Document x1dLBmoLRoN8jGz05kqgK7aG6

FILE NAME: Uniroyal (UNIR) DATE: 1957 Mar 26 DOC#: UNIR007 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to US Rubber Co. from the Hospital of Univ of Penn, Dept of Radiology RE Hogansville Plant "nu j, *T . u m im . m , M U C . F l l t M u . M-JL u m n u m. M.a. HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OR RADIOLOSY nmtMB*. n N snoM H . m.o_ PitoraMON PHILADELPHIA 4 J t m m l.I H .S. L5 PLAINTIFF'S i EXHIBIT UR 4 7 T . March 26, 1957 Mr. Frederick IT. Sands United States Rubber Company Rockefeller Center . 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York 20, N. Y. Dear Mr. Sands: Re: Hogansville Plant I do not know whether it is necessary for me to write to you concerning my trip to the Hogansville Plant, or whether that has already been brought to your attention by Mr. A. C. Link to whom I reported before leaving Hogansville. In order that you might have a formal report, however, I wish to make the following comments# I was met in Atlanta at the Biltmore Hotel at 8:30 A. 11. on Tuesday, March 12, by Mr. John Alexander. Mr. Alexander then drove me directly to Dr. Wells* office in Newnan. On our drive out to Dr. Wells' office, Mr. Alexander gave me a thoroughly comprehensive background of the entire operation. ' We arrived at Dr. Wells' office about 11:00*A. M. Dr. Wells then went over in detail the various studies that he was carrying out on the employees of tha Hogansville Plant. I- think-you.and your company are exceedingly fortunate in having a man of Dr. Wells' capabilities to carry out this study for you. Not only is he going to carry out this study on a high professional plane, but he is intensely interested in the problem and will therefore be inclined to do a better job than otherwise might be done. After going over the clinical problems concerned with the study, Dr. Wells and I reviewed a number of the roentgenograms on the various people concerned. We have agreed to add a few more viewboxes and I think Dr. Wells will be able to do an excellent job *nJfrPretinS the roentgenograms. I was terrifically impressed ' with his capabilities. At 1.00 ?. M. we met the following for lunch: Mr. Link, I?; i *t Page 2 Guy' ^ P P ' *>r. Arnold *nd Dr. Harvey Wi?adr,f delic^0JIS luncheon and then we went directly to the Hoeans- v i U e Plant and Mr. D. T Austin took e step by step over t h f ^ i . Mr, J. L. Guy, the Supervisor of Safety, also talked to me about his counts, etc. . As one looks at *he plan*, one would feel that the operation is a very clean operation, but it is impossible at the moment to tell if there is any real hazard present. I would like to indicate some of the difficulties. The operation where the men are asked to wear a mask is probably a dangerous operation. You cannot rely on the men to wear their ihough they taow lose their jobs. It is almost impossible to stand over theses individuals minute by minute and force them to wear their masks. Even though the operation is dangerous they will not do anything about it. I saw a good example of that when we were touring the plant and I called it to the attention of Mr. Austin. I am told that elsewhere the dust counts are within normal limits. We do not know what the normal limits are. In spite of the counts which you have been assured are within normal limits by your own Safety Engineer and by the State Engineers, you may be continuing to have an asbestosis hazard present. I think this is important to recognize, because in that all of your employees are old employees, ** impossible to tell at the present time whether the present working conditions are safe. One can always state that the develop ment of any asbestosis at this time may be due to the exposure in the ?ast* That is indeed a possibility, but we are not sure. w still do not have any good data to justify the statement following: asbestosis may not progress if the patient is taken out of a harmful atmosphere and placed in a clean atmosphere. That is a hope and it may be true, but the lesion may progress. I bring that to your attention because from time to time your consultants may recommend such a practice, but you must know that it is not based on any real scientific evidence. I think the members of your company can be assured of the following. They may still have an asbestosis hazard present even outside the area where individuals are supposed to wear" masks. Dust counts which are regarded as being within normal limits so far as asbestosis is concerned may actually be hazardous. There is a dust count which has not been made which I believe is important. I called^this to the attention of Mr. Austin and Mr. Guy, Mr. Link and Mr. Fort. I refer to the dust counts made over the stacks where the evacuated dust is wetted down. If there is any sizable escape of dust from those several stacks, at least two and maybe four, that dust is drawn directly back in for ventilatory purposes into your plant because the intake ducts are just below the stacks (just , described). ~ n 4 4 JU'i'i Page 3 Recommendation: Continue with Dr. Wells by all means. Dr. Weils nas tne complete confidence of Drs. Arnold and Harvey of Hogansville. He has the complete confidence of your working personnel. . I would recommeri the borrowing of equipment to provide for dust counts made continually in a number of the operations so as to get a better impression over that which is now being obtained with spot checks. I would strongly recommend a careful study of the atmosphere just abdVe the stacks on air being pulled out of the factory. I believe you have got to use something other than masks if you want to protect the people in the operation where masks are now recommended. If there are any other t&pints on which I should comment that have not been considered in the above report, please do not hesi tate to call on me. Thanking you for giving me an opportunity to visit your Hogansville Plant and submitting.this report, I am Sincerely, EPP:JS Eugene ?. Pendergrass, U. D