Document ByrVa1oeQY8VNNg3Z7zaGjMaJ

MEMO R A N D U M Date: To: From: cc: P. Kotin, M.D.1 W. R. Paul, M.D. Subject: PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EMPLOYEE LOCKERS- The rece jit Corporate decision to provide protective clothing to those :ohns-Manville workers involved with asbestos fiber or asbestos products where fiber is not firmly bound*has raised a number of questions from our operating divisions. In an effort ti> perhaps clarify some of these questions, Dr. Kotin wrote to the medical directors of ten of the large U,S. corporations including Shell Oil, Union Carbide, Celanese, Alcoa, DuPont, ^lix<on, General ""Electric, Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and Kaiser Aluminum. The question was asked of the medical director what type of protective clothing program was in force in their corporations to protect employees from bo.th carcinogenic agents, s well as other potentially harmful materials. All of the companies responded, some in more detail than others. In summary, we may make the following conclusions: 1. All he major companies do furnish protective clothing to various employee groups. The decision to furnish clothing is based upon the potential hazard of the mate rial^ handled. The chemical and oil companies are pro tecting employees against materials that may soak into an employee's clothing and be absorbed through the skin. Memo to file S rptembo r 7, 1977 Page 2 Others are concerned with an employee exposure as well ns a family exposure to such items as toxic dusts including lead- Most large firms also furnish specialized protective clothing which will protect an employee against; heat, cold, rf lann , molten metal, water, chemical splashes, etc. .2 The laundering of protective clothing is handled in a number of 4 ays. Usually where large numbers of people are involved the laundering is done in-house. If there is a very small A emp] oyee population involved, an outside laundry service or uni: orm supply service is utilized. It is extremely rare tha contaminated clothing from the workplace is sent homd to be laundered by the employee's family. 3. The frequency of clean clothes issuance varies with the - particular substance the employee handles, weekly being the longest period, daily being the most common period, and xn 9 number of cases with chemical carcinogens, `protective clo Hh ing is changed 3 or 4 times per day. The issuance of lothing is usually handled by utilizing a system similar to th e tool crib method used by most large industrials for issuance of tools and supplies. Memo lo n (' Septemh hr 7, 1977 Page 3 4. Loc ors are furnished to employees who no a where needed, dual lockers are furnished. However, with the use of he tool crib system, dual lockers are not n eeded, since the contaminated clothing is deposited for laundering on a dai y basis. 5. The reasons for furnishing protective clothing and the meth ods of administration vary widely within the companies * poll ed. Few companies have corporate-wide programs which app y across the board to all their operations. The ma jo rity, because of the vast diversification in operations. leave the actual administration of a protective clothing program to the location. The mandate for protective cloth ing, of course, is issued by the corporate environmental ft health department. Some corporations state their policy rather plainly that it is to protect the employee, to protect the employee's family, to aid in quality' control (clean room activities) or merely to enhance the corporation's public image (gas station uniforms). Almost all the major corporations furnish protective clothing of the *type dis- . cussed free of charge to their employees. In some cases, prolective clothing has been a subject for the bargaining table and is negotiated with the labor contract. In a few instances (DuPont with chloroaniline and tetraethyl lead) , l "protective clothing committees" within the plant have been set up to determine a fair and equitable method for clothing issuance. Memo to file Septemb er 7, 1977 Page 4 All medical directors feel quite strongly that persons handling carcinogenic agents should receive protective clothing, not only for their own protection but also for the protection of their families should dusts, oils, or chemicals be carried out of the plant on the workers' clothing.