Consumer Product Safety Commision Listing of Consumer Asbestos Products

REVIEW OF ASBESTOS USE . . ..
IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS
APRIL, 1978
This report was prepared for the Consumer Product Safety
Commission in April, 1978. With the passage of time, much of
the information in the report may be outdated. Those firms
identified in the report as information sources were questioned
generally concerning the asbestos use in various products.
Identification of a firm in the report does not mean that the
firm produced a product containing asbestos: This report along
with other data sources was relied upon in an advance notice of
PFoppsed rulemaking published in the Federal Register, vlednesday
October 17, 1979, page 60056.* No further action was taken on
this particular rulemaking proceeding. –(9/26/84,OS/FOI,GC,HS)
Kearney: M.anagement Con~ultants
WThe ~R notice is included at the end of the report.
,
See Cover Sheet for statement regarding status of information
contained in the report.
FINAL REPORT
REVIEW OF ASBESTOS USE IN
CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Requested By:
Dale R. Ray
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAPETY COMMISSION
BIA/ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207
April, 1978
Submitted By:
A. T. Kearney, Inc.
1800 MStreet, N.W.
washignton, D.C. 20036
CPSC ASBESTOS PRODUCT FACT SHEET
PRODUCT
DISCUSSION
Lamp Sockets
Asbestos may be a purposefUl inclusion in two components
of some lamp sockets. The body of the socket proper may be
asbestos phenolic molded plastic. The cardboard insulating
tube may be asbestos coated. Industry respondents indicated
that the trend is to eliminate asbestos from both components
due to strict OSHA requirements.
Asbestos Concentration:
Method of Incorporation:
SCENARIO FOR FIBER RELEASE
15% to 90%
Various
Abrasion or Destruction
CONSUMER CONTACT
Presence during abrasion or destruction.
INFORMATION SOURCES
Circle F Corporation
Harvey Hubbell Inc.
Bryant Electric Div. of Westinghouse
Leviton Mfg. Co. Inc.
Trenton, NJ
Bridgeport, CT
Bridgeport, CT
Li.ttle Neck, NY
-
. 0-: -, , -
,
~–
FRNOTJCE- 10-17-79
COMMENTS DUE- 12-17-79
~TEC STATES GO\IERt_NT
Memorandum
TO: ~l~~~~ •
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
WASt-1INCiTON. C C.,20207
_..ECT: Ra=ERRAL. CF ():FJCJAL Ca-terrs
16 err Chaptat 11
~_4u=er Product a Containins
ASBESTOS: Advanca Wotlc. of
Propo.ad 1ulemakias
CC12-79
SIGNEO BY
J. 1. V.rbala. !ru.
Ulan H. DaVind. Public
Pollcy Spec1a1lat
Job L_artlre
IDtareatad Peraoa
I4vard J. arltaa,
Sc.D.,P.EDs.,Aaaoe. Prof
IDteraated Paraon
Moaaanto Textilea Co.
X. York. X.Y.
Carl Cabl11
Cb.upulte, Va.
U.S. IUneral Proclucu Co.
Stanhope, ••J.
Couauaer Actlon,Stata 11Illvar
lty Collase It luffalo
luffdo, ••Y.
11Iliverdty of Vaterloo
Vatarloo. ODtar10, CaDada
Marlanne J. Lone
Paoda, 111.
ATTACHED ARE CCltarrS eli TI£ _. _
Pw.sE l..oo N€) H.w>l.E 1-S Pi>PRoPRJATE.
Comments By Date Of Rece~pt
FlENT OAT[ . CORRESPONOENT
CC12-79-l 8-21-79
CC12-79-2 10-26-79
CC12-79-3 10-26-79
CC12-79-4 10-26-79
CC12-79-5 U-l-79
CC12-79-6 • U-15-79
CC12-79-7 U-15-79 Quin-r-eorp.
TUtOQ, ••Il.
Pruk L. Wardlay
1tIt. V. Pru.
CC12-79-S 11-16-79 O.H. Scott • Co.
Kary..Wa, Ohio
Job P. Ecmedy
Y. Pr.a. ,. CC
CC12-79-9
CC12-79-10
•
11-20-79
11-26-79
Tha Int.aratty of locha.tar
Hadlcal CaDter
Iocbettar, ••t.
ClanD H. W. Seott
Lou1avUle, ly•
J. arin, H.D. ,Pb.D.
Prof..aor
. , . 11-30-79 Beulah o. Snyder Xnteraated Peraon
COMMENT DATE
CC12-79-12 12-5-79
CCI2-79-13 12-6-79
CCI2-79-14 12-11-79
CCI2-79-15 12-14-79
(aeeICC12-79-36)
CCl2-79-16 . 12-14-79
CORRESPONDENT
Armstrong Cork Co.
Lancaster. Pa.
Interested Person
Box 9315. Reno.Nv.
The Schundler Co.
Metuchen. N•.J.
Wagner Electric Corp.
Paraippany. N.J •.J
lational Retail Merchanta Aaaoc.
