Document zo0xGVEvZdBVNn4N8RnwXo4O0

FILE NAME: Asarco (ASAR) DATE: 1979 Nov 12 DOC#: ASAR003 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Minutes of A/C Pipe Producers Committee Meeting with Notes Regarding AIA, OSHA & EPA s CEMENT ASBESTOS PRODUCTS COMPANY Birmingham, Alabama November 14, 1979 . TO: FROM: Mr. W. T. Whitley 'Mr. I. L. Taylor SUBJECT: Meeting of A/C Pipe Producers Executive Committee November 12, 1979 Joint Meeting of ACPPA and AIA Executive Committees November 13, 1979 . Washington, D.C. The purpose of both meetings was to chart potential courses for the two associations and member companies in responding to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) published by the . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Consumer_Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The principal input at the joint meeting was made by Mr. Ed Warren of the firm of Kirkland and ElXis (K & E) who was accompanied by two associates, Tim Hardy and Art Samson. . At the Pipe Producers Committee Meeting, it was decided that the ipe .Producers Association would cooperate to the fullest- extent with the efforts of AIA through K & E, and that the ACPPA would^ request that Joe Jackson be invited to sit on any advisory committee created by AIA for liaison with the K & E counsel. When this suggestion was first made to the AIA Executive Committee, there was no immediate response; but finally, Tom Dougherty, AIA President, said that he thought Joe should be on call and that AIA would certainly avail themselves of his valuable input when areas involving his expertise were encountered. Andy Boush for ACPPA expressed the thought that our Association felt that, in addition to offering Joe's input, we needed him as a window for our group so that we could be aware of all initiations mounted by AIA. Mr. Dougherty polled his group, and it was agreed that Mr. Jackson would be invited to the portion of all future AIA Executive Committee meetings at which Kirkland and Ellis would be reporting on regulatory matters. The AIA Executive Committee meets.monthly. Mr. W. T. Whitley November 14, 1979 ^ ACPPA and AIA Meetings Page Two Ed Warren, in reporting for K 6 E, advised that he had set up a meeting that afternoon with attorneys xnsxde of EPA to request an extension of approximately 120 days on tha t * allowed for reply to the advance notice. Mr. Warren emphasized that his recommendation is that we request " tensions at e v . ^ Juncture in the rule-making process. He says thxs wxll accompxxs two things. First, it will give us the opportunity to fxnd out as much L possible about the data base of EPA whxch Prompted them to publish the ANPRM. At the same txme, he s^sPec^ , our industry data base is incomplete and stale, and he * will require a great deal of time for gatnerxng and collation Ox oir own material? He proposes that at the present txme, we do not begin gathering data but rather assemble the team that wxll work with his company in analyzing EPA data and_generating our own fpria 1 He visualizes this team as consxstxng of experts xn . The Medical Area (Hans Weil has accepted), Risk Analysis (tee t e a d L g l uteority in this area is on the faculty at Louisiana i,prh and appears favorably disposed to make hxs servxces avaxlabl ), Technical tehe best authorities work for the companies but `if- was felt that a competent man outsxde the xndustry couxa oe found), aid Economic Impact (this would be someone from a firm^ ineh as A D L ; however, Mr. Warren xndxcated that A. * n o f b f h t e ^ i t e t choice'of firms, annroximatelv three- to four-months that xt would take to g this^team in place. He said that in the meantime although he had not been retained to give advice to indivxdual companxes, i / h e were asked, he would suggest that no member company begxn collecting nor submitting data to EPA at this poxnt xn txme. rrhP rurrent strateqy as outlined by Mr. Warren is to maintain a dialogue with EPA and CPSC, assure the agencxes that we are gox g to cooperate fully with them, but provxde no xnformatxon at thxs point in U m c Mr. warren, said that the Substance^Contro^ Act (TSCA) provides, under its Sectxon 8, powers , . production I f i n f e c t i o n , but K ^ / e e l s that the scop < * t h i s production could be greatly lxmxted by Ixtxgatxon. Due to . Freedom of Information Act, EPA wxll not be able to assure conlx dentiality of much of the informatxon whxch they are currently G u e s t i n g . Warren also pointed out that Sectxon 11 of TSCA , provides for subpoena powers, but he thinks it highly un i e Y that this authority would be used in thxs rule-makxng process wanted Ss to be aware that it could happen. Warren xndxcated that at the meeting with EPA yesterday, he was goxng to request all information in the hands of EPA which had prompted them to initiate this ANPRM; and if it was not voluntarxly gxven, he would use the Freedom of Information Act in order to ^taxn the information. He said only after we know everythxng that EPA has should we begin seriously to develop our own data. 