Environmental Protection A.gency--Region II. and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [joint Lead Agencies action: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

Clearly the expectation ofCongress and the executive branch is that stiff criminal penalties against corporate officers will act as a majordeterrent to others and lead to more voluntary compliance with the country's environ mental laws.

i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON DIVISION - ; L IV E J WANDA GAIL COX, Executrix of the Estate of Michael Wayne Cox, UtU 1 3 1988 I Plaintiff, v.

DISCUSSION Oxygen free radical attack on DNA may lead to strand breakage and/or formation of specific modified bases such as thymine glycol, hydroxymethyluracil or, as shown by Kasai and Nishimura,'O formation of 8-hydroxyguanosine.

against the thermophilic actinomyces in all patients, but positive against Aspergillus glaucus in six.

UTMUSMSMOt E.

W1--pr'XTTiT1 11ml TTi Agency i**e**mAr rely on significant work of the Food and Drug Ad ministration (FDA) to assess potential risks of PCB in the diet and, following its lead, adopt an RMCL of at least 6.5 micrograms (&AS) per liter.

Transient pleural #ffuel on* haws been reported, -ha piaural ebnoraallties ean be sufftelaatly extensive to obscure th* lung fields asd oay, la rare cases, lead to lrpalraent of luac fwetloa.

Clearly the expectation ofCongress and the executive branch is that stiff criminal penalties against corporate officers will act as a majordeterrent to others and lead to more voluntary compliance with the country's environ mental laws.

Employees interviewed included the plant superintendent, shift supervisor, maintenance supervisor, maintenance lead and laboratory supervisor.

For example, since at least one case was exposed to each of nearly 200 chemicals, chance alone should lead to identification of about 10 chemicals whose proportion is significantly different between cases and controls.

If you are operating with a variation that leads to more than three shifts or to fractional shifts (such as when departments of the firm operate different number of shifts), please use the remarks to explain briefly your operations.

Pleural effusions may be transient but some are chronic and may recur* No pre scription is proposed for these, bui, under the new proposals, if they cause sufficient bilateral thickening of the pleura an application to a pneumoconiosis medical panel would lead to certification.

