Document aByReK9kDxB33QJ0gKXEyRmgN

INTER-COMPANY AND OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE A. Mekaru J. Mclnerney H. Rosenzweig fromj N. m. Blackman locatedat: Leominster, MA SUBJECT: REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE date: February 26, 1980 Dept { Buneh Dtvifion Company Attached are some articles from recent issues of Chemical & Engineering News which are pertinent to employment of women in VCM and PVC plants. Dr. M. W. Kline has requested that Employee Relations, Legal, and Industrial Hygiene review this information vis-a-vis our position and statement regarding this issue. NMB/cah Attachment cc: W. F. Gabel N. M. Blackman BOR 013854 News Feature Reproductive hazards in the workplace Confrontation over issues surrounding genetic protection involves chemical companies, unions, workers' rights groups, and several government agencies Rebecca L. Rawls C&EN, Washington The stage is set for confrontation. The overture began in the mid-1970's when workers in plants manufac turing chemicals such as kepone and l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) began to complain of sterility and other reproductive deficiencies caused, they thought, by exposure to these chemicals. The curtain rose late last year when the Department of Labor cited American Cyanamid for work policies which, it claimed, forced women to be sterilized or lose their jobs at Cyanamid's Willow Island, W.Va., lead pigments manufacturing facility. At about the same time, a woman in Ohio brought suit against B. F. Goodrich Co. for not allowing her to continue to work in an area where vinyl chloride is polymerized because of the potential risk of chemical ex posure to a fetus should she become pregnant. The 1980's as a "decade of genetic confrontation"--which one labor leader already is calling it--seems well under way. It is a confrontation that is drawing in many parties. Labor unions and other workers' rights groups are in volved. Coalitions of many of these groups are forming. Probably most notable is the Coalition for the Re productive Rights of Workers (CROW), which pulls together labor unions, women's rights groups, and legal groups concerned with possible violations of an individual's right to fair employment in the name of ge netic protection. The federal government also is in volved through several different agencies. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration in the De partment of Labor has taken the lead among the government agencies. Its interest comes from its charge to as sure a healthful workplace for all employees. But the federal agencies responsible for assuring equal treat ment of men and women in employ ment also are involved, principally the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Just last week these two agencies issued joint guidelines to employers on which programs aimed at protecting work ers' offspring they would consider nondiscriminatory. And, of course, the chemical com panies are involved. So far, their role remains the key one, for individually they are still setting personnel poli cies within their companies. There were no uniform federal guidelines until last week, and it is still too early to see the impact of the new guide lines on company policies. Labor unions and other workers' rights groups, for now, are aiming their ef forts primarily at influencing the government to control the companies tightly. They have only begun in a small way any direct action against the companies themselves. The most recent cases to draw public attention have centered on the question of women working in certain areas. But women workers are only part of the issue. Men, too, can be af fected by exposure to certain chemi cals, and such exposure could very likely cause abnormalities in offspring. A case in point is that of chemical workers at a Rensselaer. N. V., chem ical plant that made Oryzalin, a her bicide sold by Eli Lilly & Co. for con This article is part 1 of a two-part series. Here, C&EN examines the issue of male reproductive hazards, disputes that seem headed for court settlements, and the government s emerging position. Part 2 will examine how government, chemical companies, and unions are approaching the problems of worker protection. trol of weeds in soybean and fruit crops. Last November, the Interna tional Chemical Workers Union urged OSHA to shut down the Rens selaer plant and the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the use of Oryzalin, charging that the Lilly herbicide was responsible for birth defects or miscarriages among the offspring of five male workers at the facility. According to the union, no normal pregnancies occurred in the families of the 110 workers at the plant during the 18 months that the compound was being produced there. But three children were born with heart defects, a fourth, who died of pneumonia two months after birth, also may have had a heart defect; and a fifth pregnancy ended in miscarriage. In each case, it was only the fathers of the children who worked with Oryzalin (C&EN, Nov. 12, 1979, page 6). OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health are looking into the union's claims about Oryzalin, both at the Rensselaer plant and at other locations where Oryzalin is made. So far, according to ICWU general counsel Salvatore J. Falletta, NIOSH has not found any evidence of harm to offspring of workers at other locations. This does not mean that the chemical is not the source of the problem, Falletta points out. It may, for instance, be handled differently at the other locations, posing a hazard only at the Rensselaer site. OSHA's final report on the question is ex pected in the next few weeks. Eli Lilly says that the birth defects among the families of workers at the Rensselaer plant are "multiple coin cidences" and have nothing to do with exposure of the fathers to Oryzalin or its precursors. This is the conclusion of the New York Institute of Birth Defects and doctors at the Alban\ Medical Center, who have been in vestigating the cases since the first of the children were horn in 1976, the company says. BOR 013855 A case in which the data more def initely establish a connection between occupational exposure to certain chemicals and effects on male repro ductive function is that of DBCP, a soil fumigant used to control nema todes. Studies in laboratory animals and human data indicate that expo sure to relatively low levels of this compound can reduce sperm counts enough to cause sterility. When data on the effects on human workers be came public in 1977, the two major U.S. producers of DBCP, Dow Chemical and Shell Chemical, both stopped making it. OSHA quickly issued temporary emergency standards for exposure to nonagricultural workers of 10 ppb in the air. OSHA's permanent standard, issued in 1978, set the exposure level at 1 ppb. EPA restricted use of the compound to a limited number of crops, chiefly citrus fruits, in 1977. Even these uses are now being chal lenged, however, since data gathered With women exposed to chemicals In last summer show unexpectedly high work activities, such as this plating ope levels of DBCP in drinking water near ration, concern has focused on repro agricultural areas. ductive hazards of chemical exposure There is also concern that DBCP may cause birth defects in the chil Despite the very real concern over dren of workers exposed to it. One reproductive hazards to men arising suit is under way involving California from exposure to hazardous chemi DBCP workers who claim that their cals in the workplace, the focus of this sons were born with defective penises issue at the moment is on women. because of the workers' exposure to Nearly all chemical companies, and a the chemical. great many toxicologists, generally However, probably the compound maintain that there are chemicals attracting the most attention, because that can damage a developing embryo of its possible effects on male fertility or fetus but are not harmful to a or on offspring through the fathers' healthy male or female adult. Con exposure, is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi- trolling worker exposure to these benzo-p-dioxin, the contaminant in substances is causing most of the agent orange, the military herbicide current concern. used in Vietnam. Suits and counter Not everyone agrees with this suits have been filed in federal courts viewpoint. Anthony Mazzocchi, di concerning the exposure of about rector of health and safety for the Oil, 3000 Vietnam veterans to the com Chemical & Atomic Workers Inter pound. A Vietnam veterans group national Union (OCAW), for in that is suing on behalf of these vet stance. says existing data do not show erans claims, among other things, that the fetus to be any more vulnerable to exposure to the herbicide led to loss chemical damage than the sperm. of sexual ability in the men and mal "We know of no substance that af formations in their children (C&EN, fects the fetus and not male sperm," Jan. 21, page 14). Mazzocchi says. Although the veterans' suit charges The emerging government position birth defects associated with agent appears to be somewhere in between orange exposure in Vietnam, data on these two views. That is, it does not this point are not uniformly accepted state that a substance that affects the as conclusive. NIOSH is in the midst fetus must necessarily also affect the of a multiple-generation study with sperm, but it does caution companies rodents designed to show whether that such effects are possible and exposure to the chemical by the fa cannot be ignored without the risk of ther can cause defects in his offspring. the company's being charged with sex And at least one of the chemical discrimination. companies that supplied the Defense L Companies whose workers are ex Department with agent orange during! posed to reproductive hazards in the the Vietnam war is conducting aj workplace may not discriminate in massive study of its workers who | the hiring or work assignments of made the herbicide to determine their employees on the basis of sex. whether there have been any repro-* ; including pregnancy or childbearing ductive