Document rpQmZ9re0e2EqqOVVGwpnZzLa

Employment Sa*erv and Health Guide / Review Direct :d cn Asbestos Medicol : notion Kuilr.gs Review Commissioner Timothy F. Cleary has directed re\"ice of tun case' in which the Judges held that the saicty standard on asbestos exposure rec|'.::.n - medical examinations for employees exposed to any level uf airborne ashc-stc; fiber;. The similar relinks were made in two coses brought against GAP C"fpotation, which manufacture; building materials, following plant inspect'.nin Whitehall, I'a., and it. Louis, Mo. The Judges both held that med-e.-i examination were rtcccs-for all employees, not merely those extsi-yl ashesto; levels in execs * : amounts aile.ved by the standard (nvc M-ei' longer than h\c micrometers, per cub'c centimeter of air). Boih violet >.n^ 4 LLA 000902 s were considered to be nonscrious. A JHQ penalty was affirmed in the Pennsvivania cn*c; none was recommended in the other (Sec * 1S.2S9 and 13,die. ExirujY'.tE^T Safety and Health Coiok). The company argued in its petition for review that medical examinations are required only for thc^e employees exposed to more than the Sve-fil.cr limit. The term "concentration" in '.he medical examination provision rein:;; to the level of maximum pernudble exposure, the [xit-.ticn staled. The N'lOSii criteria document on asbestos recommended setting- exposure* levels at two fibers, so it would be unreasonable to consider a "concentration" to be less than that amount, it argued. Furthermore, the California state plan .requires exams only if exposure exceeds one fiber per cr.n. and since this plan was approved by OSHA, it must be conr-i-krvd as effective as the federal one, the petition stated. It also argued that the standard was unenforceable' vague, and that the Secretary was attempting to carry out programs of experimentation and research at the emolovcrs' expense. / 1774, C<mrr**t CUtnny Houir, .r"C. 5 LLA 000903