Document vVvd75eGdDGG0O1ONYXz9JVR8

iiJC 149-2 I INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE MINING AND METALS DIVISION To (Name) Division Location Messrs. R. E. Byrne, < G. L. Dickson J. L. Myers W. C. Thurber Copy to File 4625 ROYAL AVE., P. 0. BOX 579, NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14302 Date July 18, 1975 Originating Dept. - TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT "Calidria" Asbestos Answering letter date Subject Amchem Products, Inc. Attached is a draft of a response to an asbestos-health inquiry from Amchem Products, Inc. I talked to Mr. Ellis by phone along the lines described in the draft and he seemed quite satisfied. He pushed very hard, however, to get it in writing. Your comments and suggestions are requested. 7^'/3 H. B. Rhodes HBR:pcr Enel. BC: JLM WCT Is it necessary to clear this with our Law Department? If so, it would be appreciated if WCT would send it in to RFXF. Thanks. HBR:pcr UCC 016362 7/-/$./?, H. B. Rhodes A 1 9434 .A. IMI CHE !M! PRODUCTS, Ino. AMBLER, PENNA. 19002 PLKASC RCPLY TO P. O. BOX BBSS PHILADELPHIA. PA. IBIS! June 30, 1975 Union Carbide Corp. Metals Division P. 0. Box 579 . 4625 Royal Avenue Niagara Falls, New York 14302 Gentlemen: - We would appreciate having comments on the potential health hazard of "Calidria" asbestos when incorporated as a thickener in adhesives and coatings. We believe the presence of minor quantities of Calidria in a compounded product would not present a hazard to the user of that product, but we would appreciate having your reasoning and opinion on this question. Yours very truly, AMCHEM PRODUCTS INC. Foster Division WPE:nf1 W. P. Ellis, Director of Research UCC-CAUDRtA A i 949b Chemicals for Industry and Agriculture UCC 016363 ******* DRAFT ******* Mr. W. P. Ellis Director of Research Amchem Products, Inc. Foster Division . _ P. 0. Box 9695 Philadelphia, PA 19131 ' .- "_ ....... .......... . Dear Mr. Ellis: This is in response to your letter of June 30 and confirms our telephone conversation of July 16, 1975. As we discussed, asbestos has received a great deal of adverse publicity in the last few years and has been the subject of a number of government regulations. A balanced picture of the current situation published by the Asbestos Information Association is attach- / ed for your general information. ir One important reason for much of the asbestos-health controversy is the long time periods, typically 20-50 years, for asbestos related diseases to develop. This, combined with the fact that low levels of asbestos fibers occur naturally in the environment, makes it difficult to define accurately a dose-response curve and say with absolute certainty what exposure levels are safe. About four years ago, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reviewed the available asbestos data in great detail and recommend ed a maximum occupational time-weighed average exposure level of 2 fibers/cc. longer than 5y. This recommendation was incorporated into the OSHA regulations and, after a delay to allow asbestos users to achieve compliance, goes into % effect on July 1, 1976. UCC 016364 ' A 1 9496 DRAFT cont. -2 At about the same time, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the problem more broadly in terms of potential environmental hazard and concluded that the general public is at present in no danger from the small amounts of asbestos fibers now in the air and water. Due to the uncertainties in the dose-response curve, however, they did recommend that regulations be promulgated to keep the levels from increasing. . Your particular inquiry was directed to possible hazards to the user from small quantities of "Calidria" asbestos incorporated as a thickener in /' adhesives and coatings. For this end use, the asbestos would be wetted with a substantial excess of long-lasting binder. Under these circumstances, it-tis reasonable to expect that any fiber release would be so slow that fiber concentration changes would be indistinguishable from the natural background. There are two possible exceptions to this that should be noted, spraying and sanding. If your products are applied by spraying, it is possible to generate fiber levels above background but still within the 2 fibers limit during the actual spraying operation. The same is true when asbestos contain ed in a resin binder is sanded or abraded. We hope that this will provide the information that you need. If there are any further questions, please let us know. > Very truly yours, H. B. Rhodes Technology Manager HBRtpcr typed 7/18/75 UCC 016365 A 1 94Q7 ORAL PRESENTATION BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD AUGUST 30, 1979 TITLE 8: GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS (Asbestos) Held in San Diego, California on August 30, 1979 John L. Myers Union Carbide Corporation Metals