Document JEE5oM2g0j5n3rBL53975bZK

Diamond Shamrock Interoffice Cor:respondence To: From: Date: M. Labovitz R. A. Paradis J. R. Semancik R. R. Griffiths No v'ember 3, 1980 Subject: REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS cc: D. E,, Frey j D. L. Lull / R. E. Nagy J. E. Zimmerman File: P905 Central Files - PD The attached memo from Joe Ignatoski is a follow-up to our meeting on October 27 concerning the possible reproductive hazards of the chemicals we use. As you may recall, Joe was to send us a list of those chemicals EPA felt represented the greatest risk to the health and environment and, thus, should receive priority attention in their testing programs. We were to use this list in establishing our priorities in investigating the chemicals we use for their potential as a reproductive hazard. You will notice that EPA has not stated the rationale for placing chemicals on this list. I believe the criteria for placing chemicals on this type of list involves a combination of sales volume and questionable toxicology. Therefore, while this list provides a good starting point, it does not. address our specific concern -- reproductive hazards. I have attached two articles from C&E News which provide a good update on the issues and problems in this area. Please note on page 31 that B. F. Goodrich has identified ten chemicals which may possibly represent a reproductive hazard. We use six of these ten chemicals (excluding VCM) in our work here at the Research Center. Additionally,Kent Hatfield has added phthalates and cyclohexanone to the list, bringing the total to eight chemicals which might, represent' a reproductive hazard. As a starting point, the Department of Safety Assessment (DOSA) ;3 evaluating the specific reproductive hazards associated with the chemicals we use which contain barium, GGC 000048 Page 2 REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS November 3, I960 boron, cadmium, lead, phthalat.es, and cyclohexanone. I would recommend that-, this be followed up with -n investigation of the teratogenic potential of carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone, mercury, and N,N-dimethylacetamide. Next, chemicals we use which fit the EPA list should be evaluated. I will review the list, of chemicals R&E uses for a match with the EPA list. Perhaps at this point, another meeting should be held between R&E, SAL and DOSA to determine future direction. . / c1 - *- - t R. R. Griffiths / jsh Attachments GC OOOO49 Memo From J. A. IGNATOSKI October 27, 1980 TO: Reuss Griffiths Per our conversation at lunch today, attached on page 3 is the TSCA list of top 50 as it stands today. JAI Attachment jms Diamond Shamrock GGC 000050 VNrS'- ANr Diamond Shamrock Interoffice Correspondence TV. From: Date: Subject: R. W. McBurney J. A. Ignatoski july 21, 1980______________________________ TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT(TSCA) - HUMAN HEALTH aND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS ON CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES With the recent promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under TSCA listing the proposed tasting programs to develop the abovecaptioned information on chlorinated benzenes and chlororaethane, I felt a brief review of this subject relative to Diamond Shamrock's position in cases where the proposed testing requirements are germane is in order. Under TSCA; An Interagency. Testing"Commi11 e e~was ~es tab1i'shed~ahd * charget? with..the.'responsibility of making^f e'coramehdations to the Administrator of the EPA Regarding-chaaicals_which;"should"be'given'~priority7 by EPAvfdrJ^ Resting to determine_adverse_'_eff acts.`oh. hum'an^haalth^ <mdjthe--environment? To date, this committee has issued ifc~rep;qrts;; covering thirty-nine .(39) ^hemicalsrand/or~chs!ilicalrcl3Sses7(see attachments). As you will note, the first report was to be acted upon by the EPA by October, 1978. The EPA has missed this deadline and has taken its first action this week on chloro* methane and chlorinated benzenes. Since these reports by the Interagency Testing Committee go back to 1978, I thought it might be well for the various divisions within Diamond Shamrock to review the attached list and indicate which of these chemicals are of interest. Wa should be specific as to whether the compound in question is a final product or an intermediate, since only the manufacturers of the final product will have to generate the necessary health and safety data. We will, however, follow developments on key intermediates since their test results may impact our plant operations under OSHA. This communication by HEAD to the various divisions would serve two purposes: (1) Serve as a reminder as to what compounds or classes of compounds are presently being reviewed by the EPA. under TSCA, and (2) the Department of Safety Assessment needs the feedback to know what specific chemicals are of interest to Diamond Shamrock so we can review the test.rules covering these compounds as they are promulgated. Regarding the review of the test rules, I would suggest the following ~j ^ procedure: Once the rules covering a compound of interest to Diamond Shamrock are promulgated, the Department of Safety Assessment, upon notifi cation of such a promulgation would notify the appropriate division of such action and given them our view. If the appropriate Division agrees, the GGC 000051 R. W. McEurney Page 2 July 21, 1980 Department of Safety Assessment will respond within one hundred and five (105) days to the ?A as to Diamond Shamrock's view. If alter informing the E?A as to our views, testing requirements are still required, we will again inform the appropriate division as to the significance of such tests, their costs and time frames to conduct them. If the chemicals involved are commodity chemicals produced by several manufacturers, I presume a task force will then be created to finance and direct this effort. The Safety Assessment Department will give any assistance it can in this endeavor. The significance .of the above-described procedure is that: (1) we need an update of chemicals which to date have made the list of chemical substances reported on by the Interagency Task Force so we may address ourselves to the EPA's proposals on pertinent compounds as quickly as possible; and, (2) it is my recommendation that no working task force be formed until test rules on a given compound are promulgated since I cannot see anything to be gained in trying to second-guess the EPA. J. A. Ignatoski jms Attachments GGC 000052 U t,! ORT 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 cnxmicai. substance cw cvrcccKY Alkyl epoxide* Alkyl phthalates Chlorinated bemenei, mono- and diChlormated paraffins Chloromethane Cresols Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Nitrobenzene Toluene Xylenes Acrylamide Aryl phosphates Chlorinated naphthalenes Oichloromethane Halogenated alkyl epoxides Polychlorinated