Document mbaXkvvVegOxZ2zy3Zpmrzj3Z

MINING AND METALS DIVISION To (Nam*) Division loeaiion Dr. J. J Welsh 4th Floor Copy to Messrs. W. J. Kovack H, B. Rhodes 270 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 Dot* Originating D*pU April 16, 1974 Anxw.rinv Utf*r Jot* Subject Toxicology This is a follow op to our recent telephone conversation requesting the views of Union Carbide's Medical Department on the confidentiality of employee physical examina tions as related to the OSHA asbestos regulations. Background information on this matter is attached. A statement of your opposition to such a move, together with sub stantiating reasons, would be most helpful to our activities in conjunction with the Asbestos Information Association in opposing such a change in the OSHA asbestos re gulations. WCT-.es Attachment W. C. Thurber i UCC 014396 RECEIVED ;,PR 111974 MEDICAL DEPARTMENT INTERNAL. CORRESPONDENCE MINING AND METALS DIVISION to (Nome) D>vt*on Location Copy to Mr. W. C. Thurber UCC Mining & Metals 38th Floor 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Mr. J. L. Myers File Dots March 4, 1974 Originating Dopt. "Calidria" Asbestos AntwarTng lotfnr dbf SvbfKt Toxicology Dear Bill: Here are three items relating to the above subject where your recommendations are requested.. 1. Confidentiality of Physical Examinations At our first Technical Advisory Committee meeting, Ed Fenner mentioned that a very strong push is expected from the Unions to make the results of employee physical examinations confidential. This means that the company does not have access to the results and only gets a statement from the examining physician that the man is able, or unable to work. This position was also reported to have considerable support from OSHA. A request was made that the Corporate Medical Directors of the various companies represented be asked to state their position on this matter and provide any supporting evidence or information re the position that they felt was appropriate. This would be used by the AIA/NA Medical Advisory Committee to evaluate if an industry position should be taken and if so what it should be. I assume that the final results will be subject to the same review by the Board of Directors as the Technical Committee recommendations but this was not explicitly stated. It seems to me that this would be a good matter for you to discuss with Dr. Demehl. If you agree, please proceed. If not, please advise.. 2. Consumer Product Safety Commission The attached article came to my attention today. I suspect that this Commission has no background in asbestos and "only know what they read in the papers." Some missionary work b.y Bob Mereness, before the activist petitions to ban asbestos containing consumer goods start to come in mav oe very usetui. it is suggested that this matter be brought up at the next Board of Directors' meeting. Deceived MAR 5 1974 UCC 014397