Division Niaaara Falls, NY 14302 A20o ' o 1/ UCC 016366 Response to Mr. O'Hara's Request for Comments on 5208(g)(1)(A), p. 4 of 11 - My name is John Myers and I am employed by Union Carbide Corporation as Marketing Manager of its "Calidria" asbestos products. I have been involved with our asbes tos business for 13 years. We produce about 30,000 tons per year of asbestos fiber from a mine and mill located in the King City area of California. We insti tuted air monitoring and medical surveillance programs with the startup of the plant in 1963 and have invested the necessary funds to remain in compliance with existing regulations. We produce and market raw asbestos fibers for industrial use only. We do not manufacture any finished asbestos-containing products. Our interest in your proposal to change the "action level" for monitoring and medical examinations is because these changes can have a massive impact on the users of asbestoscontaining products with little or no gain in worker protection. The question of the appropriate "action level" to trigger monitoring and also medical examinations was discussed at the Standards Board hearing on April 26, 1979. At that time, there was general agreement among labor, industry and some state governmental representatives that an action level of 0.5 fibers/cc was reasonable, practical and enforceable. This level was based on considerations of worker protection, ability to measure, and an efficient allocation of pro fessional resources. This level was adopted unanimously by the Board. Soon after the Hearing and before the Board meeting to finally approve the new action level, Federal 0SHA advised Mr. Vial by letter that the Board's action was - I am quoting - "unacceptable -- your asbestos exposure language will need to be identical to Federal 0SHA" - close of quote. He quoted 0SHA Program Direc tive #300-16 as the basis for his statement. California has a state plan .aoproved "as effective as" the Federal regulation. There has been no change in the Federal Asbestos regulations which would require a change in the California regulations in accordance with section 18 of the Occupational Safety & Health Act. Following is a summary of an opinion from a Union Carbide attorney who specializes in 0SHA matters. The complete text of his opinion is available to the Board. (Copy given to Hearing Recorder.) He makes these points: . 1. Program Directive #300-16 is an administrative interpretation only and has no regulatory or statutory authority. 2. California is under no statutory requirement to modify their regulations. 3. Failure to conform to such an Administrative interpretation does not provide the "substantial evidence" required under Section 18(g) of the OSH Act to sustain a withdrawal of certification. 4. The authority delegated to the Regional Administrator under paragraph 1953.4 (a)(2) relates to inconsistent interpretations of existino standards. It does not require standards which have . been certified to be modified to conform identically. 200 :3 UCC 016367 2- - To summarize, California is not required to change their present regulations to conform to the Federal wording. The choice is up to the Standards Board. There are two basic reasons why the Board should retain the present action level of 1 fiber/cc. 1. One is the very large burden on resources to attempt to comply with, and enforce, an action level of 0.1 fiber/cc. 2. The second is the inability to measure the airborne concentration at this very low level. Under your current standard, it is fairly easy for a knowledgeable employer or state compliance officer to determine if monitoring is required. If monitoring is required at a suspected level of 0.1 fiber/cc, virtually every place of employ- . ment where asbestos is present in any form or product must be monitored. Brake repair shops provide a specific example of the scope of the problem. Air borne fibers can be released when brake linings are changed and reworked. But it has been shown that airborne asbestos concentrations can be controlled by training workers and using proper work practices. There are over 20,000 brake repair shops in California, the majority of which are service stations. If the proposed action level is adopted, all of these shops would be required to monitor or they could be subject to a citation and/or fine for non-compliance. A conservative estimate for a simple initial monitoring is $400. This times 20,000 shops is $8,000,000, added to the operating expense of the brake repair industry in California. It would take an average of 2 man-days for trained per sonnel to conduct each test. Using 200 working days in a year, it would take the full-time activity of 200 trained technicians-to monitor the brake shops in a one-year period. The people and equipment are probably not available - and what would be learned from this