Document wDm6jZzjLjDN8Jo9q2Lp36pDo

NTRNAL CORRESPONDENCE " Tf<A L ... -~ IUU[< W*ttIUfc CrUrtt'UKAI IU Mr, W.C. Thurber Mining $ Metals 3Stb Floor New York OM aUfWKU.SM HMtCISCA, C*.*twaA Mill February 10, 1975 CUfifanfiin (M^t Regional Vice President Pear Fill: Last week I went to Sacramento and talked with Bob Monagan, president of California Manufacturers Association, concerning the matter of amendments to current asbestos legis lation. Monagan, incidentally, was the former speaker of the Assembly in the California legislature and, more recently, was Assistant Secretary of Transportation in the federal gov ernment. He is well known and well respected as a legislator and administrator. I explained the circumstances to Mr. Monagan, and when it came to a question of sponsorship of the bill propos-. ing amendments, be said he saw no'reason why the CMA shouldn't sponsor it rather than Union Carbide of the Asbestos Informa tion Association. .1 indicated to him that we would .be happy to provide an expert or experts to testify on this matter if it appeared'to be appropriate or advisable, and that all we would need would be sufficient advance notice. I also assured him that we were not seeking any special advantage through this proposed legislation, and that we would have the backing of other members of the asbestos industry so that we should not expect apy opposition from that area,, I will let you know as. soon as 1 have heard from him about the action being taken. Best regards, NJ Hfeam/dp ' .- . iufr*" * 'h'ECtivcp i F (- v--r ucc -CAi.ioruA NlASAfcf rA| It-, gt.-T. FES 13 UCC 010015 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT UC-4200 January 14, 1975 Mr. Norman J. Hearn Union Carbide Corporation On* California Straat San Francisco, Californio 94111 Dear Norm: Further to our conversations on the California Act relating to the spraying of asbestos, I have enclosed for your discussions with CMA a draft letter docu menting the technical position of the asbestos industry in this matter and pro posed amendments to the recently enacted law requesting additional exemptions based upon demonstrably law levels of airborne asbestos ebst. The information contained In this letter basically represents the position of member companies In the Asbestos Information AseoctoHo*v''Norfh America and, therefore, when this matter Is formally submitted to the California Legislature it might possibly be under the aegis of AIA. However, I would request that you advise me on the best way to handle this matter. You may wish to keep Mr. P. J. Gartly of Johns-Manville's San Francisco office apprised on this matter. He Is quite familiar with the background on initial legislation. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours. WCT/e* Enclosure W. C. Thurber bcc: Mr. R. H. Mereness Dr. H. B. Rhodes P. S. You may also wish to get in touch with Wilson M Flintcote, Los Angeles (213-583-3011). He was ' exemption on cold cut back asphalt added 1 UCC 010016 Draft - January 8, 1975 Gentlemen: Reference is made to California Senate Bill No. 2419 which was passed into law on September 26, 1974. This act, which is added to Chapter 10.3 commencing with Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, prohibits the spraying of any substance containing any amount of asbestos after July 1, 1976, in or upon any building or other structure during its construction, alteration or repair, with the exception of cold process cutback asphalt roof coatings. In ad dition to the present statutory exemption of cold cutback asphalt roof coating, we believe that there are other applications which should also be exempted from the statute. These proposed additional exemptions will in no way jeopardize the health of the citizens of California and will, at the same time, protect the employment of workers in the California asbestos and realted in dustries. ' The spraying of asbestos has received substantial publicity as a health hazard, primarily as the result of extensive use of sprayed-on asbestos as a fire proofing and insulation material. Industry has recognized that this practice which involved materials containing 10 to 80% asbestos and little or no permanent binder was hazardous and accordingly it has been discontinued. However, it is our firm belief that various materials containing small quantities of asbestos can be applied safely by spraying with no significant hazard either to the occupational worker or the general public and further that such spraying can be done in total compliance with Section 5208 of the General Industry Safety Orders for the State of California dealing with as bestos and the EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Those applications which we propose for exemption generally involve the spraying of paints and coatings where asbestos is a minor but important constituent added to give critical properties to the material. These coatings are applied wet as a slurry or liquid thus precluding the generation of airborne UCC 010017 (2) asbestos fibers in excess of established California and Federal regulations. Specifically, we would propose that the following additional exemptions be added to the existing statute: 1. Water-based interior texture sprays containing as sprayed a maximum of 3% by weight of chrysotile asbestos and a minimum of 2% by weight of water-soluble starch, soya protein, polyvinyl alcohol, or equivalent binder. 