Document Gmq3NOkgM6VXe8kr6jkoyjJQY

May 9, 1975 jp-rr, * 4 ** y> ,r*' Jf' 5 * =-!" ? ^ Charles Croop R* D 1 BOX 133 F rt Allegany, FA. 16743 Dear Sir and Brother: Rift? r.'Vv' .'.. r-. . CO ' '$ V* i \> V ; . : '.. , , ' ; v. ! j M i . t-i--O L. U. 1019 Attached la a copy of a clipping that appeared In the Toledo Blade. There la a question In my mind concerning the status of the situation thaye In P rt Allegany. Has that attorney ever put In an appearance? With kind regards, Z am Sincerely and fraternally. GMP/fbe Enel. George M. Parker International President 22-i 01 1609 standard; ceiling limit, measured over 15 minutes, goes down from 200 to 150 ppm; 300 ppm peak concentration allowed under present standard is eliminated. Inhaling trichloroethylene, a widely used solvent, can affect the central nervous system, causing vision problems, confusion, tremors, and dizziness; severe exposure can cause cardiac arrest. Recent studies show that trichloroethylene causes cancer in animals. -- TOLUENE -- Proposal lowers eight-hour exposure from 200 to 100 parts per million of air; sets a new ceiling limit of 200 ppm during a 15-minute period. Inhaling toluene, most of which is used in manu facturing benzene, can also affect the central nervous system, causing headaches, drowsiness, and muscle weakness. Eye and skin contact with liquid toluene causes severe irritation, dermatitis, and burns to the cornea. -- CROUP OP 11 TOXIC CHEMICALS -- Includes ozone, p-tert-butyltoluene, cumene, ethyl benzene, alpha-methyl styrene, styrene, vinyl toluene, cyclohexane, camphor, mesityl oxide, and 5-methyl-3-heptanone. All are primarily eye and respiratory tract irritants. Permissible exposure limits stay the same as in present standards, but employers would be required to determine if any workers are exposed to more than an "action level" -- one half the permissible exposure for any chemical. If so, employers would have to start regular monitoring programs. The proposed standards for lead, beryllium, trichloroethylene, and toluene also call for an "action level" of one half the permissible exposure. In all cases, if workers are exposed above that level, employers would have to regularly monitor workers' exposures and give medical tests to determine the effects of exposure. NOTE: JOB HEALTH NEWS SERVICE would like to hear of local union or individual workers' experiences with these substances, especially efforts -- or lack of efforts -- to control exposures, complaints to management or to OSHA about hazards, and responses to such complaints. .WORKERS SUING ASBESTOS COMPANIES OVER HEALTH HAZARDS WASHINGTON -- An asbestos insulation installer who got asbestosia was recently awarded $200,000 in a lawsuit filed against Johns Manville Corp., manufacturer of the insulation. (more) I BB 0000691^ 01 All material may be reprinted without permission. Please credit JOB HEALTH NEWS SERVICE. e k 3- The defendant was an installer from 1948 until 1966, wh n his illness was diagnosed as asbestosis and he quit working on the advice his doctors. The jury rejected the company's argument that it could not have foreseen the danger to the worker and that the statute of limitations for a claim had expired. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the jury's decision in favor of the worker. The case is important because the Court of Appeals determined that there is no "magic moment" at which a worker can be said to have developed asbestosis, explains Roy Steinfurth, head of the Asbestos Workers1 Insulators Health Hazard Program. The statutory period during which a worker can file a claim should begin when his disease becomes manifest --* usually when he becomes disabled -- the court said. Johns Manville also is the target of several other lawsuits brought by workers. A class action suit was filed recently on behalf of 2,200 workers in the company's Manville, N.J. plant, who argue that the firm failed to safeguard its employees or to warn them about the hazards of asbestos. Earlier this year, some 160 former employees of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. of Passaic, N.J., filed a class action suit charging Johns Manville and four other companies with exposing them to the risk of cancer and other asbestos-related diseases by failing to provide adequate warnings about the health hazards of their products. Several smaller class action suits also are in the works, Steinfurth says. "We expect to see many more such claims, because more and more people are dying of asbestos disease," he says. "We're just now start ing to hear of cases of cancer and asbestosis among guys who started working around the time of World War II." The union now is keeping track of causes of death asang all its mem bers and has launched an education program among members' families urging them to permit autopsies that would prove asbestos--related disease. DOCUMENT WAR ON OCCUPATIONAL CANCER BARELY A SKIRMISH WASHINGTON -- When it comes to job-related cancer, the much touted "war on cancer" has been barely a skirmish. But there are signs that (more) 1 BB 0000692 J Ail material may be reprinted without permission, please credit JOB HEALTH NEWS SERVICE. 01 1294