CFTHE 


CHICAGO METROPOLITAN A

U.S. DEPAROONl' OFHEAI.:rn. EIl.ICATI~.AND

Public Heal th Servic'e . 


Consumer Protection and EnvirbrunentalHeal

~VIRONMENTAL CONTROL AIJ..1INISTflATIO

&reau of Occupational Safety and Healt

1014 BroadWay 


Cincinnati. (I1io·· 45202 


1970 
Altbougb great stride. have been made in p".:

dbeases aM controlllr41 hazardous axpoauna 

benefit. are enjoyed by only II minority of A

work..r, the producer of the fruita of our lIO

hla productive years aa well a. hi. retlreae

ened or comproalaed by occupational Injury a

Occupational safety and Health. Envlrol8enta

In cooperation vlth the State and local occu

strlv.. towerd. the goal of protectIna the he

worker. of thla nation. 

TIle results of the Occupational Health SUrve

Area have Indicated tM scope of the occupa

thls urban c-mty. If the probl_ of hea

h to be lI01Yed effectively, IIIIm1 of tbe a_

for the nece_ry actlon IllUst _ froID vltM

BureaIl of Occupational safety and Health ha

.tands reacl1 to offer further ••sbU••. '

• ct••ire to solve the probl_ and the suppo

----f---

Ma

Bu

a

iii 
In the.. prevlous studles lIUSt be recognized. for 

heavlly on their contributions. particularly the u

they faced and ao1va4 their problems aDd their des

tecbnlque for _luting the vork envh:onment. 

The support of local professlons1 and health orien

spolUlOrshlp by the Institute of Medicine of Chicag

essential to the survey. as was the wide cross-sec

end tratnlng provided by the fle1d survey paraonne

aectlona of the Bureau. 

Dr. Char1.. H. Powell. Chief of Technical Servtces

Safety and Health. at the time of the survey. was 

overAll direct1_ of the project. aDd "lemon E. lo

end Marshall E. Laftler supervlsed the fleld survey 

progr_lng and analysis were aCOOJBpUshed uDder t

J_s E. Nelson. Thls report was prepared by Vern

L. »yaon. 

iv 
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SURV

THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN 

SUMMARY 


The Bureau of Occupational Safety .nd HMlth, In coo

Envt~l HMlth Stuell•• Section of the Ia.tltute 

Chicago, conduoted M .tudy to.~"". theoe:eupatlc:ma

f.ctors ¥blob may affect tbebealth of tbe1i011dng po

Chloaao aetropoUtan .rea•.'J:h.r. ar••ppI:'Oxlmately 2

In 120,000 eatabll.sbIiIttnt. lnthl•••lx-Clountyaru. B

of other allll.lar studl••, 0ert.lnofthe84t ••t.bll...

found to have a relatlv.ly lcnr smw'alenceof Potentla

health hazards .nd '/Mre thu.excludri fr9athe .tudy;

"uft!vers." cons1sted of .pprodmat.ly 14,000 workpl.o

1.' mlilioa workera. The surveysaapie. ~~leCted fro

Included 803 ••tabliJlbmenta employla, 260,000 worker

TtIe lftdustrlal hygiene w.lk-tbrrNgb INrv.y was uMd_t

envlroamental oondltlons and oollect otber dlIta oollC

An aoalyal. of the Information developed froa the aur

followlns: 

The "potentially at risk" group In the Chicago area i

more than 10,000 plants baving ODe or IIIOr8 8ilIPloye.s 

occupational health l4U.r6 .nd an estimated total of 

milUon workers .re exposed to .. potentl.l health haz

of our surveyors, .bout 900 of the.e 10,000 pl.nts ba

Which are III1snif1cant enough to "arrant 11i1lll8diate co

Co~umquently. In-depth surv,ya should be conduoted in 

qualified industrial hygienists aa soon •• possible I

the extent of action necu.ary, In addition, about 3

condU:iona 'lfbich may require oorrective .ction within 

interesting to notGl that in three out \'tf four pl.nt. 

1 
ee. at 1"1" to an occupational health hazard. More tha

plants surv.~ had sanitary d.flc1encles. primarily In 

WQr. Mlequet. eating facIUtl•• wer. not provided for 

SIa..ABSEJ!1'HlSH DATA 

AllllOst all plants maintain record. of .mploy.e absence

_.t of the plant. u.. timecards for such recnrda. few 

would. ROte that IIUOb absence was the result o;~ slckn...

(lOX) _Intaln record. which would. show the type of slc

It va. the larpr plant. that maintained such 11lfor.atl

1.'he sreat _jelty of the workers are ccW~hd by a woda

.,.at-. Only the larpr. plant. hive. adoi:tor or. nur" 

plant; bo1nt'v'c, slace the.. are l.-rleplants, a alSnlU

of employ... are affectecle .Appj:oX"llittelY 95Xof the bi

are covered. bya .1tuatlOl'l.where thare 1& a phYsiCian p

hi. macle arzua_1nt.. wlth ene, .01'1. lin 0l\..gal

lOX of the plants pl'OVlcIe ... type of pr...emplo~ P

tllen 20% conduot ___ typeof perlodlcphyillcal examln

larser planta w.re more likely to conduct such examln.

