Document pBXx11OMp0JoRwK3JD72ypd1w

FILE NAME: Union Carbide (UC) DATE: 1978 July 21 DOC#: UC095 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Draft of J-M Letter to Employees at King City Asbestos Plant & Briefing Package for our Field Reps 21 July 1978 Mr. Edmund M. Fenner Director, Environmental Services Johns-Manvilie Corporation Ken-Caryl Ranch Denver, CO 80217 Dear Ed: As you requested the following items are enclosed for your information: 1. Draft of letter to our employees at King City asbestos plant. 2. Briefing package for our field representatives (less attachments which you have.) We are not planning a general mailing to our customers but plan to respond to questions when they arise. I would be interested in receiving any comments you may have. You may do what you like with these with the only reservation that in the very unlikely event J-M would quote or reference UCC directly we would like your prior review. Regards, H. B. Rhodes, Ph.D. Technology Manager, Union Carbide Corp. UCC 003506 P l a n t Manager (and Division Medical Director to King City Employees On'April 25, 1978 Mr. Joseph Califano, Secretary of HEW, discussed possible bi'cith risks to workers who have been heavily exposed to asbestos in the past. At that time the Secretary announced a campaign by the Government to alert former . shipyard workers and others who may have been exposed in the past to excessive quantities of asbestos dust, that they may be at risk of developing asbestos-related disease and should see their doctors. We are writing you today because the initial phase of the governmental information campaign will start in late July and run for about four weeks. It features extensive radio and TV spot announcements plus an information card to be included in all Social Security checks sent out next month. Copies of the radio announcements are attached. ' w j u I ". As you can see, these spot announcements do not accurately reflect the spirit Mr. Califano's statements and give the impression that any exposure to asbestos institutes a serious health risk. We are particularly concerned that the .ampaiqn may cause you unnecessary and exaggerated fears for your own safety and : jr that of your families. ' Jt is well established in the medical literature that the risk of asbestos- .olsted disease is directly dependent on the severity of exposure. When the King City Plant was built'in 1953, there was an awareness of the need to nlrol exposure to asbestos dust. Substantial dust control equipment was included in '.he original plant and major additions of control equipment have been made over the '.us. We have, made every effort to comply with and, where, practicable, to keep exposures below the governmental requirements. Mechanical dust control is augmented by v* yuI attention to housekeeping and in some areas by the use of respirators. Your exposure has been controlled throughout the history of the plant at levels far UCC 003507 -2- below those referred to in the Califano announcement. A comprehensive medical surveillance program of the type advocated by the governmental campaign is not new at King City but has been in effect since 19__ . In addition, sputum cytology, a sophisticated "early warning1' method to detect precancerous conditions, was instituted at the plant last year to provide more protection. Any significant changes in your health, whether or not they are asbestos-related, should be detected. You will obviously be informed if such conditions are found. Finally, as you are all well aware, an education program on the combined hazards of smoking and asbestos was presented last year. Smoking on the plant property was banned on January first and we continue to urge all of you to quit entirely. . ~t In summary, asbestos exposures at King City have been controlled to increasingly lower levels. Smoking has recently been restricted. Medical surveillance has been in effect for the last _____years with no evidence of asbestos-related disease. We believe that you have been provided a safe place in which to work and every feffort will be made to keep it that way in the future. The problems you are hearing about on TV generally relate to conditions many years prior to the existence of the King-City Plant and to exposures in confined places with no attempts to control dust. They are not relevant to our plant and our operations. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. . O s UCC 003508 " , ' Office of Cancer Conwunications/ilablona) Lancer institute Public Awareness on Asbestos Exposure Radio Copy :60 June 21, 1978 FRIENDS SFX: Outdoor noises, children playing in distance WORKER 1: TEDDY: WORKER 3: TEDDY: ANNOUNCER: WORKER 1: TEDDY:' ANNOUNCER: WORKER 1: WORKER 3: TEDDY: LIVE ANNOUNCER: HE AMD MY FRIENDS, VIE GAVE OUR ALL FOR THE COUNTRY DURING WORLD WAR II. ' 33 YEARS LATER, IT TURNS OUT WE HAVEN'T STOPPED GIVING; YESTERDAY THE DOCTOR TOLD TEDDY HE'S SICK FROM ASBESTOS DUST. WE WERE ALL BREATHING IT DOWN AT THE SHIPYARDS. NOW IT-TURNS OUT ASBESTOS DUST CAN CAUSE LUNG DISEASE . . . ESPECIALLY IF YOU SMOKE. , MILLIONS OF WORKERS IN PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION, MIMING, SHIPBUILDING AND AUTO INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS DUST. SOMETIMES IT TAKES 30 YEARS OR MORE FOR ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASES LIKE LUNG CANCER TO SHOW. WHAT'S THE DOCTOR SAY, TEDDY? . . ' * THE DOCTOR TOLD ME ASBESTOS DUST CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS. Su ALL YOU GUYS BETTER GO SEE