effects in this group. L capacitv. say the new lederal guide lines issued last week by ti e Equal Employment Opportunitie Com mission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract ; Compliance Programs (OFCCV). ! Companies may establish "neutral" policies to protect employees and their offspring from reproduc five hazards, but they must be certain t. at in practice the plans do not adverst'y affect only one sex. However, the new r ndelines d. allow for "temporary" exclusion oi workers of one sex only from a work place under certain conditions. The first of these is that there be reputable scientific evidence that the hazard is likely to harm only one sex or only pregnant employees. The employer also must show that it has thoroughly searched the scientific literature and 'cannot find evidence of a similar hazard for the nonexcluded sex. Fi nally, companies must begin, within six months, research projects to find out whether the chemicals in question also produce adverse reproductive effects in the nonexcluded sex. These research projects are to be conducted under "accepted scientific methods" and produce results within two years. For now, these are only proposed guidelines. Chemical companies and others are being given 120 days to comment on them before they come out in final form. The EEOC-OFCCP position re flects concerns sounded earlier in statements by officials at both NIOSH and OSHA. In a letter last month to B. F. Goodrich's manager of industrial relations F, R. Pruitt, for example, NIOSH director Anthony Robbins discusses the lack of ade quate data in some cases for estab lishing safe levels of exposure to cer tain chemicals for an unborn embryo or fetus. "We must, however, stand firm on the principle that if an expo sure is sufficiently toxic to produce genetic damage in an unborn child or in a fertile female, then it must be considered to be equally toxic to the fertile male worker and to his unborn child," Robbins says. "There is a priori no reason to believe that the genetic material of a male worker is in any way more resistant to toxic oc cupational injury than that of the fe male. In addition, we feel that work ers of both sexes should be counseled regarding the nature of the materials with which they work and the poten tial toxic effects on them and on their offspring." Robbins' letter marks a definite change from the agencv's stand on this question m the earlv 1970's. In 1974. for example. NIOSHV occupa- 04 tional exposure standard lor vinyl chloride recommended that "no 013856 woman who is pregnant or expects to become pregnant should be employed directly in vinyl chloride monomer operations." In his letter to Goodrich, Robbins now says that companies that keep women of childbearing age from working in certain areas, based on the 1974 NIOSH recommendation, could be guilty of sex discrimina tion. OSHA Administrator Eula Bing ham has been warning companies for several years that her agency does not like policies that exclude workers from unhealthful workplaces just to avoid cleaning up the workplace. Companies should be careful in par ticular, she has said, of focusing their concerns for fetal safety only on the hazards that may come by way of the mother. "Concern for female reproductive capacity and the fetus is praisewor thy, but experience is demonstrating that any given substance may be equally damaging to the male repro ductive system and through the male to the fetus. I believe that attention must be focused on hazards faced by all workers--men as well as women," she stated in a letter to corporate medical directors in 1978. "OSHA is convinced that the mere exclusion of workers does nothing to eliminate the hazard which is pur ported to justify exclusion," Bingham also says, "and that such exclusion is not intended by the Occupational Safety & Health Act.... The laws of this nation are committed to guar anteeing both healthful working conditions and equal employment opportunity. I believe, therefore, that employers should exhaust all possible 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 bv 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 lie es tablished for the letus and work ex posures kept below that level, certain the information available in the lit work areas are not open for fertile erature on their toxicological effects. women. Klyne explains. For each substance, Whether such a policy, in principle, the company has established expo illegally discriminates against women sure values that it considers safe for is being widely argued among the a healthy adult and for a developing groups that aro concerned with this fetus. Typically, the safe levels for issue. And even if the principle itself adult exposure are five to 10 times is allowed, the question still arises as higher than for the fetus. In the case to how well the personnel policies of of lead, Klyne says, the literature individual companies adhere to it. Do review and setting of safe exposure companies sometimes act illegally to levels took more than a year. keep women out of certain kinds of Altogether 