Nev York. N.Y.
.Joseph L• .Jones
Unaigned
Bruce Schundler
Prea.
.J.C. Schroer
V.Prea.,Karketillg
.Ja.. Williau
Prea. ,
CCI2-79-17
CCI2-79-18
CCl2-79-19
CCI2-79-20
12-14-79
12-14-79
12-17-79
12-17-79
Weatinghouae Electric Corp.
Pittaburgh. Pa.
.Johnaon • .Jobnaon Co.
laritan. I •.J.
Lew Officea of Dangel • Sherry
Boaton. Ka…
Air Producta • Chemicala. Inc.
A11entOWtl. Pa. 18105
.John F. Comley
W. B. Aahton
Edward T. Dangel,III
.J. T. Barr
CCI2-79-21
CCI2-79-22
12-17-79
12-18-79
Cyprua Induatrial Kinerala Co.
toa Anselea. Ca.
Intereated Citizena of Cuerneville.
Koute Uo. Jlio Nido, Ca.
Cordon .J. Gill
CCl~·~:;-23
CCI2-79-24
CCl2-79-25
CCI2-79-28
CCl2-79-·27
CC12-79-28
CCI2-79-29
12-18-79
12-19,-79
12-19-79
12-20-79
12-21-79
12-26-79
Lennox Industrie., Inc.
Carrollton. Texas
Ovena-eornillg Corp.
Toledo, Ohio
IHCenter
St. Paul, Kinn.
The Cometic. Toiletry •
fragrance Asaoc., Inc.
Waahington, D.C.
Air Tran8Port .l..oc.of Americ.
W.abington, D.C.
AIIerice Venaiculite Corp.
Atlanta. Ca.
U.S. Dept. of Co••erce
Maritiae Adaiuiatratiou
WaahiugtoD, D.C.
Bob Stephens
V. Pres.
Uchara A. YudkiD
.John Jl. Favorite
Eva E. Bachrach
NOIlllAn F. E.trill,
Ph.D.,V.Prea.Seience
Edvin W. Abbott
John F. Cody
.John J. achtahei.
CC12-79-30 1-14-80 Theraa1 Ineulatiou
Mineral Inaulatior
!fev York, •• Y.
Hfg.,Aaaoc • .JohnVVen Voorhia
Hfg.,A~aoc. Prea.
G…_e.o-rge A. Boffaann
COMMENT
CC12-79-31
CC12-79-32
.;l <4.
CC12-79-33
CC12-79-34
CC12-79-35
CC12-79-.36
(s~e;CC12-79-l5)
CC12-79-37
CC12-79-38
CC12-79-39
CC12-79-40
CC12-79-4l
CC12-79-42
CC12-79-43
CCl2-79-44
CC12-79-45
CC12-79-U
CC12-79-47
DAT~ _
2-4-80
2-5-80
2-7-80
2-11-80
2-14-80
2-15-80
2-15-80
2-15-80
2-11-80
2-15-80
2-19-80
2-19-80
2-19-80
2-19-80
2-19-80
2-19-80
2-19,,80
CORRESPONDErlT
School of the Institute
of Chicago
Chicago, Ill.
General Electric Co.
Fairfield, Co~n.
Maureen Dye
Glens Falls, R.T.
Reichold Chemicals, Inc.
White Plains, H.T,
Australian Consumers
Assoc.
Chippendale, H.S.W.
Australi.
Wagher Electric Corp.
Parsippany, R.J.
The Assoc, of Asbestoa Cement
ipe Producars
Philadelphia, Pa.
W. R. Grace , Co.
Cambridge, !is...
American Industrial Health
Council, Inc.
Scarsdale, N.T.
Gal Corp.
Wayne, N.Y.
General Motors Corp.
Warren, Hich.
R. T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc.
Standard Hineral Co., ,
Dixie Clay Co.
Wash. D.C.
Rational Electrical Kfg.,Aesoc.
Waahington, D.C.
Assoc., of Home Appliance Mfg.
Chicago, Ill.
Whirlpool Corp.
Benton Harbor, Hich.
Asbeatoa Information Asaoc.
ArI1naton, Va.
.ational Asaoc. of Mfg.
Wash1naton. D.C.
SIGNED BY
Gail Barazani
Michael McCann
Monona Ros80l
Linnea Smith
Martin F~ Connor
Interested Peraon
T. R. Madden
Allall Amher
J. C. Schroer
Arthur H, J:ahn.
George E. Rahn,Jr.
Counael
B. 1. Williams,V.Pres.
lonald A. Lang
!X. Dir.
Louis tlecher
Hilford R. Belllleth
Allall M. Harvey
Del>! R. Schmidt
lobert L. Holdillg
H. E. Brehm
1. J. Dean
B. J. Pigg
b. Dir.
Richard B. Gimer
COMMENT
CC12-n-48
CC12-79-49
CC12-79-S0
CCl2-79-Sl .
