Document 3NvOQkNRkwpQrDdpmM5jjJY9O

na^ &b isj v c iC UUJCU ij*u*>cu niHli jLLJ "".'`"`"a' * wiae guoa medicine tor tne Amonfc LUcie uj j ^xctuicivjue titerary pharinacopoeia, taking potions illnesses of the spirit which, as Dr. Howard people, cattle are not kept for meat or pri- which were good for his spiritual ailments. suggests, are inevitable. rnarily even for sale but for social prestige, 2345/001 PLAIN DEALER - Wednesday, July 24, 1974 Forum feedback: the vinyl chloride columr The July 15 article by Jeff Stansbury Stansbury and Flattau perform a great dis and Edward Flattau on the problem of service at a time when sound, reasoned worker safety in the use of vinyl chloride is - judgments based on scientific evidence incorrect in several respects. must prevail over emotion. Stansbury and Flattau said that Dow I attended the recent Department of Chemical Co. told the Occupational Safety Labor hearings in Washington, D.C.. on and Health Administration hearing examin vinyl chloride monomer exposure and list ers that it was already complying with the ened to the evidence presented by labor, proposed "no detectable" level and this un management and government. In consider dercut other manufacturers' claims. I at ing the statements by Flattau and Stansbury tended the hearings, and I have reviewed I can only spectulate as to whether these the Dow testimony. I can categorically gentlemen saw fit to attend the hearings. state that Stansbury and Flattau are wrong. Dow did not say it can achieve the "no detectable" level in any of its facilities except in certain job areas. It was also brought out quite clearly in the cross exami nation that Dow is not a PVC producer but Several points require clarification: Industry has stressed that the mat ter of prime concern in regulating exposure to vinyl chloride monomer is the health and safety of employes. runs a different type of polymer plant with The economic issue involved is not different, types of problems. Dow is a vinyl the cost of engineering or work practice chloride monomer producer. changes reasonably necessary to reduce Thus, Dow's testimony did not under cut other manufacturers' claims. As a mat ter of fact, Dow's testimony strongly sup ported the claims of other manufacturers that the non-detectable level is not neces exposure .to vinyl chloride monomer, but rather the total economic ramifications which would result from imposition of a standard for which the technology does not exist. sary for the health of workers. Industry's criticism of the proposed Stansbury and Flattau, were also incorrect in saying that the other manufacturers felt they would need at least three years to federal standard for exposure to vinyl chloride monomer is based on technological feasibility. meet the proposed standards. The Society The reduced exposure levels advo of the Plastics Industry, speaking for most cated by the industry represent the lowest jf the manufacturers of PVC and vinyl levels possible with present technology'. chloride monomer, indicated that they did not know how to meet the proposed stand ard. Instead, they recommended adoption of a standard tougher than that which is currently in existence but far different from the proposed standard--and this would be achieved over a three-year peri od. , I would again call to the editor's atten tion that Stansbury and Flattau are inac curate reporters. One gets the impression that they are twisting the facts to suit their particular point of view in a way that is not ethical. I would recommend that The Plain Dealer discontinue their column. Each time they have written about something with which 1 am familiar, I have found them to be grossly inaccurate. There is no scientific evidence that the dramatically reduced exposure levels proposed i by industry constitute any health hazard to employes. Stansbury and Flattau rely on the testimony of Dow Chemical Co. for the proposition that the proposed reduction of vinyl chloride monomer exposure to "no de tectable" levels in the workplace is techno logically feasible. In point of fact what Dow Indicated was that it has obtained some "no detectable" levels at some locations in some plants. The same can be said of many companies. What Stansbury and Flattau chose to ignore was the Dow testimony on page 892 of the hearing transcript: "In modern-engi neered plants, with continuous monitors HARRY E. CONNORS airborne levels (of vinyl chloride mono Vice nresident mer) can be minimized but not eliminated;" General manager, Plastics Division and on page 901: "Well. I have concluded Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co. that it is technically infeasible to get to a 1100 Superior Ave., Cleveland no-detectable limit of vinyl chloride mono . Stansbury and Flattau use half-truths, misrepresentations and erroneous assump tions to support a preconceived conclusion. mer by Oct. 5, 1974." Stansbury and Flattau also imply that Dow's reduced exposure levels were achieved overnight. The evidence is clear that for reasons other than the recently The problem of exposure to possibly discovered suspicion of vinyl chloride mono dangerous levels of vinyl chloride monomer mer as a cancer-producing agent, Dow in the plastic industry demands the con has toiled for over 10 years to achieve the cern of labor, management and govern exposure levels presently found in its facili ment. Inflammatory columns like that of ties. Stansbury and Flattau imply that industry's response to the possible hazards of exposure to vinyl chloride monomer has been to raise thinly veiled economic threats and sit back. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was industry itself that brought the possible hazards of vinyl chlo ride monomer exposure to the attention of the federal government. As a relative newcomer in my associat i o n with the plastics industry, I was amazed by the dramatic and decisive ac tion taken by the industry to reduce expo sures to vinyl chloride monomer imme diately on becoming aware that it posed a possible health hazard to employes. This action was taken voluntarily without gov ernment requirement. The evidence does not support the in dictment of industry leveled by Stansbury and Flattau. - DENNIS H. MARKUSSON 1832 Orchard Dr., Akron r" Savings ud to 50% in nr?***rrt ri m n 1 i.v'riVlUilUii d SALE Famous Brand Suits Special group V3 & 1/2 off! PARMATOWN SEVERANCE GREAT IAKES MA;: 1 FOR YOUR WEDDING GIFT SELECTION FINE CHINA ROYAL-WORCESTER-WEDGWOOD-ROYAL DOULTON-Mlh --COALPORT--SPODE--ROYAL COPENHAGEN--RORSTRAND CRYSTAL 0RREF6RS11- STUART - GALWAY ;T iT7 f -"ROYAL HOLLAND - KIRK - REED AND BARTON GORHAM SULEB TIFFANY - REED AND BARTON - GORHAM - LUNT - T0YCU FRANK SMITH - KIRK -- STIEFF - WALLACE - INTERNATIO' STAINLESS FLATWARE-ALL GUILD LINES--FRASER--SUPREME--GENSE - WE INVITE BRIDAL REGISTRY - he la Place fichmond and cedar rc^ beachwood. Ohio 44122 216 /292-5: BFG25628