massive program? That brake shop TWA's are generally above zero and below 1 f/cc - this is already well established. I have discussed brake shops because they are a well-defined entity, already registered in the state of California. A more difficult problem exists in the construction industry because of many more work locations, most of them constantly changing. We have not attempted to determine the cost or number of technicians which would be required for initial monitoring at a 0.1 f/cc action level in the construction industry, but they would obviously be very large. Changing the initial monitoring action level to 0.1 would increase operating costs and require a massive mis-use of limited technical resources. And would worker protection be improved? We think little, if any at all. The second reason not to change to a 0.1 action level regards the technical pro blems involved with measuring this concentration. With your permission I would like to have Dr. Rhodes discuss this aspect. Response to Mr. O'Hara's Request for Comments on 5208 (j)(l), p. 8 of 11 - John Myers - Union Carbide Corporation. We can continue to use brake shops as an example of the potential impact of the proposed change in action level for medical surveillance. A filling station is likely to have 2 or 3 mechanics ^ 2 0 0 '! 4. UCC 016368 -3- who handle brake repairs along with other general work. Larger specialty shops may have a dozen or more people who repair brakes with some frequency, and other workers could be in the general vicinity of the work. Let's assume there are only two mechanics in each of the 20,000 registered brake shops, or a total of 40,000 persons requiring pre-employment and annual medical examinations under the proposed regulations. Dr. Clark Cooper, who supervises the joint union-employer medical surveillance program for the Western States Conference of the Asbestos Workers Union, has provided an estimate of $60-75 per man for a minimum physical examination to satisfy 0SHA requirements. This is on a large-scale contract basis conducted by well qualified personnel. Examinations of an individual or small groups, as would probably be the case for brake repair shops, would increase the costs to at least $100 each. These costs do not include time spent away from the job to obtain the examination. At a very conservative $50 each, for only 2 employees per shop, the medical examinations could cost $2,000,000 annual ly. Using the higher unit cost and more workers per shop would increase the total cost by millions of dollars. The construction industry is faced with the additional complications of a much larger and very transient workforce and many more workplaces, most of which change several times per year. Although this is clearly a potential cost burden, the fundamental question is not the cost, but what is really accomplished in terms of worker protection. Dr. Cooper will speak to this issue. We believe that the present California level of one fiber/cc is reasonable and meets the California objective of a standard which is enforceable and makes a positive contribution to worker health. We have been asked why a standard which has been administered by Federal QSHA in 26 states for seven years would now be a problem if adopted in California. The answer is very simple: although the Standard has been in effect for seven years there has been essentially no Federal enforcement in the asbestos product user areas that would be most seriously impacted by the 0.1 action level. Since California's industrial health activities are much more comprehensive, the compli ance and enforcement problems described earlier would soon become clearly evident. The statement on Federal enforcement is based on a summary of Federal asbestos, inspections from October 1976 to January of 1979. In this 30 month period (that's 2-1/2 years), there were 17 inspections of the estimated 125,000 brake shops in the states where primary enforcement is by Federal 0SHA. Seventeen of 125,000 and 16 of these were the result of complaints. This means that one inspection may have been conducted to determine if the shop exceeded 0.1 fibers/cc - in 2-1/2 years. Over 60" of the asbestos used in the U.S. is in some type of construction product and the U.S. Dept, of Commerce has estimated there are 430,000 construction work places and 3-1/2 million workers (this is based on a 1972 census). There were only 173 asbestos-related 0SHA inspections of this type work location in the same 2-1/2 year period. It is clear that only a minute fraction of workplaces which may emit over 0.1 f/cc has been inspected. I want to emphasize that this information is not a criticism of Federal activities or the allocation of resources which . Congress has made available to them. They have many statutory priorities and other committments. We simply want to document the fact