Document yrB5LQZ3O7yYNyxpYD779Jpar

w? w MEMORANDUM PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT D RA FT AL-2I38 September 7, 1977 File W. B. Reitzc cc: P. Kotin, M.D.1 W. R. Paul, M.D. d i/J t Subject: PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EMPLOYEE LOCKERS m The recent Corporate decision to provide protective clothing Iv . yi-i s to'tthbse Johns-Manvi 11c workers involved with asbestos fiber asbestos products where fiber is not firmly bound has raised ^ f. a number of questions from our operating divisions. In an Jaitsi `V1 effort to perhaps clarify some of these questions, Dr. Kotin wrote to the medical directors of ten of the largo U.S. corpora- '> ' tions including Shell Oil, Union Carbide, Celanese, Alcoa, * ^ " DuPont, Exon, General Electric, Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, *(> I . ,is: 1 .:- ' \V & '^".'and Kaiser Aluminum. The question was asked of the medical 'i ''{k ' "" _____ _ - directors what type of protective clothing program was in force "v , . in their corporations to protect employees from both carcinogenic \ ^agents, as well ns other potentially harmful materials. All of %V .-vYthe companies responded, some in more detail than others. t - Yr.'.''summary_ , wo may make the following' conclusions: In \$0r %: y * 1. All the major companies do furnish protective clothing to various employee groups. The decision to furnish clothing is based upon the potential hazard of the mate rials handled. The chemical and oil companies arc pro tecting e'mpibyte:; .-Rpiifin! 11 c ,l,;|7 iniq " " Mhc.y. an employee's clothing and lie absorbed through the skin. M T-001419 Pi Memo to file September 7, 1977 Pago 2 Others are concerned with an employee exposure nr. well nr. .-.v";1 a family exposure to such i. toms nr, toxic dusts including lead. Most largo firms also furnish specialized protective clothing which will protect an employee against heat, cold, "j'/'b flame, molten metal, water, chemical splashes, etc. the laundering is clone in-house. If there is a very small employee population involved, an outside laundry service or uniform 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; v/ilh the particular substance the employee handles, weekly being the longest period, daily being the most common period, and in a number-of case:; with chemical careinoqons, protective clothing is changed 3 or 1 times per day. The issuance of clothing is usually handled by utilizing a system similar to the* tool crib method used by most .large industrials for issuance of tools and supplies. MT-001420 Lockers are furnished ho employees w whore needed, dual lockers are furni.shed. However, with the use of the tool crib system, dual lockers are not needed, since .. the contaminated clothing is dopes i ted tor launderin'! on a daily basis. 5. The reasons Cor furnishing protective clothing and the methods of.administration vary widely within the companies M$lv,a *>. .............. ,?' _ ,.r ff . c'.^^^'^61 led .;:"Fc^,s'companies have corporate-wi do programs which apply across the board to all I heir operations. The ` - majority, because of the vast diversification in operations, leave the actual administration of a protective clothing program to the location. The mandate for protective cloth ing, of course, is issued by the corporate environmental health department. Some corporations state their policy i rather 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' '"r)fc4 public image (gas station uniform';). Almost all the major corporations furnish protective clothing of the type dis cussed free of charge to their employee:;. 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 comrni I lees" within the plant have been set up to determine a fair and equitable method for clothing issuance. - MT-001421 *f~ 1 *&&?+* W'V.-.'s**-*i > ' .7. ' * Memo to file September 7, Page 4 " >-'T\ : 19 77 6. All medical directors feel quite strongly that persons handling carcinogenic agents should receive protective clothing, not only for their own protection but also for the protection of their families sliould dusts, oils, or chemicals be carried out of the plant on the workers' MT-001422 A 1977 July 27 \AA A' r\ Paul Kotin, M.D. Senior Vice President. Health Safety and Environment Johns-Manville Corporation Greenwood Plaza Denver, Colorado 80217 * Dear Paul: . We do not in any of our plants provide work clothing--specifically apparel--on a regular basis. The closest we come to that is disposable paper clothing for employees who periodically go into certain bughouses. But other than this, nothing else. I would recommend your contacting either Dr. MacRoy Gasque, Vice President and