Document ga5O1YvR33BDjgBX3njY2dVQ9

I internal CORRESPONDENCE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT GP-314c mining and metals division To (Homo) Division locotion Mr. W. Mining and Metals New York, NY tooy to P. 0. BOX 579, NIAGARA PALIS, NEW YORK 14302 Dot* Originating Dopt. July 27, 1973 "Calidria" Asbestos - Marketing Aniworing iottor doto Subjocl OSHA Citation Enclosed is a copy of the Subject issued to Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Akron, New York, for which they were fined a total of $3000. I will send a copy to all personnel without identifying Georgia-Pacific, as this should be considered confidential information. Georgia-Pacific personnel, including counsel, attended a hearing in New York City but did not contest the citation. Since they did not contest, 0SHA advised them that they could not see the dust monitoring results. Therefore, they do not know where specific improvements are needed. There seem to be several areas where 0SHA demands clearly exceed legal requirements. Based on our field experience, EPA, CSHA and state authorities are making it common practice to do this and tend to create an aura of harassment or unfounded fear for our customers. Have we received any satisfactory response on the EPA letter from Atlanta, for instance; and should v/e make some high-level waves via AIA or direct? It can only get worse if there are no complaints. Following are some specific comments (with niy thanks to H. B. Rhodes for his participation): Citation Item 1. The regulations do not specify clothing to prevent skin contact. We know of no deleterious effect of skin contact with asbestos. The most obvious reason for clothing changes is to minimize the transfer of asbestos dust to non-occupational areas. Posting of Citation - The asbestos regulations do not require posting of citation but are very specific on employee notification if he has been exposed to excess concentrations. Without data Georgia-Pacific does not know which employees to notify or where to take corrective action. Perhaps posting of the citation is required by the original Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Mr. W. C. Thurber -2- July 27, 1973 Multi-Step Abatement - Items 3 through 7 are required to become permanent controls. It is assumed that Georgia-Pacific will install dust control equipment and take other engineering and administrative steps to reduce airborne dust to acceptable levels. Except for Item 5, it is clear in the regulations that the other items are not required unless dust levels are or are reasonably expected to exceed the prescribed levels. It seems that the prescribed abatement procedures exceed the legal requirements. This recalls one comment on the OSHA regulations: "You cannot exceed the threshold limit values - but, if you do, you must do this and this, etc. --" There is no question in our minds or in Georgia-Paci fic's that the Akron plant is dirty and deserved citation. We are working closely with them on dust monitoring and possible control measures, including the use of pellets. Enclosure /ds