that, regardless of the reason, there has been essentially no enforcement of the 0.1 action level for monitoring and medical surveillance. . ^ <- 0 0 1 5 UCC 016369 -4- Since this provision has not been enforced on a national basis there is absolutely no evidence that it is reasonable or workable. Why should California "follow the leader" and adopt a provision that in all probability will not be complied with or enforced. In addition to practical and enforceable asbestos standards, the state of California has supplemented their activities with the Carcinogenic Substances Control Act, a registration provision, more restrictive repeat monitoring, a Carcinogens Control Unit, an active consultation program, and an experimental, voluntary labor-industry joint education program. We believe that the California overall program is easily "as effective as" and probably "more effective than" the Federal activities. In conclusion let me state emphatically that Union Carbide is not opposed to mon itoring and medical surveillance. We strongly support the need for both of these activities where significant exposures occur - or where they have occurred in the past. We have strongly supported California's limited asbestos education program and would support a more active program. We believe training and educa tion are vitally important for improved worker protection and a safe working environment. We urge you to retain your present standards and not adopt changes that would make parts of them impractical to comply with and enforce. Remember that it is your decision - you have no legal or statutory obligation to adopt the Federal OSHA language in your regulations. 4200 Q UCC 016370 JC 149-2 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE METALS DIVISION To (Name) Division Location (See Attached List) Copy to Messrs. R. E. Byrne, Jr. . T. P. Norris H. B. Rhodes P.O.BOX 579 - 4625 ROYAL AVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14302 Date Originating Dept. July 14, 1977 "Calidria" Asbestos Marketing Answering letter date SuPject Union Carbide and the State of California It has been suggested that we summarize our activities in the State of California, especially with regard to regulatory activities which concern asbestos. For the past several years, we have spent an increasing amount of time and money to keep abreast of and, as necessary, influence legislation involving asbestos. Dr. Rhodes has handled and coordinated most of these efforts with customers, other asbestos companies, State legislators, various State departments, etc. Some of the work has been for the Asbestos Information Association, for which Harry is chairman of the technical subcommittee, but most of it has been as representatives of Union Carbide Corporation. In recent months our activity has been in response to enactment of California's Occupational Carcinogens Control Act. One part of this Act provides for a massive education program. Union Carbide's "stature" and rapport with State personnel have been developed so effectively by prior activities that we were asked to participate heavily in the education program, even though our expertise is limited to asbestos. We have cooperated fully to perpetuate the status of Union Carbide and to maintain the opportunity to participate in any future legislation which may involve asbestos. At the State's request, we "opened" our plant doors to their public relations personnel to develop a visual presentation of how we provide a safe working environment. They took about 200 pictures, which we converted into a 15-minute slide presentation. This has been presented at three State educational programs and will be presented at a fourth and final session in San Diego on July 19th (see Attachment I). We originally declined an invitation to participate in a panel discussion on job-related cancer since we could not contribute information on any of the carcinogens except asbestos. However, it became apparent after the Los Angeles and San Jose sessions that most of the interest was about asbestos and asbestos industry representation was desirable. I accepted the State's invitation to be on the panel in Sacramento (see Attachment II) and prepared an opening statement (see Attachment III). I actively participated in the panel/audience discussion and also answered questions at a wrap-up session after the formal program was completed. I will be on both panels again in San Diego but Ed Fenner of JohnsManville will probably take our place in the afternoon construction workshop. ' UCC 016371 *20037 C. R. Allenbach, et al -2- July 14, 1977 We have agreed to participate in additional asbestos education programs which the State may schedule in August or September. The State will send a letter to about 100,000 potential asbestos users in August. We assisted in drafting the letter and will review the final