k` i1, + , A-L,Lj--V - 9 )S(_ _ 1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ ...-

LABOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROJECT 34

NUMBER 2 * NOVEMBER 1974

1w ~~~~~~~~~~~1- tLnI .U R1)iY X

r F CAL'IF:OCRNIA.

VINYL CKLC

Phillip L. Polakoff, M.D.

Twentieth Century technology has thrust upon usanother in a never-ending series of mixed blessings.This time it comes in the form of vinyl chloride/poly-vinyl chloride (VC/PVC).

Vinyl chloride (called a "monomer") is a flammablegas at standard conditions of temperature and pres-sure, but it is usually handled as a liquid. It is easilyliquified, colorless, and its vapor has a pleasant odor.Originating from the petro-chemical industry, VCserves as the foundation for much of the modernplastics industry. When large numbers of its moleculesalong with other additives are put together, they be-come the polymer, polyvinyl chloride-a white pow-dery chemical which looks like sugar. PVC is literallya chemical that can be put to a "1001," uses. PVC isused to coat fabrics and wire, extruded into pipe andconverted into sheets for use in upholstery and food-wrapping.

Currently in the United States some 6500 workersin 51 plants work directly with vinyl chloride and poly-vinyl. In addition, tens of thousands of workers areinvolved in converting the raw powdery material intothe previously mentioned finished products. Further,almost every American comes in contact daily, inone form or another, with the finished product. Justrecently the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) re-moved from the consumer market all hair spray prod-ucts and medication that employed vinyl chloride as

Employee working with PVC slurry. Is hisrespirator effective?

their propellant.It has been estimated that in 1972 over $3.0 billion

of contribution to our $1,115 billion Gross NationalProduct was derived from the PVC industries.

In late January, 1974 the medical-industrial com-plex belatedly identified a new occupational cancer.The B. F. Goodrich Company revealed that threeworkers who had worked with vinyl chloride gas atits Louisville, Kentucky plant had died between 1968and December, 1973 of angiosarcoma of the liver.Since that time an additional 19 deaths worldwidehave been attributed to angiosarcoma of the livercaused by exposure to VC/PVC.Angiosarcoma of the liver is an extraordinarily rare

form of cancer and unfortunately one that is pro-gressive and invariably fatal. To this point in historyapproximately 100 cases have been reported -notone has been cured. Furthermore, and of equal con-cern, is the long time period between onset of expo-sure to the agent and the time one comes down withthe disease. In relation to the Louisville cases, thetumors appeared in workers 14 to 27 years from on-set of their work exposure. It is reasonable to con-clude that uncontrolled exposures in the past are

Continued on Page 6

Annual Occupational Health andSafety Conference

The Second Annual Educational Conference on

Occupational Health and Safety will begin at 9:00 a.m.on Thursday, November 21, at the Fairmont Hotel inSan Francisco. Sponsored by the California LaborFederation, AFL-CIO, in cooperation with the LaborOccupational Health Project, University of California,Berkeley, the conference this year will conclude witha general lunch session on Friday, November 22.The first day of the program will be devoted to an

analysis of methods and procedures which union offi-cials and members can utilize to improve health andsafety in the workplace. In the morning, the focus willbe on shop committee, joint committee, local union,and collective bargaining procedures. In the after-noon, the focus will shift to the procedures which arecarried out by state agencies under CAL/OSHA, andby federal agencies under OSHA.

Continued on Page 6

,-siNNt 160

Cr.

(,X

,

Remoibb-

r (.il "f, ( S- 1.1. t'L.:.t ..'..

II7 il!,-t "I

4_ A "-"/. .-t 0."j ,

I ! " "

14

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (DIR)Enforcement and rulemaking authority granted by Agricultural Services Agency

Delegated responsibility for the administration of the State Plan. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DIVISION OF LABORAW ENFORCEMENT

vestigates employeecomplaints of dis-charge or discrimina-tion, due to theexercise of CAL/OSHArightsrings legal actionagainst employers toreinstate employeesand recover loss wages

OCCUPATIOHAL SAFETY & HEALTH DIVISION OF LABOR STATE DEPARTMENT STATESTANDARDS BOARD J APPEALS BOARD STATISTICS & RESEARCH OF HEALTH FIRE MARSHALL

DIVISION OF DINDUSTRIAL SAFETY L

Enforcement of occupa- Invpational safety andhealth standards

Investigates employeecomplaints

Issues citations andlevies fines Br

Periodic inspectionof workplaces

Review and evaluate pro-posed safety standard

Grants temporaryvariances to employers

Provides safety educa-tion and training toemployees andemployers

BUREAU OFINVESTIGATIONS

Directs accident investi-gations where seriousinjury or death hasoccurred

Prepares cases forprosecution and recom-mends appropriateaction to local D.A.