YOUR DOCTORS TOO. EVEN IF YOU FEEL GOOD, CHECK WITH YOUR DOCTOR, STOP SMOKING AND GET PROMPT MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR RESPIRATORY ILLNESS. I DUNNO TED, WHY SHOULD I GO LOOKING FOR TROUBLE? I FEEL GREAT TEDDY. ' SO DID I. " . (ASBESTOS ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER.) 4 u 0v3 UCC 003509  - i INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE t METALS DIVISION P. 0. BOX 573 -4B25 ROYAL AVE, NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK Oota July 18, 1978 Ofisimitins "Calidria" Asbestos Aniw*flr>ji lattar data subjact Governmental Information Campaign on the Hazards of Asbestos Exposure Sent to Caladria Field Representatives You are all aware of HEW Secretary Califano's April 26, 1978 announcement of a governmental information campaign on the hazards of asbestos and the adverse press that it generated. .The next step in this campaign is due to begin about mid-July and continue for a month. It consists mainly of highly emotional radio and TV spots that imply that anyone who has ever been exposed to asbestos is at risk and should immediately obtain a medical examination. This is obviously going to generate another wave of questions and some arbitrary, panic-based decisions. Unfortunately, about all we can do about it is give rational, objective answers to questions received and hope to ride out the storm without too much permanent damage. 'The attached Briefing Package is .intended to provide you with the information needed to field the questions. It may also be supplied to customers in response to inquiries on a selected basis. If you have any questions, please let me know. UBR/rrm Attachment */{7- /3. Harrison B. Rhodes UCC 003510 `BRIEFING PACKAGE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE HAZARDS OF ASBESTOS J1MMARY 1. Substantial numbers of workers, particularly those in shipyards, have, in the past been heavily exposed to-asbestos. These exposures generally occurred many years ago before the hazards v/ere realized and before regulations were enacted to minimize exposure to asbestos fibers. 2. There is a real and substantial health problem from these exposures which, due to the'20-30 years' lag time in the development of asbestos-related diseases, is just beginning to appear. 3. The risk of asbestos-related disease depends on the intensity of exposure and the potential for developing lung cancer is strongly enhanced by smoking. The severity of these historical exposures is not known and the estimate of 5-6 million potential deaths frequently cited is based on a series of assumptions of questionable scientific validity. We believe the number is grossly exaggerated but there is no good scientific basis to select or defend any other figure. 4. The government, after two years of heavy pressure by environmental groups and labor, has embarked on a campaign to inform physicians and workers about the hazards of asbestos exposure. The announcement of the campaign on April 26., 1978 by Secretary Califano stressed risks from past high exposures. The press coverage ignored this distinction and implied significant risk from any exposure. A copy of the announcement is included as Attachment.I.. ' ' ' . ' 5. A key portion of the information campaign starts in mid-Julyand continues for about a month. It features extensive use of highlyemotional radio and TV spot announcements which continue toimply that any exposure to asbestos puts a worker at sufficient risk to require an immediate medical examination. Attempts by industry to have HEW modify the approach to a more objective, factual basis were unsuccessful. C. The overall value of this campaign in the health protection of past workers is a very debatable issue. We believe, however, that there is no question that the manner in which the campaign is being presented is a calloused and irresponsible approach to a very sensitive human problem. Millions of past and present workers and their families who are not at any significant risk are being led to believe that they are likely to contract cancer. A *o o ^ o UCC 003511 -1- BACKGRQUNO On April '26, 1978 the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Joseph Califano, announced a governmental campaign to notify physicians, past workers, and others at risk of the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure. He made an objective presentation of the situation emphasizing past, extremely high exposures that had occurred before the "isk was recognized and before regulations were enacted. Shipyard exposure during World War II received particular attention. This announcement came after several years of pressure by organized labor and a variety of environmental activist groups. A summary of the steps leading to the announcement and the information program planned _ by the government are given in Attachment II;; The press coverage of this announcement largely ignored the "high exposures well in the past" concept and implied the significant excess risk occurred, in all exposures including today's regulated uses. A good response to the inaccurate coverage is provided in a statement prepared by the Johns-Manville Corporation given here as Attachment IIJ, EXTENT OF THE MEDICAL PROBLEM . There is extensive, undisputed evidence that heat insulation workers in the construction trade are at a very substantial excess risk of developing asbestosis and mesothelioma. Those who smoke also are at very high risk from lung cancer. ' Asbestos-containing insulation was also widely used during World