CC12-79-S2
CC12-79-S3
CC12-79-S4
CC12-79-55(L)
CC12-79-56(L)
CCl2-79-57(L)
CCl2-79-58(L)
.CC12-79-59(L)
2-20-80
2-20-80
2-20-80
2-20-80
2-20-80
. 2-21-80
2-22-80
2-26-80
2-27-80
3-10-80
3-24-80
4-30-80
CORRESPONDENT
The l ..eUeut Floor Covering
lnatitute, repper,Hamilton ,
leheeta Cow.d
W..h1u&tou, D.C.
Anaetroq Cort Co.
Lanea.ter, Fa.
The Martal Co.
Newton, Iowa
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Eau Claire, Wise.
Environmental Defen.e Fund
Wa.h1u&ton, D.C.
Un10u carbide Corp •
X1&&ara Falle, H.Y•
McGraw-Edison Co.
Collllllbia, Mo.
Center for Occupational Hazards,
Inc.
N. Y. N.Y,
Webster City Products Co.
Webster City. TA.
National Consumers League
Washington, D.C.
Johns-Manville Corp.
Denver, Colorado.
R. T. ~anderbilt Co •• Inc.
Norwalk, Conn.
SIGNED BY
lobert V. Zener
.Jo..ph L• .Jon..
!X. V. Pre••
.Jolm C. Hel11u&er
GUbert Braun
Marcia Fine SUeox
Robert J. Rauch
Harriaou B, Rhod..
Danald 1:. Hat1llOn
Michael McCann, Pb.D.
Pres.
Patricia A. Porter
Attorney
J. P. Patrou
Pres.
Sandra L. Willett
Ex. V. Pres.
S.Wyatt McCallie
Counsel
A. M. Harvey
,.
•
Revised – 6/24/80
RECEIVED
HEALTH SSIEt·!CES
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memoranduni80 JUN 25 A9 :02
TO Rory Fausett, Program Manager, F9~onic Hazards
Through: Joann H. Langston, AED/HIAVtw-trowV
FOM , IIissa Kimball, I:UG1?…Jt!….
. Dale Ray, HICP .I .
U.S. CONSUMER PI=lOOUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
(16,57)
(22,55)
,
SuaJeoCT, Response to Comments on the ANPRM on Consumer Products
Containing Asbestos
We have reviewed the fifty-eight (58) comments submitted in response
to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on consumer products containing
asbestos. Many raised economic questions regarding asbestos substitutes,
as well as the impact of asbestos regulation on industry, the Commission,
and the economy in general. Others discussed issues involving essential
uses of asbestos and confidentiality of business information. References
to specific commentors are noted in the left margin. A list of the
commentors is attached.
Substitutes
(17,25,40,46,49, Six commentors discussed the intensive research which has been
58) conducted to flnd substitutes for asbestos. Although one comment noted
(55) that some products containing substitutes are available at comparable
(17,38,40, prices, nine commentors claimed that some substitutes would be available
43,46148,49, only at higher cost. One commentor suggested that substantial increases
52,5~5) in the use of substitutes may lower their prices to make them comparable
2 to those of asbestos. A manufacturer of flooring products wrote that
(40) the limited substitutes for asbestos in floor tile are significantly
higher in cost. The Commission plans to investigate fully the cost
and feasibility of substitutes for asbestos In products that may be
regulated. The Commission is aware of some currently available substitutes
for asbestos in floor tile which are reportedly cost-competitive with
conventional tile and contain no mineral fibers, including one mentioned
in the annual report of the commenting firm.
Two commentors claimed that the use of asbestos substitutes is
actually cheaper than the use of asbestos in some products. Two of
the reports stressed that the cost of the asbestos substitutes should
not price the product out of the market.
Although In some areas research and development is in its early
stages, substitutes are available for many asbestos-containing products.
(17,22,35, Six reports noted specific instances in which asbestos substitutes are
43,52,55) available. However, six commentors claimed that they have not been
(17,34,40,46,
49,55)
(49)
(17)
(40,44,48)
(40)
(48)
(25)
- 2-
able to find substitutes for asbestos in some products or that alternatives
may not exist for some kinds of products. One company, for example,
wrote that no substitute has been found to date that would Impart all
of the characteristics of asbestos in vinyl floor tile. Another company
notes that there is no known substitute for asbestos in gaskets and
packing applications. Although this company has eliminated the use
of asbestos in many of its products, it states that adequate substitutes
l1ave not yet been found for many applications, including those involving
high temperatures, high pressure or corrosive environments. Three commentors
noted that various amounts of time for the research and development
activity of companies to develop substitutes would be needed in the
event of regulation. One manufacturer cautioned that it would take
time to change the current designs of gaskets to use asbestos substitutes.
A trade association estimated that firms would need 18 months to 3 years
to test asbestos substitutes in flooring. One company noted that development
time may be costly and may delay more profitable or desirable development.
(35)
(20,25,29,38,55) Five commentors noted that substitutes for asbestos that are currently
(20,29) available are of lower quality. Two comments were received stating
that asbestos substitutes provide reduced fire protection. Another
(55) organization found that the substitutes are less heat resistant, although
It noted that this quality is not necessary in all asbestos applications.
