Document dDq99gOaxxEaDk6GEw7pYBEQ9

V/ 07/20/92 10:38 202 879 5200 Tat Timothy S. Hardy, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS Fro#i Morrison 1 Foarste* JUL 17 '92 Hi31 ttOFO - SACRAMENTO @002/005 7-14-52 12:280m p. 2 of S P.l JUL 3 1 SA.N TRANCtSCO LOS ANCH.ES orange county PALO ALIO WALNUT CREEK July 17,1992 Morrison & Foerster ATTORNEYS AT LAW liffl X STREET SUITE 1190 Sacramento, ca sum TELEPHONE 1916) W8-32M TtLEFACSWILE (916) *&3tX 1/7-4/ DENVER ^^ I NEW TORN ' VyASMNOTONPWCr^T/) . LONDON O' " W I HONO XONO " TOKYO --T" . K I ^ T DIRECT DIAL NTJM1ER (916) 448-2244 ^0 Via Facsimile: 202/487^411 Dr, Douglas Barwerm&n NEMA 2101 L Street, #300 Washington, D.C. 20037 Via Facsimile! 202/508-5225 Janies R. Roewer USWAG Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C, 20004-2605 Re: PCEa/Ennh J> RnltunaHtog Gentlemen: Enclosed please find an g$ filed copy of a brief Comment on Cal EPA's proposal to find that up to a .09 micrograras/day exposure to "PCBs" poses no significant risk under California's Prop. 65. As you can see, the Comment does not take on the issue of what the right number should be, but merely attacks the proposal's failure to distinguish among PCBs,reiterating NEMA's andTJS WAG'S position dating back to 1987. ^ Your comments and suggestions on thwetfrlier draiVpere appreciated. Yours very truly, Robin M. Shapiro RMS/ksc cc: Steve Rosenthal, Esq. (MoFo D.C.) (via fax) NEMA/USWAG PCBs Working Group (via fax) Enclosure uun For Distribution bv CM A CHEi^TAR DIVISION From rev v. .. V'aN i Ref. No. f'c /%, / c /l'/ } - (j Z> ~ / ' " Di:l, JUL^L PCB-ARCH-EXT0371371