Document bygyX3a50N9qabw7JbkQJao9g

v ." w, ..~ '. . 'II Asbestos Information Assoclaticn/Ncn America ~2 East 40th Street New York, N. Y. 10016 (212).~ ct-tC; _~':J 1~ JUly 5, 1972" TO: AIA/NA MEMBER COMP~~IES AIA/NA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SUB-CO~~ITTEE AIA/NA LEGAL COUNSEL . James Armstrong - Bendix Corporation E. C~ Bratt - H. K. Porter Company, Inc. G. G. Gabrielson, Jr. - Nicolet'Industries, Inc. Bernard Gross - American Bilt Rite Rubber Company J. Hall GAF Corporation H. M. Jackson Johns-Manville Corpora~on ~. N. Jcr~snn - Onion Carbide Corporation A. R. Hooker The Flintkote Company C. A. Neumann - Kentile Floors Incorporated G. W. Nickel - Armstrong Cork Company Clifford Seymour - The Carborundum Company . J. R. Stetson, - Congoleum Industries, Inc . Philip Weinstein - Evertex Incorporated G. W. Wright, M.D. - St. Luke's Hospital Gentlemen: A meeting was held in Washington last Thursday beoveen the AIA/NA and representatives of the OSr~ standarcs developwent and compliance sections. Attending on behalf of the AlA. ,,;ereuohn Marsh, Raybestos-Manhattan; Paul Weiner, GU'; Eugh Jackson, Johns-Manville; Fr~~k Zi~~erman, National'Gypsum: BradIey Walls, AIA/NA Legal Counsel, and M. M. Swetcnic, AIA/NA Executive Secretary. OSHA was represented by John O'Neill and Harry Gilbe~t of Standards Development; and Ray McClure of Compliance. The purpose of the meeting, as was discussed at the Association meeting on June 22, was to clarify a number of points with regard to the interpretation and enforcement of the asbestos sta~darcs. Because the standards are to go into effect this week, we considered it im?erat~ve to provide you wi~~ the basic poi.nt s of interpretation ar.dcornpLdance established at the ~ceting. A more comple~e report on the meeting will be forthcoming in the near :uture. PLAINTIFF'S ~ EXHIBIT i WV - CQ.ol\lD:l PLAINTIFF'S I EXHIBIT 3J'8'~~. 00 ~.J. ; t..( ." , . -2- The following are t~e main a=eas discussed and the decisions reach~d: 1. LABELING: The AIA/NA is applying for a temporary industry-wide variance on the exact wording of the labeling requirements of the standards, in order that existing supplies of boxes, cartons, bags, etc. containing a label with wording somewhat diffe~ent than that called for in the standards will be permitted until they are used up. As l~~g_as~the labeL.- -~urrently beinq-"used'contains-basically the --;. same information as the required one, it will be acceptable to OSHA until stocks are used up. ' Products to be labeled should follow the li51:-__ . _ ing submitted by Dr. Fred Pundsack of_ Johns-Manville to OSliA following_the.MaJ:ch hearings. A copy of Dr. Pundsacx's list, with minor alterations~ is attached for your information. No product which requires labeling wil~ ba -permitted to be used without any label until existing stocks of non-labeled bags, etc. are used up. A stick-on label of some type would be satisfactory. 'The size, color, plac'ement, etc. of the labe1- is left to the discretion of tha.employer, as= long ,aL'the-:-:labeils "readi.ly"i:'sible'and. -.~egible .". -r A C~gcoQ.....:ruie-t~foil~'01Ild -be: i~' youare-try.i..ngto hide the '-label, OSHA will probably not accept it. 2. CLOTHES LOCKERS: Separate clothes lockers are required only for employees working at levels in excess of the five fiber TWA. 3. It was the intention of OSHA to reauire Type "e" supplied-air respi=ators and protective clothing only for insulation and fireproofing spray applications. AIA/NA will apply for a modification of the law to excluce other types of asbestos-spray applications from these requirements. -More- ., ... . -3- 4. RESPIRATORS: There is a mistake in the standards in paragraph (d) (2)(ii) "Powered Air Purifying Re'spirators. If The firs t sentence of that paragraph now reads: "A full facepiece powered air purifying respirator, or a powered air purifying respirator, or a respirator