(55) Some substitutes, however, are reportedly of higher quality. One commentor
remarked that although protective arts and crafts clothing manufactured
using asbestos substitutes would be more expensive, It could be used
longer. This report claimed that some of the substitutes available
(55) for asbestos insulation are more efficient. In many cases, one commenter
noted, asbestos substitutes are more effective or less costly. The
Commission pl&ns to evaluate the economic and technical feasibility
of substitutes for each product or group of products that may be affected
by a regulation.
(5,10,16,17,25, Ten comments have been received urging the Commission to consider
34,38,46,52,58) the health effects of substitutes. Another comment suggested that CPSC
(17) evaluate the impact of regulation on the availability of products.
(46 48) Two trade associations urged the Commission to consider the compatabllity
, of substitutes with current production processes. One manufacturer
(j 7) warned that the financial burden would be large, if a firm were forced
to replace an entire piece of equipment because of the unavailability
(48) of asbestos. One trade association noted that the use of substitutes
could require massive relocations of capital resources. The Commission
recognizes that there are a number of important issues relating to substitutes.
The Commission wl1l examine these issues, including such matters as
price, availability, utility, technical feasibility and health effects
of substitutes in making regulatory decisions.
A consumer organization suggested that the Commission provide Incentives
to companies to develop substitutes. The Commission encourages the
development of safer products. CPSC has the authority under the Consumer
Product Safety Act to award grants and contracts for research and development
(52,55)
(20,116,58)
(52)
(25,32,34,37,
38,44,46,48)
(7,17,20,32,
46,47,57)
(43,44,47,49)
(16)
- 3-
related to improving the safety of products. Informational materials
for consumers on the comparative safety of products may also be developed
during the course of the Commissions activities on asbestos.
Two commentors questioned the use of availability of substitutes
as a criterion for priority attention. A safety organization also questioned
the inclusion of costs of substitutes as a factor to be considered at
this stage•. The Commission believes that the cost and availability
qf possible substitutes for asbestos in products is an important factor
in determining the presence of unreasonable risks and the feasibility
of regulatory action. This type of informationmay also be useful in
setting priorities for future action.
Three comments were received suggesting that marketplace solutions
should be adopted to assure that the safest and most efficient materials
are used. The Commission agrees that marketplace solutions should be
relied upon when they are effective in removing unreasonable risks of
injury. However, when these forces do not eliminate unreasonable risk.
CPSC action may be required.
An environmentalist organization suggested that CPSC actively seek
manufacturers help in finding substitutes for essential uses. The
Commission agrees that industry input to the regulatory process is essential;
the aid of industry is routinely enlisted in evaluating regulatory alternatives
and in defining the nature and scope of those alternatives, including
points such as what may constitute essentiality of use.
Costs and Benefits
Eight comments listed benefits of asbestos use. The Commission
is aware of the wide range of useful attributes of this material. These
will be examined in the context of the cost, availability, and utility
of substitutes, and in the context of cost and other effects of regulation
on industry and the public. Seven commenters suggested that CPSC use
cost-benefit analysis in developing its regulations. The Commission
agrees that cost-benefit analysis can be a useful tool for regulatory
decision-making There are problems, however. in identification and
quantification of potential benefits. The Commission uses a variety
of factors in such determinations. Under Section 9 of the Consumer
Product Safety Act, the Commission, before proposing a rule, weigls
the potential benefits of regulation against the effects on cost, availability
and utility of the product.
Economic Impacts
Four manufacturing associations remarked that a thorough analysis
of the economic impact of regulating asbestos is imperative if the Commission
decides to proceed with rulemaking. One commentor suggested that CPSC
take into account long range economic effects when performing its analyses.
The Commission agrees that such analyses should be considered in the
(52)
- 4-
event of specific rulemaking, and will attempt to assess all significant
effects of specific rules, including long term impacts as well as immediate
ones.
06,25,40,44,46, Some commentors discussed a number of possible effects of regulation
54,55) on the economy in general, including: decreased competition and availability
of products, increased unemployment, and reduced productivity and innovation.
In evaluating the potential impact of policy alternatives, the Commission
considers likely effects on such things as industry supply factors,
competitive structure, employment. and other areas of possible economic
impact that relate to the rulemaking under consideration.
One organization remarked that CPSC must be prepared to take action
against the export of asbestos products no longer fit for use in the
United States. Under current CPSC policy, firms must notify the Commission
if they plan to export hazardous products. The Commission will then
advise the foreign country of these intentions (44 FR 27685, May ll,
1979).
(44)
(52)
(38,48,55)
(48)
(55)
(38)
(23)
A manufacturers association estimated the cost to the major appliance
manufacturers of complying with an information gathering request on
all appliances containing asbestos to be $5 million. One organization
suggested that CPSC use trade associations for reporting to lessen industry
burdens. The Commission recognizes the costs to industry of reporting
and attempts to minimize these costs. The Commission routinely enlists
the aid of trade associations in information· gathering and other regulatory
development activities.
