Document zo276Xwk8ozB6pbKgDG7o2K0z

i I ci bcc: B. R. Williams August 2, 1972 a/b Hr. J. B. Greer Verniculite Products, Zac. P. 0. Box 7327 Houston, Texas 77008 j Dear Jim: 1 Although Z*a replying to your July 24 letter, you undoubtedly have by nov had an opportunity to discus* the MK-3 changeover vlth Stan Pulfar. This subject was discussed In sons detail st the recent Plaster A Pireproofing Conenlttee meeting In Chicago, and Stan vlll be able to fill you in on nora details. First, 1st me begin by admitting that the exaet effective date of any EPA banning of asbeseos containing fireproofing material Is still a question. We, here, are living just about day to day and as additional lnforsatlon is learned, Z attonne to pass that on to you and others. Our attorneys and others`hove ` given us the opinion that ve nay have as additional 90 days after tho EPA regulations take effect. This is noe certain and, therefore, anticipating the vorat, ve have used mid to lets September as the cutoff date. Obviously, if this is not the cutoff data or if ve get an additional 90 days, vo vlll continue to make and aell MK-3 until ve no longer can. Z do believe ehac the planes should keep an inventory of such items aa asbestos and MK-3 bags in anticipation that Che cutoff datawill be sometime in September. Aa Z learn more, ve con obtain more bags, asbeseos, sec. Z regret the cry eery surrounding this effective data, but this is one of the problems in dealing vlth the Federal Government especially a relatively new agency like EPA. While it vas alvays e possibility that Grace might challenge in the courts the OA ruling, Z did Indicate to you that this decision vaa only a possibility and no real discussion had taken place regarding thee possibility. Indeed, the likelihood of that taking place is in my opinion sero. For that reason, and as Indicated above, ve are taking tha steps to change over production at soma date from MX-3 to the non-asbestos Mono-Kote. OlSt'J 3 Mr. J. Q. Creer -2- -August 2, 1972 Bob Erieson should hsv been In touch vitlp'ydu`regarding this changeover end will be heppy to work closely with your plant people. TheiEPAjregMXsClens have the effect of bannln* the spraying of flreprooflnsronterlala containing asbestos. Ve, therefore, could continue to sauIaeture (presu'ilnfTve comply vlth all other OSMA ud ?A In plant.procedures) and.sell HR-3. Any applicator, however, so spraying MK-3 ones the EPA regulations are in effect would risk the penalties Ad.possible Imp rIsoment as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. Our attorneys have explained to as that ve can. therefore, fulfill our end-of^th* contract .by supplying *3i-3, but obviously, the subcontractor ennoe.-use the material. `For this reason,-Ad because of the action on the .part of the Federal Government; all contracts.are voided. The nonasbestos^MK cost.oore' to oil;# aad ve-believe that it Is proper for us to ask. md..pbtalnajiddl'tlonal moneys.* St a has soue opinions about this that he expressed at the Committee meeting and has ptobebly peased on 1 Aa.ot .eha opinlon.tchaf tVi'iCFA-haa hot "anticipated-the. kinds of problems that ;wt*l-l:Occur ss li^result`of 'contracts'rAd liJa.divin3J)een awarded r prior to the-ba end tSe resulting controversies retarding suppler**"sub contractor. general contractor and owner-in trying to recover the coat for the-nora axpAslve'material. For' Chat-reason, ve are hopeful thatthe ETA will.rule that all contracts awarded prior, to eha effective date will be honored and.the spraying'of Chet particular building with HR-3 eia remain. I vent to cnphaalze that this Is my opinion. Ad I have no basis la which to make thee Judgment. Otherwise, ve will be faced nationally; with a lot of tshappy people to put It mildly. -tn obtain ?:,r r^ ~` ~ -- Sorry you were not able Co attend1 the Chicago meeting. , .. .' . < Best personal regards Sincerely, TPF/Jaj ccj S. C. Fuller Thomas P. Felt - Manager Flra Protection Products