tetpheny Ls ^ Pyridine 1,1,1-Trichloraethane Chlorinated benzenes, tri-, tetra- and penta1.2-OicMoropropane Clycidol and its derivatives Acetonitrile AnilJno and chloro-bromo-, Antimony (Metal) Antimony (Sulfide) Antimony (Trioxide) Cyclohexanone Hexachlorocyclopcntadiene Isopnoronc Mesityl Oxide 4,4-Methylene dianiline Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl isobutyl ketone and or nicro-anilines Benzidene based dyes O-dianisidlne-based dye* O-tolidine-based dyes Hydroquinone Quznane Phenylenediamine CSSICCATTO FOR ACTION 5Y October * m - 1978 It * * TTCAAL ?ZZ1S7EA "ST av:~5 ?P0A03ED FINAL 7/17/80 7/17/80 April 1979 October 1979 7/17/80 Aoril 1979 November 1379 GtjC OOOOSj -v. v< ^ News Feature Confrontation over issues surrounding genetic protection involves chemical companies, unions, workers' rights groups, and several government agencies ': - Rebecca L Rawls . .responsible for assuring equal treat- trol of weeds in soybean and fruit C&EN, Washington . . - ment of men and women in employ- crops. Last November, the Interna- . . ment also are involved, principally tional Chemical Workers Union The stage is set for confrontation. the Equal Employment Opportunity urged OSHA to shut down the Rens The overture began in the mid-1970's Commission and the Department of selaer plant and the Environmental when workers in plants manufac - Labor's Office of Federal Contract Protection Agency to ban the use of turing chemicals such as kepone Compliance Programs. Just last week `Oryzalin, charging that the Lilly and l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane these two agencies issued joint herbicide was responsible for birth (DBCP) began to complain ofsterility guidelines to employers on which defects or miscarriages among the and other reproductive deficiencies programs aimed at protecting work offspring of five male workers at the .caused, they thought, by exposure to ers' offspring they would consider facility. . these chemicals. ' '. V - nondiscriminatory. - jV- According to the union, no normal / The curtain rose late last year when . And, of course, the chemical com pregnancies occurred in the families the Department. of Labor cited panies are involved. So far, their role of the 110 workers at the plant during American Cyanamid for work policies remains the key one, for individually the 18 months that the compound which, it claimed, forced women to be they are still setting personnel poli- was being produced there. But three . sterilized or lose their jobs at Cyana- cies within their companies. There children were bom with heart defects, mid's Willow Island, W.Va., lead' .were no uniform federal guidelines a fourth, who died pf pneumonia two pigments manufacturing facility. / until last week, and it is still too early months after birth, also may have had At about the same time, a woman to see the impact of the new guide a heart defect; ana a fifth pregnancy in, Ohio brought suit against B. F. lines on company policies. Labor ended in miscarriage. In each case, it Goodrich Co. for not allowing her to unions and other workers' rights was only the fathers of the children continue to work in an area where groups, for now, are aiming their ef who worked with Oryzalin (C&EN, vinyl chloride is.polymerized because forts primarily at influencing the Nov. 12,1979, page 6). of the potential risk of chemical ex government to control the companies OSHA and the National Institute posure to a fetus should she become tightly. They have only begun in a for Occupational Safety & Health are pregnant. . " " : -.A small way any direct action against looking into the union's claims about The 1980's as a "decade of genetic' the companies themselves.. . Oryzalin, both at the Rensselaer plant confrontation"--which, one labor, The most recent cases to draw and at other locations where Oryzalin leader already is calling, it--seems- public attention have centered on the is made. So far, according to ICWU ' well under way. r.vr.T7 question ofwomen working in certain general counsel Salvatore J. Falletta, It is a confrontation that is drawing areas. But women workers are only- NIOSH has not found any evidence of in many parties. Labor unions and part of the issue. Men, too, can be af harm to offspring of workers at other other workers' rights groups are in fected by exposure to certain chemi locations. This does not mean that volved. Coalitions of many of these cals, and such exposure could very the chemical is not the source of the groups are forming. Probably most likely cause abnormalities in problem, Falletta points out. It may, notable is the Coalition for the Re-- offspring. for instance, be handled differently at productive Rights of Workers A case in point is that of chemical the other locations, posing a hazard (CROW), which pulls together labor workers at a Rensselaer, N.Y., chem only at the Rensselaer site. OSHA's unions, women's rights groups, and ical plant that made Oryzalin, a her final report on the question is ex legal groups concerned with possible bicide sold by Eli Lilly & Co. for con- pected in the next few weeks. violations of an individual's right to Eli Lilly says that the birth defects fair employment in the name of ge among the families of workers at the netic protection. The federal government also is in This article is part 1 of a two-part series. Here. CAEN examines the issue of male Rensselaer plant are "multiple coin cidences" and have nothing to do with volved through several different reproductive hazards, disputes that ' exposure of the fathers to Oryzalin or agencies. The Occupational Safety & seam headed for court settlements, and its precursors* This is the conclusion Health Administration in the De the government's emerging position. of the New York Institute of Birth partment of Labor has taken the lead Part 2 will examine how government, Defects and doctors at the Albany among the government agencies. Its chemical companies, and unions are Medical Center, who have been in interest comes from its charge to as approaching th problems of worker vestigating the cases since the first of sure a healthful workplace for all protection. the children were bom in 1976, the employees. But the federal agencies company says. Q oo oo ooin Analogs of peptide hormone may act as contraceptives - . -"^... -. ` .' '* ,:`-".T..... :--r ( .;. { v.1 ;y> . /55v -.5 Super agonist * Glu --- His --; Trp --- Ser -- Tyr --(^li3--; Leu --- Arg -- Pro rj> *1 g/jSl * men and women. For example, ad- There still are many unknowns and ministration of LRF and LRF agon- ' potential drawbacks. Though daily ists to women by nasal spray has been * injections aren't a particularly at- goingonforsome timein theU.S. and tractive means of administration, Europe. Although ovulation can be ` other possibilities, such as by vaginal blocked by such treatment, dose is application, may prove equally ef- difficult to regulate, which may con- . fective. . ' tribute