Document XO6v6E465xn3od2826doVXe4R

/ Mr. J. D. .Link Robert P. Stewart VXNYLJ.DEPE CHLORIDE I'isgah Forest, M, C. ii October 16, 197 G. Baldwin, Jr. W. S. XCaghari L,` Rapoport Walt Kaghan, Larry Rapoport and I attended a meeting In Wilmington,, Delaware, on October 1-4, 1974, that duPont had set up as a result of recant publicity on vinylideae chloride. Apparently, they felt some urgency In having an Industry discussion because of an article In the September 11, 1974, Wall Street Journal, (copy attached). Also attached Is a copy of an excerpt on. the subject from a recent issue of BNA's Occupation-il Safety and Health Reporter. Attending the meeting for nuPonti Dr. E. (Ernie) E,, Lewie - (Film Department) E. R. Klmmel - (Legal Department) J. J. IvlcCafferty - (Public Affairs) Attending the meeting for FLIC; " 7" Dr. John T. Massengill - (Film R&D) ' E. J. (Jack) Hoefer - (Legal Department) J. A. Yourtree - (FDA - Technical) Steve Downing - (Public Relations - Film Group) Apparently, duPont personnel have bocome qultc concerned over the possibility of carcinogenic effects being discovered in vmyildenc chloride and the widespread publicity that might erupt. Their fears are undoubtedly founded to an extent on the vinyl chloride monomer uproar, and the linking of liver cancer to exposure to VClvij 'ind also the extremely bad publicity Rohm and Haas has received resulting from a number of employees' deaths being attributable to exposure to bis (chlorometh'yl) ether (ROME). I gathered that duFont's main worry is the employee-relations or. publicrelations aspect (l. c., injury or death caused by exposure to VDG), 'rather than establishment of FDA standards that might limit in- some way the use of P YDC as a coating material for cellophane (although the latter is certainly a serious matter of great concern also). This seemed to be FMC's general position also, as expressed by Dr. Maeeenglll. Both these companies' Produced Pursuant to Court Order of 11/16/99 in Ross v Conoco, el a! OLl 7800 rpiv,oii'0(l7e6 V. r. J. D. i.ink October 16, 19 74 apparently Are planning to follow the lead get by Dow and PPG Industrie^ (the only U. S. manufacturers of VDC) in alerting their employees to rocent studies done by an Italian, Professor Viola, who found liver and kidney damage (carcinogenic) from exposure to VUC (10 months' rat-feeding study). Apparently, duPont H ieo planning to screen all Its employees who may have been working with or around VDC or l-'VDC, and run them through medical tests. Furthermore, duPont plane to reduce exposure limitu for VDC monomer in its plants from 10 ppm to 1 ppm over eight hours and 5 ppm over fifteen minutes (the standard set by OS HA for vinyl chloride). Initially thie will entail the utc of respirators, but eventually duPont plans to modify lie operation and equipment bo that freeh air masks are not required. It appears that of the cellophane producers, only du'*ont ana Olin purchase and ue VDC monomer - - du.-ont polymcrir.es its own coating for mylar, and Clin for glaasinc, polyethylene, etc. All three cellophane manufacturers purchase the material already polymerised for cellophane usage. Very little, monomer Is left in the polymer wo buy, although there are trace amounts (possibly up to 25-30 ppm). This translates to a theo retical possibility of about 2-1/2.ppm in the cellophane Itself, du'-ont takes the position that PVOC coated ccij.opha.ne is safe, ae demonstrated by the Rochester feeding studies in 1949-1952, when no abnormalities were found aftor feeding PVDC costed cellophane to rats and dogs. We learned that Dow .is planning to have a meeting during the week of November llth, which the cellophane producers will be invited to attend. The purpose of thiG meeting ifl to discuss the current situation regarding vinylldene chloride, and what stvtps arc being taken to minimise potential hazards, liabilities, etc. duMont, however. Is' going ahead full blast with the Implementation of its program, without waiting.for more information from Dow or anyone else. i Ac far uf Olin Is concerned, I foci that for the present, we should continue to treat VDC on a relatively low-key basis. However, wo should not tuck the problem under the table and simply hope It will go sway, I 6uggeet that a VDC Committee ehould be appointed to thoroughly took into all aspects of the matter and to corne up with recommendations to manage ment ag to what eteps, if any, should be undertaken regarding VDC - /-both abort range and long range. I suggest that repreeentaUvec of RhD (RapOport), Legal (Stewart), and Safety (Roberts), be put on this committee along with one or two members from Production. Representatives from Sale or Public Relations may need to be added later on, but arc not needed now. RPS:c Produced Pursuant to Court Order of 11/16/99 in Rois v Conoco, el al OU 7801 F-p I V . 01 i -0 0