Three commentors noted specific effects that may occur as a result
of asbestos regulation. A trade association claimed that warranties
on floors require firms to pay for replacement, installation and removal
of old flooring, if their product is defective. They estimated that
if $5 million of defective flooring is SOld, the real cost to the
manufacturer would be $30 million. Another commentor noted one mining
companys claim that defining tremolite as a form of asbestos wouid
force that company out of business. A manufacturer of vermiculite products
claimed that asbestos regulation of some products could affect the cost
of other products in a product line. The Commission is required by
the terms of the Consumer Product Safety Act (Section 9) to consider
the costs of proposed rules and to minimize adverse business effects
so long as this is consistent with the public health and safety. Effects
of this type discussed in these comments would be taken into account.
A manufacturer suggested that CPSC use the least costly method
of corrective action where unreasonable hazards exist, in order to keep
down inflationary pressures. This firm requested that the Commission
allow manufacturers to hold down costs by repairing products in the
field. The Commission attempts to select the least costly means of
corrective action consistent with reducing unreasonable risk. In some
cases field repairs may be a viable means of reducing costs of needed
corrective action to industry and to the public.
(16)
-5-
A trade association urged CPSC to consider the role of retailers
so as not to shift the financial burden of remedial action to them.
The Commission considers the distribution of the effects of Its rules
and, to the extent feasible, takes them into account in prescribing
remedial actions.
(lili,45,50,51,54) Five commentors urged the Commission to require information gathering
only on currently produced items. They claimed that providing information
(5li) on older products would be an excessive burden. One company noted that
many suppliers of previous years are now lost in mergers or acquisitions.
(52) or are out of business entirely. One commentor felt that manufacturers
should disclose information not only on currently manufactured products,
(52,55) but also on products which are still in use. Two organizations argued
that the relative ease of data collection and analysis and the reporting
burden on industry should not be considered at the investigational stage.
The Commission is mandated to evaluate the risks associated with products
which are or will be distributed in commerce. It is also mandated to
determine the burden of its actions on industry. The Commission agrees
that products currently in commerce are of primary concern, and that
limiting regulatory actions to such products would tend to lessen the
likely impact of regulation. Instances in which retrospecti ve action
may be desirable will be investigated and evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
(35) A consumers union speculated that the demand for asbestos will
increase. For some products, this may be true, but for other products, .
industry data indicate that the demand for asbestos may be in a state
(17) of limited growth or decline. One manufacturer noted that any limits
on total production of asbestos would subject the available asbestos
to marketplace factors, thereby raising the cost to those who require
this material for their products. They argue that selective elimination
of the uses of asbestos would reduce demand and inflationary pressures.
The Commission does not have the authority to limit or otherwise regulate
all asbestos production. It is likely that the Commission will regulate
on a product-specific basis, taking steps to minimize the potential
disruption to the asbestos producing and processing industries.
(7) A manufacturer suggested that CPSC shape policies and allocate
resources so as to have the greatest impact on the greatest number of
products in commerce. In selecting consumer products for priority attention,
the Commission Intends to use a number of criteria, including, but not
limited to, the number of products involved, the extent and nature of
use, and the feasibility and availability of substitutes. A consumers
(57) union suggested that CPSC consider the cost of products and the public
perception of risk in order to determine the likely replacement rate
of such products. The Commission attempts to evaluate such factors,
when applicable, especially in its determination of the useful life
of the product and availability and feasibility of substitutes; this
evaluation may also be useful in assessing the effectiveness of specific
rulemaking activities. .
(58)
(32,37,58)
(37)
(55)
-6-
One mining and manufacturing company suggested that CPSC identify
the most significant sources of respirable asbestos fibers in establishing
regulatory priorities in order to minimize reporting costs and other
burdens on industry resources. The Commission will attempt to identify
significant hazards and consider regulatory alternatives in a systematic
way. The Commission uses a variety of factors in evaluating the extent
of potential benefits of regulatory actions and selecting specific products
for regulation.
Several commentors considered the costs of asbestos regulation
to the Commission. Three commentors noted that a comprehensive analysis
of regulatory alternatives will Involve an enormous allocation of CPSC
resources. A trade association remarked that aCPSC regulatory initiative
would be inefficient and uneconomical considering the amount of work
being done by the EPA. Another organization claimed that the Commissions
regulations do not normaliy call for consideration of the cost to the
Commission. According to the Commissioners policy for establishing
priorities, Commission costs will be considered in making regulatory
decisions. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that its
resources are utilized efficiently. (CFR 1009.8 (b)(4)).