Initial Results of Cal/OSHA SurveyThe Division of Labor Statistics and Research, in

cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,has compiled a report of the initial results of the 1972California Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Survey.The findings were based upon questionnaires whichwere mailed to nearly 40,000 California employers inMarch, 1973. Establishments receiving questionnairesreported their occupational injury and illness experi-ence for the 1972 calendar year. The survey wasconducted as part of the first full-scale nationwideannual survey to be carried out under provisions ofthe Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970 (OSHA). The survey results, which reflectedexperience during the first full year of recordkeepingunder the Act, will serve as a base for comparisonwith the results of future annual surveys.

There are several terms referred to in the surveywhich should be explained. Lost workday cases arethose in which the employee was absent from workbeyond the day he was injured or became ill, or inwhich he could not perform all the duties assigned tohis normal job, or in which it was necessary to assignhim to a temporary job because he was not able toperform his usual work. Incidence rates for lost work-day cases refers to the number of lost workday casesper 100 full-time workers, and constitute a measure ofthe more severe occupa,tional injuries and illnesses.100 man-years can be defined as 100 employees work-ing for a one year period.The following is a partial list of the survey results:1. More than 620,000 Californians employed in pri-

vate industry (except agriculture, mining, and rail-roads) suffered recordable occupational injuries orillnesses during 1972.

2. One out of every nine workers suffered a job-

2.

Conducts appeal hearingson citations and civilpenalities

Reviews petitions forreconsideration ofits own decisions andfinal orders

Adopts rules of procedurepertaining to hearingappeals

Provides DIS withquarterly reports ofinjuries, fatalities.and accident rates(effective Jan 1, 1975)

Prepares annual reporton injuries and occu-pational diseases andfatalities (effectiveJan 1. 1976)

Conducts investigationof occupationalhealth complaints

Develops and presentsnew State occupationalhealth standards

Evaluates application forvariance from Stateoccupational healthstandards

Conducts special studieson occupational healthproblems

Trains DIS safety engineers in the recognitionof health hazards

Maintains liaison withNIOSH

Prepares and adoptsregulations related tofire protection in theconstruction of stateinstitutions or state-owned buildings

Enforces regulationsrelated to design orconstruction of privatelyowned buildingsoccupied by the State

related injury or illness during the year.

3. Nearly 2.8 million workdays were lost in privatenon-farm industries.

4. Lost workday cases accounted for almost one-third of the recordable occupational injuries or ill-nesses reported by California employers. Of theseone-third cases, the average number of days lostranged from a low of 12 days in the wholesale andretail trades to a high of 16 days in the transportation,communication, and utilities group.

5. In private non-farm industries, occupational in-juries accounted for 95.5% of all reported casesand occupational illnesses accounted for 4.5% of allreported cases.

Now that the survey procedures are fully opera-tional, results of future annual surveys should beavailable by the end of the year during which the datawere collected. The final survey report has just beencompleted and will contain additional industry data,including incidence rates for detailed industries.Copies can be requested from the Division of LaborStatistics and Research, P.O. Box 603, San Francisco,CA 94101.

Conducts public hearingsand adopts health andsafety standards

Conducts hearings onrequests for permanentvariances

Conducts appeal hearingson DIS decisions ingranting or denyingtemporqry variances

This organizational chart illustrates the general structureof the CAL/OSHA program and outlines the major functionsof the respective departments.

Published monthly by the Labor OccupationalHealth Project, Institute of Industrial Relations,2521 Channing Way, Berkeley, California 94720.

Written and edited by:Morris E. DavisGene DarlingBob FowlerPhillip L. PolakoffLeo SeidlitzDonald Whorton

Annual subscription rates: Organizations andInstitutions-$10.00, Individuals -$3.00. Quantityshipments are also available to union locals orother groups at a cost of 5¢ per copy per issue,with an annual subscription.

