Document kDJw21Kpdepq6Rj02xx3kYGbV

MEMO P A N D U M draft Date: September 7, 1977 To: From: cc: File W. B. Reitze P. Kotin, M.D. W. R. Paul, M.D IVi)1*'* 0 Subject: PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EMPLOYEE LOCKERS- The rece it Corporate decision to provide protective' clothing to those ohns-Manville workers involved with asbestos fiber or asbestos products where fiber is not firmly bound*has raised a number||of questions from our operating divisions. In an effort tft perhaps clarify some of these questions, Dr. Kotin 9 wrote toll the medical directors of ten of the large U,S. corpora tions including Shell Oil, Union Carbide, Celanese, Alcoa, < "" DuPont, xon, General Electric, Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and Kaisi r Aluminum. The question was asked of the medical director! what type of protective clothing program was in force in theirllcorporations to protect employees from both carcinogenic agents, ils well as other potentially harmful materials. All of the companies responded, some in more detail than others. In summary, we may make the following conclusions: 1. All he major companies do furnish protective clothing to va rious employee groups. The decision to furnish A doth ing is based upon the potential hazard of the mate3 riaill handled. The chemical and oil companies are pro tect ng employees against materials that may soak into an eittployee's clothing and be absorbed through the skin. Memo to file September 7, 1977 Page 2 Others are concerned with an employee exposure as well as a fsUily exposure to such items as toxic dusts including lea4- Most large firms also furnish specialized protective clothing which will protect an employee against heat, cold, f ladle, molten metal, water, chemical splashes, etc. 2. The laundering of protective clothing is handled in a number of vjays. Usually where large numbers of people are involved the laundering is done in-house. If there is a very small a employee population involved, an outside laundry service or uniiorm supply service is utilized. It is extremely rare that: contaminated clothing from the workplace is sent home: to be laundered by the employee's family. 3. The frequency of clean clothes issuance varies with the * particular substance the employee handles, weekly being the longest period, daily being the most common period, and in ci number of cases with chemical carcinogens, `protective clo hing is changed 3 or 4 times per day. The issuance of clothing is usually handled by utilizing a system similar to :he tool crib method used by most large industrials for issuance of tools and supplies. Memo to I Lit' Septemb^ r 7, 1977 Page 3 4. Loci crs are furnished to employees wl 0**4 where needed, dual lockers are furnished. However, with the use of he tool crib system, dual lockers are not needed, since a the contaminated clothing is deposited for laundering on a dai y basis. 5. The reasons for furnishing protective clothing and the methods of administration vary widely within the companies polled. Few companies have corporate-wide programs which appijy across the board to all their operations. The majority, because of the vast diversification in operations, lea^e the actual administration of a protective clothing prog|ram to the location. The mandate for protective cloth ing, of course, is issued by the corporate environmental -* health department. Some corporations state their policy ratHler plainly that it is to protect the employee, to protect the employee's family, to aid in quality control (clean room activities) or merely to enhance the corporation's public image (gas station uniforms). Almost all the major corporations furnish protective clothing of the *type dis cuss ed free of charge to their employees. In some cases, protective clothing has been a subject for the bargaining table and is negotiated with the labor contract. In a few instances (DuPont with chloroaniline and tetraethyl lead), "protective clothing committees" within the plant have been set up to determine a fair and equitable method for clothing issuance. Memo to file Septembifer 7, 1977 Page 4 6. Ml medical directors feel quite strongly that persons hand ling carcinogenic agents should receive protective clothing, not only for their own protection but also for the protection of their families should dusts, oils, or chemicals be carried out of the plant on the workers' clot rung.