23 women who worked jobs in the name of protecting their in manufacturing operations at Wil unborn children? low Island were informed early in Such questions will almost cer 1978 that they might be working with tainly be resolved ultimately in the feto-toxic substances and that the courts. The first cases in this area may company was formulating policies be approaching the courts now. that would require their transferring One case centers on women who to other work areas if their exposure worked at American Cyanamid's were found to be hazardous, says Willow Island lead chromate pig William A. Fead, manager of manu ments plant. These women maintain facturing and marketing services for that they were pressured by the Cyanamid's organic chemicals divi company to become surgically steril sion. By October 1978, when the pol ized to keep their jobs. Cyanamid says icy went into effect at Willow Island, that it did not condone the steriliza the only affected area of the plant was tion procedure and counseled the lead chromate pigment manufactur women against it. Nevertheless, ing, where eight women worked. In under their employment practices, the meantime, 14 women and their surgically sterilized women can work union, OCAW, filed complaints in the lead pigment area but fertile against the policy with OSHA, the women cannot. West Virginia Human Rights Com Lead is one of five chemicals used mission, or with the Equal Employ by Cyanamid that, it considers, poses ment Opportunity Commission in special hazards to the fetus, according West Virginia or in Washington. D.C. to corporate medical director Robert Of the eight women working in the M. Klyne. The other four are hydra lead area, only two were capable of zine hydrate, hydrazine sulfate, and bearing children when the policy went two pharmaceuticals, Thiotepa and into effect, so they were the only ones Methotrexate. moved. These compounds were winnowed Both women initially took janito from a larger list of suspected feto- rial jobs with no change in their pay toxins through an extensive search of for 90 days and with special op portunities to bid for other openings I in the plant as they became available. S Both were offered jobs at their old S pay level during the 90-dav 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 5T 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." Bingham: worker exclusion not answer Effecting this policy at Willow ls- BOR 013857 land was particularly difficult because to the reproductive system caused by She chose, instead, to stay in the same of the small size of the facility, Fead sterilization, OSHA is saying with this building in a lower-status job. still a: 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 the anamid's pharmaceutical manu children in order to hold a job," Equal Employment Opportune v 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 in in group forum for disputing 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 cannot protect 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 well" 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 pas' 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 available. 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 v ork 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 The Goodrich policy covers 101 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(IV), lead, case, should it ever be refiled in the losing their jobs. methyl ethyl ketone, ethylene thio proper manner: "the comparative "It seems a very simple thing to urea, mercury, acrylonitrile, and di- risks of transplacental carcinogenesis us," says OSHA senior policy analyst methylacetamide. When the policy on the one hand and male mutagen Margaret R. Richardson. "You do not xent into effect last summer, about esis on the other resulting from ex protect workers by inducing them to ;wo dozen were found to be working posure to vinyl chloride at the current harm themselves. If an employer has n areas where they were exposed to permissible levels." These risks "are people working on a roof and does not it least one of these fetu-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 services conclusive," he continues. "To the he can't nail their feet to the roof to /Harold W. Dietz. extent that it can be subsequently keep them on." a For these substances, the company demonstrated that the risk of fetal In citing Cyanamid, OSHA is at41 does not absolutely prohibit expo damage associated with transpla tempting to expand its authority overll 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 I that defendant's policy is grounded with the lead standards for adults at says "The fetus needs an extra degree upon a legitimate, nondiscriminatory 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 required for adults. We ha\.e 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 Safety & Health Act of 197(1. This is the other women affected by the return to court. "It is very clear that the first time this clause has been policy were counseled individually B. F. Goodrich Co. is not going to be used