Document 93ddmBaY7a95Y8eL45kNzQ715

-isorgiaR'ciflc Corporation K) S.W. F.Uh Avenue Poriland, Oregon 97204 503/222 5561 ^ I PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT GP-1441 August 17, 1973 Mr. F. C. Johns New York Department of Labor 2447 Sheridan Drive Tonawanda, New York 14150 Subject: Fan System #9, Plan No. BPA-217-73 - Akron, New York Gypsum Plant Dear Mr. Johns: In reply to your notice dated August 14, 1973 concerning the above subject, I have asked our consulting engineer, Mr. Earl Harvey, to prepare a draw ing showing the revisions that were made to the bag slitter hood in the Akron joint cement plant. 1 have also asked Mr. Harvey to consider up grading the existing outside Wheelabrator" baghouse collector which vents the bag slitter hood. This upgrading will be accomplished by increasing the size and speed of the baghouse exhaust fan. As soon as the drawings for this system (fan system #9) have been completed by Mr. Harvey, I will forward the necessary forms, drawings, fees, etc., to your office for approval. GTZivm cc: Mr. William Hammer - Akjpn Mr. J. Rauch - Akron Mr. V. Tretter - Portland Mr. J. Russell - Otten Company Mr. E. Harvey - Otten Company Sincerely, y ft' George Turner Project Engineer Gypsum Division SGP 0021937 Buffalo Testing Laboratories analytical and coniultins c i.i MKTALLU HOISTS 902 Kenmore Avc. Attn: Mr. Shifferle Gror gia-Pacif ic Dloor.ingdale Road Phone: 873-2302 Akron, N. Y. 142001 TERMS: NET CASH August 20, 1073 Buffalo. N. Y. - 14216 your order no. NY06536 Report No. 65,227 For the asbestos analysis of twelve (12) casettes, which you submitted to us on July 27th, 1973. $600.00 Terns:* Net invoice amount due and payable immediately upon receipt of report. Agreed to you by acceptance of this invoice is our policy that any invoice for which we have not received payment by the end of the first subsequent month will be charged \a-;scryxQC rate of l}% per month each and every month thereafter, ' SGP 0021938 \ Georgia-Ffecific 4 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION ^ DATE: August 21, 1973 TO: Mr. j. d. Rauch LOCATION: Akron, N. Y. FROM: R. G. Tuttle location: Portland, Oregon SUBJECT: ASBESTOS - YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 3rd Jack, I feel we took the proper steps and since the purpose of our program is to protect our people, have acted in good faith Your paragraph 1 and 2 seem reasonable enough but is something A1A should get documented from OSHA for future situations. I don't feel we want to make an issue of it. We were aware of the "technicality" of the whole body clothing requirement but it has further ramifications which must be considered, namely asbestos exposure outside the work area after shifts. I don't feel we should quarrel with that citation now or in the future. It is reasonable that if no exposure exists, administrative control measures are not required. AIA is right, providing exposure NEVER exceeds the permissible limits, items 3 through 7 would not be required. When a plant can prove exposure never exceeds the T.L.V. you can dispense with items 3 through 7. However, any process using asbestos will most likely exceed the T.L.V. at various times over a given period so the controls would be required. I personally feel no need to pursue the matter further, either with AIA or OSHA. Jack, it is a real pleasure doing business with a "professional" and think you have handled this asbestos problem exceptionally well at Akron. RGT "mg R. G. T. SGP 0021939