Document 2b8xeYBBK29QJ6Nxk1Yj4eo6

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT f_jZ> Cm-kz <g)Aisr American Telephone and Telegraph Company 195 Broadway New York. N. Y 10007 Phone (212) 393-9800 DOCKET OFFICER Docket H-033 U.S. Department of Labor - Room N-3620 200 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20210 Dear Sir: This letter and attachment represent the comments and recommendations of the Bell System Occupational Health Working Group on the proposed 0SHA Asbestos standard which was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 1975* We appreciate the opportunity to comment and anticipate that our recommended changes will be given serious consideration. In addition, we are requesting an informal hearing with respect to this standard. For ease in understanding our recommended changes, we have used a three column approach. The first column quotes the 0SHA proposal, the second column incorporates our recommendation for change, and the third column offers an explanation for the suggested changes. Changes to the original proposal and recommended changes and/or additions and deletions are underlined to facilitate your understanding. In addition to the recommendations given in the attachment, there are several items of a more general nature which deserve special and repeated emphasis: 1. The practice of largely restricting the content of the standards to performance objectives (criteria) and allowing flexibility as to the means of achieving these objectives is essential to good standard development. We recommend that the body of the asbestos standard be reserved for concise statements of performance objectives and that the appendices contain the more voluminous advisory portions or guidelines as to how the objectives might be achieved. This will require major changes in the proposed asbestos standard because the present version contains excessive mandatory specifications as to how the provisions are to be implemented. DOCKET OFFICER 2 Most burdensome in thie regard, is the mandated preference for engineering control methods over work practices and the use of personal protective equipment. If adequate surveil lance is maintained, the use of personal protective equipment is an effective control measure. An employer should be given the option of establishing a personal protective equipment program and/or work practices control program to minimize the employee's exposure as long as they are equally or more effective than a program based on engineering control. 2. The medical surveillance sections of the standard, paragraphs (j)(2), (3) and (4) require the employer to provide a compre hensive preplacement, annual and termination medical examina tion for employees exposed to any airborne asbestos fibers. This requirement is extremely burdensome and, in our opinion, practically unworkable. The presence of even one fiber in a given air sample result ing in concentrations that are tens or more orders of magnitude below the permissible level would require a comprehensive medical examination for all employees so exposed. As a practical matter, an employee who is simply walking the streets in an urban environment would very likely qualify for the proposed medical examination. We hereby make a plea to resolve this awesome dilemma by triggering the medical examination require ment on the basis of an "action level" of 0.23 fibers per c.c. of air. 3. The training and information section of the standard, paragraph (k)(l), requires an information program for employees who are assigned to work in regulated areas. It appears that adopting our rocommendations for an action level and triggering the training requirements at this level instead of the permissible exposure level would be more consistent with the overall OSHA training requirements. 4. If our concept of "action level" survives your future deliber ations and is ultimately included in the final standard, we suggest the inclusion of an explanation of its derivation and use. This could possibly be done in the preface, in the definitions section, or in the Appendix. At present, there is considerable confusion as to the interpretation of "action level" since it is based essentially on statistical sampling theory. We recommend a modification which will ensure the same purpose but allow an employer certain options. DOCKET OFFICER We trust that our comments will be of value to you in developing a practical asbestos standard. Respectfully submitted, R. W. STONE, H.D. Director - Medical Research Co-Chairman, Occupational Health Work Group B. M. MAY Manager - Safety Co-Chairman, Occupational Health Work Group n, *8*3: OJ fl h3 U3 fl ^y Ooa o jI o-aHjaoI aoO O 00 P 00 H O *rt .2 i .2(a0 V) HQ.2^ a ll P B 9p fl o *h fl fl p2; 40 fl P 4-> f4l) ffll 3fl 0a) o o a oo ap o p a O JL -H ! o y oo p co o S1 in fl in fl u o O T3 flo flH P o P fl w fl fl 0,5 3 fl fl O ffll (0 fl p p fl O ri CO p Pfl a) O fl fl P fl 9H Q O fl fl y fclu fcql flo P *H P -H <u o T3 Cfl P3 (fl O *H &sy ffalO f(0l t0o 0P o C) fl P P fl Pfal P h H 0) P to y <0 >o o fl p 0) JO fl fl u t3 p rn fl ^ >> Q fClU P-M dW P> > 1 in fl fl o fl *H >Ot Pfl (0 fl fl P<*Hh fl o r--4i E fl P *fDl IQ --5 (0 fl P Pfl CflU -2 It a* p in a a b a a o a a TfOl T3 OSHA PROPOSAL ____________________ BECOMMEMPED CHANGE_________________________ EXPLANATION 0OH + aj o u* a> vo< 4A (Q P <0 MM aCO X-pj N H P Sg *n UJ II 1"0)I t 4) fl O s '3 0 HO 0 10 r-i P 4) H > g 45 4a) a 0 *Ho a S T3 h ) +J OIhH03 TO3 H -P TJ fli M fl 6 slls (0 4_> E 1 3 u o u X) 0 H 3 --> o X2 (0 P i 0 Cm *i--t Uh O M ^ h a. cu rt p e T3 .0 C 0 0 (0 o o to J3 > a -c o rH op O -H 0 s P B L o o o X M0 UO o H a a s0 o *H (h x: '> <p CO P O *P p *a T) 5p 3w 8-a 8(0 ^ *H '~N .H >_' W s /-s t\j rvj 1 o aH J! TJ oH PO * ato a CO k oc po c g, a *S d 4) >i P id Q P fl) P <H H 50 O O *0H) *--\ 4J a ^ fl) o CO H ' fl id p -toho > 00 HW <OH x> Ho >> fi P fl) O H tO fl) as* HO X tJ a-aTOD PO to 8SPo 5? fl> -H 8o *o* SI oP w p <0 fl) X4-J) "S c\j I S-3w*S fl) C H X4-j) 3 oo p au> to ffll)) *ar-( >0* a p a) rH -P ao> G> H 6P 4) 3 >> O P a a fl) /*N t-- W P C o fl) i3 rH a jMo Q (0 fal) 4-> o fl) W X V- fl> rrHH fl) cH fl) puH fl) C(fl O 3 L fl) fl) a a p> nadP.qfi 3 O V -H ao H u* *P uo S3 4-> 43 H 4O3 fl H 4, 6 _ j.3. >> ft -P O i? Hft43 S -{H3 Q -p 43 p o P p u >> o *ci s gS J O H p-P <8 H P43 OT33H3 H> PO 43 43 *P SP rH pH PS \X3 PS 44oW33 r--OO1 (0 4<PH3 0 iup HP P T3 4P3 .f--31 2 BPP01 *o a HU u 0 44-3> o ts *TP3 UQO To3OUa3 1 o oX in *3 vO ^73 0 n*o $e>a -pd+Co 43 43 g O  a .g^ *H O VO na^RQft eb XI c -rl +> e XS S (3 > O 03 *3 o t?*4* S to - OPON P03 C P CO p 2 SS ^ w r- *H H *H i-4 3 ai <P O us O o O a 4) 43 W o p X H o X t-. flCM 03 4> 4) P o o H o 'w' 0) (0 TJ 4) H a a0 t, C r< aa p H 4) (H o B H p 4) (0 `*-3 > >i X 5 g (0 l> p o O U3 o m 4) T" (0 rH H H XX <*H 4) o n- XI flj aj 4) o X o 4-> ; 'a .Q.) 410) O(0 3 4) OP ' T>H3 0rHtO0PXX. 2C4>O be u n n e c e s s a rily burdensome I CD I U 0 -4 1 O0 H > .. .. aOt 0 h <p0 0 0 +> fl 0 fl i0-h04+> 0a P 4J & OUO 10 flj O H P <W 04 aH ja0 BS C -P H 0 (0 <H O. 0 35 0 o 0s -O a a rt 0 0 O Si O JS 'H 'rt p .p 4J 4J 4J l -W I r-l w | s i ! OS. JQ R- fit** JCJ *9 P 0 /-v H 8d-g o ^o 8 8 H +> O H asa VO a^ a*r* * j "im-iHAA 'S A iH P t> 8 H a11S,'^? H 9 | vr *> M ^ O ^1 T3 O g H`HQ"S UHPO -OfPl. V1UOt <+5> sfltl ha ,MBBoc Hfvot HcAO> &O .O* .5 *> 55 4 IQ ^&>.2_ &| /-N H |J P S *, 5 ii a a-a <D ) 8 "w* I  41 tt -P Is 8* O3 3- S ,* H ss bg *3 ffl -O o' 3AoID H P O O 9 p .d g tJ A 4' C I l n * * '* S. M >' ._ . S a* .'<* 1 at> oO +O> J+3i O 3 I 4P <H 0 Kt O Q O If* d 18 5 4OQHo1, A41 h CO ij P >ou p< -Bap A U 41 oPi a 41 w 2 41 ou IS S3 tt* to to r(at34i dsp *-aah3 *dh a sHg I8 aS >M X *On ^V n 1 CP m x I 04 2! U3 d o 005702