Document VJQa3xEV75w4apXmmgL3gq3N

Mtg i>- rj*k. 1 gjsgjjg^^gsaag^^' ;M| W'v^'~?''`>^?-?- ^'-1% V*J'v.* *..* -t*. . *. > . * s. v* < '* ,r- j " .; . ,-*r ** **.V.wr-I*'*\ * .!f\' -' o^ttv' ~'LT'< :^L'-Zr . v"j.-- . , .^"a.A^l ^**ac8 2O4M6doanOofShoxMov3Af,Nay3e(nt* ;>%"' -" ' ' . j-iw 1.5 - ^-: *7:-; '. .'"' *-L ^Ui-r .1 . >; ,,/. . ,, V$\*> -*' r; October. 5, Vi#W -*:v ^V/'Sp* * j ,>' ,,-. . ~- -;>.. -3?~ -, ' lr T A '/J: '. ",'. * . ij; Ms. Judy Spencer Legal Section &* - The 246 Industrial North High SCotrmemetis,sioionn of OhioJ^sy Columbus, Ohii 432.1-5 . -**** ' J & r .'5W . I'**.' 'V- - ` Dear Ms. Spencer: . . , * * JS^- a. * 3lS3 - Fishe'^Bodyfl)|visi GeneralfMotor^ CorpoVatioi ^Blyrra^OKibf " At ;*Vf * . " <'*' IRisl------- V** On September 2 f: 1983,-; avisitvas?mac Slant in Elyria,vOhio for the purpose|of|gatheringtindustrial^ ygiene inforBation^relativeatd^the|occupati6nJil^disef^^^ W^K\r claim of Gertrude. Scott OD #20335s22T"">` * *'~ * P^I^.. i^; The claimant alleges that hefrcbndifl'ohlvKIciifhas^beex '/`diagnosed as, "Allergic^Respiratory%:DiseaseMisl-as^a|result|<ri ^ ^'Exposure to TDI (Toluene*2,4di-isocyahate)^5Fuae5,^ ^ ' *" r^T*i i*.- T*S, ., *.. r V' The claimant's provious work^history.: obtained fromjhe^ original employment application ; is as follows:^ i * Vj 3-1-72 to 7-. 3, -0A-7.. 3 *r-. v take. "Adams ErieT i and< B_P_oI_na_d_S_/-_tic s`a, * ?'$; ; ; ^' (The company>is^nbwYdbihg;busihessJasa^ ^V'-.-V V s : Ari`*^*>-ttThe ^Ames^.Goapanyu(216) ':,323-1511` `^ / ~f> Sr. .^ ^ * -A^V */' n r/ n ~T Ji'Wjr i^r Re: OD 20335-22 Fisher Body Division Elyria, Ohio Page -2- According to A Guide to the Work-Relatedness of Disease, Toluene Di-isocyanate (Td*) is a liquid used in the manufacture of polyurethane. The liquid, vapor, and aerosol forms are powerful irritants to all tissue. The vapor is a potent respiratory irritant and sensitizer. In some cases where sensitization has occurred, violent respiratory symptoms can develop on exposure to very low concentrations. It is not now known if all or only some people may become sensitized. The irritating effects of TDI include rhinitis (inflam mation of the mucous membrane lining of the nose), pharyngitis (inflammation of the pharynx)', bronchitis, and in severe expo sures inflammation of the bronchioles. Occasionally the onset is with an attack of asthma. Usually the signs and symptoms of chest involvement subside when the exposure ceases. The reference goes on to state, under the heading of "signs and symptoms, sensitization reaction."1 . - onset (usually without realization) of respiratory problems which become progressively worse with continuous exposure.to TDI. - shortness of breath occurring at'night (nocturnal dyspenea) and/or a nocturnal cough followed by development of asthmatic bronchitis. ' - V " - exposure of sensitized persons to TDI, even at low levels, can promote a severe asthmatic attack, and may cause death. ; In some instances. Workers with only minimal respiratory symptoms or no apparent effects for several weeks at low level exposures may suddenly develop an acute asthmatic attack. Acute respiratory effects from TDI exposure are often complete ly reversible, but continued exposure of affected workers to TDI vapor may result in: - Asthmatic Bronchitis, ~ . - Broncho-pneumonia,'and . - Chronic Bronchitis, Emphysema, and COR . ' */ Pulmonale (right heart failure) ;7-- '.'iggkec , iv.j;-1i y ' , - 'v 3. r-A V: *"ggegasr .f**vv'* rr-: - ' -'<> Re: OD 20335-22 Fisher Body Division*;/' Elyria, Ohio -w * < ~, v ' .'-. * ii.,"A\.vx Xs -> . * . Page -3- k.. *x >t * >. >.V . v-V -V\..<&fcfers According to the Hazard;-Line print-out fof.TDI (enclosed)^ the applicable limits for exposure. to'TDI arefasvfollowsV * - OSHA 0 - NIOSH - AC6IH (The ACGIH recently lowefed`their, TLV to'.O.OOS^ppa) % -, Again from the reference,; A GuideTo The Work-Relatedness -' ^ Of Disease, "Elkins published a report on.a five(5)",year study As? of tbl exposure in l4^plants^%The; author ; concluded;that>0Ol^pprn^for TDI was "a not unreasonable limit.