Essentiality
03,17,25,34,54,57) Commentors suggested defining essentiality in terms of safety,
efficiency, the ability of the end use to release fibers, the availability,
cost and safety of substitute materials, benefits from use of the product,
the utility and availability of the product, and the products essentiality
to health and survival of humans. One organization claimed that if
(52) one manufacturer is able to replace or redesign the asbestos components
of a product, the use of asbestos in that product should be considered
(6,13,41,57) non-essential. Four commenters stated that they support regulation
only of non-essential uses of asbestos. One commenter suggested that
(55) CPSC should not regulate only non-essential uses, because essential uses
may pose greater risks. The Commission intends to assess the factors
to be applied to determinations of essentiality on an Individual product
basis. The hazard posed by the product is a significant factor in the
determinatfon of essentiality. The risk associated with a product will
be balanced against other considerations, including the need for the
product and the effect of rulemaklng on the cost, availability, and
utility of the product.
Confidentiality
(16,34,47)
(41)
(46)
Three commentors stressed that CPSC must be sensitive to business
interests in preventing damaging disclosures. One company suggested
that CPSC should allow a case-by-case review of sharing of confidential
business information. A trade association noted that economic data
in the asbestos industry is of great competitive value. Another organization
(52)
(51)
(55,57)
(55)
-7-
suggested that patented information, specific formulations, mixture
proportions, and processes should be considered confidential, while
the fact that asbestos Is or was used in a product is not confidential
information. Another commentor suggested that CPSC must preserve the
confidentiality of financial, commercial, and technical Information.
Two commentors suggested that firms must support claims of confidentiality
by showing that Information disclosure would result in competitive damage•.
One of these commentors added that the information should temain confidential
only If the damage to competitive interests from disclosure outweighs
the public interest. This commentor also requested that CPSC disclose
information In order to protect legitimate business competition and
foster honest business practices. The Commission recognizes the need
to maintain the confidentiality of proprietary or trade secret data,
and will carefully evaluate information to be considered for confidential
treatment. Information that it determines to be trade secrets will
be kept confidential. Requests for disclosure or for confidential treatment
will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act as
amended, 5 U.S.C.· 552, and the Commissions regulations under that act,
16 CFR, Part 1015, & 15 U.S.C. 2055(a)(2).
Attachment
,
Commentors
*1. Monsanto Textiles Company CCI2-79-1
*2. ,Carl Cahill, Interested Person CCI2-79-2
*3. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada CCI2-79-3
*4. Marianne J. Long, Interested Person, CCI2-79-4
5. United States Mineral Products Company CCI2-79-5
6. Consumer Action, State University College at Buffalo CCI2-79-6
7. Quin-T Corporation CCI2-79-7
*8. O.M. Scott and Company CCI2-79-8
*9. University of Rochester Medical Center CCI2-79-9
10. Glen M.W. Scott CCI2-79-10
*11. Beulah Snyder, Interested Person CCI2-79-11
*12. Armstrong Cork Company CCI2-79-12
13. Anonymous CCl2-79-13
14. The Schundler Company CCI2-79-14
15. Wagner Electric Corporation CCI2-79-15
16. National Retail Merchants AssociatiQn CC12-79-16
17. Westinghouse Electric Company CCI2-79-i7
*18. Johnson & Johnson Company CCI2-79-18
*19. Dangel and Sherry (Law Offices) CCI2-79-19
20. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. CCI2-79-20
*21. Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company CCI2-79-21
22. Guerneville, Monte Rio and Rio Nedo, Calif., Interested
Citizens CCI2-79-22
23. Lennox Industries Inc. CCI2-79-23
*24. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation CCI2-79-24
25. 3M Company CCI2-79-25
*26. The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association CCI2-79-26
*27. Air Transport Association of America CCI2-79-27
*28. American Vermiculite Corporation CCI2-79-28
29. Maritime Administration, US Department of Commerce CCI2-79-29
*30. Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association – Mineral
Insulation Manufacturers Association CCI2-79-30
*31. National Association for Safety and Health in the
Arts and Crafts CCI2-79-31
32. General Electric Company CCI2-79-32
*33. Maureen Dye, Interested Person CCI2-79-33
31f. Reichold Chemicals, Inc. CCI2-79-31f
35. Australian Consumers Association CCI2-79-35
*36. Wagner Electric Corporation CCI2-79-36
37. Association for Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers CCI2-79-37
38. W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. CCI2-79-38
*39. American Industrial Health Council CCI2-79-39
1f0. GAF Corporation CCI2-79-IfO
If!. General Motors Company CCI2-79-IfI
*lf2. R. T. Vanderbilt Company, Standard Mineral Company, Dixie Clay
Company CCI2-79-If2
1f3. National Electrical Manufacturers Association CCI2-79-If3
Iflf. Association of !lome Appliance Manufacturers CCI2-79-1f1f
1f5. Whirlpool Corporation CCI2-79-If5
1f6. Asbestos Information Association/North America CCI2-79-If6
1f7. National Association of Manufacturers CCI2-79-If7
1f8. The Resilient Floor Covering Institute CCI2-79-If8
1f9. Armstrong Cork Company CCI2-79-If9
50. Maytag Company CCI2-79-50
51. National Presto Industries, Inc. CC12-79-51
52. Environmental Defense Fund CCI2-79-52
*53. Union Carbide Corporation CCI2-79-53{L)
51f. McGraw-Edison Company CCI2-79-51f{L)
55. Center for Occupational Hazard CCI2-79-55{L)
*56. Webster City Products Company CCI2-79-56{L}
57. National Consumers League CCI2-79-57{L}
58. Johns-Manville Corporation CCI2-79-58{L}
*Dld not contain economic comments.