The opinions expressed in the MONITOR repre-sent the views of the Authors, and not necessarilythose of the Institute of Industrial Relations.

l

Federal OSHA IssuesNew Vinyl Chloride Standards

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued new regu-lations aimed at reducing the amount of vinyl chloridegas to which workers may be exposed. The new regu-lations (29 CFR 1910.93q) are effective as of October4, 1974. However, the temporary vinyl chloride stand-ard, which was issued on April 5, 1974, will remainin effect until the end of this year. The temporarystandard reduced the permissible exposure from theextremely hazardous ceiling of 500 ppm (parts permillion) down to 50 ppm. The new permanent stand-ard, effective Jan. 1, 1975, requires that workers maybe exposed to no more than 1 ppm averaged overeight hours of exposure and no concentration higherthan 5 ppm over any 15 minute period.The permanent standards apply to workers em-

ployed in the manufacture, reaction, packaging, re-packaging, storage, handling or use of vinyl chlorideor polyvinyl chloride, but do not apply to the handlingor use of fabricated products made of polyvinylchloride. The standards also apply to workers em-ployed in the transportation of vinyl chloride or poly-vinyl chloride. In addition, no worker may be exposedby direct contact with liquid vinyl chloride.

Recognizing the fact that the temporary and perma-nent standards have reduced the permissible expo-sure levels down from 500 ppm to 1 ppm, it is stillimperative to point out some of the obvious weak-nesses of the permanent standard. These weaknessesare the result of governmental compromise, and aretherefore written by design rather than by oversight.Some of these weaknesses include, but are not limitedto:

(1) Although the new standards go into full effecton January 1, 1975, employers are only required toimplement the standards through "feasible engineer-ing and work practice controls." Without definingthese terms, the regulations go on to state that whereit is not possible to comply, employers are permittedto reduce exposure to the lowest practical level sup-plemented by respiratory protection. However, afterconsulting the standard relating to respirators [1910.93q(g)(9)(1)] the regulations state, "except that untilDecember 31, 1975, wearing of respirators shall be atthe discretion of each employee for exposures not inexcess of 25 ppm, measured over any 15-minuteperiod." To make matters worse, the same regulationgoes on to state, "until December 31,1975, each em-ployee who chooses not to wear an appropriate res-pirator shall be informed at least quarterly of thehazards of vinyl chloride and the purpose, proper use,and limitations of respiratory devices." Therefore,even though the permanent standard requires thatworkers not be exposed to concentrations greater than5 ppm, measured over any 15-minute period, thestandard is contradictory in permitting exposure upto 25 ppm over the same time period.

(2) Effective January 1, 1976, the same exposurelimitations are required, and only then is it mandatorythat employers assure the wearing of respirators. Ineffect, no effort is made to require that the lowestpractical exposure level_be reduced to 1 and 5 ppm'sby some specific date. Rather, employers are simplytold that respirators will be mandatory beginning in1976. Therefore, the levels of 1 and 5 ppm's may neverbe achieved in the majority of vinyl chloride plants;especially if employers allege that such is not pos-sible through "feasible engineering."

(3) In the medical surveillance section of the stand-ards [1910.93q(k)], a very detailed outline is given asto what areas should be explored in the medical his-tory and examination. However, a few paragraphslater, the regulations state that the specified proce-dure neet not be followed if the physician determinesthat "alternative" medical examinations will provide''equal assurance" of detecting conditions pertinentto the exposure of vinyl chloride. In effect, the samephysicians who for years adamantly denied that therewas any link between vinyl chloride and cancer, arenow going to be permitted to arbitrarily decide whichtypes of medical tests can best detect whether aworker is over-exposed. In addition, neither the phy-sician nor the employer is required to give the workera copy of the medical results. Instead, the physicianis only required to give the worker a "statement" as tohis suitability for continued exposure to vinyl chloride!These are only a few of the areas which are certain

to raise future issues and questions. Those workersemployed in the vinyl chloride industry, and theirunion representatives, are advised to obtain and thor-oughly review the new regulations. They are at best,minimum standards; however, those states which areadministering occupational health and safety will soonbe adopting these same standards. It is at that pointthat workers can begin to finish the job that FederalOSHA is struggling to begin.

Proposed City Ordinance toRegulate Hazardous Materials

Art von Bradford, Legislative AdvocateLocal Lodge 1781, IAMAW

For the last two months, I've been working on thepossibility of the enactment of a local ordinance whichwould monitor the use of hazardous materials at theSan Francisco Airport.

I have been in close contact with Mayor LawrenceCohen of St. Paul, Minnesota, who drafted a similarpiece of legislation which went into effect at theMinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on July 15thof this year. In one of many discussions with MayorCohen, he mentioned that on September 19th and20th, the Governor of Louisiana was conducting hear-ings on hazardous material in order to determinewhether legislation was needed.

After speaking to John Stilwell, President of Local1781, the Executive Board and the membership agreedthat it would be a good idea to testify at the hearingsin Louisiana. On September 18, Robert Jirka and Ideparted for Baton Rouge.The hearings were presided over by Charles W.