2. Latex-based interior and exterior coatings containing as sprayed a maxi mum of 5% by weight of chrysotile asbestos and a minimum of 8% by weight of vinyl, acrylic, vinyl-acrylic, or equivalent polymer binder. 3. Resin-based laminating and/or coating materials containing as sprayed a maximum of 12% by weight of chrysotile asbestos and a minimum of 6% by weight of polyester resin, alkyd resin, epoxy resin alone or in com bination with coal-tar, or an equivalent resin binder. 4. Asphaltic-based coatings containing as sprayed a maximum of 15% by weight of chrysotile asbestos and a minimum of 40% by weight of cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt binder. . Supporting data from a variety of representative industrial operations in each class are provided in Tables 1 - IV. These data indicate that in no instance does the airborne con centration of asbestos fiber exceed either the time-weighted average or peak concentrations specified in Section 5208 of the General Safety Orders even for the lower level standard to be invoked on July 1, 1976. Exhibit 1 attached provides additional information relevant to this proposal. This information was excerpted from the Federal Register (v. 38 No. 66, April 6, 1973, p. 8821 8822) and is part of the EPA background information included with the promulgated National UCC 010018 Emissfon Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. This material clearly indicates the undesir ability of and enforcement problems associated with an absolute ban on asbestos spraying. Adding of these exemptions to the present statute will assure the continuing economic viability of those segments of the mining, milling, and formulating industries in volved with asbestos while protecting the health of the workers and the general public. We should further note that this proposed amendment is fully supported by the Asbestos Information Association/North America. This organization consists of twenty-two member companies and associations which represent three-quarters of the asbestos mining, milling, manufacturing and importing industries of the United States, The AIA/NA has worked closely with State and Federal agencies to develop sound safety and health regulations for the asbestos and related industries. We would be pleased to further discuss this proposed amendment to Chapter 10.3 of the Health and Safety Code with you at any time. UCC 010019 TABIC I WATER-BASED SYSTEMS KITH MATER-SOIU01E BINDEBS Snp1e Delianation Coanercial Aral ieation I - INTERIOR TEXTURE SBRAYS 1Z Celling spray. Oat* 6/14/73 BZ * 1 Well spray. 3S 38 Celling spray. - 28 - 56 - 1ST IU11 spray. - 102 . .- K-3 8-2 A-2 1-25 Celling spray. Vail spray. 10/3/74 Z-49 2-54 Celling spray. 12/4/73 Under Jpro( ^ lute wt. t Asbestos Spray Cun Tvpe Operation Saa^le Time (Min.) Asbestos Airborne Concentration fFib*rs/cc >:. Soya protein. Starch. 2 Air supported 2 2 \ l 1 1 1 2 2 m Operator applying celling spray to condominium apts. Operator wiping walls after ceiling spray. . Operator applying wall spray to condODlntun apts. Operator carrying hose during wall spraying. Operator spraying celling of condominium. * .* Operator spraying walls of condominium. . 71 0.1 5B o.t 51 0.3. 0.8 34 0.1 14 0.5 15 0.8 15 0.6 21 1.6 12 1.1 1 Operator applying 19 0.5 ceiling spray to home. 1 Operator "wiping* walls 22 0.2 after celling spray. 2.5 Operator applying wall 24 0.07 spray to home. Full coverage. 2.5 Operator spraying glitter. 26 0.0 Immediately after ceiling Sprayed. 1 Operator applying ceiling 20 0.5 spray to condominium apts. 1 Operator "wiping" walls 24 0.1 after ceiling spray. Based on tout forculatlon is sprayed. UCC 010020 r I. Water-Based Systems with Water-Soluble Binders Binders: Type: Starch, polyvinyl alcohol, soya protein, or equivalent. Content: Typically 6-8% by weight of the dry formulation before mixing with water, 2-4% as sprayed. Main Uses: Interior wall and ceiling texture sprays. (Where texture is applied to walls it must be covered with at least one coat of a latex or oil-based paint.) Asbestos Content: Up to 3% by weight of the total formulation as sprayed. Supporting Data: Table I. UCC 010021 nau XL VAUK-fAHQ trtTlM VHH IATCK SUPERS fOHpU Oeil^itSw Convreia) Application I - trrcm ox coatuss *-4 Vail and Hoof Spray; J-l H c-a M Data Binder 10/4/7* n H Vinyl l.tt*. M Acrylic latex - Roof spray. 