 4 to do all in its power to promulgate a total bar. on as 5 bestos containing patching compounds as scon as possible. 6 The last thing is a very specific request. I 7 would request that the ban taka affect immediately, not 8 in 30 days after it's published. But if a 30 day stay of 9 effective data is retained, I request that the Commission 10 require during this pjeriod all asbestos containing dry 11 wall patching compounds be required to bear a label, 12 'warning, that they are about to be banned because they 13 pose an unacceptable risk of cancer to consumers. 14 CHAIRMAN B7INGT0N: Okay. Any questions? 15 COMMISSIONER PITIES: A very quick o n e . I was IS reading on one of your pages, you indicated you ware 17 xjz vitr.fiss or* orcducti li.ibi.liwV caS03 * Would Vou 18 :cr the record what year qualifications are t4!">^ } 19 make you an expert. 20 MR CA3mT. A!J : Mhon rohns Hopkins in 21 1970-'71, I obtained a master's thesis -- a master's degree 22 in environmental engineering, and my thesis was on the 23 ** 4 *. y* ><2TCi C"1 "'-V U ^ S U O 3 w as Ashe;c* r-1c? n~v^ on 24 25 worksd y$cm Reporting Company 172 1 having to do vi 2 ever a dozor. f2 3 -nry agencies, including outfits like the United States 4 Kavy that have asbestos problems. 5 And I'd like to see some of these problems 8 solvad. 7 CHAIRMAN BYINGTCN: Commissioner Kushner. 3 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER*. Ir. this connection, Barry, 9 arc you aware of any emerging data that deals with the 10 incidence cf lur.g cancer, amesathi lioma, in dry wall 11 workers? 12 MR. CASTLEMAN: Yes, I mentioned one paper the 13 last time I waskhere. 14 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes. 15 '.t>0 CASTLEMAN Xt s bv M n c 3.nd Hsn dorsor* in 16 the December '76 issue of the Journal of Occupational 17 M'j di.c i ^ th^v fou" ^ ths.t i,b Wois ^ss cf 18 1u r . ^ not. of wotic fogress in Los Anoolss* 19 includi.net drv wall workers, including electricians, plumbers, 20 - -> --i Jo i'o '7 5. r o n ^ r ** . 21 And bKo authors bs 1i.^ved tvh^t thss<?. set'll 1s 22 exposure to asbestos played a role with excess risk of 23 1.v,nTM o5.vc**r 24 ? 5 a 1 n n a ^.a-esfb O f 1. U H C7 C 3 r C S T 25 of a h " wall worker , I have a copy of it. It's an abstract .,4cm f^aporiincj (Company 179 1 but it's just one case to really tell you much. 2 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay, we thank you very much, 3 Mr. Castleman. 4 We also have been provided -- we'il hear again 5 from Mr. Rhodes of Union Carbide, who wanted to save half 8 of his time. 7 The prior witnesses, Suedeen Gibbons of the 3 Natural Resources Defense Council, has agreed and we 9 appreciate her providing the list of questions that she 10 raised relevant to studies, there were six of them. 11 MS.GIBBONS: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: And I would suggest, I think, 13 that -- do you have additional copies of those? 14 MS. GIBBONS: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Yes, I'd like one. Also, 16 to the staff and Mr. Rhodes. 17 Nnat i. would suggest, unre ss m e r e are 3one 18 of those that you would like to address, at t is point in 19 trineaddress as many of those as you think u vw1* dXV/'m 20 to . 21 The rest, though, v/e would ask that you submit 22 ail &r*Sws for the record, if you would agree to that. 23 . U U . -v J vaa, daa 24 t o < Cjo t z c .re tj a Xioiv 25 ve aska and Lp z ciia - uzia2. iC-T;aii ldt ^ e i fQeporliny C om pany ISC 1 sie zm it gets answereci, 2 CHAIR;1!AN Bi'INGTGN : Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: In my absence. And there 4 is a member of my staff in the room who will listen 5 very carefully, and will listen to everything else that 3 7 But Mr. Rauch mentioned earlier, I thought, that 8 you agreed with him that we needed some kind of test to 9 see -whether consumers can actually get fireplace logs ana 10 ash out or their homes safely, and that was my question. 11 I wanted to ask you whether the two of you do 12 indeed agree and what your thought on this was. 13 MR. RHODES: Well, the staff contacted me to 14 ask for opinions on a suggestion for a procedure, which 15 we ware happy- to sand in. I gather it looked very much 16 like a number of procedures that was sent in. 17 an a o n a the suggestions, if I recall correctly 18 - ,PJ~^ t A a,V here in front o f m e , was that we d ' 19 sugges t J-T~ r* ws -- a gen tleman has just put 20 cars over my signature. 21 ;aia m ccnc iusion , c.ua to c o i a tv a- 22 a for the specific o p e r a t i o n h e 3trongiy 23 at any removal procedure chat is developed 24 exposure isvsis 25 feporiing Company 1 .wnc; v?ouXu iiuaiid on tr.a* j- J- -s -- W . 1 -Li U. -- , ; j ~ -2 W -- -J ~\. - * k 'v' o l U W i 4 t* 2 1s worth trving to find cut what laval of exocsure you 3 are causing. How, as far as the three to six months, I 4 haven't seen that protocol and I would think it would be 5 done as long as you're not looking for total statistical 8 evaluation of 20 or 30 locations. 7 But you could go into three or four places and 8 remove the material and measure the ashes cos level you're 9 getting much more quickly than three to six months. Mew, 10 in that connection, there has been a lot of talk about the n use of scanning electron microscopy and transmission elec 12 tron microscopy. 13 The thing that you have to be aware of, is that 14 all of the medical data -- say all, all that I'm aware of - 15 ha- been correlated in terms of the fibers per c c , longer 18 than five microns, primarily as measured by optical measure; 17 -,-'1i 13 ruebtion of whether 'M}tT>V*.Q 19 '6 r V fih e ! /erv short fibers, whether these have 20 y h a:: rde nature, is very much a controversial issue 21 22 CHAIRMAN BYTNG?ON: Okay. T think part of the 23 t -"2 ^ r-> ^ V n - tr *- *-V* r> V *>o ,-\<-* W ->*. rr*(f-* ic t h e fact 24 -V _-n^ I ( t j. *!is\ o a/ v* ci *m v T **c.^ * *"*"* c* s o? 25 r v \ r /m v* ^ ,,p. y* ^ "*>yt ^ IT n , C t * TV "* W ^ ft f; V " ;* V * * V q ,v*-. fcsaporiintjf (Company T_ 0 3 1 ^ rjil\* 7 Q to 45 days just in order to draft it up, publish 2 it , gat th e bids, do the thing, or even go out and find 3 and rJt o->H~ it ordered, and find the people. 4 So that we're worried at this end of the 20 5 ho 45 day lag before we're ever into testing, and then 8 it's the testing and then the results and that's how 7 somebody gets to about 90 days. 3 MR . RHODES : We11, if yo u'1v** oincr to get into 9 transmis sion electron microscopy, I can see how it. would 10 take that long because sample, prep, and counting are very 11 slow and tedious, and I don't know quite how you want 12 to handle some of these questions that Mr. Castleman 13 raised. 14 I don't think we really want to get into a de 15 tailed, technical discussion of monitoring procedures. 16 Again, transmission, I'd be glad to. 17 CKAIEMAW 3YINGT0N: What -- 18 RHODES : I am net really an aXpert in that 19 ci rr. c; n w f "j or* i s i i &x m <x*j o z c * A3x:i connu! ttee , 20 s uc eoKimxt --0 a f v.";i c , * i-> sx*ucly in g ~ux jsc t * 21 CHAIRMAN BVI'GTO- : Ghat we- at tempted to do is 22 23 .3 ma n v o : 24 D s/ 1 * v D? / CfcI i-i"ress , 25 ~$cma fepoflint} Company x 3 3 1 The balance we would ask that you could comment 2 or the record we would appreciate that, 3 MR. RHODES; .H*iJ1-a^. right, ia t me start with the 4 ions h-are . I 1ve got too muc a ta floating around. 5 ion number -- do you want me to read it or do you 8 want me to go ahead and answer i< 7 CHAIRMAH BYIHGTCW: Go ahead and answer it. 8 MR. RHODES: Relating to x-ray detraction, in 9 the determination of how much asbestos products contain, 10 wa have done some x-ray defraction work, and it's very 11 unde fin itive. 12 We are now talking with the people who presented 13 'the people, N3S, on the- talc side of things. You just 14 plain cannot taka a mud or a dry product and run it 15 through an x-ray defractometer , and expect to get lines 18 out that will tell you how much asbestos. 17 Is they appropriately say, chloride will inter 18 fere, and mica will interfere, and there's a whole seri.es 19 -La ~3r""A You ga t involved in special 20 rat ons 21 -.t.r*< .aC T/v '**lU uO Q7l -.i*tr -.t.o.-St. ci- vv**1C vv*o 22 labelled as containing asbestos, cr. the first test, is 23 -, an 24 25 j^eporliny Company 1 icncud counter all the characteristics of classical 2 j!^'rstile. 3 wT*.A :his tells us they were there. It doesn't 4 tall us the w light percent in the m u d . On the second mud 5 we i t waitsv suupplied to us by a manufacturer who told us 6 w'>*hr.aztz,.t1"h-e-3 foo'rXImTiulation was, met all his product specifica 7 tionso , tnhe assbestos had been left out. It just wouldn'tI 3 have looked t 9 We 10 but we know h 11 put in in the 12 more reliable 13 run it throug 14 I come back to the point that the analysis for 15 , crystaile, any way, in these compounds., is a 16 ,,* wU* u :a 7 "/u* e* a 1 17 Second ques tion , hew did you 18 bestos p a r tic le s rtnior. Car 19 win -Z technique , r - 3 0 cn . natter of fact, 20 d use the h it s r3 * y\ *4 21 1U Ota tio n . 22 I dupi icate d a page ~orn P d 23 tier. , which cays / :i --uw *-*r 4.* An 24 kr.cwr. ,, ... -- _ ^n a^h a s t o s , 25: ier.cth o f ditme-tar r atio o f three to one or greater m<t f tp v riin (Company 133 1 any length greater than five mic meters should., in the 2 absence cf other information, be considered to be asbestos 3 fibers and counted as such. 4 And I don't know of any laboratory, 3r.d I know a lot of pec pi 3 in the laboratories, who <do a blind count 5 of 3VG2Ty u111nrf 'with a L over D greater than three, a length 8 gre ater th.an five . 7 OS HA does not do it at Salt Lak o 'City, and a 8 -o tain amcunt of -- I don't want to ga t to o long into a 9 10 dis cus sion on it, but if you count -- I don 't count, I 11 loo k a lot in the microscope. Counting is an eyeballing 12 tec hnique whic h you have to develop. 13 If yo u 've done it a while you can spot what's asb estos , what meets the criteria. You get a trained eye14 15 bal 1 . and it *3 an acquired skill. IS How , as far as did we leave a lot of fibers out, 17 V ^o courtt, first cf all, everythin g co U1d b6 CTV?3t1X6 18 and I won 't go t into details , it could be crvsatile, even ".gh we may roT thin1, it is, it's c o m r\^ a as crysatils. 19 20 A.nvth 1r.o v;'hich C U1(5. b ap# 3HIT7ih ibo 1 isco1;nted as an 21 amp hibole. 22 The only things that are not C O U P . * * # 3its thes^ W a v -ir ni afi`lets and things which meet th a ~ p iteria, but 23 A<^ TiO 'b 1O O V. i ther like crvsatile or any of the amphiboles. 24 We- a.re not , and again I would comentry this 25 feporllnf Com pany 1 concept that someone who's involved in trying to do a 2 reasonable , scientific job is suspect as having an interest 3 an their data, or no use. I have been trying to avoid 4 getting into a hassle with Mount Sinai on why the Eohi 5 data looks so high. I declined to speculate on it, and 8 .jr --3.nci a i\ cr* .ta than w e 1ve presentee today 7 other investigators, including OSHA, which indicates that 8 our numbers are pretty much in the same range as theirs 9 are. 10 And we have counted a number of times with 11 California 05HA, and a number of other laboratories, side 12 by side, and we get essentially the same numbers. 13 This question of significant amounts of smaller than five 14 micron fibers, the point that I made earlier, that all of 15 the ha card data, the risk data, is in terms of fibers IS per cc longer than five microns, and this whole area cf 17 the shorter than five microns has net been well defined, 18 and we did not intend to present this as an electron mi.cr< 19 .os -* cr 20 ::aa '/ai'ese average tning c. 21 i C * i i ^ ^ 4 22 .nk L\ ;tn blown out of all proportion. The 23 mmor 3 a; 24 an tne 25 sucsenuonc on as nave near, caucus a ten ^ c i i !<\porUng (lam pany 16 7 1 for the rt70 ire day in the n ousa . On e of the operators, 2 the wif a / 5cCs ad th oira th a whole d a y . Ana the critical 3 poia w 05 Vilether you've got a tenth or two-tenths, fcur- 4 tent hs , it really doesn't -- when you start feeding it into 5 the -v as fixation ,you can get up as high as four or 8 five er s for a whole day before it begins to make 7 any 3icn ificant result, aft act 3 Mow, when, you average out -- when you take it 9 and average it over a year, and grind it into Ur. Bayard's 10 formulation, why you have to gat up around four or five 11 fibers per cc before you begin to see any significant ef 12 fects. 13 When you get ttp into 20 and 30, it gets to be 14 significant rather rapidly. And I would comment that I 15 was not criticising basically Dr. Bayard's approach. Vie IS are dubious about soma of his assumptions, but I was 17 using it to, as he put it together, and I hope my arithme 18 tic is correct, to calculate the numbers for some other .eva.s *V r llQ J4A ^ * 19 20 21 22 BYINGTON: Why d o n 11 y~u go *hoad and 23 I .2 24 25 .r nv`Tf'rr1'.' *t*i- > -u ra^ **M-3 3 ;trr.& fepvrilng C?ompani 1 V l 0 ** C `iT 1 '2 S ri \ * . c " b <2 2 Sinking.. that ^artiiS who ar? 3 r r~j p ~ y ,n n *+ additional comments between 4 :' and the and of the closa of comm-ant time, which is 5 __ T.,y,-v t *7o*-1-^ 4-v-*a- i+*? V.j*s A'.c'-us t 29Ci'* 8 7 r*5rr-r T"-'T IN^TO'i i O'-; nv o c bhe sub ^scts th^t* 8 y:;u had previously planned to joaaant on ; or any of the 9 ~ .- 'U ~ - 4 that warn raised today. And they woul1dU nil 10 b ; part of tha record and taken into consideration by the 11 Commission when it makes its decision. 12 MR. RHODES: Well, we do plan to present a report 13 on this second test. 14 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON :All riqht. 15 iR. RHODES: Some of the file numbers ar <* 1'JC' 16 fed tod av . 17 '"RT'?Tri'HM . V.^,-5 U m^ 7> C *'' * ' 18 ':n^-T-** *ft5f O *\b.f* V*tfkft O ^ Vft Stl^ ^riS b o 1 *1fp T1O ftr*c . T->4 i. T t V 4 ,, U s- ... U 19 20 T1ft tat - -3 r? 1 t 4->. t?a. 9 4? 1* 3 21 jrm1o <3o* ftft^ ftr[ T<S** ftftt\ ft^ W^1 ftftft *-r 22 23 M P O ' ".ft-; V -ir W . ... -v, ,-. *, c e 'V*SS- 24 T 'n 'V^v' r-,r >>/>rp^,a-* . ^ 25 ^Acma J^sportinfy (^ompanig (202) 820.4339 OS i 189 MR, RHODES: What I wanted to do now is pick up at the point where we had estimated using the Bayard model, the levels of risk calculated for the levels of ex posure that we had found. This starts at the beginning of page seven, and at the risk of being redundant and telling you something you already know, I wanted to quote a couple of items from section seven from the Consumer Product Safety Act, which relate to the conditions for a ban. First, the consumer product is being or will be distributed in commerce a n d each consumer product presents an unreasonable ris^ n* ininrw . Hn e r<r>rK:.nmo, product safety-'tai protect the public associated with such p r o d u c t s . And skip down, the Commission shall not promulgate a consumer product safety rule unless it finds and includes such finding in the ruling that the rule, including its effective date, is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such products. Promulgation of the rule is in the public interest in the case of a rule declaring a product a banned hazardous substance, that no feasible consumer product safety standard under this act would adequately protect the public from an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product. 1 Note particularly the repeated use of the words 2 unreasonable risk and the requirement to eliminate or reduce 3 unreasonable risk, not to make this risk zero. The act 4 makes it quite clear that the intent is not the total elimi nation of all risk, but of unreasonable risk,, and it dele 5 6 gates the Commission the complex and soul searching problem of deciding what is reasonable. 7 Comments of your own staff on the strength of 8 the evidence used to support the Joan is well summarized 9 10 in three short quotations from the record. First, from U 12 13 14 mesothelioma and lung cancer. And from a letter .July 1.1th, 15 16 *76, from Charles M. Jacobson, .to Francine Shacter, the 17 petitioners have addressed problems which arise from being 18 exposed to asbestos fibers occupationally and environ mentally. T' 19 20 However, they have not cited any concrete evidence 21 of a hazard, which is tied directly to the products for which they seek a ban. Merely cited the fact that these 22 products do contain asbestos fibers and they cited the 23 fact that asbestos fibers in such situations have been 24 linked to lung disease. 25 J kc m o pan if I'M 1 To quote your own staff, we questioned whether &Ih6 the evidence presented in the petition is sufficient to 3 show that these substances may cause substantial personal 4 injury and substantial illness during or as an approximate 8 result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling.o:r use. 7 To wratp that up, the instances of single cr short 8 term exposure, and this is from another briefing package, 9 to asbestos, cited in the petition, can be taken as 10 evidence as a possible1but not. necessarily .probable cause- II effect relation,. 12 ..I'';"'.However ia to statistical scrdtSist; " C v; 14 ' tween brief'jexpo sure.-fab; mM S :i!;: ''T ;] i" i " 'I n :'q u ii-il, IS of cancer caused by such, exposure. M Substantial evidence has been presented hare Vi that the commercial use data on which the petitioners base 18 their allegations is substantially higher, than that of all 19 other investigators, including OSHA compliance inspections. It has also been shown that consumer exposure to 20 low, and short dunation, and when averaged over a year,;' %t 22 or more, are not distinguishable from ambient background. We know of no evidence that such casual, low 23 exposure represents any hazards, so that the question that' 24 remains becomes one of a banning action based on the 28 feUnporlinej (Company (20 21 828-4889 ( 192 existence of a possible but not proven riskr-which, i f they exist at all, differs only slightly from aero. You are probably aware that this question of the regulation of carcinogens is a major issue today before virtually all of the government regulatory agencies* The F D A saccharin ban has received wide publicity. C S H A i s deeply involved in a proposal for generic regulation approach to carcinogens. Hearing on benzene are now in progress. , All of this activity does not help to find answers to our iramedii company. The problei "" ... one hit theory.,o t.s ,en8, but at least we're _ xer originates $i&i;'ai**,: f ItfKI S .................. ........... Jt., : b ; this theory holds that a single molecule of carcinogen is capable of causing cancer, particularly to susceptible persons If enough people are exposed, susceptible persons or small number of persons will contract cancer? if I; follows, therefore, that there is no absolutely safe or zero risk level for a carcinogen. And such a material -> should, depending on the statutory authority of the agency involved, be bannedseverely restrict, replaced, controlled to the limits of detection, and so forth. It is useful to examine this theory in the light of where there is general agreement and where responsible ; porting (Company opinions diverge. We believe that virtually all medical authorities would agree, first, the wide range of dcsages; for.a carcinogen where a dose response relationship existsi the larger the dose the greater percentage of those exposed will contract cancer, and vice versa. Second, in exposed populations, even substantial exposure levels, large proportions of those exposed, do not contract cancer. As the. dosage goes down, the average time to the appearance of, the tumor increases. Thi i principle was illustrated by the extrapolation formula I *ve underlined in::th;:;:'Et^mt3i:ii-!&>e.ciflcations discus ed. previously.-', Medicddidi's I liB ^ when'the dosage-.' is decked sed' i i a sitW'iljjl occurs over what happens -"it.si-afw-jy4! ..... ^ : .- tite*' is one school of thought, and this was embraced by most of the regulatory agencies', there is no completely safe level that exists. There are other' responsible authorities, who con tend a dosage level is reached when the body's defense mechanisms can effectively combat the altered cell, and cancerous growth does not occur. Supporters of this position cite the low level presence of certain metals and hormones that are e-sisential to the human body in trace amounts, that at higher levels are carcinogens. ^J}cm u Vnpurlin<fr (^orrtp a n ij (202) 828-4888 "1 194 Unfortunately, there is ;no way to demonstrate 1 the correctness of either view. There is a backcrouad 2 level of cancer in both man and experimental animals. 3 As the dosage in the corresponding number of cancers 4 decrease,.' 5 One point of view is that the occasional cancer 6 from the specific agent still occurs, and cannot be 7 distinguished from background; while the other is that 8 the added cases do not occur. 9 The existence of the background makes it impos-: 10 sible to determine which view is correct. These views 11 12 can be partially rea< |||:th previously. A low 18- fit |j the time to tumor i 14- years, for example, then exp life span of 70 years is for all practical purposes a 15 safe threshold exposure, at least- until life expectancy 16 approaches 150. years 17 .However since .there is.no provable scientific,', 18 answer to this- risk question, we are really left with a 19 20 socio-political, rather than a wholly -- than a scientific decision to consider.; The fundamental question, then, 21 is whether a total absence of risk approach to regulation 22 is appropriate, or more particularly will be acceptable 23 to society. 24 In our lives we undergo a succession of risks, 25 fQ eportiny C om pany aoUaaonoi 3 some knowingly and some unknowingly. The American people have always indicated a willingness to take riskis as evidenced by such things as widespread use of the auto mobile, smoking, alcohol, and proper diet, even the home as it is today* We believe that the zero risk concept begins to impact on jobs as a way of life of a substantial number of people will not be acceptable and will have to be modified to balance risks against benefits in a realls ticfash ion , This sort, of balance rather than regulation by hi iche ,;is a here ...; The . ' i''-' 3t' ih'ir -i'::t;'q-; III . - ; ad lib ...... ..............................t.i.l|.1`.jlitliefi,* t t e e j i - l.(i^3i!||!y ! ^' *"rL'~-/:r:h :1 1 Ijrly!!!: and tape joint compounds ia Substantial, and the risk is either zero or so small it cannot be distinguished from zero * And I will summarize, skipping the next couple of pages that I gave earlier, I would like to summarize the Union Carbide Corporation's position and expand on the approach presented in my letter of July 14th, 1977, which we believe is a reasonable alternative to the ban proposed by the Commission. First, products under consideration have been in widespread use for about 35 years , and we know ono evidence that any consumer has ever been harmed by that. ^A cm a ap o rtin g (C om pany 196 1 No unreasonable risk to the consumer has been demonstrated by the petitioners or by the staff. Consumer exposure second, consumer exposure data have been presented and show that the exposures are both low and brief, and when... averaged over a year are not distinguishable from the general background. 7 The risk from such exposure, if indeed any risk 8 does exist, is eJctremely small and based on the extrapolatiojj*A B of an unproven and unprovabla theory. 10 Third, we question whether it is appropriate, and IIP whether the act gives, the Commission the authority ta\ ban a product on th Of a hypothetical or tneore .ilij'li.liitli'lilPililjilll IS ' risk, or on the bas |||^ .."." .."`.'i"".... fei"t Wiil 14 Fourth, we do not agree that a reasonable product 15 safety standard cannot be promulgated to protect the 16 public adequately from any unreasonable risk and recommend 17. the following approach. 18 (&} limit the'amount!of asbestos that can be ;, '' 19 used in spackling and taping compounds to two percent by weight of the dry formulation. This is sufficient to gain the benefits of*the use of asbestos and serves to limit the potential for exposure. It differs from the one percent of totiil 24 formulation, including water suggested previously, in that 25 more closely defines the content of th final product in iQ ttp o r iin tf (H o n tp a n p (: ) ) 1 the form that is sanded. It is also a level where analysis is more 3 reasonable. 4 (B) require a warning label( including proper S work procedures, on all compounds under the jurisdiction 6. of the Commission whether packaged for direct consumer or 7 commercial use in consumer contact. This turns to good 8 advantage and widespread public awareness of a possible 9 potential hazards of asbestos to encourage that the product 10 be treated according to directions and not abused. 11 It also g i v e ^ t ^ a user', a choice 2 13: 14 15 CHAIRMAN Byi n GTON: Commissioner Kushnar 16 COMMISSIONER KHSHNER: Just one -comment. ...With 17 out commenting on the reasonableness of the entice set 18 of suggestions that you make, I .just would comment, on one 19 thing on the last page, page 14 20 You say that it is also a level that is two 21 percent, where 'analysis is more reasonable. .1 guess it*a. 22 a little bit more reasonable in the sense that y :>u111 23 see more asbestos, but the issue of determining whether 24 you have 1.9 percent or 2.1 percent is no easier 25 MR. RHODESt Well 198 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- than the decision that would need to be made in the event of a ban. But I really don't think that that helps the situation. just a comment. That's -K MR. RHODES: Okay, if you're going to ne looking at zero, or very close to zero, with all these amphibole chips in it, you're probably going to have to go to transmission electron microscopy. the standpoint of the analytical problems MR. RHODES: Well, an analysis at a twt. percent level, in general, is easier to do than an analysis at two-tenths of a percent, 200ths, 2000ths. COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Yes, but once again the precision of any of these techniques is not going to be good enough for ^you to be able to distinguish with the kind of certainty that you'd like the difference between 1.9 and 2.1. That's the only point I'm trying to make MR.. R H O D E S : W e l l , I w o u l d n ' t disagree with that. really 2Oil 20.4083 ) 199 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Of course, the Importance of knowing the difference between 1.5 and 2.1 is -~ MR. RHODESi Well, it's the difference between being in and out of compliance -- COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Well, I suspect MR,, RHODES: -- with some proposed standard. COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: I suspect you'd have to- do some of the things that OS HA is working on nov, where you have a co-efficient of variation, and you run the 10 analysis and it has a set precision and you decide whether , 11 y o u 're in and out of compliance, depending on the certain 12 of application -- 1 `i?i-'-iSh-il!k;'p'-h Vii1 fL: jjli 13: MR. RHGDI lirian't, those princi] 14 zero -- well, as you go down 15 towards zero, there's a tendency to the outer limits to 18 become much larger. 'l? Certainly a much larger percentage than the 18 number you're trying to get a reading on. 19 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: Well, I don't think we need 20 to -- ._ r` 21 MR. RHODES: No. 22 COMMISSIONER KUSHNER: -- pursue this much further 23 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Is one of your concerns 24 contamination, just generally? 25 MR. RHODES: As an asbestos supplier, we're not $%eporUng (Company <202)038-4830 ~\ J 200 1 really that concerned, but we felt that -- 2 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: That would be you::' last 3 following up with Commissioner Kushner in terms of per- 4 tentage, I mean, am I reading something into the 8 MR. RHODES : OUr feeling 6 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: -- between the lines when you 7 start talking about background asbestos, when you start 8 talking about all this type of thing, are you saying 9 indirectly or hinting at the possibility that there really, 10 isn't such a thing as an asbestos free compound of the 11 figure? 12 MR. RHODE *m comi ng rig! 13;: Itllllliiv'iii S S l f S S l H out and saying it.",, ydc, y o u can tife#''''`any'1'Co] 14: the market and feed it into Mount Sinai, and they don't 15 find some asbestos in it. And I think they'll be right, 18 it'll be there. 17 Now, you have to look long enough and hard 18 enough, it's everywhere, and the broader you make your 19 definition' of asbestos, the easier it is to find it. 20' I think your staff probably has got some thoughtson that, 21 having listened to the problem at the NBS. 22 There is a raging controversy on what is'-asbestos 23 and what's.a mineral fiber. It's gbeen going on for 24 years. Crysatile is not that hard to pin down. 25 O^eporiinej (Com pany ' J . 201 1 CHAIRMAN 3YINGT0N: Well, then you've also got a raging controversy in the medical profession a 3 to whether that really makes any difference and whether one's not just as bad as the other. MR. RHODES! Yes, you have, that's quit right*. And what dimensions are appropriate. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Just a couple of questions* 9 When you were explaining the desirable feature aid property 10 of asbestos in causing this -- I. forgot the words you used, 11 but this kind of ^ ^ a t h ^ ^ ^ ^ t ^ a 3 . 1 o w ( "d ^it to be spread m ioJOi:'-easily^ "and1' yii.;''- >." '" i f c..*....ll:i-t:"!' v .f <b,.;-f.c . it-* ^ i i l ;i t !i':Ji q i j M t f f l 13 MR. SHODR ;ii i ; j | | 14 COMMISSIONER PltTLE: Do you attribute that to 15 the physical, geometric properties, of the chemical 16 properties of that particular find? : 1? MR. RHODES! Basically it's the physical' proper-, 18 ties of the fiber combined with the tendency to flocculate,' 19' which is ~- 20 COMMISSIONER PITTLEi Is that particular to that 21. \ particular fiber or is that all fibers are that? 22 MR. RHODES; Generally common to fibrous materials 23 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: So you expect to get that 24 in the substitutes, that same kind of a property, and . 25 it would still be roughly the same -- C ep o rfin y 'C om pany ') 202 i MR. RHODES: It would be the same sort of phe 2 nomenon, yes. It .would vary in degree with a number of 3 particles and the size and dimensions and the surface 4 charge. 5 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: So you d o n 't think you 6 think then it's peculiar. It *s not peculiar to the surface a1 chemistry of the fiber as to why that particular fiber is better than other materials to get that; flocculation, 9 whatever you used. IO MR. RHODES: W h a t -- my judgement is 11 COMMISSI . : " : Would you spell that 12 for the record. I t UP 13, MR. HH , :.,*! I'1 'v'~V"f\:-V':;5';:V t !: 14 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Yes. :i 15 MR. RHODES t I d o n 't know whether I can spell it >! 16 or not. IT COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Okay, I just want to make 18 sure -- 19 MR. RHODES: My secretary does most of my spelling 20 for m e . 21 COMMISV SIONER PITTLE: All right. 22 MR. RHODES: I believe it's' f-l-o-c-c-'i-l-a-t- 23 i-o-n. 24 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I wanted to make sure 25 that's the right word you'd use in mixed company. ^ c m < ^eportincf dompartly <2132) S 1 M 8 B B J 203 i MR, RHODES: You have to watch your pronuncia 2 tion . 8 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: I just want to get from 4 you whether or not you consider that desirable fiber S because of its surface chemistry or because of 6 MR.RHODES: Primarily because of geomtetry. 7 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: It's geometry. 8 MR. RHODES: Yes. B COMMISSIONER PITTLE: When one of your competitors 10 was in not so long ago, in an open meeting here, I had 11 asked on the question of whether they had a company ... ......................................... . 12^ policy as to how th their own customers a 13 the hazards of what i 1 ! ttEmSfi e potential hazards ` - ". lP 14 or the hazards of using asbestos in consumer pis ducts, IS and they sent us back some answers as to how they deal M with their customers, the rather aggressive positions 17 they say they take if people didn't violate that. 18 Do you -- does your company have such a policy? 19 MR. RHODES: We have -- we started with labels 20 on our bags in 1968. We're late in the game. 21 > We provide information, we provide 22 COMMISSIONER PITTLE: My question -- 23 MR. RHODES: No, we-- well, upon request is 24 academic these days, and has been for the last four or 25 five years. You don't talk to anyone, who is a user or *\aportny C om pany .Cl 204 potential user of asbestos these days without seme discussion of the regulations, the health ...hazards, that, sort of thing. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: Has; ..your policy ever evolved into a document? M R . RHODES: We do not have a document in the formality that Johns-Manville does, but we have a whole series of things that we send the customers. We also do a lot of dust counting to help them see that their-- In answer to your question, we have a very active policy to potential customer you could tali'm what I shoutd watch out for when. I make products to sell. MR. RHODESs I presume it would, yes. COMMISSIONER PITTLEs I mean, if it's available 'it would be very helpful. MR. RHODES: Yes,we can. get something. COMMISSIONER PITTLE: One thing I've learned is that the experts, many of the experts in the field, are the people who manufacture it. And whatever advice you give is going to be very helpful to us. That's all. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Yes. The staff has a few Sporting Company / `""N 1 questions, 1 understand, at the moment, 2 MR. NAVEEN; I am Ron Naveen of the Office, of 3 General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency, 4 I refer to page 9 in Mr. Rhodes' statement where he says 5 that we know of no evidence that such casual, low ex 6 posure represents any hazards, that the question becomes 7 one of the banning actions based on the existence of a 8 possible but not proven risk, which if it exists at all 9 differs only slightly from zero. 10 From EPA's perspective, 1 would just like to 11 introduce into the l comments o n o u r laslie 12 regulations concerr 13 Since 1973 the agen provided that before such bui 14 ' ings are demolished, asbestos insulation on pipes and IS elsewhere in the building has to be wetted and removed, IB from the demolition takes place. 17 When these amendments, when these regulations 18 are -- were amended in *74 and '75, the demolition industry 19 raised a concern that they had had all along, that short 20 term exposure to asbestos were not risky. 21 \ EPA disagreed with that and has all along,, 22 specifically 40 Federal Register 48295 on October 14th, 23 1975, when it promulgated these amendments to that demolition- 24 standard it noted some new studies which indicated that 25 single short term exposure to asbestos are significant. ~j}cm e R eporting Ctom pany jr 2 0 6 1 These involved one day inhalation studies of rats which EPA 2 has used all along as evidence supporting its standard* 3 The only; point I'd wish to make is our agency 4 has been concerned all along with short term exposure, 5 and although our statutory authority, I think, daes differ 6 from yours, we have not hesitated to take action to ban 7 asbestos, so to speak, in this context. 8 I just want to make sure that the record reflects 9 that. 10 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: I appreciate it. 11 MB.. RHODES* I think I indicated that that was n. 13 14 IS our statutory authority 'lets us go after substances such 1 as asbestos, if they may.cause dr contribute to the health 17 hazards,, and it differs maybe a little bit. 18 But there, are studies ~~ 19 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: We do appreciate that and 20 the submission of that for the record too. Oka2 . Another 21 go ahead.. v 22 MR.RHODES: I would also suggest if you calculate 23 out on the rat's life span, what proportion of how 24 that compares to the proportion of the hnaan life, as 25 far as -- what I'm saying is that cne day exposure to jlcn f f e p o r t i n t j ( C o m p a n y <202) 30*4088 the ra t ,calculates out to considerably more than that in a human life span. I don't want to get into the medical hassle on this thing, I don't have a medical background, but I do present that as the way things get passed around. One day becomes hazardous because it was hazardous to the rat. CHAIRMAN 8YINGT0N: Okay, there was another question over here. Mr. Bigio. MR. BIGIO: Yes, I had a couple questions that arose primarily during the course of your talk this others, of the asbestos. Now, baciegro I'm sur a natural background if m Jdkbtte^v.;-:i'KV-' : -; n '1d1,;liltfey lit i' 'ifi'ivi'.* .'"iir'iiii'C' ' If.!:'t1'11'"''1;r you've looked into this for some Ij Iti 1 i .> 5. iff % II ,flii li:'! Si! time, and would you say that in part this background is not natural in the classic sense as we would use it, but has been -- is manmade or created by industrial, commercial users, of asbestos?' MR. RHODES: I will make a couple comments on that. First .of all I think there's a paper by Sid Speed and another author from Johns-Hanville who have looked into that quite extensively. t' And there "s no question that some of it has been around for thousands of years. I believe they found - it in the glaciers. ^Jctne feportiny Company leivil astUAHRA 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 2T laii: ;i 15 10 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 !'."-"SJ 208 As far as how fast i t 's expanding, how much it's growing MR,, BIGIO: No, I *m really talking about the levels] I mean, what you would call the background levels today as opposed to what it might have been say before the industrial age. MR. RHODES: I can't answer that quest .on. MR.BIGIO: I'm sure you can't answer that, but I was wondering if you had some feeling about what contri bution or widespread use of asbestos has made to the so called background level. .'And' of coi question is one way! start to :l|modi;a.te:'''C0roilary:' that,:Wi: background UJh.'lilifl; hr pii li1;: -, tii :<p. ; Do you - ' MR.RHODES: Well, I would have to make my original comment, I don't know what the growing background whether it's growing, .how much is being lost back into the soil. You know, I don't know the overall -- But I would comment, I would agree with one of the comments t^iat several people have made. The NIOSH 't optical procedure is a poor way to measure background. On the other hand, if you're trying to get a comparison with what's going on in the iaimediate vicinity, it really is the only way we have to do it without ; * 9 d i e m < ? e p o e t i n e f t r o m p a (sox) saaatass >\^'i) N ' / 209 1 going into a long, involved transmission electron micros-" copy approach* 2 So the reliability of the background numbers, 3 I got it somewhere. I looked up the NIOSH conclusion and 4 here's what -- their conclusion after looking at all the 5 6 data they had a year or so ago, was something less than .01 fibers, and they really didn't know specifically what 7 8 it was or how to convert that to -.anagrams per cub:.c meter. I can give you the reference on that, it's a NIOSH criteria 9 IO document of *76 or so on the l/10th fiber for asbe-itos . MR. BIGIOi The second question I had, mast n 12 of the discussion toda j| bean about the instantaneous 13 short term exposure. the few"J' ' ' 'V:` ;.or /the; day, - t h a t - j o b might be going oa. 14 15 Do you have any data, or have you looked into 16 at all the question of the recycling contamination, in 17 other words y o u 've put this asbestos fiber into the 18 house,; dwelling, school, whatever it may be. Presumably 19 i t 's going to be there a long time and can be stirred up 20 repeatedly. Do you have any data on that, as to what the 21 secondary exposures might be? 22 MR* RHODES: Well, on the first test that we 23 24 ran, we ran a day in the house before, and we rat a day afterward, and. we couldn't find -- within the precision 25 R a t i n g Com p an9 (202) 020-4388 MJr 1 t 3 4 5 8 *7 8 9 10 11 l;.' w. 14 15 18 1? 