- *' "Glass and Thom report<a; study inv3^plants vin/NewiZealarid.' ft one plant where polyurethanef^oam wa5;:produced in-'a; batcht molding process, atmospheric TDr'concentratiohS;;rangedffrbmr0.P03/tb^0.0123: " ** ........... - * in 'In a second plant (similar ?to.lthe first); TDI ^concentrations in air ranged from 0.005ito*; 0; 100 ppm* and^two .oi1d 5caseSf;of coryza1 "In the third 'p1ant^pblyurethane vfoam * was produced ih the continuous * slab process^VAirfcbncentrationsxOf.TDirranged from - 0.000 to .0.018 ppm. .^f^Twotcases/'of^mildfcoryzalxsymptoms with^ : Y- no evidence of sensitization^were ,reported....) ; ; v. . \!> W'-`' . v" . Threshold Limit$Values|*refer/toairborne; concentrations of : substances and represehtfconditionsfunder which it '.is i; believed1 that nearly all workers-may;"be|repeatedlyrexpb5ed ;day< after day^without . adverse effect. 'BecauseTof^wide-variations/in; individual^.susceptibility, however, a smallipercenfage,of^workers, may experience dis comfort, from some substancesiatcconcentrations at-or below'the threshold limit; a smaller^percentage;may:be; affected,more .serious- i /]L- e :* (-J t Re: OD 20335-22 Fisher Body Division Elyria, Ohio Page -4- The sensitivity of this as reported by a company representative is such that readings under 4 ppb (0.004 ppm) only indicate the presence of TDI, where as an instrument reading of 5 ppb (0.005 ppm) or greater is reported to be an accurate indication that a concentration of 5 ppb or a greater amount is present. The representative stated that the company strives to main tain a level below 5 ppb. He further stated that over the years the company has collected so much data in regard to TDI monitor ing results, that records would be made available for specific time periods if requested. The company does not deny the claim ant's exposure to the presence of TDI only that she was not exposed to levels in excess of the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.02 ppm (20 ppb). . The particular job classifications at which the claimant worked while in Department 5 were practically inclusive of all jobs in the department. For example, strip, trim, and clean is probably one of the most ambiguous classifications in the depart ment. Particular jobs were selected and worked based upon plant seniority. The company provides pulmonary function testing and chest x-rays for all employees working in Department 5. Records indi cate the existance of chest x-rayssfor the claimant dated July, 1973 and January, 1976, as well"as'a pulmonary function test dated January 7, 1976. Also, in the facsimile file is a medical history report dated July 10, 1973, upon which the claimant denies having astfuna. The company contends that possible exposures at the claimant's previous place of employment (Lake Erie Plastics) or the likeli hood of a pre-existing condition (recurrent episodes of allergic bronchial asthma with bronchitis, since 1976). From a letter written by Dr. Radha Baisnab May 29, 1981) may deem this case nonoccupational in nature. In closing the claimant had the very real potential for expo sure to TDI vapors for a period of about 26 weeks spread over a 7-1/2 year period. However, because of individual sensitivity, an incomplete past medical history,. and the possibility, of potential, exposures at a previous place of^employment, the`fact that whether or not the claimant's condition is as a result of exposure to TDI vapors at Fisher Body cannot be .firmly established from the ....... : ;r- ' r K> w.r - 5" x-M tm.' . *' .***W* Jjy'' * J-- i liuuyiw Re: OD 20335-22 Fisher Body Division Elyria, Ohio Page -5- industrial hygiene perspective. As noted earlier, the potential for exposure is firm, but pinpointing^the. precipitative agent is difficult. WJB/get Enclosure: Employmenthistory of the claimant hazard line printout TDI (4-12-83) v;` /; *. - ' \ {t I certify that the microphotographics on this roll of film or microfiche are true and accurate pro* ductiom of records generated by or received by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, an agency of the State of Ohio, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 4123.52 and Section 901 which require optimum protection from hazards of accidental destruction of records. it is further certified that the photographic processes used for microfilming die above records were accomplished in a manner and on microfilm which meets the requirements of the National Bureau of Standards for permanent photographic copy. | n i~i r< ri n ~i i j J U U U U L O J