'Mr. W. T. Whitley November 14, 1979 ACPPA and AIA Meetings Page Three Some of the personal observations from the meeting were that AIA is a little concerned that the force of Joe Jackson's personality might heavily bear on the decision process as the work with K & E moves forward, and that there is some fear that the credit for the work might slip away from AIA. I also had the feeling that Mr. Warren recognized the obvious contribution that Joe Jackson and John Welch could make to him and his staff in-this exercise and that he intends to use the two of them extensively. In the joint meeting, it was expressed that there was apprehension of the possibility that OSKA might be giving consideration to issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) of zero emission in the occupational setting. Ed Warren is aware of this and . ` indicated that he would ask the EPA attorneys if there were any such plans in the works; and if he did not receive a satisfactory answer, he would use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain OSHA memoranda concerning considerations of an ETS. This is first priority. The second priority is response to the EPA notice of intent to issue a water quality criteria document under the authority of the Clean Water Act. The comment period expires December 31, and Johns-Manville and Certain-Teed have already filed individual briefs in criticism of the proposed document. The primary ^ objection they have cited is the ambiguity of the language which^ says that a broad interpretation could even mean sludge lagoons in a plant's closed system. The point was made that, even though the water quality criteria does not become an enforceable document per se, it sets standards which would be recommended ' to the states as bases for enforceable state laws. Also at the joint meeting, members were furnished with a draft of industry position paper: ''Recommending a Work Practice Standard for Regulation of Asbestos in the Construction Industry." This white paper was commissioned and funded b ACPPA and will be presented to EPA Advisory Committee for Clean Air Standards which is shared by Fred Audoboni. The purpose of promulgating _ recommended work practices was to short circuit EPA from requiring medical surveillance and record-keeping of workers in the construction industry. Ed Warren indicated he had read an earlier draft of the. paper; and although he thought the idea was excellent, particularly coming from our industry, he was opposed to presenting the document in the present form. He took exception to the tone of the language, saying that it was didactic rather than cogent, and he felt the document highly repetitive. He did say that he felt that the necessary research to write a persuasive position paper on the subject had been assembled, and that his firm would like to be involved in the final editing. It was agreed that he should be not only involved but should have final approval privilege before the document was submitted. Mr. W . T . Whitley November 14, 1979 ACPPA and AIA Meetings Page Four The last item discussed was a decision by the A/C Pipe Producers Executive Committee that a letter be sent to CPSC requesting that A/C pipe be dropped from any further consideration by that agency on the grounds that: 1) A/C pipe is not a consumer product, and 2) A/C pipe has already been nominated for rule making by the EPA and the action by CPSC would be a duplication of the program, initiated by EPA. K & E counsel and the AIA Committee agreed that this request was reasonable and should be made. Another personal observation.is that Mr. Ed Warren of Kirkland^ and Ellis appears to be extremely competent and knowledgeable in matters of government regulations. He is currently representing the benzene industry, and earlier this year represented^the Society for the Plastics Industry in defense of acrylanitrile copolymers used to fabricate beverage containers. I think that AIA has very wisely selected the best law firm, in Washington to represent the industry. 'TuJL-- ILT/gj CEMENT ASBESTOS PRODUCTS COMPANY Birmingham, Alabama November 15, 1979 TO: Mr. Vi. T. Whitley FROM: Mr- I. L. Taylor SUBJECT: Follow Up to Memo of November.14 Regarding ANPRM on Asbestos Products I talked to Joe Jackson who had received a report from Tim Hardy of k & E reference the meeting between Kirkland and Ellis and EPA on November 13. Mr. Hardy reported that EPA did not seem disposed to grant any extension time for submittal^under_the ANP^l unless specific assurances were given that identifiable information would be forthcoming during the extension period. Apparently, EP feels that industry will contribute very little during the. advance notice period and indicated that they, EPA, would probably have to use the Section Eight.provision of TSCA to obtain the information from industry that they are seeking. In response to a request to reveal the data bank on which they are proceeding, the LPA spokesman replied that most of the information was published but a list ot the documents would be made available to K & E. EPA further indicated that they are developing dose response curves to be used in their life cycle approach to regulation of importation of asbestos and that the first two products they expect to consider for rule making are paper and friction materials. Since the time for response under the advance notice seems like it will expire as planned on December 15 , I think that there are several questions that we need to answer : 1. Are we going to respond during the advance notice time period? ' > 2. Are we going to do it as a company, or do we prefer to do it through the A/C Pipe Producers Association, or through AIA, or both? 3. If we are going to respond, what information do we feel would be. helpful for us to develop for EPA at this point in time? We may well want to target information which we clearly do not wish to pass along because of confidentiality. 4. Should Capco file a brief by the end of December commenting on the proposed water quality criteria which was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 1979? Mr. W. T. Whitley November 15, 1979 Page Two Since the cutoff time for submittal on the advance notice appears to remain at.December 15, we need timely answers to these questions. ILT./gj Copy to: Messrs. L. E. Miller a J. L. Woods