Document zzvy3zw0rnL26QgGOn4M0orzB

r'i June Ih, 1963 r Dr. Uex '.'.iIsorijh'Mediani "rtjctor 2 T. Goodrich 'Coisp&rr.r kron, bhip -. D'ecr ,.r. '.'ilson: dp^Tthi'oijrtapinii i?o..y otber to you dateci June H ,2 enei b io o .i g Il 11. Vci<roefaG.-'aT-.i.`-o.illov,;s:G~\:<te) epeeifoonsj 0j"b.l . :\' 0 b'Loe- :love-I o.f 9 ?-)' Vornon i{y-riru; cc: 0005618 KT V ; 7 7 7 ^ 7 7 ^ 7- 7-, .:I -,,K'Sr"'. > -py v.'.f. < - q ` -'l:. V . .v '5?; ' * .. v-l^i-OFF- %^V v, dF; F;V'. -?V-. 7 r un li, 1963 -vh.7i .- '' ." ' " f': ..; F >:.* : 7:-:?/vv7 '."-V hF,y.F . '; ' .:7'^'-. Dr. Hex Wilson, Medical B. F.. Goodrich Company Kr7vy-vh. Akron, Ohio . ... O'. 7 7 ' ' ' ' ,*:. -rv . :v. T. - Vi - O' >7- 7 V. v. Vi Dear Dr. Wilsons !7 7.., ,,v777:>; ' :.- v, .- -v /. i ;, . , Thank you very much fcrgthe copies of your letter to Dr. Kehoe `'as well as Dr. Kehoe*s response. 1 XVel that probably a complete review of the situation, ss it applies to the problem here in iXarion, would be the best answer that I could give you to Lr. Kehoe*s letter. >V . First, as you know, we were contacted in August 1962 by Hr. ___ physician who stated that he was hospitalised for what he feltT was possibly lead poisoning, i it:;-cdiately .went to the hospital 'to do a blood and urine determination for lead. Duplicate samples were sent to the Kettering Lab oratory as well a3 your own laboratory in order that there would be no question concerning the reports. Also, Dr. HarolxMynbus went to the hospital and did & complete history and physical on to se if we would iLr_. concur with the diagnosis. On October 5th, 1962 following the examination, I:r. Inbus made his report indicating that he was doubtful about the diagnosis based on the clinical and laboratory findings available at thi3 time. A subsequent letter was sent to Mr.'John Sofie on November 6th, 1962 indicating that we felt t: at the diagnosis of lead poisoning was sufficiently well enough established to bo accepted for compensation purposes. Grit., of the reasons why the diagnosis of lead poisoning was accepted in this man was because he had a thorough work-up by a competent internist and no other etiology for his con.. Faints could be found. His blood lead levels, although they were not as high as is usually seen in acute types of lead ooiconing, were at a level -t vthich lead poisoning could occur. From a re view of your letter, I do not believe a copy of the letter dated November 6th, 1962 was sent to Dr. Kehoe. \***\. ." lolloping hr. ^ l ^ t o ^ h o s p i U 11nation, an immediate and rather thorough evaluation of the situation locally was undertaken. First, the blood and urine tests, which had been clone cn June,12th*; 1962, were reviewed. All of the levels were veil within normal Units. Of the thirty individuals tested, none showed a blood level of higher thart .05%. per lOOga. of blood and the vast majority were at a level of approximately .03 and .OU. _ , ( NrjH'V"., v**. . - . '-. Secondly, an analysis of blood and urine was doneon everyone in the department, '"nose ivere drawn on October 5th, 1962. The:-results, revealed several lead strippers to have an elevated level of lead in blood and/or urine. 1) Bruce beers had a urine level of O.llng. per 1iterand a blood level ofCtl7g* per 00056 9* - ' - -'*vr7. 3k,&- .r ** v <*' T"; ^ **aEe g lOOgra. of blood. On November 15th, 1962 I)r. Imbus wrote Mr.fJjPB^concorning the findings on this man. The report was not received until November 10th or 11th, 1962. 2) had a urine level of 0.2 and a blood level of 0S/-0S;j3(duplicate specimen). 