• •
.
. ur: /) RECEIVED r.l….. -\ I…f!! <…:{C:I:r:< .1 •••. J •• ~
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
~; .: .
.,.: ,.; 1, U.S, CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
TO
FROM
,Rory S. Fausett, Program Manager, Chronic~~s
Through:. Jules L. Bigio, Director, ESEP~
James J. Keenan, ESEE f!I:!jj / .,.
MAY 211980
~cTANP&q – Consumer Products Containing ~sbestos
In response to the Federal Register notice concerning
Consumer Products Containing Asbestos; Advance Notice of
proposed RUlemaking, fifty-eight (58) documents were
submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Office of the Secretary. Two companies (Armstrong Cork,
12 and 49, and Wagner Electric Co., 15 and 36) submitted
supplemental documents to include additional data. The
breakdown of the 56 respondents is as follows:
28
11
7
5
4
1
56
manufactur ers
manufacturing associations
concerned citizens
safety and consumer organizations
academia participants
law firm .
Each document was reviewed by Engineering for technical
information concerning consumer products that contain
asbestos and substitute materials that have been used or
proposed for specific applications. Comments are provided
at the end of the abstract of each document.
Attachment
CC: D. Clay
W. West
D. Scott
R. Hehir
H. Spitzer
J. Fandey
M. Rivero
G. Wyer
CC 12-79-1
CC 12-79-2
Monsanto Textiles Company
New York, N.Y.
John Lomartire, Technical Director, Product Safety
Mr. John Lomartire stated as follows:
-! am, however, disturbed by one report that reads:
Si,nply determining that fibers are emitted would be sufficient
to justify regulatory action in case of non-essential
usesl the amount of asbestos fibers released would not be
important (Product Safety Letter, ~, 33, 8/13/79, p. 4).
As one starts measuring the presence of 1 asbestos
fiber per cubic meter, then 1 per 100, 1 per 1000, etc., we
end up in needless yonfrontations arguing the reliability of
the method, its relevance, cost, impact, capriciousness, etc.
certainly there is enough known about asbestos exposure to
set some level, however small, below which a products performance
will not be questioned.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
Carl Cahill
244 Old Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Mr. Cahill alleges that Chesapeake Virginia City water
was tested in 1979 and found to contain 160 million fibers
per liter (January 1979) and 500 thousand fibers per liter
(February 1979). Mr. Cahill claims the fibers are coming
from asbestos cement water pipes. Mr. Cahill would like to
see a ban on asbestos cement water pipes or at least a limit
of 3,000 fibers per liter in drinking water. Neither water
purity nor asbestos cement water pipes can be considered under
CPSA guide lines.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues. However, the
Australians have a potential substitute for asbestos cement
pipe (see CC12-79-35).
CC 12-79-3 University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Edward J. Farkas, SC.D, P. Engineering
Associate Professor
Dr. Farkas urges the Consumer Product Safety Commission
to make asbestos illegal in various types of kitchen floor
coverings, and in fact, in any construction material.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
C-C-1-2–7-9–4
-2-
Marianne J. Lo~~
Peoria, IL 61604
Wants: 1) The list of consumer products made with
asbestos made more accessible to the pUblic
2) Elimination of asbestos in products
3) More information printed, released and
circulated
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
~12-79-5 u.s. Mineral Products Compa~
Stanhope, New Jersey
Vermiculite ore contains trace contaminants of
chrysotile and tremolite asbestos from mining deposits.
After being exfoliated, the vermiculite is used as:
- poured attic insulation (ZONOLITE)
- fertilizers (lawn and garder)
- spray applied fire proofing (MONOKOTE)
ESEP comment: Allegations are made in some of the other submittals
that all vermiculite ore is not alike and some are
asbestos free. SUbstitute materials, however, are currently
available for poured attic insulation, fertilizers, and spray
applied fire proofing material.
CC 12-79-6 Ellen M. DeWind
Public Policy Specialist
Consumer Action
State University College at Buffalo
Consumer Action recommends:
- SUbstitute products for asbestos should not only
be encouraged but required.
- Sealed products do not propose a potential hazard
- Unsealed products may emit asbestos particles
- Strict labeling recommended for those asbestos products
considered essential
-3-
Consumer Action prefers the method of regulating groups
or classes of consumer products rather than instituting a
product-by-product method.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
Quin-T-Corporation
Electrical Insulations
Tilton, New·Hampshire
SSSP comment:
Quin-T Corporation complained about the Federal Register
Notice on asbestos with regard to Health Science information
and risk assessment.
No CPSC engineering issues.