to side effects. . Other questions about side effects However, when dose is controlled remain open, waiting for longer-term by administering LRF agonists in studies on larger groups. So far, the daily injections, ovulation can be few volunteers who have received blocked apparently without produc- daily injections of agonists also have ing undesired side effects, he says. ..had their blood monitored, for "The longest experiment so far has changes in hormone concentrations, lasted 16 weeks. And we know the ;1 "Production of estrogen simmers ovary is still working even though the i .down to normal levels," Yen says. But contraceptive effect is working." ".TV^ifthat is a positive sign about the agonists' effects, the problem remains that the agent apparently must be given once daily without interruption. Thus menstruation is prevented, a disruption that could have undesir able health effects. The superagonists also have been tested in men, again in limited fash ion so far. Most testing has been done on patients having gonadal deficien cies that have prevented normal sex ual maturation. But, according to David Rabin of Vanderbilt Univer sity, testing of the agonist's potential contraceptive value soon will begin on a few volunteers who hadplanned to have vasectomies. Technology IVlatheson recycles gas lecture bottles A program to recover spent gas lec-rv^ Matheson marketing vice president ture bottles of all manufacturers from _Frank Scornavacca estimates that users has been set up by Matheson,- . there may be 500,000 spent lecture Lyndhurst, N.J. This' recovery pro- bottles lying around at colleges, uni gram will solve disposal problems for versities, research institutes, and users, who often let spent lecture companies all over the country. He bottles pile up, not knowing how to- points out that Matheson has bought get rid of them safely.- ' ' . - / back its own lecture bottles for several About 250,000 of these convenient, years at $2.00 each. Under the new 2- by 14-inch gas bottles are sold each ' program, the firm now will pay $2.00 year for small-scale use in research, each for bottles of other suppliers lecture demonstrations, and indus- also, provided that customers buy an trial processes. Electronics firms use ' equal number of filled Matheson them, for example, to dispense the bottles. Matheson will clean and test small amounts of gases for doping all recovered bottles, regardless of semiconductor materials. . original supplier, install new valves, Problems start when pressure is and refill them for sale. Scornavacca exhausted. "Empty" bottles still says other suppliers accept spent contain residual gas, possibly flam- bottles only under duress or not at mable, reactive, or toxic, at or near alL . atmospheric pressure. It isn't safe to Persons wanting to take up throw them into tbe trash, because Matheson's offer can contact any of incineration may cause explosion, the company's 12 plants or call A1 Up on long standing, spent bottles Steenwyk, product manager for gases, may leak. in Lyndhurst. Those located some distance from a Matheson plant may have to arrange packing and ship ment by United Parcel Servic or common carrier. Scornavacca says the $2.00 rebate will more than make up costs of packing and shipping from users who have let hundreds of pottles collect. Users of gas lecture bottles hav resorted to drastic means through the years to dispose of spent bottles. One electronics firm hauled a load of bot tles to a desolate area and dynamited them. Another user set up an old drill ress at a remote site to drill holes in Eottles. Scornavacca says all too many persons resort to the dangerous practice of drilling holes in bottles or valves with hand-held drills. One man, faced with a leaking phosgene bottle, had himself driven to a Matheson plant, holding the bottle in the back seat of the car and wearing a gas mask. The driver was not wear ing a gas mask, though, and neither man reatized phosgene can be ab sorbed through the skin. - -'A case in which the data more def lines issued last week by the Equal initely establish a connection between Employment Opportunities Com occupational exposure to certain mission (EEOC) and the Department chemicals and effects on male repro- of Labor's Office of Federal Contract ^^iuctive function is that of DBCP, a Compliance Programs (OFCCP). ^Hoil fumigant used to control nema- Companies may establish "neutral" ^^odes. Studies in laboratory animals policies to protect employees and and human data indicate that expo their offspring from reproductive sure to relatively low levels of this hazards, but they must be certain that compound can reduce sperm counts in practice the plans do not adversely enough to cause sterility. When data affect only one sex. on the effects on human workers be . However, the new guidelines do came public in 1977, the two major allow for "temporary" exclusion of U.S. producers of DBCP, Dow workers of one sex only from a work Chemical and Shell Chemical, both place under certain conditions. The stopped making it. first of these is that there be reputable OSHA quickly issued temporary scientific evidence that the hazard is emergency standards for exposure to likely to harm only one sex or only nonagricultural workers of 10 ppb in pregnant employees. The employer - the air. OSHA's permanent standard, also must show that it has thoroughly issued in 1978, set the exposure level searched the scientific literature and at 1 ppb. EPA restricted use of the compound to a limited number of t'\ - - T cannot find evidence of a similar hazard for the nonexcluded sex. Fi crops, chiefly citrus fruits, in 1977. nally, companies must begin, within . Even these uses are now being chal six months, research projects to find lenged, however, since data gathered With women exposed to chemicals In out whether the chemicals in question last summer show unexpectedly high work activities, such as this plating ope also produce adverse reproductive levels of DBCP in drinking water near ration, concern has focused on,repro effects in the nonexcluded sex. These agricultural areas. ductive hazards of chemical exposure research projects are to be conducted' There is also concern that DBCP under "accepted scientific methods" may cause birth defects in the chil Despite the very real concern over and produce results within two dren of workers exposed to it. One reproductive hazards to men arising years. suit is under way involving California from exposure to hazardous chemi For now, these are only proposed DBCP workers who claim that their cals in the workplace, the focus of this guidelines. Chemical companies and sons were born with defective penises issue at the moment is on women. others are being given 120 days to ^because of the workers' exposure to Nearly all chemical companies, and a comment on them before they come ^Bie chemical. great many toxicologists, generally out in final form. However, probably the compound ' maintain that there are chemicals The EEOC-OFCCP position re attracting the most attention, because that can damage a developing embryo flects concerns sounded earlier in of its possible effects on male fertility^ or fetU3 but are not harmful to a statements by officials at both or on offspring through the fathers**-'- healthy male or female adult. Con NIOSH and OSHA. In a letter last exposure, is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi- trolling worker exposure to these month to B. F. Goodrich's manager of benzo-p-dioxin, the contaminant in substances is causing most of the industrial relations F. R. Pruitt, for agent orange, the military herbicide current concern. example, NIOSH director Anthony used in Vietnam. Suits and counter Not everyone agrees with this Robbins discusses the lack of ade suits have been filed in federal courts ` viewpoint. Anthony Mazzocchi, di quate data in some cases for estab concerning the exposure of about rector of health and safety for the Oil, lishing safe levels of exposure to cer 3000 Vietnam veterans to the com Chemical & Atomic Workers Inter tain chemicals for an unborn embryo pound. A Vietnam veterans group national Union (OCAW), for in or fetus. "We must, however, stand that is suing on behalf of these vet stance, says existing data do not show firm on the principle that if an expo erans claims, among other things, that the fetus to be any more vulnerable to sure is sufficiently toxic to produce exposure to the herbicide led to loss chemical damage than the sperm. genetic damage in an unborn child or of sexual ability in the men and mal "We know of no substance that af in a fertile female, then it must be formations in their children (C&EN, fects the fetus and not male sperm," considered to be equally toxic to the Jan. 21, page 14). Mazzocchi says. fertile male worker and to his unborn Although the veterans* suit charges The emerging government position child," Robbins says. "There is a birth defects associated with agent appears to be somewhere in between priori no reason to believe that the orange exposure in Vietnam, data on these two views. That is, it does not genetic material of a male worker is in this point are not uniformly accepted state that a substance that affects the any way more resistant to toxic oc as.conclusive. NIOSH is in the midst fetus must necessarily also affect the cupational injury than that of the fe of a multiple-generation study with sperm, but it does caution companies male. In addition, we feel that work rodents designed to show whether tnat such effects are possible and ers of both sexes should be counseled exposure to the chemical by the fa cannot be ignored without the risk of regarding the nature of the materials ther can cause defects in his offspring. the company's being charged with sex with which they work and the poten And at least one of the chemical discrimination. tial toxic effects on them and on their ^xompanies that supplied the Defense Companies whose workers are ex offspring." ^Bepartment with agent orange during posed to reproductive hazards in th Robbins' letter marks a definite ^roe Vietnam war is conducting a workplace may not discriminate in change from the agency's stand on massive study of its workers who the hiring or work assignments of this question in the early 1970's. In made the herbicide to determine their employees on the basis of sex, 1974, for example, NIOSH's occupa whether there have been any repro including pregnancy or childbearing tional exposure standard for vinyl ductive effects in this group. capacity, say th new federal guide chloride recommended that "no 4 4 4/tOA S'a r?ti C 000056 Col woman who is pregnant or expects to posures kept below that level, certain become pregnant should be employed work areas are not open for fertile directly in vinyl chloride monomer women. operations.'* In his letter to Goodrich, Whether such a policy, in principle, Robbins now says that companies illegally discriminates against women that keep women of childbearing age is being widely argued among the from working in certain areas, based groups that are concerned with this on the 1974 NIOSH recommendation, issue. And even if the principle itself could be guilty of sex discrimina- is allowed^ the question still arises as tion. to how well the personnel policies of OSHA Administrator Eula Bing' individual companies adhere to it. Do ham has been warning companies for companies sometimes act illegally to several years that her agency does not keep women out of certain kinds of like policies that exclude workers jobs in the name of protecting their from unhealthful workplaces just to unborn children? avoid cleaning up the workplace. Such questions will almost cer Companies should be careful in par tainly be resolved ultimately in the ticular, she has said, of focusing their courts. The first cases in this area may concerns for fetal safety only on the be approaching the courts now. hazards that may come by way ofthe One case centers on women who mother. worked at American Cyanamid's "Concern for female reproductive Willow Island lead chromate pig capacity and the fetus is praisewor ments plant. These women maintain thy, but experience is demonstrating that they were pressured by the that any given substance may be company to become surgically steril equally damaging to the male repro ized to keep theirjobs. Cyanamid says ductive system and through the male that it did not condone the steriliza to the fetus. I believe that attention tion procedure and counseled the must be focused on hazards faced by . women against it. Nevertheless, all workers--men as well as women," - under their employment practices, she stated in a letter to corporate " surgically sterilized women can work medical directors in 1978. " in the lead pigment area but fertile "OSHA is convinced that the mere ", women cannot. exclusion of workers does nothing to , Lead is one of five chemicals used eliminate the hazard which is pur- -- -by Cyanamid that, it considers, poses ported to justify exclusion," Bingham special hazards to the fetus, according also says, "and that such exclusion is .! to corporate medical director Robert not intended by the Occupational ' M. Klyne. The other four are hydra Safety & Health Act... ;The laws of zine hydrate, hydrazine sulfate, and this nation are committed to guar .two pharmaceuticals, Thiotepa and anteeing both healthful working 'Methotrexate. conditions and equal employment These compounds were winnowed opportunity. I believe, therefore, that from a larger list of suspected feto- employers should exhaust all possible toxins through an extensive search of avenues of worker protection (be they engineering controls, work practices, personal protective equipment, etc.) before considering the adoption of exclusionary employment prac tices." . -': Nevertheless, every chemical company contacted by C&EN main tains, at least in principle, that