Document G6e3w9wQXEQroEzw6kvG1o6Oq

UNIROYAL, Inc. OXFORD (Location) November IS, 1975 TO: D. E. Dudrow FROM: L. F. Die ringer SUBJECT?' ATI Work Session on Proposed Revision to QSHA Asbestos Standard. On November 13, 1975, the Asbestos Textile Institute met at Stoutfer's National Center Inn, Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the position that ATI would take in regard to the proposed revision to the OSHA Asbestos Standard. In attendance were: Amatex Corporation J. L. Rainey; M. J. Scanlan Garlock Inc. -- S. G. Dixit; A. Kuzmuk Johns-ManvUle Corporation -- D. H. Markusson, Esq. Raybestos- Manhattan, Inc. -- I. H. Weaver; W. Krucke; M. Q. Scowcroft Southern Asbestos Company -- E. C. Bratt; L. E. Moody Uniroyal, Inc. -- B. E. Carden; E. A. Morris; L. F. Dieringer; S. Peale Legal Counsel -- W. B. Alcorn, Jr., Esq., Cadwalader, Wickersham I, Taft Guest -- R. H. Mereness, Executive Director, Asbestos Information Association/North America -- K. Verrill, British Belting and Asbestos Company, Great Britain After considerable discussion, it was agreed that the ATI initial response will be a general objection on the basis of the lack of technological feasibility in the asbestos textile industry to comply with the 0,5 fiber per cubic centimeter permissible exposure limit in the proposed revision. This is to be submitted by the December 8, 1975 deadline. The Asbestos Information Association has asked for 120 day extension to this deadline and expects at least a 60 day extension. Further specific response to ocher objectionable sections of the proposed revision as well as impact statements, will be prepared for the hearing expected at a later date. Mr. Mereness, Executive Director of the Asbestos Information Association, stated that in all probability it will be six months before the government economic study will be ready and a year before promulgations of a revised standard. He indicated that the British medical data upon which the proposed fiber reduction is based, was incomplete and that an AIA sponsored medical group was going to review the data and comment upon OSHA's interpretation of the data. 77 4,.^ LFD/df cc: J. D. Forbes, M.D. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT II Q3202.0D |iwv-flM&381 iwTcoxruioMuv nr oocconMncwrc 501704JJ