Document aB6mQbdVZBLk2RO0wLgqadmqe

Inter Office Car Engineering Group / To: J. V. Durstino May 8, I960 ec: 0. F. Bolling T. -J. Feaieny Q. 0. Eeutgen Subject: Carcinogens Task Force Beport t' Ton requested comments on tbe subject Carcinogens Task Force Report, The general tone of the report is that strategies, work plans, programs, and timetables are in place in Engineering, to derelap substitutes for asbestos, chromium am* benzene. Although efforts hare been started in these areas and you note some cautions and uncertainties I think the risks and timing prob- / lems associated with these efforts should be more greatly emphasized to / company management. Another important point is that each of the 145 applications noted for asbestos, chromium, and benzene will require Engineering funding. The total will be sub stantial. Without additional funding or directed prioritization over other Engineering efforta this work cannot be done, particularly under the present economic and budgetary conditions. A final point ia that while the company's obligation, insofar as carcinogens, is recognized, it ia impsratIts that ve do not over-react. A measured reacts.: r-Jis provided by CEFL-10 an asboatoe. This was designed to provide substitute materials on on orderly basis, with the provision that engineering limitations might make some substitutions impractical (assuming ve would continue to meet existing regulatory controls). Tour strategy "...to proceed to eliminate these / three carcinogens by Job 1, 1985, . " appears to be too rigorous or inflexible/ A more extensive nd detailed analysis of the implication of the strategy is warranted. */ 8. K. Jh*ey 105552 006438 PRODUCED BY FORD SCF-FORD-1883