to justit\ an OSHA citation. about the reasons for the police and able to settle with Ms. Doerr in a was The clause says that the employer were offered other |obs at the same that will satisfy her." says director of must provide an environment tree plant with the same pas Doerr was industry affairs F. Terrence Flannert Irom recognized hazards likely to offered a position with the same )ub "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." BOR 013858 News Feature Reproductive hazards in the workplace Government and companies are at odds over approaches to worker protection, mainly because of differences in interpretation of the problem Rebecca L. Rawls C&EN, Washington The long-awaited federal guidelines proposed early this month to detail what programs companies may have to institute to protect workers from reproductive hazards without un fairly discriminating against women in job placement are not likely to find much favor with the chemical in dustry. The guidelines, issued jointly by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor's Office of Ftderal Contract Compliance Program say that pro grams set up to protect workers against reproductive hazards may not discriminate in hiring or work as signments on the basi.*1 of sex, in cluding pregnancy or childhearing potential. Women, or min. may he Karrh: two separate issues temporarily excluded froi 1 a partic companies see it, is that federal reg ular work area where a spec 'al 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 o ilv if the protect workers against exposure to hazard is well documented, th me is no substances that could endanger their evidence of a similar hazarc to the ability to produce healthy offspring. nonexcluded sex, and the company The second issue is the protection of establishing the policy also t egins, the fetus or embryo, once conceded, within six months, animal Si idies which may itself spend several that will demonstrate, within two months in the workplace, pnssihlv years, whether there is, in fai \ a exposed to toxic substances. similar hazard to the nonexclu led i Policies that exclude fertile women sex. (rum certain work areas are not aimed It is common practice in t le at protecting the woman's reproduc- chemical industry not to allow worm a tixe ability or even at protecting the capable ol bearing children to work i 1 unborn child from toxic effects in areas where t hex'would he exposed ti herited from the mother, the com to\u level' of chemicals thought to be panies sax. Instead, they are aimed at hazardous to a developing embryo or lotus A great many chemical com panies--though not all -- have some chemicals and some workplaces here this c xclusmn occurs. It is done in the name of protecting the unborn child. Clearly, the nexv federal guidelines, il thex' go in'o lorce in their present proposed fmm. xxill make il much mure diflicu.t lor companies to con This article is part 2 of a two-part series, I It examines how government and chemical companies are approaching . ; ie problems of worker protection Part | 1 which appeared last week, examined I ttv issue of male reproductive hazards, j dis putes that seem headed for court ; set: ements. and the government s { erne -jing position. tinue i hose | - uIick-s. The problem, as protecting the fetus as a separate in- J dividual who is in the workplace and I may be faced with special risks that I healthy adults, men or women, do not I face. \ "The biggest problem we have," says Bruce W. Karrh, corporate medical director for Du Pont, "is the seeming lack of understanding that these are two separate issues. The problem is not protecting the repro ductive potential of males or females. We think we can do this with engi neering and other controls. The problem is protecting the fetus." The problem is compounded by the fact that the most critical period in | the development of the embryo and | fetus, in terms of the possibility of l\ major malformations, is the period 11 from the 14th to the 40th day after conception, when the major organ systems are being formed. Most I 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 tion issues, has taken the lead at the 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 in adopting or expanding "policies xvhich require that women of child bearing age and pregnant women be excluded from jobs involving poten tial exposure to certain toxic sub- Feb 18. 