FILE NAME Packings and Gaskets PAG DATE 1986 DOC PAG063 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Testimony to EPA BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ASBESTOS PROPOSED MINING AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND PROPOSED MANUFACTURING IMPORTATION AND PROCESSING PROHIBITIONS 40 CFR Part 763 Docket Control No. 62036 TESTIMONY OF FEL INCORPORATED MCCORD GASKET CORPORATION SUBSIDIARY OF CELL CORPORATION and VICTOR PRODUCTS DIVISION DANA CORPORATION July 22 1986 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT : 17 17 11 - 12 12 Mr.

FILE NAME Packings and Gaskets PAG DATE 2004 Oct 15 DOC PAG051 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Invoice from Chem to Ford Chem Inc. 25 Jessie Street at Ecker Square Suite 1800 San Francisco CA 94105 415-896-2400 415-896-2444 ChemRisk Inc.

FILE NAME Rogers Corporation ROG DATE 1979 DOC ROG050 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Rogers Corp Commentary Upon Proposed Asbestos Standards within the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality ROGERS CORPORATION Commentary upon Proposed Asbestos Standards within the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality PROTECTED 3050 January 25 1979 RGS 052672 Rogers Corporation a Connecticut based manufacturer wishes to express its serious concern over the proposed asbestos emission and ambient standard portion of the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality We as users of various asbestos minerals do not pretend to be experts on asbestos related occupational and environmental hazards however we do have an inherent interest in terms of concern for employee safety and market impact in keeping current on medical scientific and technical developments in this area It is upon this knowledge that we base some of our objections to this proposed legislation Rogers Corporation does not minimize the known health hazards associ- ated with the use of asbestos quite the contrary we have installed sophisticated state the art engineering and administrative controls to insure worker safety and compliance to all applicable regulatory requirements in our manu- facturing facilities is from this experience in installing and operating state emission control devices that we draw our conclusion that industrial compliance to the proposed emission standard is not economically or technically possible We have been engaged for some time in the research and development of acceptable asbestos substitutes for use in our products A number of product changes especially in less critical applications involving asbestos substitution have already taken place However to date acceptable asbestos PROTECTED RGS 052673 , Page Page 2 substitutes for many of our high temperature high strength plastics applica- tions do not exist This fact coupled with a growing body of data possibly I implicating other asbestos fiber materials as potential health hazards lends support to our contention that the tunnel vision approach embodied in these proposals will not result in the stated goal of minimizing the health risk to both workers and the general public Indeed if this proposal is implemented we face the possible realization of the old adage Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire We would hope that responsible individuals within the DEP would re- re- alize our concerns over this proposal from the ensuing discussion Effective minimization of risk to development of respiratory cancer and other disabling diseases from the inhalation of hazardous particulates can only be achieved if industry regulatory agencies and the general public are aware of what is fact what is supposition and what is conjecture Regulatory action if it is to achieve its stated goals must be based on factual data concerning the nature and scope of the problem a realization of the capabilities and limitations of technology to provide the control mechanisms and finally an accurate as es - assess- ment of the economic and social impact of proposed control strategy The corner so speak of these proposed asbestos regulations are the relationship of a sharp rise in mesothelioma within Connecticut during a year period between 1960-1969 as compared to a similar interval between We refer here to recently published articles in the Hartford Courant Norwich Bulletin and Providence Journal copy attached which deal with recent Japanese research implicating fine fibrous fiberglass as respiratory carcinogens We also further elaborate on this later in our discussion PROTECTED RGS 052674 Page 3 1940-1949 and the estimated increase of asbestos use within Connecticut plotted DEP's Figure 8 page 10-15 between 1900-1969 Very serious deficiencies exist in this conjecture In the introduction to these proposals page 10-1 a statement is made alluding to DEP conducted " . . study of asbestos mesothelioma incidence 5,6 5,6 Review of indicated references fail to show a clear distinction has been made between asbestos and asbestos induced mesotheliomas Further in the mesothelioma discussion on page 10-14 of these proposals no distinction is mentioned between asbestos and asbestos related meso- thelioma In fact page 10-14 discussion does its best to implicate asbestos as the cause by innuendo and pure conjecture such " . . only four people were reported with known exposure to asbestos Eight others were felt to have experienced some exposure .. . of the remaining individuals in it is interesting to note that one person was listed as a toll collector

FILE NAME Synkaloid SYN DATE August 31 1984 DOC SYN006 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 1984 Legal - Defense response to interrogatories LAW OFFICES BRANSON FITZGERALD & HOWARD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION : 500 ALLERTON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2189 CITY CALIFC OARLN II FOARNIA TELEPHONE 415 365-7710 a Attorneys forSYNKOLOID COMPANY NN _ ee . ee JKC ASBESTOS WPL BKH B___ - 5 ee SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA product CITY AND COUNTY OF SANSANFRANCISCO add list to Dougo product product ilst for IN RE SHIPYARD AND APPLICATOR CASES CLAPPER & BRAYTON CNoo nstr8u0c4t4i16on Interview Interview CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY ANSWERS OF SYNKOLOID , / COMPANY TO | INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFFS 14 PROPOUNDING PARTY 15 RESPONDING PARTY 1 16 SET NUMBER : 17 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT SYNKOLOID COMPANY TWENTY 18 NEAL BAKER 19 20 V5 V5 V5 PPlalinatiiffntPilainftifff 21 ABEX CORPORATION et al 22 Defendants 23 24 /// No 821066 25 /// 26 /// LOUIS BLEILY Plaintiff 2 VS. 3 ABEX CORPORATION et al Defendants DIVMOLH PAN VINHORETV X 2189 719 BOX 36 VINHORETVE OFICE ALLE 415 FITZGER POST FELPHONE ALLE OFFICE FIEBSCH431 FELEPHONE FIEBESCH431 Branso FRANK BOLDUC vs.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.

Heating Systems Hot water H.

154 CHAPTER 8 1957 Guide v particles in the 0.1 micron vicinity may have influenced the determination . ' of average particle size.

188 CHAPTER 9 1957 Guide Table 7.

280 CHAPTER 12 1957 Guide most crack; and with three or four exposed walls, take the wall having the most crack; but in no case take less than half the total crack.

i Patient .

I IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JAMES WARREN YOUNT, Respondent, v.

404 CHAPTER 15 1957 Guide r "7 1 { 02 r 1 t~ t~*~> 0 r i- 1 r 46 --i i i ~i - )--i - i -- i-- i 8 10 12 14 16 GROSS OUTPUT * HUNDREO FEET STEAtf RADIATION r ' i "i i - i r t i-i-i -r r-- r r~ i "T* i- i rri ft . 10 IS 20 2S .

666 CHAPTER 26 1957 Guide Table 1.

762 CHAPTER 30 1957 Guide Fiq. 8.

854 CHAPTER 34 1957 Guide low pressure.