INTRODUCTION 

Several pcofe..lonal, political, and civic p:oup. In th

expreSHCI an lntereat In at:udylns the effect. of the ur

on the health of the population In tbat _tropolltan ar

all objective .a to d.etentlue what envlronaental facto

health of the seyan mUUon people Uylns In the ChtcaS

area. 

'DIere are approxl_t.ll 2.25 mUllon workera In the Ch

they spend 25" of th~tlr time In tbe workplace. tbeanal

tial of the workplace tG affect an IAdlvldual's bealth 

In .veluatlns the total envlronaent. It Is the flrst s

In a.....lns tbe environmental ractors whlcb _y Inf],ue

tbe urban citizen. 

Prior to 1951, the Inclustrlal hyslene actiVities for tb

"lNre performed by both tlte Department of Labor and the 

2 
Illlnols. Includlng ChlcalIO wh4tre their faclHtlea are 

the total workforce of Illinois ls 4.7 .Iliion. Illinoi

lowest ratio of Industrial hyslene staff IIIQIIIIbera per w

State 1fIth an occupatlolUll h..lth progra..3 .. In ChloalO 

Is no Industrial hygiene progr_ a. such. 'I:be ChlcalIO 

has estabUshed an advisory coadttea for lndu.trlal hy

aDd blred a JDedlcal conaultant. SolIe .l....nt. of envlr

are covend by other h..ltbprD&r.... vlthln.da~Chl.ca.

or by State~.... taclUde aii: pollution, rA

ana lnduatrlal sanltatlone 

Lbdted l~lal. hygl.... eval~tl~...'VtII'...~t~ t

mtlre State. aDd In.1946 for. a.t~lIOWncI~.CoUIlt~~~ 

onlly definitive _rveysoft:Mo,oou,.tl~~.mn~l

ar...Dlerefore.a Med~~t:",for.a~t:.~YIIluat:

co........lve pI:'OpU for Occu,.tf:onal~ltbCC)UldbltrtKl

Such a Kudycould be t:'debUls f0l:'~lOPlngJlletbod01C

otber ....ron.a.:.l f~iIIVh~C:J:taff.ttbtih"lthof 

In the ChlcalO ..t:ropolltn: ai'M. . 

Vith this backSZ'oUDd the aurveyWas condUcted fot the 

Medicine of Chl~ bythe.~C)f. ~cupat:lOlUll Safet

the Ualted StatalllPubllCHeattb~tc••....CoIiiR.Inlc.Uo

with the fo11avlng groupe ...... i.tiltalMih 

(a) ChlOqa brei of Health, 

(b) 1111mb oepartmeftt'OfLabcr, 

(e) I1llnols Bureau0fDIP~C)~securltJ',

«(0 Industrial MidloelAs.oclatlon. 


(e) American Iftdu8trlil H'II81\8 Association .. ChloallO 

(f) U.S.P.R.S. Kelioaal Office. lind the 


(,) American Kecilcal Association .. C)ccupatlonal Healt

The !SUrvey started on Apt'll 22. 1968. It Included the 

the Chicago Standerd Metropolitan Statistical Areal .. 

K.cne. Lake, McHenry, and Wlll. 
METHODOLOGY 

'!be ..tbod ull8d va. tbIt prell_nary or ...lk-tbrouP

survey. It CODSish of a~rt lllt!rn... ~tht""~

brief tour of the e.tabll~ .'b7 a.:-el:~..ca~lltlec

It. aurNJ' fora, a. III1Io'tII.\ In ~~Ai~c~l~f

..at, and tile uta obtalaw~~..,..~~>ui!"i~t::

of OccupatloNl Saf.t:7and"l~ .~"\lt:lll.4id f'h 

vorkplacu In ala state and ..trOPollhilar.... 

It. list of the ..tabll~.lntlH,tCli~..., ..tropol

March 1967 .... obta1nicl f.".t:lMt~~Urt()~e~C

'!be lletl~uded ..tbe DIlIII!'~~"~t, ~~.Z

Il'l4ustrial clQaUlaat~~(~'C)~. ."1.0~>1J

..pante plant. foreacb ..babU~.It.~ 

syst_ la shown In Appin4tx'B. It. .tattstlcal .-pl. 

..tabllsbaMd:..... taIc_ frota the 11st. 

the ba.le crttclonforthl. aUrvey .... that 111 thO

SUrftyed e.icb ___ !n ttUt-" .....tdhll... eqll

..leeted. '1'hIs ....GCOIlip11~throujh th~.u.. ofip

probabl11t:7 ....11... iIIcb_•. 'J:hls .... _ ..11q aCI

In preriou• .....417••6 . 

