Document a4wO8q88Z1gxgv1k48RNE2aVe

WSMO. . PLAINTIFFS^] EXHIKT- MINERALS. P80M2NTS & METALS DIVISION 2800 AVEftS AVENUE. tOS ANOEtES. CAitfORNU 90022 218 2*8-031 October 8. 1984 Dear Customer: In May of this year, we sent a letter to our California talc customers advising them that OSHA had scheduled a public hearing in Washington. D. C. to hear testimony relating to proposed changes in CSKA's asbestos regulations, including their defini tion of asbestos. Of major concern to talc producers and talc users is the in clusion of tremolite in the current OSHA definition of asbestos. At these hearings, OSHA was to hear testimony on their proposed change in the definition of ''asbestos" vhieh would eliminate nonasbestiform tremolite from their current asbestosregulations. As you know, under current OSHA rules, tTemolite cleavage fragments which fall within the dimensions specified By OSHA for fibers aTe regulated under the asbestos rules. Thus, even though the tremolite in California talc is not a true mineral fiber and is not asbestos, OSHA continues to regulate it under the asbestos regulations. Other government agencies, such as the Consumer Products Safety Commission the Mine Safety, and Health Administration, the Environmental Protect ion Administration, and the Department of Education, have long made the distinction between fibrous and non-fibrous tremolite, OSHA itself has stated that they are the only federal govtresent. agency that regulates non-asbestiform tremolite as asbestos and they anti cipate that they will adopt the .proposed new definition* Because of the large nun&eT of proposed rule changes, the hearing extended from dune 19 to duly 12. The proposal to change the de finition of asbestos was heard on duly S. Testimony in favor of the proposal was ably presented By representatives from the JL T. Vanderbilt Company and their consulting microscopist. Other in terested parties, including Pfizer, submitted written testimony favoring the proposal. Testimony presented by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NlsSH) included a recommendation for a new definition for asbestos that was virtually identical to tWFone RECEIVED 0CT121984 conn 47 013 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT *c WV-12207 proposed by OSHA As in all such hearings, the public is permitted to offer rebuttal testimony. In the natter of the tremolite issue, such rebuttal was minimal. Altogether, there were 1? major issues covered is these lengthly hearings, many of which were .far noTe controversial than the tremolite question. Unfortunately, OSHA's process of deliberation and rule making will take tine and we do not expect to see final rules pub lished until mid-1585. * Pfizer representatives who attended the hearings on the treaolite issue are confident that it will be favorably resolved and that noaasbestifroa treaolite will no longer be specifically regulated under the OSHA asbestos standard. The current situation within OSHA and other federal and state agencies has resulted in inequitalBe and unfair administration and enforemens of the asbestos regulations. Such inconsistent actions have created severe problems for producers and users alike. In some cases, "fiber free" talc or other alternative materials have been pressed into service even though quality may suffer and costs increase. We are looking forward to a logical and reasonable resolution to this problem and will do all we can to speed the process. In the meantime, we will continue to produce and sell otsr high quality California talc products and will endeavor to comply with the maze of regulations tnat affect all of us. We will issue information to our customers on these matters whenever significant events occur. Very truly yours, David C. Hansen Director of Sales Minerals 4? 017