9/J0/7* Acrylic latex. nM Approx-^ lrut Vt. t Asbestos Spray Cun Type J.T Air supported. I.S " 0 0.7 Airless. 0.7 H ' Operation Sample Tl (Kin.) Airborne Asbestos Concentracion (f ibers/cc?Vl Operator spraying vertical we 11 panel. M IS 12 Operator spraying downward onto a targe roof. H 28 i* o.o 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 (I) md on total formulation <t sprayed. UCC 010022 II. Water-Based Systems with Latex Binders Binders: Type: Vinyl latex, acrylic latex, vinyl-acrylic latex, or equivalent. Content: Polymer content of 10-20? by weight as sprayed. Main Uses: Exterior coatings for buildings and mobil homes, including roofs. Asbestos Range: Up to 4? by weight of the total formulation as sprayed. Supporting Data: Table II. UCC 010023 Twit in RfSlN-BAKD STSltHS Sample ffesInflation Commercial Applicatlon Date 1 - POLYESTER RESIhS A. General Purpose laminating Resins 69 Boat manufacture. 12/7/72 Binder General purpose laminating resin. L-1J 10/31/74 9 H-IB 11-30 ' a 11-34 *-40 . t-ir *a 10/8/74 a a a . Approi-^l Imate . i Asbestos Spray Cun Tvpe Operation Sample Time Asbestos Alrtvrre Concentration (Fibers 'cc >5^ 0.S Air-supported Operator spraying chopper. molds with resin 6 chopped glass. 24 . 0.6 O.S a 0.4 0.5 a 0.5 a O.S 0.5 Operator spraying resin t chopped fiber glass. (Includes roll-out time.) Operator spraying resin A chopped fiber glass. Operator spraying resin i cnopped fiber glass. Operator spraying old with resin. (No glass-.) a a 16 5 4 55 S3 35 0.1 0.4 0.4 0 0.03 0.1 B. Chemical Resistant Resins J-21 Fiber-glass pipe manufacture. 4/13/74 H-26 Chemical resistant resin. 1.4 Airless. 1.4 a Operator adjacent to automatic spray machine coating 26` mandrels. Operator wiping mandrels. In area near spraying. 23 0.1 14 0.4 J-S Ship coating. 10/3/74 Chemical 0.7 Air-supported Roll-out nan. In 65 0.4 resistant wand. spraying area about resin chopped 1/4 of tlxe. fiber glass. 1-7 aa 0.7 a Operator spraying 41 0.4 ship hull In dry dock. H-28 aa 0.7 a a 23 0 (1> Based on total formulation as sprayed. UCC0J0024 TABIC HI (continued) BESlfl BASEO SYSTEMS Sample Desiccation Commercial AooUcatfcn II - tPOH RESINS A. rilled Epoxy K-S Ship coating. K-10 K-10 1-27 J-l Sate 10/2/74 Under Approx*^ Ivute ft. 1 Asbestos Spray Cun Type Cpcjyr prlnee High build epoxy. 1.5 Airless. 1.5 0 Air supported- 0, 0 Operation Operator spraying outside ( under a ship. Operator spraying side of ship from scaffold. Sample Tire twin.) Asbestos Airborne Concentrate TFIbers/cc ' 33 0.2 s 0.2 31 0.1 14 0.3 60 0.03 3. Epoxy Coal Tar 14-45 Coating dry dock. 10/1/74 K-I l-l Coating pipe * Interiors, III - AUTO KSI.1 PAINT H-7 Painting 10/6/74 Building exterior: K-J5 Epoxy Coal-tar, solvent. 1 1 1 Alkyd resin. . 12 12 Airless. Air-supported wand. Operator spraying side of dry dock from suspended platfom. Operator spraying side of dry dock from fixed scaffold. Operator spraying Interior of 3", l" and l2* dtaneter pipe. Airless gun. Operator spraying building exterior nil. 11 38 37 9 $ 0.2 0 0.1 a 0.06 0) Based on toul formulation as sprayed. UCC 010025 III. Resin-Based Systems Binders: Type: Polyester resins, alkyd resins, epoxy resin alone or in combination with coal tar or equivalent resin. Content: Range from ~ 62 in zinc-rich primer to^49% for heavily filled alkyd to 99+ for polyester laminating resins. Main Uses: Fiber glass reinforced boats, pipes, shower stalls, and simiTar articles. Maintenance coatings for steel and concrete. Intumescent and zinc-rich paint. Exterior alkyd paints. Asbestos Range: Up to 122 by weight of the total formulation as sprayed. Supporting Data: Table III. UCC 010026 TABU IV ASPHALTIC ANQ COAL-TAR 8ASC0 SYSTEMS Se*?!* Idcntiflcatlan H-42 H-31 2 2 3 3 - CofTi-erclal Appl icat I on Date Auto undercoatIng .10/74 (Sotnd deadener) ~ Fibrated Poof Coating, 9/26/74 Binder Cut back asphalt M M N o/n/7* H 9/26/7* 10/11/74 Emulsified asphalt fibreted roof coating. 12/18/74 a * " Steen refined, emulsified asphalt. a Approx-^ Irate Ut. i Asbestos IS Spray Cun Type Airless, 13 (i 8 Atr supported , 8 it 8 At rtess tu 3 Afr supported 3 Airless Operation Operator spraying on auto body. M Operator spraying against vertical steel surface. MM MH MM Operator spraying against verticil steel surface. aa Sairpte Tl n* (Min.) 7 6 - 43 23 A! rborne Asbestos Concentre!ion (Ffbers/cc> *l 0.2 l.S 0.02 O.lt 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.17 Bastd oo toul formulation as sprayed. UCC 010027 'IV. Asphaltic and Coal-Tar Based Systems Binders: Type: Cutback and emulsified asphalt and coal-tar materials or equivalent. Content: Typically^45%. . Main Uses: Automotive undercoating and sound deadener, roof coatings foundation coatings. Asbestos Content: Up to-15%. Supporting