CC 12-79-8 a.M. Scott & Sons, A SUbsidiar~of ITT
Marysville,-Ohio -43040
Environmental samplings of Scotts products have indicated
no asbestos was found in the consumer products.
ESSP comment: No CPSC engineering issue.
CC 12-79-9 The universi~~f Rochest~ _
School of Med1c1ne and Dent1stry
Rochester, N.Y. 14642
Asbestos was
York Gas Furnace.
Ph.D.
determined to be used in 12 locations of the
Statement made by Professor J. Ferin, M.D.,
££..12-79-10
SSSP comment: Locations and uses of asbestos in the York Gas
furnace would have to be determined by product analysis, but
it is believeJ some or most of the asbestos could be substituted
with other materials.
Glenn M. W. Scott
6211 Or ion Road
Louisville, KY 40222
Statements by ~r. Scott:
- Regulations to control asbestos shoul~ be applied also
to asbestos substitutes.
- Recent research indicates that durable fibers which have
small diameters and long lengths are carcinogenic regardless
of their chemical com?osition.
cc 12-79-11
C-C-1-2–79–1-2
-4-
ESEP comment: Allegations made by Mr. Scott regarding durable
fibers other than asbestos are the subject of ongoing medical
research and appear to be matters of some controversy. However,
EPA has requested that substitute materials have no
fiber release in the respirable size range ( 1.5 micron
diameter and lengths between 5 and 60 microns). EPA also
solicits comments on this approach and has received some
replies in this set of documents.
Mrs. Beulah snlder
Lafayette, Ind ana
Mrs. Snyder relates a story of a hotel fire in the
elevator shaft and her subsequent illness thereafter.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
Armstron~rk Company
Lancaster, PA 17604
Joseph L. Jones, Executive Vice President
Mr. Jones states that Armstrong Cork filed written
comments on the use of asbestos in flooring products with
CPSC on May 10, 1977.
Mr. Jones was concerned in preserving the confidentiality
of trade secrets and other confidential commerciaf and
financial information. A 90 day time extension was requested.
ESEP comment: Armstrong Cork information from May 10, 1977 was
not available for review. Otherwise no CPSC engineering issues.
CC 12-79-13 No Name, Interested Person
Box 9315
Reno, Nevada
1. All non-essential asbestos products should be banned.
2. Essential should be defined as those products which
have no substitute for asbestos and which are essential
to the health and survival of humans.
3. Human well being should far outweigh the cost of an
asoestos substitution fiber.
4. Products containing asbestos where other alternative
products are available should be labeled as containing
asbestos.
-5-
5. It should be the burden of industry to prove no available
substitute. This information could be kept confidential.
6. The Commission should be particularly interested in
those products which present a particular problem to:
a) large numbers of people
b) products which are particularly mobile and available for
human consumption
7. Products tested by industry should be witnessed
by CPSC.
8. Commission should determine the safety guidelines.
9. Disadvantages of the generic method of classifying
products is that it eliminates dealing with the
necessity of individual products.
ESEP comment:
CC 12-79-14
No CPSC engineering issues.
The Schundler Company
P.O. aox 249
Metuchen, New Jersey
Mr. Bruce Schundler, President
~2-79-15
Of the 5 mines in the United States producing
vermiculite ore, only W. R. Grace mine in Libby, Montana
contains asbestos.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
Wagner Electric Corporation
100 Misty Lane
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
J.C. Schroer, Vice President of Marketing
Wagner Electric Corporation manufactures and merchandises
brake assemblies, lined shoe sets, and disc pad assemblies.
Comments were sent to EPA. Responsibility probably lies with
DOT and EPA.
ESEP comment: No CPSC engineering issues.
-6-
CC 12-79-16 National Retail Merchants Association
100 west 31st St.
New York, N.Y.
James R. Williams, President
~R~ urges the Commission to proceed with caution and
meticulously demand hard, convincing evidence before embarking
on a regulatory plan that may significantly disrupt the
marketplace.
NRMAs most pressing concern is that any remedial
procedure prescribed be clear and orderly.
No CPSC engineering issues.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburg, PA
John F. Gormley, Director, Product Safety
and Integrity
Mr. John Gormley states:
ESEP comment:
~2-79-l7
- Bonded asbestos is used in electrical tranformers to
insulate components electrically.
- Asbestos is also used as gasket material in residential
air conditioners and larger units. Skilled industrial
personnel provide maintenance and repair.
- ~here is no known substitute for asbestos in gaskets.
eSEP comment: Mr. Gormley alleges that there is no known
substitute for asbestos in gaskets used in residential air
conditioners. New materials containing no asbestos are
currently available for gasket use and may be substituted
with a minimum of modifications for new designs of residential
air conditioners. Back fitting older models may not
be successful, but several choices of materials are available
for trial and error tests.
£~2-79-l8 Johnson and Johnson
Baby Products Company
Raritan, New Jersey OBB60
w. H. Ashton states:
- Johnson & Johnson has no interest in asbestos but does
have a deep interest in talc,