draft next week. Attachment IV contains excerpts from program-opening speeches by the Director of the State Department of Health. This will give you an idea of how the State appreciates our efforts and the status of Union Carbide's name in California. One purpose of this letter is to let you know who we know and the contacts which have been established in California. If we can be of any assistance to other Division or Corporate personnel, be it "introductions" or whatever, do not hesitate to contact Harry Rhodes or me. /cjb Attachments UCC 016372 A2003OJ r> U PREVENTING ON-THE-JOB CANCER A ONE DAY PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC Monday, June 13, 1977 Saturday, June 18,1977 T U_S Monday, June 27, 1977 " Los Angeles Convention Center 1201 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California Speakers Mario Obledo, Secretary Health and Welfare Agency Don Vial, Director State Department of Industrial Relations Fred L. Ottoboni, PhD, Head Occupational Cancer Control Unit State Department of Health Student Union Building San Jose State University San Jose, California Speakers State Senator Arlen Gregorio Chairperson, Senate Health and Welfare Committee Fred L. Ottoboni, PhD, Head Occupational Cancer Control Unit State Department of Health Room 4203 State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Speakers Jerome A. Lackner, MD, Director State Department of Health Fred L. Ottoboni, PhD, Head Occupational Cancer Control Unit State Department of Health OBJECTIVE: To inform employers, and the public about the cancer-causing substances regulated by Cal/OSHA, the reporting requirements mandated by the Occupational Carcinogens Control Act, compliance with safety orders relating to cancer-causing substances and how to obtain free consultation. SPONSORED BY: Occupational Cancer Control Unit, State Department of Health IN COOPERATION WITH: Division of Industrial Safety, State Department of Industrial Relations TOPICS: Morning Session * The Occupational Carcinogens Control Act: California's Approach to Job Related Cancer * The Cost of Prevention Versus Non-Prevention * Labor, Management and Medicine Look at Job Related Cancer * Employer Reporting: How to Do It - Afternoon Session * What You Can Do - Workshops Asbestos in Construction and Demolition Work Asbestos in Brake Work 14 Cancer-Causing Chemicals Laboratory Problems and Controls * What Others Are Doing: Industry, Labor and Health Individual consultation for employers and employees will be available during the entire program. Additional speakers include representatives from government, business, unions and health agencies. IMPORTANT NOTE: There is no registration fee for these programs; however, registration is limited to 500. All attendees will be asked to sign in, if they wish to be placed on our mailing list. A separate table will be maintained for employers who wish to report under the provisions of the Occupational Carcinogens Control Act. Registration will be from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. The program starts at 9:30 a.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Occupational Cancer Control Unit State Department of Health 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 94704 (415) 843-7900, Ext. 306 1449 West Temple Street OR Los Angeles, CA 90026 (213) 6204290 Toll Free Information after June 1: 800-772-3303 Or contact the nearest district office of the State Division of Industrial Safety . A20033 UCC 016373 Monday, June 27, 1977 State Capitol Building, Sacramento Agenda 8:30 - 9: 30 A.M. Program Registration 9:30 A.M. Welcome and Statement of Program Objectives Larry Martz, State Department of Health 9:35 A.M. The Medical Advantages of Preventing On-The-Job Cancer Jerome A. Lackner, M.D., Director State Department of Health 9:50 A.M. The Occupational Carcinogens Control Act: "California's Approach to Job-Related Cancer" - Fred Ottoboni, Ph.D., Head Occupational Cancer Control Unit, State Department of Health 10:15 A.M. Labor, Management and Medicine Look at Job-Related Cancer Pauline Bondonno, Moderator, State Department of Health Rex Cook, Secretary-Treasurer Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Local 1-5 Jerome A. Lackner, M.D., State Department of Health John Myers, Marketing Manager, Metals Division Union Carbide Corporation . Eddie Story, Business Agent and Secretary-Treasurer Asbestos Workers Local No. 16 11:00 A.M. Enforcement, Penalties and Compliance Art Carter, Chief, Division of Industrial Safety State Department of Industrial Relations 11:20 A.M. Employer Reporting: "How To Do It" Larry Andrus, Senior Engineer, Consulting Staff State Division of Industrial Safety 11:45 A.M. 1:15 P.M. Lunch What You Can Do - Workshops ^ _ . - ------- 1) Asbestos in Construction, Demolition and Industry Alan Tarbell, Engineer Doug Krause, Industrial