'!be ••tab1l8llment. vere ..lacted froJlltbefollC1'11lns

MAaufaoturlns, SIC DUJllbars 19 to 39; '1'I'anaportatlon 

SIC DUJllbars 41 throup 49;Selacted whol...l. andre

aumbers SO, '5. and 59; Selected servlo••, SICnuabe

UO\> 82, 84, and 89. Anal,.",l. of pnvlou.aurvey ut

oertaln SIC BrOUps such a. bankl~S, insurance, and r

retaU tncle.; IOYerlUllent .ervtces; and SO...stabUa

catqory could be ucluc1e4 1i8cau•• of theh: relatlYe

ptJtentlal occupatlonalll8i31th ha.arda•. Other groups 

asrlculture. and con~otlon either IuWe very few e

1II8tropolltan Chlcap or present a practical diffiCU

vera also C\XcludtMt. In order to Inspect .ltuatlon. 

worker. as poolbh only GJ.tablbhments vl,tll 20 or II

consldersd for .eleotlon. Alt exception to this was 
e.l'~ (for SIC 19 to 39). 20-49. 50-99. 100-249. 2'0..499, 

500. 'lhls pve 21 ..,loy.....I" SIC .ub-srouP•• on. In t

emplo,... slz. group and four each In the oth.r flv• ..,loy

The RIUIII1Ier of pl.nt. end. the corres[lOndlq nwaber of ..,1

of the 21 sub-group. wre then obt.IMCl froll the Bureau o

Securities list. !base data (T.bl•• 1 and 2) fo~ the "c

7blcb the ...,1. plants were randolll,. selected. 'lb... da

NpnIaent the "universe," to vblch the re.utts frosa. s

v.re pnJected. 

After conslderlq the ........of quaUfl"'rl~.~rtal~

end. the .DIIIRt oftl_ r ..utred~. ~.the~~, ~t

that 800 plant. v.re to .,. ..l eoted•... ~.of .~•.•.. 

..,loyees In tho.. pienta 1tltbli'Uter ~.500"'~' 

pro'-bllity sc~requlred.lllUlple of~plant.thft

for selection In the four· ...~pooups. Intb."sub-araa

SOX, or approxt_tely 208 establlS1:laleftts,. vaa uUd. 

This left: 601' plats to be dIYlded.aaira8tbitre..lt.

'!'be r«tlo of the IWIiIber of ..,.0,.... In eMb.· ...~ptot

the 17 sub-groups WlUI uud to prorate tbe 600plents aIII6

sroupa. 'lhe proportlcmal probability of pints bated 0II

..,loyee. In eiIch sub-group .uld represe..t· tbe lowe.t 

to " autf'eJ'ed In ea~ sub-p:'OUp. 

l'UrI:henIore slnc. there were 3U ••t.bU.......t. In. the M

sub-group with IIIOre tben .500 emplo,..... It .._ .declded to 

of the ...tabll~. In this lliUb-jroUp_ As. COIlsllCluen

80 ••tabllabllllmts vere obtained, .nd .... dt.,td~ .1III:mS t

In tbe _ller ..,loY" size range. 'rhus,. "proportion

SP!ple plus" W4S obtained In the -..ller emplo,... .11'. S

redistribution reduced the nullber of plant. In the um.ve

IUlIIIple plant represented" '.ftIe IU1IIber of pl.nt. .nd 8Ir.p

sub-group of the sampl. .re shown In T.bl.. 3 and 4. 

The sample of randoml,. ~~lected pi.nt. totaled 814. Ar.

list of alternates wa. ~t~~, obtained. Nlnety-fl.,e such .

used during the survey. 

!lCWll!m plant. refused to cooper"t.ln the survey; therefo

actually surveyed contained 803 plant.. The results prei

report are beli!ed on data from th••• 803 plants .ctual1!' 

industrial hygienists. They are projected to the uniVer

plants and 1,458.631 workers. 
surveys. 

DIlrlaa the tour of the e.tabU.m..nt. the surveyor 

envlro.-ntal conditions In tbe workplace. Detelle

carefully defined cdteria were prep.:red to guide th

appraisal and to a.sure con.l.tency between surveyo

hed a ......1 containing a complete .et of Instructi

guldeUne•• 

A tralnlns IIl"CI orientation ....l,on for survey perso

anure that tbe __ crltvla _re u.ted by all aurv

thea In the tecbrdque. for obtlllD.lq·tbe neae_ry 

purpo.. of tbe survey. the lnt.mt of tII.que.tloN. 

be und ..... dlsou88ed. 

The ......r of .,0... pot8llt~.l1Y at rlllkto a .•lv.

... c1etlmllned by the aarve,or 111 his walk-thriMalb 

plant "GO ..... . Office wol1t.... out.ld~"leilllla.

..... aot could4tred to H at rhk hYtbttcrlted~lI

lIbK.".. IIUI'W,... deteridD4Ml~t ~'Iwerepotea

toxic _tedals or. bmafUI~"CHal.. "".,tlMlYUse

'.deilln•• to estimate tbe.ff~l""'~. of· eJl81...

t_ controls ..re rated a. adeltUate.lDad4tquate. or 

muglnel p:'OQp Included only tbo... control ....ure. 

not Judtle hylnspeotlonand.for ