Document 4aVxzz1e6kMNd0ZQqQ07zVaqV

April 17, 1974 Hr. Robert H. tterenesa Executive Director Asbestos Information Assoclstioivftorth America 1660 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Hr. Hereneasi I have been told that consideration is being given to soot changes in the Occupational Safety and Health Law as regards the Asbestos Standard 1910.93A. Under (j) Medical Examinations, it statesi (3) Annual Examinations. On or before January 31, 1973, and at least annually thereafter, every employer shall provide, or sake available, comprehensive Medical examinations to each of his employees engaged in occupations exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers. Such annual examinations shall Include, as a minimum, a chest roentgenogram (pos terior anterior 14 x 17 inches), a history to elicit symptomatology of respiratory disease, and pulmonary function tests to include farced vital capacity (FVC) and farced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV), (6) Hsdical Records--(!) Maintenance. Employers of ecv>loyees examined pursuant to this paragraph shall cause to be maintained complete and accurate records of all such medical examinations. Records shall be retained by employers for at least 20 years. It is my understanding that consideration is being given to a change in the wording of this part of the regulation in order to provide that such examinations would be conducted .outside of the premises by an indepen dent government-sponsored group of physicians end that the records would not bo mads avallabl# to tho employer. Should this change be mode, the employer mould be kept in the dart concerning the health of hit employees. Zt would ba useless for him to continued na r Mr. Robert H. Marmots April 17, 1974 Pago 2 employ a Medical department or Indeed to provide physical examinations for his employees. This is especially true in those large corporations which for many years have been providing examinations to detect early signs of disease among workers. In my opinion this would work to'the detriment of the employees and therefore should not be considered. Very truly yours, JJWiBA John J. Welsh, M.D. Corporate Medical Director U /' rr UC 14*.2 <* INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE - MINING AND METALS DIVISION To Division location Dr. J. J Welsh 4th Floor Copy* Messrs. W. J. Kovack H. B. Rhodes 270 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 Originating Dapt April 16, 1974 Aniwaring i.tf.r dot* SubJ.d Toxicology This is a follow up to our recent telephone conversation requesting the views of Union Carbide's Medical Department on the confidentiality of employee physical examina tions as related to the OSHA asbestos regulations. Background information on this matter is attached. A statement of your opposition to such a move, together with sub stantiating reasons, would be most helpful to our activities in conjunction with the Asbestos Information Association in opposing such a change in the OSHA asbestos re gulations. WCT :es Attachment W. C. Thurber {j oo s* RECEIVED ;,PR 1 71974 MEDICAL DEPARTMENT t UC 140.2 ; R INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE t i MINING AND METALS DIVISION To (Nomo) Division Location Copy to Mr. W. C. Thurber UCC Mining & Metals 38th Floor 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Mr. J. L. Myers File Dot# March 4, 1974 Originoting Dopt. "Calidria" Asbestos Answoring iottor dot* Subject Toxi cology Dear Bill: Here are three items relating to the above subject where your recommendations are requested. 1. Confidentiality of Physical Examinations % At our first Technical Advisory Committee meeting, Ed Fenner mentioned that a very strong push is expected from the Unions to make the results of employee physical examinations confidential. This means that the company does not have access to the results and only gets a statement from the examining physician that the man is able or unable to work. This position was also reported to have considerable support from OSHA. j ; \; '! | A request was made that the Corporate Medical Directors of the various companies represented be asked to state their position on this matter and provide any supporting evidence or information re the position that they felt was appropriate. This would be used by the AIA/NA Medical Advisory Committee to evaluate if an industry position should be taken and if so what it should be. I assume that the final results will be subject to the same review by the Board of Directors as the Technical Comnittee recommendations but this was not explicitly stated. ;: j * ; i J| It seems to me that this would be a goodmatter for you to discuss with Dr. Dernehl. If you agree,pleaseproceed. If not, please advise. i; :1 {| 2. Consumer Product Safety Commission The attached article came to n\y attention today. I suspect that this Commission has no background in asbestos and "only know what they read in the papers." Some missionary work by Bob Mereness-before the activist petitions to ban asbestos containing consumer goods start to come in may be very useful. It is suggested that this matter be brought up at the next Board of Directors' meeting. RECEIVED MAR 5 1974 03327