Hygienist State Department of Health John Myers, Union Carbide Corporation 2) Asbestos in Brake Work A2004C Ed Grellert and Russ Umbraco, Tri^ic f"t*al om 4 et"C UCC 016374 A-TTACtf/He~7U 7~ -77/- . STATEMENT FOR A PANEL AT CALIFORNIA'S PROGRAM FOR "PREVENTING ON-THE-JOB CANCER" (JLM, 6/23/77) Thank you (Moderator) - We are very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this education program to prevent on-the-job cancer. Cancer, or any other sickness or injury, cannot be prevented by talking about it; but communicating the facts and required safety precautions to employers and employees is a necessary first step. Union Carbide has operated an asbestos ore processing plant in California since 1963. The plant is located near King City in the Salinas Valley, about 150 miles south of San Francisco. We beneficate the ore from a chrysotile asbestos deposit located about 30 miles east of King City in the Diablo Mountains. We market asbestos fiber for industrial applicationswe do not make any products from asbestos. Safety is no accident and a safe working environment is the result of many factors. Two of the most important are knowing the hazard and knowing how to protect from it. At our asbestos plant we have provided medical sur veillance for employees and conducted air monitoring since the plant doors opened in 1963. We have noted no changes in lung function or any other abnorm alities which could be found by chest X-rays or pulmonary function analysis. Next month our King City medical surveillance program will be expanded to include sputum cytology. This examination is intended to detect cell structure changes which may lead to cancer development. Early detection would trigger appropriate action to prevent or minimize the chances for a cancer to become malignant. Although we have used sputum cytology for many years at our uranium mining operations, it has not been started here because of the limited availability of competent laboratory facilities! We have contracted with Dr. Saccamono, A20041 UCC 016375 2- - the developer of the method, to examine our employees and he is in our plant this week to explain the program.to all employees. He will make four presenta tions to cover all shifts and the program will be videotaped for future reference. We are proud of our asbestos plant in King City and have prepared a slide pre sentation which is intended to depict how you can work safely with asbestos. This presentation will be shown at 1:30 this afternoon in Workshop No. 1. As a precautionary measure for customers, we have labelled our asbestos product bags as a potential dust hazard since June 1968, four years before the first Federal OSHA standards were promulgated to require this, air monitoring, medical surveillance and other safety precautions. We have provided free air f monitoring for customers for several years and counsel them on the asbestos hazard, compliance requirements and related information. Asbestos is an important raw material in many products and applica tions which give us a safer and healthier living and working environment. It cannot and should not be regulated out of existence based on unfounded or misconstrued medical and scientific evidence. A hazard does exist, but it has been blown out of proportion by a few individuals and groups. This has resulted in some regulatory action across the country that is unnecessary and an unfair burden to industry. ' We support the California Asbestos Standard, Section 5208 of the ' General Industry Safety Orders; however, we have found that our customers do have some compliance problems, especially with waste disposal and the new registration requirement. We will work with the Standards Board to alleviate these problems without jeopardizing the intent of the regulations. Enforcement of Section 5208 should prevent asbestos-related disease and we hope that the Federal government and other states will follow California's lead in adopting effective legislation which is also practical and enforceable. JLMrdal UCC 016376 A 2004 2 Ol Ol (./.IMOkWIA UIA11H AMU WIIIAKr AOINCT epartment of health 4 74* r stuiu 1C. MINIO. `CAtnORNIA V58U idmumd c. mown jr.. c.......... ' Speech of Dr. Jerome A. Lackner Director State Health Department Sacramento Monday, June 27, 1977 CsrRFT^. ffyM "THE MEDICAL ADVANTAGES OF PREVENTING JOB-RELATED CANCER" I visn to take this opportunity to thank`those union representatives and business leaders vho helped in this process. In the business community I particularly vjch to thank Johns-Manville, B. F. Goodrich and Union Carbide because these firms have helped us in various facets of the program development, as have representatives of the California Manufacturers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. I am gratified by a recent comment by Mr. John flyers of the metals division of Union