etc." The sentence should" read: "A full facepiece powered air purifying respirator, or a respirator etc." The phrase "or a powere~ air purifyinq respiratorshould be deleted. s, MONITORING AND PHYSICAL_EXAMINATIONS: Company oner.tic.r:'::.aqnd I:h:tsic.:tel::3Ininztior:s :ir.ould he. conducted on all employees who' regularly work with asbestos and are exoosed to airborne fiber, as well as on maintenance men, company industria1 hygienists and other employees that the co~pany feels.require monitoring and physica1 examination because of the nature ot their work or because of their close proximity to dusty asbestos operations. This ~~u1d exclude office personnel, most people working in non-asbestos using sections of an aSbestos manufacturing operation, etc. 6. CITATIONS: A company's own monitorjng or other records will not be used as e~dence to issure citations;:nor will they =e used to give a plant a clean bill of heal~~. 7. OSHA INSPECTIONS: OSHA industrial hygienists will take dust samoles, if at all possible, for a full eight hours, perhaps divided into two four hour samples. In addition, samples will be taken on more than one day, so that a more accurate count can be produced. Ceiling sampling periods will be at the discretion of the OSHA hygienist. Ceiling samples as short as five minutes may be taken if deemed appropriate. Under some circumstances -More- -4- (an obviously very heavy dust concent:ation), ~ ceiling samples may be taken, but this would not be normal practice. Employers will be given specific dust counts only if they are in excess of the standard. Counts taken by NIOSH hygienists will be reported to OSHA, but will not be used by OSHA for purposes of issuing citations~ 8. ~~LOYEE NOTIFICATION: On the question o notifying employees if they are found to be working in dust concentrations above the limit, 'neither O'Neill or McClure would make a decision whether the notification clause in the .standard would be satisfied by the posting on a plant bulletin bcazd of stations above .. TWA, or whether a more individualized approach, such as scrld::n'3t'he e!Jpl.:lyeeco. regi.stE'r!!dlatter, would be required. To answer this question, we were asked to write to the solicitors office in OSHA for a ruling. Unfortunately, a prior informal conversation between Paul Weiner of GAF and a member of the legal staff of OSHA indicated that the answer to such a que~tion would be in favor of the registered letter approach. As a result, we have decided ~ to submit this question for a ruling, but will leave it up to each company in the industry to decide in what manner it wishes to abide by this requirement, and wait to see i bul1etin board notification will be challenged by OSHA regional inspectors. In ~eneral, the concer.s~sof the AlA grou? that attended the Washington h.=et~ng was that the industry could expect reasonable treatment from os~ as long as the industry did not try to 0:circ~"ver.t t~e ~r.tent the regulations. For example, the various req~ire~ents in the s~andard fo= protective clothing, ~=.change =oc~s, separate lockers, etc. have as their purpose the preventing excessive ~~ounts of as~estos dust being car=iec to~e on an e~ployee's clothes frc~ work. As long as this purpose is achieved, the industry ..i.1.1. be given wide latitude as to ~he types of protective clothing, footwear and headgear requi=ed; the location and size of change rooms: -More... I , _, .....l ' ... , '. -5- ">, the dista..'"1bceetween separate Lcckexs ,; etc. In ..short, the indt:stry is free to interpret many sections of the regulations as it-se~s fit, as-long .3.S the spi:'ritand'iritent of the law isobse~ed. Since=ely, - Matthew M. Swetonic Executive Secretary NOTE: The following is the new address and telephone number ...othe A~/NA effective irnmediatelv. Asbestos Information Association/North America 22 East 40th Street . Suite 1611 '" ~ew York, ~Tew York 1.0016 212-" 689-3378 .. ...