Document yrp3Q6yymbbND69q25EMEvVz3

FILE NAME: Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMS) DATE: 1976 June 2 DOC#: FMS045 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Asbestos Study Committee Report t ASBESTOS STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT June 2, 1976 The asbestos study c o m i c t e e began this term at a time when it appeared that relaxations of oppressive, government controls might be expected. Public dis enchantment with such things as seat belt and ignition interlocks gave hope that ve might anticipate greater realism in governmental approaches to regulating the indus trial environment. Our hopes for such relief were dashed when, on October 9, 1975, the Federal P.egister published.. a proposed amendment to the standard for exposure to asbestos. This proposal included a drastic, and what informed members of our industry think to be unrealistic, reduction of a standard scheduled to become effective July 1, 1976 i - of two fibres per cc, tine weighted average peraissable exposure to asbestos iibxes. The proposal would amend this to 0.5 fibres, as well as imposing.more stringent and unrealistic record keeping requirements. Based o n information available to us, no alternative existed but to accept .-'the task of: 1. Putting our members in the best possible position to comply with both the July 1, 1976 two fibres per cc standard, and educating them at least to understanding the.impact what will be required to cope with the 0.5 fibre standard, should it be imposed. 2. Using every possible means at our disposal to enlighten goverment officials of.what informed members within .our industry regard as the complete impracticability of the 0.5 standard. 3. Cooperating with the Asbestos Information Association and the Institute Office in their response to O.S.H.A. on the revised asbestos standard. V have been- cold chat our efforts in the above areas have been efficacious. .Va believe chat the Seminar, which we conducted on December 3 and A, 1975 r 0 sar n s, was constructive in the areas of 1 and 2 above, in that top talent from / 'N Page 2 allied industries, equipment suppliers, government agencies, trade associations, and nedical technologists made timely and informative presentations. I an certain - that everyone who attended the seminar vent away with a better grasp of both the task which confronts us, and methods by which to resolve then. The third area vas implinented by close cooperation with the Asbestos Information Association, and their contractor, the Weston Company, who did such a professional job in preparing the Association's response to O.S.H.A. If nothing' else vas established by the response, it certainly masterfully rebutted the evidence upon which the changes were based. The Asbestos Study Committee will continue to work to keep abreast of government' regulations and to share with members technological techniques developed to cope with them. Respectfully submitted, ! To