Carbide, vho is here today to participate in today's program. Mr. layers said of the California program, vith particular regard to asbestos: "We are very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in California's educational program to prevent on-the-job cancer. Although ve feel that the asbestos hazard has been blcrvn out of proportion by many individuals and groups, ve recognize that a potential hazard does exist in some applications and that appropriate controls must be effected. The State of California has done a very commendable job in this regard and ve hope that the federal government and other states vill follov their lead in adopting rcgulatoiy controls that are effective, yet also reasonable, practical and enforceable." - I must say that John and I disagree on the magnitude of the asbestos hazard and that I do not feel that it has been blcrvn out of proportion. A2004 3 But I believe the fact that his industry and our government are vorking together to protect vorkers against asbestos dust hazards is far more significant than our differing perceptions of just hov small or great the hazard is. Let me odd one further note in record to Union Carbide. As o former smoker and tobacco addict, now reformed, I admire the company's action I in banning smoking at the King City asbestos plant, south of Salinas in I Monterey County. Wo know that smoking increases the risks of lung maladies UCC 016377 . among those people who work with asbestos and while I am alwavs elad to DISTRIBUTION C. R. Allenbach A. L. Bayes T. W. Carmody J. F. Collins J. Crane J. F. Emerson/0. J. Malacarne F. C. Kroft E. A. Piersall J. W. Rawlings E. W. Shortridge W. C. Thurber A20044 UCC 016378 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE METALS DIVISION To (Name) Division Location Mr. J. L. Myers UCC - Metals Niagara Falls, New York Copy to Messrs. T. W. Carmody (w/attach.) T. D. Finnigan " R. F. X. Fusaro/J.J. Sibley " R. W. Rebholz M J. W. Whittlesey " p. o. box 579-4625 royal ave., Niagara falls, new york u: Date November 8, 1979 Originating Dept. "Calidria" Asbestos Answering letter date Subject AIA/NA Response to EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Attached is the AIA/NA response to the above-noted ANPRM. This response was largely developed by the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, who have been retained by the AIA/NA as special counsel for regulatory matters. As you are all aware, Union Carbide has never supplied product for the kind of friable, generally sprayed, products of primary concern in this rulemaking. Substantial amounts of our asbestos have, however, been used as a minor ingredient in certain types of mineral wool board used in ceilings and in sprayed, non-friable, decorative coatings. . Our principal concern in the present rulemaking is the introduction of the prin ciple of retroactive industry guilt by association that has been proposed by the EDF petition. This principle has implications far beyond asbestos to any product which is judged to be toxic and could, therefore, if established . have a massive impact on Union Carbide. In my opinion-, Kirkland and Ellis have done a very capable job in addressing this issue but there are some points regarding the tone and organization of the presentation that make me a little uneasy. Although it is too late to change this response, K&E will be very much involved over the next two months preparing responses to the EPA and CPSC ANPRM's regarding new general asbestos regulations. Any comments you feel worth making on the present document would be appreciated. /rmm Attachment Harrison B. Rhodes UCC 016379  ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION maawsaaNssswstt g*g 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square 4. Suite 509 Arlington. Virginia 22202 (703) 979-1150 5 November 1979 Document Control Officer Attn: Joni T. Repasch Office of Toxic Substances, TS-793_ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. Street, S.W. . Washington, D.C. 20460 RECHiVED Vv' . 1379 NiUACCCA-RCA^rL'iI1D'RItA\y' . R: Document Control Number- 61004 Gentlemen: . ' * By notice in the Federal Register of September 20, comments were invited on EPA's Advance Notice of Proposal Rulemakings (ANPRM), "Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings." This Association has reviewed the ANPRM and desires to submit the enclosed comments for the record. ' The Asbestos Information Association/North America (AIA/NA) is an incorporated, non-profit organization of 55 firms in the United States and Canada engaged in the mining/milling or sale of asbestos fiber and in the manufacture or processing of asbestos containing products. A pamphlet describing the work of AIA/NA is enclosed. ; Sincerely, Executive Director Enclosure bcc: Executive Committee Standards Advisory Committee UCC 016380 A20 <- i . o U-