3) ^ B H f l B H t o h a d a blood level of 0.06-0.08 an^' we felt that, since he had nild symptoms he should be immediately removed ' from the area. This recommendation was also incorporated in the letter from Dr. Isbus dated November 15th, 1962. h) s urine level of 0.11 and a blood level of 0?8-0i8(duplicate specimens). During this interim several hygiene studies had been made by your office.: ' Several suggestions had been made in order to improve the level of.the lead dust -'in the area. These were corrected and taken care of as quickly as ;possible; '' and, in fact, the general area dust level was markedly lowered.according to . the employee's themselves. Because of the persistant elevation, of the blood , levels over what we have been having in the-,past years and in .rdeiyvto rule, -. \ out the possible contamination of vario a other areas In with lead, , foixr or five foreman, had blood determinations done i ;These foremen did not work in the lead area at all. Their blood levels'iwere ifellj^thirfc normal limits All.of the men in.the lead stripper area were gotten together and talked to , by ciyself concerning the problem. It was explained to them Vhat the situation was, the importance of their taking proper sanitary precautions in their work, and an attempt was made to allay any fears on their part of an overwhelming .castrophy developing. '" -- V-V'v I believe that the men were properly instructed and as a matter lot fact, trie following hygiene measures are rigidly being followed. .The>teen change their clothes before going to work and before leaving the-plant. ?At the end of each shift each man takes a shower, before leaving the plant*; lie Is not allowed to eat anything in the vrork 'area*'v When he leaves the work area and before , v ''going to the lunch room or homo to eat he washes his-hands end face thoroughly. 0 He is not .-.allowed;-,to smoke in the work area ana as a further precaution they * were requested not to carry a 'package of uncovered cigarettes;in their clothes. The foreman were instructed in these precautions and asked to watch the sen carefully to be sure that these measures were followed. The men were individually talked to concerning: their own levels and their laboratory results were given to then if they requested it. An attempt was . made to explain what the tests meant so that no undo fears developed. A complete physical examination was done on every lead stripper in order that no pathology was present`which would *aggravate the problem. They were all with in. nprrial limits as noted In my letter tb you dated April 30th,`1963. .; The blood lead determination on Mr. _____ >as of December 18th, 1962 was V found to be 0.07-0.08 and therefore he to, was medically restricted from work- 5s*,>ing.ini'the--leadv|irejsr.;^?ft}*; 't* . ., . ........ . . ' S ;< Vk:Ay** ... ... As regards to what happens to these individuals Ifollowinig their removal from ' exposure in the lead press areaj the following if noted: ' ____ ;following his hospitalisation returned to work on October 9th, and. the complete. report of all his blood and urine determinations is as follows*.' - \ r ' > ;> > ` ' .. ' UkXNESJ" _ W, * ", BLOODS; , ;& ." r DATE" , Mg./Liter. . ` ; Mg.AOOgtn ' : 10-11-62": V < 0005620 - -j.1- ' i-i-'' ..." ' '* ' .. : V::$h v V . . -v\ ""v.-,.*'V'-'t'*- ;, .... ... v : oftii1!?-''-:-V -: >,Ay;.: 1*i ' t 'r JL' * ' PATE: . % 'MX'-"--fA. *4 : 1 - URINES Mf Alter 6. >>** - *',:" T- .Page 3'- BLOODS^ > ' vMg./lOOgms. 10-17-62 11-13-6 2 12 -18 - 6 2 12-21-62 l-lh-6 3 22--11--6 3 3-11-63 h- 1-63 h- 1-63 5- 6-63 . * * * `!- . U ' ,?! V:r--r--;- . .0$ V* ` .05 Nattering ..'f.-, .> .0 6 . : .02 .oh . . Kettering .0 7 .0 3 .01- ' . -d -6 <* v . .0 0 - V s xtic .j ,07-.08(< Spectro. .O65-.05# .oh :' '.056 p .07-.07 - .o65-o$ : .0h-.07 ! .06-.06 It should also be noted that as late a s .December 1?62. he had'a rather narked . anemia with a herrulobin of ll.hgms. In view of the fact that this man has not had any exposure to lead.as far as we know since October p6>62 and since that as of May 6th, 1963, he still had a blood lead level of<006-0,06(duplicate specimens) It is felt that,he is still not qualified to return to the lead area since, after eight months, his blood lead level is still at the extreme upper normal Unit* .. I-3 regards to this nan was removed from the lead press area in Kovender 1962 as was previously noted. Subsequent to his removal he has had no further contact with lead as far as we know. However, in spite of this, as is noted by the following, his blood has not decreased as much as it is felt that it should. URINES . BLOODS LATE Pp./Liter lln./lOOws. . 