Data: Table IV. UCC 010028 txhiDit l Federal Register (v. 38 No. 66, April 6, 1973, p. 8821-8822) The "proposed standard would have prohibited the spraying of any material containing asbestos on any portion of .a building or structure, prohibited the spraying of any material containing as bestos in an area directly open to the atmosphere, and limited emissions from all other spraying of any material con taining asbestos to the amount which, would be emitted if specified air-cleaning equipment were used. Comments re ceived pointed out that this standard would: (1) Prohibit the use of materials containing only the trace amounts of asbestos which occur In numerous nat ural substances. (2) prohibit the use of materials to which very small quantities of asbestos are added In order to enhance their effectiveness, and (3) prohibit the use of materials in which the asbestos is strongly bound and which would not gen erate particulate asbestos emissions. The ' promulgated standard applies to those uses of spray-on asbestos materials which could generate major emissions of particulate asbestos material. For those spray-on materials used to Insulate or fireproof buildings, structures, pipes, and' conduits, the standard limits the asbestos content to no more than 1 percent. Ma terials currently used contain from 10to 80-percent asbestos. The intent of the 1-percent limit is to ban the use of ma terials which contain significant quanti ties of asbestos, but to allow the use of materials which would: (1) Contain trace amounts of asbestos which occur in numerous natural substances, and (2) Include very small quantities of asbestos dess than 1 percent) added to enhance the material's effectiveness. Although a standardized reference method has not been developed to quantitatively deter mine the content of asbestos in a ma terial, there are acceptable methods available, based on electron microscopy, which independent laboratories have de veloped. Determining the asbestos con tent of a material with these methods costs approximately S300. and the results are accurate within plus or .minus 50 ' percent: these limits on accuracy were taken Into account in establishing the 1-percent limitation. i UCC'610029 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION 270 PARK AVENUE. NEW VQRK. N Y. 10017 LAW DEPARTMENT January 14, 1975 W.C. Thurber Mining 6e Metals 38th floor Re: Mining & Metals California Act relating to the spraying of asbestos Enclosed is the proposed change to the California Health & Safety Code, which I promised to send to you today. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours. VJZ/smm Enel. UCC 010030 Mr. R. H. Mereness Executive Director Asbestos Information Association/NA 1660 L Street, N.W. ' Suite 610 y Washington, D.C. 20036 <"? 1' Dear Bob: I/' "i, i ' -I r - L As agreed at our recent meeting, the spraying data to serve as the basis for proposed amendments to the Marks Bill have been compiled into four broad categories and are attached. Bill Mortonson is planning to supplement his information with some data on emulsified asphalt-based materials and a spot has been left in Table IV to add this when you receive it. The JohnsManville account. Riverside Cement, has not provided their data and, at Ed Fenner's suggestion, we have not included their end use. It would not be difficult to add a category, "Water-Based Systems with Cement Binder" if they should come through with the information. The data have been incorporated into a proposed draft of a letter to Senator Marks put together by Bill Thurber. Four exemptions are requested that correspond to the four types of binder systems typified by the data. I did considerable thinking on the selection of the "right" words to define each system as broadly as possible and still have it acceptable and came to the conclusion that this depended largely on what the Senator wants. The definitions shown represent my opinion of definitions which are reasonable and can be defended effectively j_f this becomes necessary. In essence, in each case the binder has been described broadly but a minimum binder level is also specified. This is coupled with a maximum asbestos level. Individual end-use categorization has been avoided. Obviously, if discussions with Senator Marks indicate binder and asbestos level specifica tions are unnecessary, they can be dropped. Copies of this have been sent to Ed Fenner arid Bill Mortonson for their comments and suggestions. It would be appreciated if they would also look at the data carefully to pick up any oversights. When you get the EPA problem temporarily out of the way, let's discuss this further. Very truly yours, HBR:cjb Attachments CC: Messrs. E. M. Fenner W. H. Mortonson J. L. Myers w. C. Thurber/ H. B. Rhodes Area Manager Marketing & Technology RECEIVED .r -cfrc>u rv 19/4 UCC 010031