1980 C&EN 35 BOR 0 1 3 8 5 9 Infante: need to identify hazards stances." She said that the view that certain substances present a special health risk to the fetus is often un substantiated. "The laws of this nation are com mitted to guaranteeing both healthful working conditions and equal em ployment opportunity," she said. "I believe, therefore, that employers should exhaust all possible avenues of worker protection (be they engineer ing controls, work practices, personal protective equipment, etc.) before considering the adoption of ex clusionary practices." OSHA would like to see two things change about the way most chemical companies handle the problem of fetal risk from occupational chemical exposure. The first is to get better data on which to base protection policies, and the second is to provide temporary transfer of women from hazardous work environments rather than permanent exclusion of fertile women from these areas. "The data are not very good on any aspect of this issue," says OSHA se nior policy analyst Margaret R. Richardson. Sometimes employers exclude women from a workplace with very little information on whether there is a hazard to the fetus, she says. Also, toxicologists and epi demiologists have not made a big enough effort to look into the repro ductive hazards to males. "We can't even say how many chemicals are out there that cause reproductive problems in animals, let alone in man," says Peter F. Infante, an OSHA toxicologist who heads the office of carcinogen identification. More work in this area is badly needed, he savs, because "in the little stud\ that has been done, we ha\e, in tact. found hazard'," Intunie identifies several research area' that need attention belore oc cupationally related reproductive industry reaction. This attitude is 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. 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 be 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 gists, such as Bernard A. Schwetz, bility claims, but which also limit an director 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 [harm to the fetus]," Schwetz says. that have gone to court concerning "We need to remember that there are malformations caused by exposure to other potential routes of harm and thalidomide and other drugs in utero study them all." lead chemical companies to view this He cites lead as an example. This potential liability as enormous. And chemical does affect the development their health policies reflect this de of the embryo and fetus, he says. It is termination to avoid such claims. a teratogen in humans. But research "We'd rather go to bat with the also shows that it may affect male regulatory agencies [over possible job fertility or cause mutations. discrimination caused by a health Nevertheless, Schwetz cautions, policy] than run the risk of open- there are such things as terato ended liability should a malformed gens--substances that cause harm to child result," one chemical company a developing organism at levels that lawyer says frankly. are not harmful to the adult. Mercury If the government really wants the and thalidomide, two of the most responsibility for deciding whether to potent teratogens that have been accept the risk of exposure to feto- studied, are only that--they do not toxic substances in early pregnancy to cause harm to either male or female rest with the employee, says Joseph adults at the same exposure level that B. Wollenberger, corporate labor will harm a fetus. Schwetz says. counsel for Monsanto, all that needs Dow has been doing reproductive to be done is to pass a law saying that studies on animals for 30 years, companies that are following all of the Schwetz says. Currently these studies OSHA regulations have no further usually involve three animal species liability should workers have mal (rats, mice, and rabbits) and study formed children. the effect of exposure of both male Such a law would be ridiculous, he and female animals through three adds. The responsibility is the com generations of offspring. With such pany's and that is where it should data, he believes, it is possible to set stay. policies to control exposure that are The ideal position on fetal hazards, acceptable to all the parties in most companies agree, is to be able to volved. identify safe levels for each of these Though companies may agree with compounds and keep exposure below OSHA that more and better data on these levels everywhere the chemicals reproductive hazards would be useful, are used. Few companies claim to be OSHA's call for temporary removal of able to do that in all cases, however. women from areas that present fetal Monsanto's McEwen sums up what hazards rather than permanent ex could be the attitude of all chemical clusion from these areas during their employers. The notion that ever\ job reproductive lives is another ought to be available to every person matter just isn't true, he says. "There is no Every chemical company contacted such thing as a risk-free environment. by C&EN says that such a policy does As more and more nontraditional jobs not provide enough protection for the open up for people, there are going to fetus against exposure to toxic be trade-offs." chemicals and could not be adopted Monsanto identifies mercurv and at that company two or three other compounds ap It's a "Rollyanna" approach, says posing particular hazards to the letus Monsanto's equal opportunity affairs in the work environment. Often the director. Bill McEwen, summing up company has been able, through en- 36 C&EN Feb 18 1980 BOR 013860 ginfecnflp; t'Tlahpcs u; U'ic u'tc p.w- 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 150 jobs 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 E. Witter, director of safety