War_ II in ship construction and repair. War-time conditions prevailed with principle emphasis on production. The risks from asbestos exposure were riot known and no attempt was made to control exposure. Typically it takes 20 to 30 years from initial exposure for asbestos-related diseases to appear. The critical time period for shipyard workers exposed during World War II is now at hand. Over the past several years substantial evidence has accumulated that very heavy exposures did occur in the shipyards. They are not only found in the insulation workers but also in other trades who were present in the confined spaces common on shipboard. So far the results in the United States have been mainly seen as asbestosis and in various lung changes in shipyard workers, although some excessive mesothelomias have been found at some locations. The number of people who may be affected is pure speculation at this time. cp It is generally agreed that the risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease depends directly on the intensity of exposure. The figures of 8-11 million workers exposed that are quoted apparently include all persons r_ who have ever worked in a shipyard plus those from construction, mining and^. milling of asbestos and those involved with automotive brakes and brake repair. The insulation trade health experience is then applied to this total to arrive at the "5-7 million people will die of asbestos-related disease" statements that frequently appear in the media. This assumes ^ that all of the millions of workers have been exposed at the intensity UCC 003512 of those in the insulation trade and will have the same health response. Thii i<; a arnss exaaaeration due to the assumptions used but there is really no scientific basis to speculate on a more correct estimate. The health risk arising from heavy asbestos exposures 20-30 years in the past is real and sub stantial ,but the extent is clearly undefined. . na SUD THE JULY INFORMATION CAMPAIGN In his April 26, 1978 announcement Mr. Joseph Califano, Secretary of HEW made the statement: * "Scientific studies have demonstrated, that asbestos creates an especially high risk of lung cancer and other serious lung disease for workers who have been heavily exposed to this toxic substance." (Emphasis addaij" He went on to point out that these exposures generally occurred many years ago, i.e, before the hazard was recognized and before strict governmental regulations were imposed. Particular emphasis was directed towards possible high exposure to shipyard workers during World War II and of the synergistic effect of smoking in increasing risk. Because workers,- ' especially those exposed during the war years, may just now be facing serious health effects, the Secretary announced a systematic- government campaign "...to notify physicians, past workers and others at risk of the hazards associated with asbestos exposure." A key portion of this campaign will start about mid-July and will run about four weeks. It features extensive radio and TV spot announcements backed up by an information card to be included with all Social Security checks sent out next month. The spots expound the following message: "Million of workers in parts of the construction, mining, shipbuilding and auto industries have been exposed to asbestos dust. Sometimes it takes 30 years or more for asbestos-related diseases like lung cancer to show.1* . "The doctor told me asbestos dust can be very dangerous. So all you guys better go see your doctors too." "Even if you feel good, check with your doctor, stop smoking, and get prompt medical treatment for respiratory illness." We^believe that these spot announcements do not accurately reflect the spirit of Secretary Califano's statements and present a grossly misleading picture of the asbestos health risk. They do not recognize that the degree of risk depends on the intensity of exposure and give the impression A yu 7 UCC 003513 -3- 'VI ' of greatly increased risk, regardless of exposure. The tremendous difference in health risk between past high exposures and today's closely regulated asbestos .use at low exposure levels is not made clear. The construction and auto industries are also implicated in a "broad brush" way although, in fact only limited segments of these industries show any evidence of significant * past exposures. . In addition to these technical inadequacies, an emotional approach is used which plays on human fears. The established fact that many people exposed to asbestos, even those that are extremely heavily exposed, suffer no apparent ill effects is not mentioned. Asbestos is also only one of a multitude of causes of pulmonary problems and many doctors at this time do not have the special training and skills needed to distinguish asbestos- related diseases from those that result from other causes. HEW is setting up courses of instruction for doctors to attempt to alleviate this problem, but it will be many months before its effects are evident. Consequently, a., wave of questionable diagnoses could result. We believe that this campaign is being presented in a calloused and irresponsible manner and will result in millions of people, who are not actually at risk, living the rest of their lives with the fear that any ' chest pain or shortness of breath they experience is the first sign of asbastosis or asbestos-induced lung cancer. Unfortunately, the attempts to have the campaign moderated to a more objective and less emotional approach were rejected by HEW. UCC 003514