Victor Vice President and General Manager of Products Forde Divi- sion Dana Corporation located in Lisle Illinois Don McDowell Pro's Technical Director Richard Russell Vice , Engineering of McCord and Marc Fleischaker our attorney These gentlemen will help answer any questions which the panel has following my prepared remarks Pro Incorporated McCord Gasket Corporation sub- sidiary of sion Dana Cell Corporation and Victor Products Divi- Corporation are major manufacturers of gaskets used in exhaust systems and turbochargers cylinder heads intake manifolds and engine and gear cases We have brought along some examples of these products for the Panel's review Historically the qualities requisite to a satisfactory gas- -- inertness - ket product heat resistance chemical and ser- been best achieved by the use of vice life longevitya have materials containing asbestos Gaskets while clearly addressed by the proposed rule have received little attention either in public comments submitted on the proposal or in these hearings Nevertheless the proposal would have a significant impact on each of our companies and we believe that it will be useful for the EPA to have our perspective on the proposed regula- tion We support the EPA's desire to eliminate asbestos from the marketplace In our testimony today we will discuss why we have reached this conclusion and provide alternate suggestions as to how this goal can be met for gaskets It might be useful initially for us to provide some background information about why we are testifying as a group Some two years ago it became evident during informal conversations at various industry meetings that each of our companies was concerned about the use of asbestos in our products While we have no evidence whatsoever that the use of asbestos in automotive gaskets has ever caused health problems either in our own workplaces or among persons who work with motor vehicles our companies independently had reached the conclusion that the use of asbestos should be eliminated There were two reasons for this conclusion First asbestos had obviously become a societal concern and we therefore felt a social responsibility to deal with its use Second we recognized that the failure to deal with this issue could in the longer run lead to worker . dissatisfaction and increasing litigation for which liability insurance will be prohibitively expensive or unavailable Because of these mutual beliefs our three companies have met several times during the past two years -- with legal counsel present ~- to discuss issues connected with the phasing out of asbestos In addition to monitoring govern- mental activity we have exchanged information about the activity : to reactions of some of our major customers the elimination woe niin of asbestos the incentives which may be available from insurance companies to eliminate asbestos and the availability of substitutes for particular applications We believe that our discussions have been fruitful and they are continuing During the intervening two years our companies desire to deal progressively with the asbestos situation has not waivered Our companies have independently committed themselves to removing asbestos in gaskets and have made substantial progress in doing so Pro McCord and Dana are all converting from asbestos to substitute products as early as such a conversion is feasible This conversion is very expensive in retooling and other costs While the conversion is not and will not be at the same time for all three companies for each product it will be based upon the ready availability of substitutes which are fully functional in the applications in which they are used and the ability to offer the substitutes at competitive prices Needless to say it does no good to switch to asbestos substitutes if our customers won't buy them either because of cost or their inability to function properly The phasing out of asbestos should not be a wee ee eT competitive issue Presumably it should be done as a matter of public health We are concerned however that the proposed regulation would make the decision whether or not to continue to use asbestos a competitive one and would even have the effect in some cases of encouraging its use This situation of course should not be tolerated Specifically we are concerned that under a permit system proposed companies such as ours would suffer a severe competitive disadvantage in the market because of the higher cost of substitutes while manufacturers and importers not yet committed to conversion would enjoy a distinct marketing advantage these firms could sell their asbestos product at far lower prices than we could sell our substitute products Moreover they would have access to significant amounts of asbestos from a variety of sources They can apply for their allocated amounts or they can import cheaper asbestos products they can negotiate for additional amounts under the proposed permit transfer provision and finally they can stockpile still more under the proposed banking provision Under the permit system a company could even increase its use of asbestos for short competitive reasons This would serve neither the interests of the regulation nor the interests of the more responsible companies which are reducing asbestos use The permit system as presently proposed will not reduce asbestos use in gaskets as anticipated We are concerned that the availability of permits which are marketable and freely transferable will actually slow down the ultimate elimination of asbestos and undercut the underlying purpose of regulation There may even be more asbestos available for various products such as gaskets because of the elimination of asbestos from other products and the ability of those permit holders to sell their rights to use asbestos Instead of searching for substitute products users will be encouraged and permitted to continue using asbestos If anything the approach adopted by EPA should reward firms which phase out asbestos more quickly than required and penalize those which delay Perhaps this concern can be illustrated by the following chart Control Level Asbestos Piber Importer Industrial Asbestos Material Importer Asbestos Product Importer Industrial Material Producer Product Producer Product Producer End User End User End User - 5 - Under the proposed regulation the EPA control would always be on the importer While this may be efficacious from the EPA standpoint it threatens to cause havoc in the gasket industry and presumably in other product categories as well The competitive dislocationast the product producers level could be severe Under the proposal the controlled party could be an importer of asbestos an importer of asbestos sheet for subsequent use in gaskets or an importer of gaskets Under the proposal if during the phase period the asbestos importer reduced the level of his imports he could sell the right to import additional asbestos to an actual gasket manufacturer Or the reverse could gasket manufacturer could reduce the happen the importing use of asbestos and sell his allocated or banked share to either an asbestos importer or the importer of sheeting material We do not believe this is a logical way to reduce the use of asbestos and we believe that it would injure domestic gasket manufacturers -- such as ourselves -- who are switching to substitutes and inevitably charging higher prices as a result Why should a gasket importer be allowed to increase his use of asbestos as a direct result of the aggressive elimination of asbestos by a domestic manufacturer and thereby gain a price advantage over domestic producers We do not believe this is a logical way to regulate Our concern is heightened by the cost advantages currently enjoyed by foreign producers of gaskets The

Sanctions such as Claan Air Act Sections 110(e)(2)(X) - ban on new source construction; and 176 withholding of federal highway funds and sewage treatment plant funds, should only be applied for areas not attaining standards and not implemaatlng a program leading towards attainment.