Document dnNbYK2vmRgpj5qkbX5oLjan5

FILE NAME: Rogers Corporation (ROG) DATE: 1979 Jan 25 DOC#: ROG049 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Rogers Letter to CT Dept of Environmental Protection Stating Opposition to Proposed Asbestos Standards ROGERS CORPORATION Rogers. Conneciiuil 06263 (203) 774-9606 TWX 710-448-0047 Jan u a ry 25, 1979 M r. Leonard Brackman, Director A ir Compliance Unit State of Connecticut D epartm ent of Environm ental Protection State Office Building Hartford, CT 06115 Dear Mr. Bruckman: R ogers C orporation, headquartered in R ogers, Connecticut, w ishes to submit its com m ents relevant to the proposed asbesto s am bient and em issions standards, dated D ecem ber 11, 1978. A ttached is a docum ent detailing our concerns over this proposal. We axe opposed to these proposed stan d ard s on the b asis that: A) The b ase line data used to ju stify this p ro p o s a l, n a m e ly , the "hig h '1 rate of m esotheliom a incidence in Connecticut and the relationship to increased asbestos consumption is not correlateable. B) The assu m p tio n that a s b e s to s is the sole cause of m e so th e lio m a is incorrect. C) T h ese p ro p o sa ls ignore the sig n ifican t contribution to am b ien t a i r asbestos levels from natural sources. D) T he p r o p o s a l of an a m b ie n t s t a n d a r d b a s e d on w e ig h t / u n i t volum e i assum es a direct relationship between fiber count and weight. T his is not the co n sen su s of the scien tific com m unity. >> E) The w e ig h t / u n i t volu m e s ta n d a r d to ta lly ig n o re s the m e d i c a ll y p ro v e n c o n c ep t of a f i b e r - s i z e r e la tio n s h ip to r e s p i r a t o r y c a r c in - w ogenisis. Rogers-Gough 00298 M r. Leonard Bxuckman Page 2 J a n u a r y 25, 1V79 F) These proposals are far m ore stringent than eith er the existing o r p ro p o s e d ERA and OSHA s t a n d a r d s . G) The D E P co n d u cted s tu d y of a m b ie n t a i r a s b e s t o s le v e ls within C onnecticut ex hibits a n u m b er of " e r r o r s of o m issio n " which cloud the conclusions drawn. H) The e m is s io n s ta n d a rd of 24 g r a m s / d a y / p r e m i s e is not b ase d on technological capability. In fact, in our opinion, it is not ac h ie v able with current state-of-the-art technology. I) These p ro p o s a ls lack any co n sid eratio n of actual benefit v e rsu s economic impact. These are the m ore im portant points we elaborate upon in our com m ents. We would hope that o ur concerns are objectively reviewed and that our opinions a r e evaluated s e rio u s ly . We strongly urge re c o n s id e ra tio n of the original proposals in light of our com m ents. Respectfully submitted, mb Enclosures M anager of Environm ental Engineering Rogers Corporation i Rogers-Gough 00299