Tapp, Director of the Governor's Office on ConsumerProtection. There was testimony from State Repre-sentatives in favor of installing monitor devices forthe protection of the employees working at the air-ports around the state, as well as for the general publicusing airport facilities. There was also testimony infavor of such legislation from representatives of theAirline Pilots Association and the Association of FlightAttendants.

Next on the stand were Robert Jirka and 1, repre-

Continued on Page 8

3.

Planning Strategy Before ActionBob Fowler

Shortly after the passage of the Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), varied opinions wereexpressed regarding the position organized laborshould take to ensure the total health and safety ofworking men and women in the nation. These opinionsranged from total support of the OSHA standards tocomplete disregard of the new Federal regulations. In1971, the Occupational Health Project, a componentof the Medical Committee for Human Rights, stated,"Industrial health and safety problems have not beensolved by corporate benevolence, inspections by gov-ernment officials, or by the efforts of expensive 'con-sultants' who make reports and leave. To be takenseriously, health and safety demands must be writteninto contracts in specific language."

Also in 1971, while supporting the general goalsespoused by MCHR, but voicing an opposing strategybased on collective bargaining experience, a spokes-man for the United Steelworkers stated, "Safety andhealth objectives won't be achieved by continuousconfrontation with management. Collective bargain-ing is not a suitable vehicle for achieving safety andhealth goals, in that it is a give-and-take process,predicated on compromise."Another significant contrary opinion was expressed

by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.The IBEW flatly stated, "Safety is a negotiable item;"and they urged their locals to consider Federal stand-ards as minimums which could be further improved atthe bargaining table.These viewpoints shared one thing in common

they were all in response to the impetus which wasstarted by a new Federal statute. In hindsight, theywere suggestions and proposals to set the stage forfuture action. Thus, these emerging viewpoints rangedfrom a call to negotiate contract provisions whichassured safety and protected health (MCHR), to awarning that collective bargaining might compromiseworker protection (United Steelworkers), to a recom-mendation that labor negotiators should improve uponFederal standards in collective bargaining (IBEW).Determining Specific Needs

With OSHA being in the spotlight during the latterpart of 1972, and with rank-and-file workers pressuringfor union action, organized labor found itself facedwith a dilemma. Obviously, labor leaders did not wishto compromise on health and safety issues. However,many were not totally satisfied with the Federalstandards, nor were they in a position to identify,specifically, all known and potential hazards to whichtheir members were being exposed. Also, the diver-gent viewpoints as to proper strategy, delayed thedevelopment of a uniform planned course of action.

Before such a plan could even be proposed andimplemented, some more immediate needs began toemerge:

Properly trained union personnel were needed inthe workplace to identify hazards and suggest cor-rections.

International health and safety specialists neededaccident, illness and mortality statistics.

Union health specialists needed access to theworkplace.

Close working relationships on health and safetyissues had to be developed with management.

In 1973 the first signs of progress in these areassurfaced in the United Auto Workers (UAW) MasterAgreement and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers(OCAW) agreement. These two agreements signifi-cantly attributed to the necessary foundation whichwas needed for future progress in occupational healthand safety. OCAW negotiated the following contrac-tual provisions:

1. Industrial health consultants approved by theInternational Union president or his designee.

2. Annual company report to union or mortality andmorbidity experience of its employees.

3. Pay for union Health and Safety Committees whileperforming their duties.These provisions gave OCAW the ability to analyze

health and safety problems in the workplace whiledeveloping a statistical history of the employees'health problems. Further, they exceeded the provi-sions of the OSHA law because the Act had no require-ment for:

(1) Access to the workplace by union approved"Industrial Health Consultants;"

(2) Reports to unions on morbidity and mortalityContinued on Page 8

Union Health and Safety Seminars* On November 15, 1974, the Labor OccupationalHealth Project staff will present a seminar for theaffiliated locals of the San Francisco Labor Council.The day-long program will concentrate on all aspectsof a local union health and safety committee. Theseminar is being co-sponsored by the San FranciscoLabor Council in cooperation with the San FranciscoCommunity College District Labor Studies Program,and will be held at the Community College Districtheadquarters, 33 Gough St., San Francisco. Topicsfor discussion will include: History of State and Fed-eral OSHA; Local Union Responsibilities in Health andSafety; Formation, Structure and Functions of UnionHealth and Safety Committees; and Training of Com-mittee Members.* On December 5, 1974, an Occupational Health andSafety Seminar will be held in San Mateo at the VillaHotel, 4000 El Camino Real. The staff of the LaborOccupational Health Project will conduct the seminarin cooperation with the Labor Studies Program of theSan Mateo Labor Council. All AFL-CIO and Teamsterlocal unions in San Mateo County have been invited.This day-long seminar will focus on the principalaspects of the new Occupational Safety and HealthAct, with emphasis on the participation of local unionsin establishing Health and Safety Committees. Topicsfor discussion will be similar to those presented at theSan Francisco seminar on November 15. For furtherprogram information contact Bob Fowler at: LaborOccupational Health Project, Institute of IndustrialRelations, 2521 Channing, Berkeley, California 94720,or call (415) 642-5507.

4.

Hazards of Working with Sulfur DioxideLeo Seidlitz, Science Coordinator

Do you work in an oil or sugar refinery? Are you afire-fighter or a paper maker, a refrigeration mechanicor a tannery worker? Do you process food or operatea furnacd? Do you brew beer or make wine? Theseare just a few of the many, varied occupations in whichyou may be exposed to sulfur dioxide (SO2), an irri-tant, toxic gas. Sulfur Dioxide is used industrially asa bleach, fumigant, food preservative, anti-oxidant,insecticide, fungicide and in the manufacture of sul-furic acid. The gas is sometimes supplied in cylindersor it can be produced where it is to be used by theburning of sulfur. In some cases, such as in oil re-fineries and refrigeration equipment, it is used as aliquid under high pressure. You are also exposed toS02, which is a major constituent of smog, while youbreathe in the polluted air of California's cities andvalleys. This is the chemical that was responsible forthe 20 deaths caused by the notorious "killer smog"in Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948.

Hazards of Sulfur DioxideInjury from accidental exposure to large concentra-

tions of S02 is rare, but chronic long-term exposureto lesser amounts can produce a range of symptomsand ill effects, depending upon the severity and dura-tion of exposure. Among these are nosebleeds, cough-ing (perhaps with bloody sputum), sensations of burn-ing and dryness in the nose and throat, conjunctivitis,inability to obtain "sufficient" air upon exertion, fatiguefrom moderate work, high acid content of urine, bron-chitis, changes in the senses of taste and smell, laryn-gitis, broncho-pneumonia, pulmonary edema (fillingof the lung with fluid) and pulmonary emphysema(damage to the lung's air sacs).

People who work with S02 get chronic sore throatsat a rate many times greater than normal. When theyget a cold, it lasts 2-3 times as long as normal.

Sulfur dioxide also can cause gingivitis, cavitiesand other dental troubles (Crest is not effective againstthese cavities, only removal of the cause can help).It is suspected that S02 may "promote" the effects ofsome cancer-causing materials.How does this simple chemical produce these

effects on the human body? As you know, your mouth,nose, throat and the air passages in your lung arelined with moist mucous. Sulfur dioxide is very solublein water so that water in the mucous interacts with theinhaled gas to form sulfurous acid which can changeinto sulfuric acid. Yes, that is the acid you use in yourcar battery! The acid is formed right at those sensitivetissues. This explains why serious injury from acci-dental exposure to S02 is rare - the irritating effectsof the acid are so intense and immediate that the bodyreacts automatically to shut off its breathing mechan-ism. The sensation of suffocation that results causesyou to flee for your life. Of course, if the worker wererendered unconscious in the accident, respiratoryparalysis can take place with fatal results. First aidfor such accidents consists of immediate removal ofthe worker to fresh air and irrigation of the eyes withwarm water, while minimizing physical exertion by thevictim. Qualified medical attention is required as

quickly as possible.Working with S02 in its liquid form involves an

additional danger. High pressure is required to keepthe material liquified. Rupture of the pressure systemmay cause liquid to be directed into the eyes andalmost always results in serious damage.

Blindness caused by liquid sulfur dioxidesplashed into the eyes.

The threshold limit value (TLV or legally permittedmaximum exposure) for S02 is 5 parts of the gas permillion parts of air (ppm) averaged over a 8-hourworkday. Earlier this year the National Institute ofOccupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) publishedevidence that a TLV of 5 ppm was not safe and recom-mended to OSHA that it adopt a new TLV of 2 ppm.NIOSH is delegated under federal law to make suchrecommendations but only three out of about fifteenrecommendations have been acted on by the Secre-tary of Labor in the last two years.

Since S02 is such a dangerous constituent of smog,the Environmental Protection Agency has issuedstandards for limiting its amount in the atmosphere.Atmospheric S02 is limited to 0.03 ppm averaged overthe year, with no more than 0.14 ppm in any 24-hourperiod once per year. California has even more strin-gent standards. The government's position, then, isthat it is legal to expose a worker to forty times theconcentration of S02 than it permits for the generalpopulation. Workers can legally be exposed, for eachday of their working lives, to more than ten times theS02 concentration than that permitted by E.P.A. justonce in a year.Methods of Protection

In order that workers be properly protected fromexposure to S02, it is preferable that all processingbe totally enclosed and that strict monitoring be car-ried out for leaks and build-up of excess pressureand temperature. Devices are available for continuousmonitoring of these conditions. If the process cannotbe enclosed, then sufficient local exhaust ventilationmust be provided. Recirculation of the gas must beprevented and continuous monitoring of the S02 levelshould be maintained as well.

Annual medical examinations which particularlycheck the eyes, the heart and the respiratory systemshould be given. Symptoms of irritation and coughingmust be checked out. It is recommended that anyonehaving bronchial asthma, chronic laryngitis or con-

Continued on Page 7

5.

Vinyl Chloride-Continued from Page 1

likely to be reflected in the occurrence of tumors inthe decades ahead.Thomas Mancuso, M.D., University of Pittsburgh,

aptly stated the extent of the cancer problem duringthe Labor Department Hearing, Feb. 15, 1974:

"The potential magnitude of the cancer prob-lem, however, does not rest on vinyl chloridealone, but rather on its role as a possible indexcancer chemical-an indicator to a large groupof similarly structured chemicals. Should any ofthese chemicals prove to be carcinogenic, thenthe magnitude of the risk would extend to an everwidening circle of industries, processes andexposed populations. The degree of validity ofthese various possibilities must be identified andresolved."

Angiosarcoma of the liver is not the only adversehealth effect associated with the production of VC/PVC. It is a commonly held belief now that VC/PVCproduction workers most likely have a higher rate ofother types of cancer, including cancer of the lungand brain.As far back as 1949- twenty-five years ago- a

group of Russian scientists made the correlation be-tween VC/PVC production and liver disease. 15 of 48exposed workers developed liver damage. Over thenext 17 years high rates of liver, skin and other organdisease amongst VC/PVC workers were reported fromRumania, Russia and France.

Cross-section of the liver of a worker whohad died from angiosarcoma.

In the mid-60's medical researchers identified yetanother lesion (disease state) associated with VC/PVC. This time it was given the fancy scientific labelacroosteolysis -basically this is a disease processinvolving the skin and bones of the hands and feet.As one affected worker put it, "My hands were swelledso bad that I couldn't open or close them completelyand the ends of my fingers were so sore that I couldn'tput on my clothes or dial a telephone. It's hard topick up little objects because my fingers are so stubbyand I just don't have the touch."More recently different investigators have reported

on other medical ill effects associated with PVC. In1973 a group of physicians in Los Angeles showedthat a significant number of meat-wrappers suffer withrespiratory impairment due to the hot-wire cutting ofPVC meat wrap which emits toxic pollutants. ManyEuropean doctors think that breathing PVC dust

affects the lungs and can result in emphysema.The question remains "what can be done about the

PVC Problem?" Dr. Irving Selikoff of Mt. Sinai MedicalSchool in New York City justly summarized the issue:"No one has the right to make another human exposehimself to the risk of cancer as part of his job." Tothis end, it is mandatory that a zero exposure level tovinyl chloride be enacted and enforced. Until this isthe case the following control measures should beadopted immediately (based on a Fact Sheet preparedby Industrial Health and Safety Project, Cambridge,Massachusetts):

1. There must be clear warning signs in all vinylchloride areas.

2. Information about the potential dangers of vinylchloride should be available to anyone in the shop.

3. Everyone must have a thorough pre-employmentphysical and regular checks for liver damage, lungproblems and circulation problems.

4. The workplace air should be constantly moni-tored to check on vinyl chloride concentrations andto see if any leaks are occurring.

5. All vinyl chloride and PVC areas must be wellventilated.

6. All possibly exposed personnel should be pro-vided with protective clothing by the company theywork for. Those working inside reactor tanks musthave special suits, gloves and fresh-air masks.

7. Lastly, there must be appropriate dining andwash areas separated adequately from the productionareas.What has been just discussed holds not only for

VC/PVC but should be applied to all other similarplastic production operations. Hopefully we will havelearned from our past mistakes and take the initiativein dealing today with potentially similar disasters.

Conference-Continued from Page 1

Standard procedures which are followed by statecompliance officials in opening and closing confer-ences with employers and in workplace inspectionswill be explained in a film made for this purpose bythe Labor Occupational Health Project. The film will beshown for the first time at the conference lunch ses-sion on Nov. 21. Top officials from the state's Divisionof Industrial Safety will then be available to answerquestions about CAL/OSHA and about their inspec-tion and enforcement regulations and procedures.On Friday, Nov. 22, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:15, four

workshops will be presented on the following topics:A. Medical Screening Program for

Local Unions.B. Cancer Causing Agents and Other

Toxic Materials.C. Physical Hazards: Noise, Heat,

Vibration, Radiation, Stress.D. Organizing for Health and Safety

in the Workshop.Each workshop will be given from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30,

and then repeated from 10:45 to 12:15, so it will bepossible to attend any two workshops. The guestspeaker at the concluding lunch session on Fridaywill be Dr. Joseph K. Wagoner of the National Iristituteof Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, whosetopic will be "Occupational Cancers."

Continued on Page 7

6.

News ItemsUMW Threatens to Strike for Health and Safety

The United Mine Workers says a nationwide coalstrike is likely Nov. 12 unless the industry makes con-cessions on key health and safety issues, but the coaloperators indicate they are standing fast.

"Time is running out," declared UMW PresidentArnold Miller who charged that the "inflexible posi-tion" adopted by the Bituminous Coal OperatorsAssociation (BCOA) all but assures a strike.

Contract talks covering 120,000 UMW members whoproduce about 75 percent of the nation's soft coalrecessed and Miller said the industry rejected theunion's proposals to improve health and safety in themines.The union chief called the industry's counter pro-

posals "garbage," saying they are asking "for a three-year renewal of their license to kill. Every third day aminer is killed" and "unless the BCOA assumes awillingness to negotiate in these critical contractareas, I must reluctantly report to the American peoplethat a nationwide coal strike is likely to occur on Nov.12," Miller said. The current three-year pact expireson that date.

At the same time miners are breathing in dusts thatdestroy lung tissue, they're also often exposed tonoise that results in hearing loss. And just as blacklung often results in other health problems such asheart disease, noise contributes to high blood pres-sure, glandular disorders, digestive problems, heartdisease, and a host of other stress-related illnesses.In addition, workers exposed to excessive noise aremore prone to serious or even fatal accidents seem-ingly unconnected with noise.

In responding to the union's charges, the BCOAissued a statement saying it is willing to negotiate ingood faith and still hopes to work out a peacefulsettlement.

However, the BCOA said some of the UMW's de-mands would, in effect, force the industry to surrenderits management rights.

-Compiled from AP and UMW Journal.Asbestos Damage Suits

Against Physician and Employer* In a case filed in Contra Costa County (Vella v.Wise), a worker who had contracted asbestosis hasbeen awarded $351,000 in damages.The 56-year-old machinist was examined in 1962,

1965 and 1968 by the physician with whom his em-ployer contracted to perform physical examinations.The physician found asbestosis but failed to advisehim of this fact or to refer him to a specialist. Theworker brought suit against the physician, claimingpermanent and total disability due to lung damage anda substantial reduction in life expectancy.The physician contended that the worker developed

asbestosis from 31 years' work in the same plant of acompany manufacturing building materials. He saidthat by 1962 it would have been useless to refer himto another physician or to have him change his work.The physician contended that he had no duty to domore than report the results of the examinations tothe man's employer. The case is now on appeal.

-IUD Facts and Analysis, September 12,1974* A similar $11 million dollar damage suit has beenfiled in Oakland, California (Landre v. Johns ManvilleSales Corporation), by the widow of a worker, who hascharged that his exposure to asbestos since 1942resulted in his death from lung disease. The widowaccused 11 of her husband's former employers ofknowing that work around asbestos could cause aprogressive lung disease and of concealing it fromtheir employees.Conference-Contined from Page 6The conference registration fee is $25 for all ses-

sions and both luncheons. Advance registrations areurged, and can be made through the California LaborFederation, 995 Market St., San Francisco 94103(phone 415-986-3585).Science-Continued from Page 5junctivitis, emphysema or cardiovascular diseaseshould not be occupationally exposed to any level ofsulfur dioxide. Those working with the gas shouldrinse their mouths with 10% sodium bicarbonate solu-tion during working hours (this helps neutralize theacid formed by the gas.) Bathing and brushing of theteeth, immediately after work, is also helpful.

Because the gas is so highly irritating, it may pro-vide a warning of excess levels directly to those ex-posed. Concentrations of 0.3-1 ppm are detectable bytaste; about 3 ppm by the unpleasant, pungent odor;about 6 ppm by a sharp, immediate irritation of noseand throat and at about 20 ppm by irritation of the eyes.