Director, Health Affairs, or Dick Henderson at Olin (the latter is their chief industrial hygienist) in Stamford, Connecticut as regards their clothing practice for workers in mercury cell room exposures. Off the record, I think they go a bit overboard, but it represents one point of view. For another, I would recommend review of the MIOSH proposed Mercury Standard in the work clothing section. I hope these leads will be of help. Fortunately, in our mercury cell operations we have been able to control exposure without recourse to .'clothes. We do, however, provide a commercial laundry sized washer there, but largely on the premise of keeping mercury out of their home laundries. Best regards from Gaby and me to you and Pauli. f Cordially, 'O.o-d-...... '..... \Bertram D. Dinman, M.D. Corporate Medical Director vmd <a MT-001440 --- i- Abstract of discussion by C.C. Corr, Advertising L'aneger, Al'nlnum t Company of America, Pittsburgh, in forun cn,"Impact of Employee Heelth a Industrial and Public Bolatlcns," at fourth foil meotiug of Air A ' r/tr, zt.I Hygiene Foundation bold at Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Uod. 1?.K. c ,t . i"., -'ctl-* Nov. 15. would \' *0.0 . ceri.-:r.tr cf c rr:.. T'j !. r'* It^foefe without saying that any manufacturer with on ounce of intelligence reale. *"*s izes the"36Ilara and cents value of industrial heelth and, when shown, is perfectly t/illihg:tb"5pend money to make the conditions of his plants cendueive to this result. - -J Further,HorSJ be has humanitcricn Instincts over and beyond the money angle and is Just BS;,nridpu3 as tbo employee emd more anxious thnn the rank outsider in having the c;. '- best possible health conditions in his operations. Unfortunately, industry has too orten been placed on the defensive in the eyes of both employees and tha public because much attention has been paid to money com pensation t$'n;orkers whose health has already been lost, to steto legislation for an occup-ticnaJMlseaso law in cooperation v/lth the insurance componies, to answering criticisms of industry after it has been attacked in some specific incident. Too little attention has been given to whet industry is doing towerd eliminating occupa tional disease. In short, the engineer and the pbysicicn who work Quietly and effec tively on the long range Job have had too little public notice whilo the lav/yers, th law makers and the insurance conpcnics have had the lime-light. The latter group are essential but a constant parade of their activities builds up a resistance toward in dustry all out of proportion to the true situation. Much of this ia the fault of industry, itself. When a new safety device is in stalled, an improvement made on an old one, or a new method adopted to improve air or light conditions In a plant, too eften the operating department says: "V.'by publicize it and thereby call attention to conditions that existed before?" I feel certain ^ there are soma- members of the Air Hygiene Foundation whose operating people think it might be Justj as well if nothing were said about their support of the fund. Public relations men .have Just the opposite view-point. They think all those things should bo talked about publicly. Admittin'g.V that the operating ran who wants to 3oft-pedal these activities, may have en occasional point especially when there is darker of a racketeering lawyer sensing a.damage suit for possible ''sufferers" before the improvement was made, 1 cannot sec that the attitude of silence is good in the long run. Everyone, whether an industriaV^orker or not, knows that plant condiions ero constantly improving. . Perhaps ha knoys this best if ha is an industrial employee. The person who knows least about.lt is ono who belongs to that vast army known r.s the general public. Announcements-tyr plant improvements or innovations which improve the health rand the working conditions of employees should be constantly passed on to the public which is the final* rp*oirt.ree in any broad discussion leading to legislation. Furthermore_industry can build for itself a still brooder acceptance in the public relations"ta3k it has to accomplish, if it gets the public to understand that it is, after olS.'/human. In industry's story of itsolf to tho public It has stressed achievement bui_ nhs dono little on tho humanitarian side. Jlonenrch and development, improved products* lower manufacturing costs, tho benefits of integration, creation of jobs and killed storloa nro being constantly told in institutioacl messages while the thirds industry is doing to improve tho health and snfoty of its employees i3 in frequently mentioned. .> '' ' " MT-001282 :idu 00A-55E