Document XRygw6yj8mMVE7MMGnjDdz0Dx

FILE NAME: Asbestos Information Association (AIA) DATE: K DOC#: / DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:DZWZZZZZK^,Z ^ - l October 1975 URGENT - Subject: MEMBERS Proposed.Revision to OSF..A Asbestos Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000) On September 30, the Secretary of Labor signed a document proposing a revision to the Occupational Safety and-Health ;...c,.ilinistration standard for -exposure ."to--asbestos. 'i,. copy of this document is rushed to :rour. attention. The document -is scheduled for official publication in the "Feaera.J. Regfster on Thursday, October 9. ,.._ OSRA Proposed Standard. Would: Reduce the permissible exposure limit to a TiiA of 0.5 fibers per cul:Jic centimete~ (500,000 .fibers per cubic meter) and reduce the ce1ling limit to 5 :ibers per cubic centimete: (~ million fibers per cubic meter). Add a 15 minute sampling period for determination o: the ceiling limit. Establish additional requirements for reg-.:lating a=eas, e..~ployee rosters, hygiene facilities, employee info==nation .a:1d training, signs and labels, monitc=ing and mecical. surveillance. ~xtend the period for retention of monitoring and med~cal records to 40 years or for the du=atic~ of t.~e e~ployees' employment plus 20 years, whichever is longer. Exclude cc~struction activities ~:om revised standard bu~ -----~o~1c:- conti~ue cove=age o: ~hese ac~ivities ~~der t~e existing standard. !~ is intended that a se?a:ate =e- visiott would be proposed for the construction inc~st~~- f PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 6.V--13( ?age 2 !:aic= iss't.:eS raised bv this ,;:,rooosal and for which -oublic co~.:ne~t is i~vited: Whether the permissible limit for an 8-hour time weighte~ average exposure (TWA) should be lowered to 500,000 fibers per cu=iic meter (0. 5 fiber per cubic centimeter).., .and if so, would such an exposure provide an adequate margin of safety to protect employees against known and suspected workplace hazards of asbestos. Whether the permissible ceiling limit shouJ.d be reduced to 5 million fibers per cubic meter (5 fibers per cubic centimeter) and, if so, would such an exposure provide an adequate margin of safety to protect employees against k~own and su~pected workplace hazards. . ifr,e.i_.~e.r t:i:e !J:,:opo:;ed ::.:~t~::t.io:,, period fc-r mf!di:al 'Ul~ t,"'.>~i- tcring recorcs of former employees would be approp=iate a.~d adequate. Whet.ii.er the information gathering requirements of the pl:0- posal would create any administrative and economic burdens o~ employers, particularly those employing sm,all nw:nbe=s of employees or having workforces which are highly tra.."'l.sient . Whether the provision for job reassig~~ent on account of rnecical u.~suitability adequately and effectively urthexs t:le pu=-poses of ..:the. Act. a~e w:~ether compliance with the p:-oposal woul.d economically feasible :or all affected be technologically industries. 1::~at a=e the projected environ.-:iental a.,d inlationary i:.:pacts o: 't:91e p=oposal. I~ acco=ca:-1ce with Executive Order 11221 a.-i.d 0MB Circular ~-107, OS~A intends to ?repare a state~en~ which will assess ~:.~ inflationary impacts of the pro?osed s~a:-ldard. This ~=~o= s~ate::a::::.. will be trLade available to ~-:e p1:.~lic at least 30 tavs to a ~ublic hearinc a~ ~he oro~osal. W=itten cc~~=;~s a~d orai testi~ony o;. the a~~lci?ated eco~omic im- ?a=: ~~ll ~a welcome. ~~= ?=C?Csal does not contain a~ a~~ici?a~ec effective cate a~ this ti~e. Following review of ~he envi=onmental and :~:la~io~a=y iwpact assessm~n~s and tha record o= ~he ?~~lie hce=ing, i= o~e is hclc, OSHA ~ill p=opose a ca~e ~re