women who are biologically capable of pregnancy cannot be allowed to work in areas where feto-toxic chemicals are found at levels that could damage an embryo or fetus, regardless of whether the women ac tually are pregnant. These policies come about because major malfor mations, if they occur at all during a pregnancy, occur during the period from the 14th to the 40th day, when the major organ systems are being formed. And companies do not con sider it possible to detect pregnancy in women workers and remove them to a safe workplace before that critical period. Thus, unless safe exposure levels for these chemicals can be es tablished for the fetus and work ex Bingham: worker exclusion not answer the information Available in'the lit erature on their toxicological effector Klyne explains. For each substance^" the company has established expo sure values that it considers safe for a healthy adult and for a developing fetus. Typically, the safe levels for adult exposure are five to 10 times higher than for the fetus. In the case of lead, Klyne says, the literature review and setting of safe exposure levels took more than a year. ^ Altogether 23 women who worked in manufacturing operations at Wil low Island were informed early in 1978 that they might be working with feto-toxic substances and that the company was formulating policies that would require their transferring to other work areas if their exposure were found to be hazardous, says William A. Fead, manager of manu facturing and marketing services' for Cyanamid's organic chemicals divi sion. By October 1978, when the pol icy went into effect at Willow Island, the only affected area of the plant was lead chromate pigment manufactur ing, where eight women worked. In the meantime, 14 women and their union, OCAW, filed complaints against the policy with OSHA, the West Virginia Human Rights Com mission, or with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission in West Virginia or in Washington, D.C. Of the eight women working in the lead area, only two were capable of bearing children when the policy went into effect, so they were the only ones moved. Both women initially took janito rial jobs with no change in their pay for 90 days and with special op portunities to bid for other openings in the plant as they became available. Both were offered jobs at their old pay level during the 90-day period, Fead says. One took the new job; the other chose to remain in the janitorial job and reverted to the customary pay for that job at the end of the 90 days--about a 5% reduction from the pay level in her original production line job. Both Fead and Klyne vigorously defend Cyanamid's policy at Willow Island. "The ideal is that the work place has to be safe for everyone--the man, the woman, and the child," Klyne explains. "In the real world, that's totally unachievable without emasculating the chemical industry. The fetus is far more susceptible to certain risks. .There is no way, even with the best engineering controls, to always protect it. In those instances where we cannot protect the fetus, we are required to move it away from the hazard, and that has to mean moving the mother as well." Effecting this policy at Willow Is- land was particularly difficult because to the reproductive system caused by She chose, instead, to stay in the sam "of the small size of the facility, Fead sterilization, OSHA is saying with this building in a lower-status job, still at says. The same policy was put into citation. "No worker must be forced the same pay. But she wants her old effect at about the same time at Cy- to sacrifice his or her right to conceive job back and has complained to th ^Mnamid's pharmaceutical manu children in order to hold a job," Equal Employment Opportunity facturing facility, Lederle Laborato OSHA's Bingham says. Commission, charging sex discrimi ries, with a very different outcome, The Willow Island case was sup nation. Klyne says. There, 15 or 20 women posed to be heard by an OSHA ad Doerr bases her charge on medical were affected. They were counseled ministrative law judge--the first evidence that vinyl chloride, in addi individually, rather than in group forum for.diluting the citation--last tion to possibly being a transplacental meetings as at Willow Island, and, as December. The hearings have been carcinogen, is also a mutagen that Klyne puts it, "The women took a far causes damage to sperm. Therefore-, more reasonable approach." All were she contends, Goodrich's policy, transferred within a couple of days which protects the fetus only from the into new permanent positions within "Where we cannotprotect the cancer risk arising from the mother's Lederle at the same pay as before. Most of the women transferred from fetus, we are required to move occupational exposure to vinyl chlo ride and not from the mutation risk production to packaging lines within the same plant, he says. There have it away from the hazard, caused by the father's exposure, discriminates illegally by sex. been no indications of dissatisfaction and that has to mean moving from these transfers, Klyne says. Doerr filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Cleveland last October and Klyne attributes the main differ the mother as weir* asked for a temporary injunction so ence in the effect of the policy at the that she not be removed from her old two plants to the fact that Lederle is job. The suit was denied on a techni about 10 times larger--with about cality--she had failed to get a right- 2000 jobs--than the pigments facility postponed, however, although they to-sue order from the Equal Em at Willow Island. Thus, equivalent probably will be held very soon. ployment Opportunity Commission positions were immediately available Another case that has been briefly after first filing the complaint with for women who were transferred out in the courts and is likely to be back them. The temporary injunction also of hazardous work areas. At Willow again involves a woman who worked was denied because the court felt that Island, equivalent jobs were not im for Goodrich Chemical Co. in Avon since her new job retained the pay mediately available, and the women Lake, Ohio. The woman, .Carole and seniority of her original position had to be placed temporarily in Doerr, worked in a vinyl chloride she would not suffer irreparable harm lower-status jobs, although with re polymerization area and was removed by remaining in it until the dispute is tention of pay, until openings became from there last August when Good settled. The court also said she hadn't variable. rich introduced a policy of not allow demonstrated the substantial likeli To OSHA, which cited Cyanamid ing women who could be pregnant to hood of winning her suit, another re for its actions at Willow Island and work in areas where they are exposed quirement for a temporary injunc fined the company $10,000, any ex to vinyl chloride. tion. tenuating circumstances at