11-13-62 12- 10-62 12- 21-62 Kettering 1-1U-63 2- 11-63 3-11-63 1- 1-63 li- 1-63 5- 5-63 Kettering 15 0? . 03' .Oh .03 03 Oh .02 .08 ' .06-.08(duplicate spe) Spectro. .055-.075 Dithizone .06 C6 . .07-.06 . 0>.05 Spectro. .08-.06 Dithizone .07-.05 As of April 1963 he still had a blood level of .08-.06(Kettering report). Here again, it is felt that this should return to a mean normal level be-- fore returning his to further exposure. 5 iM V Finally as regards to As you know this man was removed from the lead press area on January bth, 1963 because of a blood level of .07-.08(dup- 11cate specimens) on December 18th, 196?. Following his removal from all con tact with lead the following blood and urine specimens have been run: p;;* , K # 5 jv . DATE 12-18-62 l-lh-63 2-11-63 >11-63 . .. . URINES Mg.After , .06 .03 05 BLOODS _ Mg./l00gms. - * ,.: . .07-*06(duplicate spe) .03 * .07 -- -6 6 V p .08-.07 . . . / / *'~Lh-'v, y * . T Mg./Liter, > li-12-63 ' .0$ ' U-12-63' Kettering 1 .oh " ; U-25-63 % .02 : ,, n*-` ,"-V<'.*** .OB-.Oli o o. $ - . 3 .0$ He has shewn some'"decline in his bipod levels. 'If-the one dviplicate 'specimen of .08 of April 2nd can be ruled out as probably some error, then he has shown'' a drop since-March, hewever,:prior to this time he,had not shown any appreciable decrease in his level. It is felt ,that if his blood lead level,' which is to be drawn this week, is of.a mean normal level as it has been in the past months, his medical restriction will:be removed. . -k ;*, ^ In review, "it >s difficult to say exactly where the main problem -'lies. Basically, -men who have been removed from all known exposures to,lead do hot seem to have a lowering of their blood lead levels as I would expect. Sir. ( H I B f e b a s not been in any exposure to lead, since prior to hospitalization, However, six 'months later he still had a level which certainly is. within ahigh: normal . $' range*,.':As^the-Kettering Laboratory reported:it on April 8th, 1963, it is'at tne "upper limit of normal". Also being appraised of the local situation, the fear of the men etc., none of these men will be returned to th lead strippers `until they have rescued a mean normal level over a several month period. If further symptoms recurred it could conceivably create a much greater personnel or union grievance problem. .: .. By the men's own observations it appears tnat the general area is in much better condition. According to the hygiene reports we do not actually have any hazard that should result in men developing symptoms. However, when you look at the overall reports, certainly the levels, in general, are much higher than they were six, eight, and ten years ago* The reason for this is . not clear in ray mind. Either there is something that we are'missing from a hygiene standpoint or the tj,en are not adhearingto the sanitary regulations that have been prescribed for them, or some unknown factor is acting with which we are not fsmilar. /Any help to get to the bottom of this rather per plexing problem would be greatly appreciated. In general, I think the blood levels are slowly dropping. The speed with which they are dropping is not as fast as I would expect in either the individuals who were removed or the individuals who have been allowed to work in the area. If there is anything else that we can do or any other dtermination3 that can be made, we would be most happy to do so. ifK- This is a summary of the situation as,I. see it. The restrictions on men who have been removed from the lead strippers will be rescinded when their blood ... ; levels have returned to a mean normal level over a period of several months. . Hoping this is complete and satisfactory, I remain, i ;;/ .j',, m/m I ' ! -'-."v 7 : ' \ Mr. VanSickle ;tlr. Kehoe Daniel 14. Morphy, M.). v'': S' 2ys`t'' tfE' 0005622