18 ir 20 21 22. 23 24 28 O 210 of the optical method, you couldn't find any difference MR. BIGIO: Did you make any attempt to stir up the dust or -- MR. RHODES: Well, we vacuumed before,, we vacuum cleaned after. MR. BIG10: Before and after -- MR. RHODES: We l l , we started -- MR. BIGIO: And you took measures during the vacuuming. MR. RHODES: Measured it right after the vacuum- mg, ; nature MR. BIGIO ____ ............... t Iti: i'Vi! found essentially lli'i'llwrj'! I li o o m ;something oi... ..... f i ! . . . , , . . I :-ir:i :-it M I only recorded one number1 because w just can't get a better number on the method, whether it's 005, plus or minus, 0 5 . We did the best we could with that. MR. BIGIO: Ckay, thank you, those were my two .questions. CHAIRMAN BYNGT0N: Okay. /Shacter. MS. SHACTER: Do you manufacture any compounds, patching compound that contains asbestos? MR. RHODES : N o . MS. SHACTER: Thank you, very much. ^4 cm o fceportiny C om pany 1 I j 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 11 12f' 13 1C : 15 16' IT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 211 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON : Right there. MR. BAYARD: My name is Steven Bayard,, from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Harry, I just wanted to point one thing out to you, maybe a couple of things. But on page 6 you spent a lot of time discussing the risk based on the model which we used, and the one phrase that I want to deal with is on page six, in the middle, you said that you're going to use this model, which is heavily biased towards predicting a high risk. Well, in fact the model is heavily biased at consumer levels tO;__ _____ id I want you to keep Kind * When I made a preaenta ' . ; ' ! .* .-' ' j - : - "' ' r' *- , 7 . .- " l r ' I 'r h ; - : y tion to the commissioners at one point, I compared the models that we used, that we used eventually, finally, with another model which was a single hit model that you've also discussed. And we showed that the single hit model would predict a risk which was 250 times higher than that model, that we did use.. '-V The Commission believes, at least I believe, that this model that we used.is more correct, in fact, as you point out later on there is a time to dosa, and time to tumor, based on dose. MR. RHODES: Yes. ^$cm e t^eportiny C om pany (202) 0 2 9 ^0 8 9 1 MR. BAYARD: That the lower dose will Indicate I 2 a higher time until tumor. But, still, at the low consumer 3 levels, and you've had some of your analysts, look at, this, 4 you'll find out that this model falls off very, very 5 rapidly in terms of the type of dose and the type o lif e response. i So that "~ 8 MR. RHODES: Falls right off the table at the 0 lowest -* IO MR. BAYARD: Very, very rapidly, and -- 11 MR. RHODES: ran out of table. 12 MR. BAYARD* That X `m saying is i t ': a u.lHll I Vl * w IS very, very conservati k>Jr f I"I5* ' |1 modal in predicting risk 1 <i't|in ai 4 because it's very, very low risk, at low consumer Levels. 15 I can't imagine a model that would predict a 18 lower risk. So that when we came up with a figure of 10 f deaths per million excess , we said even at this minimum 18 figure that's still pretty high. We just, didn't like, it. 19 That's all I*m pointing out to you. 20 MR. RHODES: Well, all I *m doing is using the 21 > model with numbers which we believe are more representative 22 of the consumer exposure, and illustrating what it 23 says 24 Now if you wish -- 25 CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: Okay. fepottiny C om pany 213 MR. RHODES: I don't want to argue the model, I'm not a statistician, I'm really not competent to. CHAIRMAN BY INGTON : ''***' thank you very much. All right, well we, want to MR. RHODES: Okay. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: For coming down. We want to thank all of the other people who have participated. Again, I remind everyone that interested persons, including those speaking today, may submit written comments and other related information to the Oifice of the Secretary, on b 'thei-i:ttos-,:4i:'ao.i:eApi ''---1*,"u' : J`1 ''i'v MR. RHOD ask a final question? Do m,"t :;thi";!1 owe you anything now, or have I answered the questions or -- COMMISSIONER PITTLE: There are- gome materials you said you would provide. MR. RHODES:. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BYINGTON: We can check our notes to see if there's (anything . Thank you very much, we stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m. the meeting was ad~ journed.) feporiiny Company (202) 628-4099 DOCKET OR FILE NO. CASE TITLE: C p o l k e ( W A v v a e u HEARING DATE: u lib j A sb e sto I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence herein are contained fully and accurately in the notes cause before 'iiWlIji t- taken by me at the hearing in the above tp;; *f the Consumer Product Safety Commission and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same. DATED : CW | tV 9 77 l/tiiLQba/Uj,. (Signature of RaporterliAA1, (Name of Reporter ~ typed) Acme Reporting Company 1411 K St.. N.W ,, Washington, B.C,, 20 30S