and prop erty protection. Monsanto does not allow color-blind people (usually men) to work as electricians, for ex ample, since they cannot distinguish the different colors which key elec trical wiring. Nor are people who lack depth perception allowed to operate certain kinds of trucks where this deficiency could be a hazard. Du Pont treats reproductive and fetal hazards in the same way it treats any other hazard from chemical ex posure, says Karrh. All hazardous chemicals are controlled for their most potent hazard. Thus, for exam ple, hexafluoroacetone is viewed by Du Pont as being hazardous both because of its possible effect on male reproduction and for its feto-toxicity. However, the acceptable threshold limit value to protect against the ef fect on men, 0.1 ppm, is lower than would be needed to protect a fetus. So the company controls for the male reproductive effect and automatically protects the fetus as well. Much as OSH.Vs Bingham has recommended. Karrh says Du Pont tries to limit worker exposure to toxic chemicals first by engineering means, then by modifying work practices so that the job is done without people having to enter the high-exposure areas, and then by administrative practices that limit the amount of time that workers spend exposed to the hazardous chemical. If all of these measures still leave fertile women unacceptably exposed to a feto-toxic substance, then the company ex cludes them from that job. Du Pont has six compounds tound in the workplace that it has identified as hazardous to the tetus. They are hexafluoroacetone. dimet hylacet - amide, dimethvllormamide. lorm- annde. ethvlenethiourea, and lead hor all of these compound'- except lead, the company has established safe exposure levels for the fetus and allows women to work with these compounds if the exposures can be kept below these levels. The level set for lead is the background level, since the company has not been able to es tablish any level that presents no risk to the fetus. Karrh says Du Pont recently has been able to bring exposure levels for dimethvlacetamide to below its safety level at all locations where the chemical is used, so no women are excluded from working with this substance. However, for each of the other five compounds, there are some areas where fertile women are not al lowed to work. Women who were working in these areas when the pol icy went into effect were transferred to other comparable jobs. Karrh says he is reasonably sure that no woman has ever been denied employment or terminated because of this policy and that he is not aware ot anv woman who has ever been moved to a job with lower pay. Shell Chemical is still trying to draft a formal policy for protecting the letus, says Howard L Kusnetz. corporate manager of safety and hy giene for all Shell operations in the U.S, Shell is collecting information from the literature and its own toxi cological research on the reproductive etteris of the compounds it manu factures. The company also is carry ing out special examinations of its workers when there is a suggestion that a compound might pose a haz ard. So tar. these worker .-todies have not turned up any hazards. "We have the dual function of protecting the worker, and protecting the fetus if the fetus is the target, and \et making sure that the worker i- not deprived of economic opportunity Kusnetz says. Dow Chemical set up a special task force that labored for four years to come up with a policy on reproductive hazards, says personnel relations di rector Frank P. Hammond. The pol icy controls exposure to feto-toxic materials whenever possible. When this is not possible, women capable of reproduction are not allowed to work in areas where they might be subject to hazardous exposure. Dow has a fetal toxicity group which is responsible for analyzing and evaluating all chemicals used at Dow for possible fetal toxicity. All chemi cals are put into three categories, ex plains Benjamin B. Holder. Dow's medical director. They are either fetal toxins for which there is no known safe level of exposure---Dow has yet to put anything into this category; suspected feto-toxins that do have a sale exposure level; or chemicals that are not toxic to the fetus. Unlike many other chemical mak ers. Holder says, Dow is able to keep exposures at all its locations below the levels it considers safe. Thus, women mav work anywhere at Dow. Holder attributes Dow's ability to do this a little bit to luck. There are some chemicals, such as lead, that cause other companies problems and that Dow does not work with. "It's quite possible that we might at some time have one plant where exposure couldn't be kept down to an acceptable level." Holder says. "Then we would temporarily transfer the women out and get the level lower." Hammond says, "1 suspect if we ever found a substance that had no safe exposure level for fetal toxicity, we would lean really hard toward not handling it." Holder agree-. "Unless there were a very special need for it-- a life-sav ing drug, tor instance--we probably wouldn't make it," he savs BOR 013861