Most people (about 80%), however, develop a toler-ance for these unpleasant and painful reactions-they "get used to it." This is not a beneficial effect.What happens is that the nervous system gets over-whelmed and stops responding to the irritation butthe damage continues to develop. Therefore, you old-timers should not laugh at the new-broom's discom-fort and complaints. These are warnings to you thatthe S02 level is too high! If any worker can smell it,feel it in the nose, throat, or eyes, do'something aboutthe concentration, don't wait for the worker's "toler-ance" to build up.The NIOSH publication, "Occupational Exposure to

Sulfur Dioxide" referred to above, should be in thehands of a union health and safety committee mem-ber in every workplace where S02 exposure is pos-sible. Single copies are available free of charge from:Office of Technical Publications, NIOSH, Post OfficeBuilding, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. A self-addressedmailing label will expedite handling.

Please enter a subscription to the Labor Occupational Health Project MONITOR.

Check one: El Organizational ($10.00), Ol Individual ($3.00). Quantity shipment of

Name

_copies per issue (5¢ per copy withannual subscription.)

Organization (if any)

Address

City State Zip _

EO Please bill me7.

Workplace Activities-Continued from Page 3

senting Local 1781 of the International Association ofMachinists. The testimony that I had prepared in ad-vance had to be changed before we took the stand.After listening to the previous witnesses, we realizedthat the panel had not heard testimony concerninghow the Air Freight and Ramp Servicemen felt aboutloading and unloading possible leaking packages ofradioactive materials. All of the previous testimonyhad concentrated mainly on the possibility of airpassengers receiving doses of radiation.

However, after the hearings had ended on the firstday, several of the panelists complimented us on ourtestimony. Gordon Flory, Executive Vice-President ofthe Louisiana AFL-CIO was one of the first to shakeour hands. He stated that our local should be com-mended for having the insight and courage to sendtwo representatives all the way to Louisiana to testify.

On the second day of hearings, George Wallace,Director of the Federal Highway Division in Louisiana,was the first to address the panel. Mr. Wallace sur-prised the audience when he stated that "the govern-ment does not have enough inspectors to properlycontrol the shipping of hazardous materials." Theproblem, as he saw it, was that the agencies con-cerned had more than enough office assistance, butan inadequate number of field inspectors for theproper control of the shipping industry.

Mayor Lawrence Cohen next expounded on theeffectiveness of the ordinance which now regulatesthe Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airport. He toldof how many hazardous containers had been dis-covered as a result of the monitoring system. He alsostated that in the short time the ordinance had beenin effect, it had more than paid for itself by detectingmany mispackaged containers.

Both Robert Jirka and myself came back fromLouisiana with new direction in our attempts to havelegislation passed on the handling of hazardous mate-rials at the San Francisco International Airport andalso on a State-wide level. The testimony that weheard, gave us the insight that we needed. I believewe now have the necessary arguments and ammuni-tion to work towards the ultimate enactment of ade-quate legislation to safeguard the public and ourworkers.

Institute of Industrial Relations,

Center for Labor Research and Education

2521 Channing WayBerkeley, CA 94720

Health & Safety-Continued from Page 4

experience of employees; and(3) Compensation to authorized union health and

safety representatives.The UAW Master Agreement set forth similar pro-

visions, which expanded the Federal law. Some inter-esting highlights of the UAW "Memorandum of Under-standing-Health and Safety" are:

1. Company will provide "personal protective equip-ment, devices and clothing provided at no cost toemployees."

2. Company will provide "equipment for measuringnoise, carbon monoxide, and air flow for use by theHealth and Safety Committee."

3. Company will provide "to each employee's phy-sician, upon written request of the employee, a com-plete report of the results of any test of examinationgiven him."

4. Company will provide "access to all corporationplants and locations to International Union Health andSafety representatives."

5. Establishment of full time Union Health andSafety Representative at the worksite, paid by thecompany and appointed by the union.The Union health and safety representative's posi-

tion is well defined in the memorandum, as are theduties, flexibility, training, and education of all unionhealth and safety personnel. Contractually, the healthand safety representatives have the right to inspectthe workplace on a routine basis and perform air flow,noise and carbon monoxide tests with company fur-nished equipment. They also have access to all acci-dent records and plant safety reports on accidents. Inaddition, the union may review and recommend localsafety education and training programs which areprovided at company expense.

These two examples give clear indications of thedifficulties involved when organized labor seeks tosecure more effective health and safety protection forworkers. Yet, they are also precedent-setting agree-ments, establishing significant foundation. They alsoindicate that a solid collective bargaining strategy isevolving among some large industrial unions.

There are still many alternative approaches avail-able to unions which seek to improve the health andsafety protection of their members. In future issueswe will be looking at some of these approaches aswell as emerging contractual language.

Nonprofit Org.U. S. PostageP A I D

Berkeley, Calif.Permit No. x

Address correction requested

8.