Document gb4oKryeRM5bnkoLaEqOKNB43

Occupational Exposures to Toxic Substances In Laboratories' 1910.14S0 COW ENTS 1. In Indiana our Bl employees will be covered by a comparable Indiana State Law. (See P.4) 2. Overall, I think this Std. is reasonable for R&D, and will back us up in our 'recommendations'' to the technical community, because now we will have a standard that explicitly covers us. 3. Additional protection is provided because Non-OSHA regulated substances are also covered, also since the TLVS (ACGIH) are updated, a more current approach will be taken. 4. Training & Eduatlon - provisions are very good - appear workable for R&D. and should not more closely mirror the OSHA Haz. Com. Std. (See P.10) 5. Regarding T & Ed. - our problem arises from our Support Staff * porters, union workers contract employees grounds maintenance summer help this Std. adequately address the educated, technical person, but not the functions mentioned above. I thjnk the original OSHA Haz. Com. Std. training 6 education better applet. 6. It seems that Bell Labs would fall under "Industrial R&D1' (p.42). 7. Do we know about the use of any other carcinogens aside from asbestos I REDACTED 8. Can the R&D Council shed more light-on chemical inquiry and illness in labs? I question the applicability of using chemical source rates from manufacturing, (p.46) 9. I do not feel that our IWDI rate will drop 50X as noted on p.49, due to the fact that our inquiries, for the most part, do not occur in the labs. 10. Are our emissions processed to reduce contaminants & diluted with additional air? If not, I think its a very good idearo etc SC . 11. The Medical Consultation Aspect (p.57) needs a lot more detailed work, (ie guidelines) LLA 001885 ATT.394