that site y-'T'he Goodrich policy covers 10 In his decision. Judge Robert B, are no excuse for a policy that ulti-' chemicals besides vinyl chloride. Krupansky spells out what he sees as mately led some women to have They are benzene, carbon tetrachlo^ the relevant issue to be decided in this themselves sterilized rather than risk ride, chloroform, chromium(lV), leadT{ case, should it ever be refiled in the losing their jobs. methyl ethyllietone, ethylene thio- proper manner; "the comparative "It seems a very simple thin; to / urea,.mercurv, acrylonitrile, and di-_ risks of transplacental carcinogenesis us," says OSHA senior policy analyst methyiacecamide: When the policy on the one hand andmale mutagen Margaret R. Richardson. "You do not\ went into enect last summer, about esis on the other resulting from ex protect workers by inducing them to two dozen were found to be working posure to vinyl chloride at the current harm themselves. If an employer has in areas where they were exposed to permissible levels." These risks "are people working on a roof and does not at least one of these feto-toxic sub not well established, as the medical want to put a fence around the roof or stances, says Goodrich director of evidence to date appears largely in provide them with safety harnesses, health and environmental service; conclusive," he continues. "To the he can't nail their feet to the roof to \Harold W. Dietz. extent that it can be- subsequ ntly keep them on." \ For these substances, the company demonstrated that the risk of fetal In citing Cyanamid, OSHA is at does not absolutely prohibit expo damage associated with transpla tempting to expand its authority over sure, Dietz says, but has what he calls cental carcinogenesis is substantially the setting of safety standards in the a "practical zero." "We won't put greater than that associated with workplace. In addition to citing Cy fertile women in an environment male mutagenesis, it might appear anamid for not being in compliance where we know they are exposed," he that defendant's policy is grounded with the lead standards for adults at says. "The fetus needs an extra degree upon a legitimate, nondiscnminatory Willow Island--a side issue that is of protection that is not feasible or factor," Just how EEOC's new sure to complicate the matter--it also reguired for adults. We have solid guidelines will affect this issue, if at cited the company under the general evidence that this is true." all, remains to be seen. duty clause of the Occupational According to Goodrich, Doerr and Goodrich expects to see the case DSOafety & Health Act of 1970. This is the other women affected by the return to court. "It h very clear that e first time this clause, has been policy were counseled individually B. F. Goodrich Co. i; 'tgoingtobe ed to justify an OSHA citation. about the reasons for the policy and able to settle with Ms. Li. nr in a way The clause says that the employer were offered other jobs at the same that \y>U satisfy her," says director of must provide an environment free plant with the same pay. Doerr was industry affairs F. Terrence Flannery. from recognized hazards likely to off red a position with the same job "The judge has spelled out what we cause death or serious physical harm. title as her old job in a different think is the issue. We are prepared to Serious physical harm includes harm building at the Avon Lake facility. defend on that" News Feature zarHs in f fMm __ Government and companies are'at odds over approaches to worker protection, mainly because of differences in interpretation of the problem Rebecca L. Rawls ' -. protecting the fetus as a separate in G&EN.Washington ' dividual who is in the workplace and may be faced with special risks that The long-awaited federal guidelines healthy adults, men or women, do not proposed early this month to detail face. what programs companies may have "The biggest problem we have," to institute to protect workers from says Bruce W. Karrh, corporate reproductive hazards without un medical director for Du Pont, "is the fairly discriminating against women seeming lack of understanding that in job placement are not likely to find these are two separate issues. The much favor with the chemical in ` k* m-.c- wv-*--":;.;*1 dustry. ` problem is not protecting the repro ductive potential of males or females. The guidelines, issued jointly by We think we can do this with engi the Equal Employment Opportunity neering and other controls. The Commission and the Department of problem is protecting the fetus." JLabor's Office of Federal Contract The problem is compounded by the ^nmpliance Programs, say that pro- fact that the most critical period in. *ams set up to protect workers the development of the embryo and against reproductive hazards may not discriminate in hiring or work as ^y0^pi - fetus, in terms of the possibility of major malformations, is the period ' signments on the basis of sex, in from the 14th to the 40th day after cluding pregnancy or childbearing potential. Women, or men, may be Karrhz two separata issues conception, when the major organ systems are being formed. Most temporarily excluded from a partic -companies see it, is that federal reg ular work area where a special hazard ulators are confusing two related but to them is thought to be present. separate issues. One is the need to However, this may happen only ifthe protect workers against exposure to hazard is well documented, there is no substances that could endanger their evidence of a similar hazard to the -ability to produce healthy offspring. nonexcluded sex, and the company The second issue is the protection of establishing the policy also begins, the fetus or embryo, once conceived, within six months, animal studies which may itself spend several that will demonstrate, within two months in the workplace, possibly years, whether there is, in fact, a exposed to toxic substances. similar hazard to the nonexcluded - -Policies that exclude fertile women sex. . from certain work areas are not aimed It is common practice in the at protecting the woman's reproduc chemical industry not to allow women tive ability or even at protecting the capable of bearing children to work in unborn child from toxic effects in areas where they would be exposed to herited from the mother, the com toxic levels of chemicals thought to be panies say. Instead, they are aimed at companies believe this period is too early to be able to detect pregnancy and move women in hazardous work environments to safer ones before damage to the Embryo can occur. Thus, companies restrict women who might be pregnant from working at jobs that involve exposure to haz ardous levels of feto-toxic substances. Since most fertile women are not pregnant at any given time, this means that most of the women who are excluded from such workplaces on any given day would face no special., risk from working in them. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration, though not con cerned directly with sex discrimina hazardous to a developing embryo or tion issues, has taken the lead at the fetus. A great many chemical com panies--though not all--have some chemicals and some workplaces >re this exclusion occurs. It is done the name of protecting the unborn Id. Clearly, the new federal guidelines, if they go into force in their present proposed form, will make it much more difficult for companies to conL tinue these policies. The problem, as This article is part 2 of a two-part series. It examines how government and chemical companies are approaching the problems of worker protection. Part 1, which appeared last week, examined the issue of male reproductive hazards, disputes that seem headed for court settlements, and the government's emerging position. federal level in showing concern about this type of restriction of women from certain jobs. In May 1978, Eula Bingham, administrator of OSHA, urged corporate medical directors to use the greatest possible restraint ia adopting or expanding "policies which require that women of child bearing age and pregnant women be excluded from jobs involving poten tial exposure to certain toxic sub- Co" O fji Ffth 1ft. 198(1 CftRJ as / Oc cupationally related reproductive industry reaction. This attitude- hazards can be well identified. These based in part on medical argument, include better epidemiological studies but it stems, too, from legal consid- ^ of reproduction through standardized erations. 1 occupational history forms for use in Legally, the fetus is not an em the medical community, recording of ployee, and it did not choose to be in the occupational history of both par the work, environment. Nor is it ca ents on birth certificates, and certi- pable of either understanding the* fication of stillbirths as well as live hazards it may bfe exposed to or of ' births so that causes of aborted and waiving its rights to protection malformed children can be traced. He against these hazards. also calls for better animal testing for Worker injuries are covered by reproductive hazards. workmen's compensation laws, de Some chemical company toxicolo- signed to speed up settlement of lia Sists, such as Bernard A. Schwetz, bility claims, but which also limit an hector of toxicological research at employer's liability toward the Dow Chemical, share Infante's con worker. But the fetus is legally a cern about the need for more data on "third party." If it is damaged but not reproductive effects. killed, the person it becomes can sue "I don't think we should overreact for any amount of compensation it to this one potential source of hazard can convince a jury is justified. Cases Infante: need la Identify hazards [harm to the fetus]," Schwetz says. that have gone to court concerning "We need to remember that there are malformations caused by exposure to stances*" She said that the view that other potential routes of harm and thalidomide and other drugs in utero certain substances present a special study them all." lead chemical companies to view this health risk to the fetus is often un He cites lead as an example. This potential liability as enormous. And substantiated. chemical does affect the development their health policies reflect this de "The laws of this nation are com of the embryo and fetus, he says. It is termination to avoid such claims. mitted to guaranteeing both healthful a teratogen in humans. But research "We'd rather go to bat with-the working conditions and equal em also shows that it may affect male regulatory agencies [over possiblejob ployment opportunity," she said. "I fertility or cause mutations. discrimination caused by a health believe, therefore, that employers Nevertheless, Schwetz cautions, policy] than run the risk of open- should exhaust all possible avenues of there -are such things as terato ended liability should a malformed worker protection (be they engineer gens---'substances that cause harm to child result," one chemical company ing controls, work practices, personal a developing organism at levels that lawyer says frankly. protective equipment, etc.)' before are not harmful to the adult Mercury If the government really wants the considering the adoption of ex and thalidomide, two of the most responsibility for deciding whether to clusionary practices." potent teratogens that have been accept the risk of exposure to feto- . OSHA would like to see two things studied, are only that--they do not toxic substances in early pregnancy to change about the way most chemical cause harm to either male or female rest with the employee, says Joseph companies handle the problerrv.of adults at the same exposure level that B. Wollenberger, corporate labor fetal risk from occupational chemical ~; will harm a fetus, Schwetz says. counsel for Monsanto, all that needs exposure. The first is to get better Dow has been doing reproductive to be done is to pass a law saying that data on which to base protection studies on animals for 30 years, companies that are following all of the policies, and the second is to provide Schwetz says. Currently these studies OSHA regulations have no further temporary transfer of women from usually involve three animal species liability should workers have mal hazardous work environments rather (rats, mice, and rabbits) and study formed children: than permanent exclusion of fertile the effect of exposure of both male Such a law would be ridiculous, he women from these areas. and female animals through three adds. The responsibility is the com "The data are not very good on any generations of offspring. With such pany's and that is where it should aspect of this issue," says OSHA se- ' data, he believes, it is possible to set stay. nior policy analyst Margaret R, policies to control exposure that are The ideal position on fetal hazards, Richardson. Sometimes employers acceptable to all the parties in- most companies apee, is to be able to exclude women from a workplace ` volved. identify safe levels for each of these with very little information on Though companies may agree with compounds and keep exposure below whether there is a hazard to the fetus, OSHA that more and better data on these levels everywhere the chemicals she says. Also, toxicologists and epi reproductive hazards would be useful, are used. Few companies claim to be demiologists have not made a big OSHA's call for temporary removal of able to do that in all cases, however. enough effort to look into the repro women from areas that present fetal Monsanto's McEwen sums up what ductive hazards to males. hazards rather than permanent ex could be the attitude of all chemical "We can't even say how many clusion from these areas during their employers. The notion that everyjob chemicals are out there that cause reproductive lives is another ought to be available to every person reproductive problems in animals, let matter. just isn't true, he says. "There is no alone in man," says Peter F. Infante, Every' chemical company contacted such thing as a risk-free environment. an OSHA toxicologist who heads the by C&EN says that such a policy docs As more and more nontraditional jobs office of carcinogen identification. not provide enough protection for the open up for people, there are going to More work in this area .is badly fetus against exposure to toxic be trade-offs." needed, he says, because "in the little chemicals and could not be adopted Monsanto identifies mercury and study that has been done, we have, in at that company. two or three other compounds as fact, found hazards." It's a "Pollyanna" approach, says posing particular hazards to the fetus Infante identifies several research Monsanto's equal opportunity affairs in the work environment Often the areas that need attention before oc director. Bill McEwen, summing up company has been able, through en- 38 CAFNFnh lH IMA giheering changes or the use of pro tective devices, to bring exposure to these chemicals to safe levels, and women are allowed to work in these areas, says James H. Spraul, a senior physician in the department of med icine and environmental health. However, sometimes they feel "un easy" about exposure at a particular location. Then, says Spraul, "it's reasonable to ask women not to work there." . Altogether Monsanto has about 150jobs which it does not allow fertile women to hold, out of about 50,000 jobs in the U.S.' Probably less than half these jobs have ever been held by women, since men are also eligible for the positions. This policy is no different from the way the company handles other types of hazards that affect only certain groups of employees, explains Ray EL Woilenberger and McEvtan: proposal doesn't provide enough protection tor fetus Witter, director of safety and prop lead, the company has established Dow Chemical set up a special task ' erty protection. Monsanto does not safe exposure levels for the fetus and force that labored for four years to allow color-blind people (usually allows women to work with these come up with a policy on reproductive men) to work as electricians, for ex compounds if the exposures can be hazards, says personnel relations di ample, since they cannot distinguish kept below these levels. The level set rector Frank P. Hammond. The pol the different colors which key elec- for lead is the background level, since icy controls exposure to feto-toxic trical wiring. Nor are people who lack the company has not been able to es materials whenever possible. When depth perception allowed to operate tablish any level that presents no risk this is not possible, women capable of certain kinds of trucks where this to the fetus. reproduction are not allowed to work deficiency could be a hazard. Karrh says Du Pont recently has in areas where they might be subject Du Pont treats reproductive and been able to bring exposure levels for to hazardous exposure. fetal hazards in the same way it treats dimethylacetamide to below its safety Dow has a fetal toxicity group any other hazard from chemical ex level at all locations where the which is responsible for analyzing and posure, says Karrh. All hazardous - chemical is used, so no women are evaluating all chemicals used at Dow chemicals are controlled for their' excluded from working with this for possible fetal toxicity. All chemi most potent hazard. Thus, for exam- '- substance. However, for each of the cals are put into three categories, ex pie, hexafluoroacetone is viewed by other five compounds, there are'some' plains Benjamin B. Holder, Dow's Du Pont as being hazardous both* areas where fertile women are not al medical director. They are either fetal because of its possible effect on male" lowed to work. Women who were toxins for which there is no known reproduction and for its feto-toxicity. working in these areas when the pol safe level of exposure--Dow has yet However, the acceptable threshold icy went into effect were transferred to put anything into this category; limit value to protect against the ef to other comparable jobs. Karrh says suspected feto-toxins that do have a fect on men, 0.1 ppm, is lower than _ he is reasonably sure that no woman safe exposure level; or chemicals that would be needed to protect a fetus. So " has ever been denied employment or are not toxic to the fetus. .: the company controls for the male /. terminated because of this policy and Unlike many other chemical mak reproductive effect and automatically . that he is not aware of any woman ers, Holder says, Dow is able to keep protects the fetus as well, . L who has ever been moved to ajob exposures at all its locations below the Much as OSHA's Bingham has with lower pay. levels it considers safe. Thus, women recommended, Karrh says Du Pont Shell Chemical is still trying to may work anywhere at Dow. Holder tries to limit worker exposure to toxic draft a formal policy for protecting attributes Dow's ability to do this a chemicals first by engineering means, . the fetus, says Howard L. Kusnetz, little bit to luck. There are some then by modifying work practices so corporate manager of safety and hy chemicals, such as lead, that cause that the job is done without people giene for all Shell operations in the other companies problems and that having to enter the high-exposure U.S. Shell is collecting information Dow does not work with. areas, and then by administrative fromjhe literature and its own toxi "It's quite possible that we might practices that limit the amount of cological research on the reproductive at some time have one plant where time that workers spend exposed to effects of the compounds it manu exposure couldn't be kept down to an the hazardous chemical. If all of these factures. The company also is carry acceptable level," Holder says. "Then measures still leave fertile women ing out special examinations of its we would temporarily transfer the unacceptably exposed to a feto-toxic workers when there is a suggestion women out and get the level lower." substance, then the company ex that a compound might pose a haz Hammond says, "I suspect if we cludes them from that job. ard. So far, these worker studies have ever found a substance that had no Du Pont has six compounds found not turned up any hazards. safe exposure level for fetal toxicity, in the workplace that it has identified "We have the dual function of we would lean really hard toward not as hazardous to the fetus. They are protecting the worker, and protecting handling it." hexafluoroacetone, dimethylacet- the fetus if the fetus is the target, and Holder agrees. "Unless there were amide, dimethylformamide, form- yet making sure that the worker is not a very special need for it--a life-sav amide, ethylenethiourea, and lead. deprived of economic pportunity," ing drug, for instance--we probably For all of these compounds except Kusnetz says. wouldn't make it," he says. GGC 000061 Feb. 18, 1980 C4EN 37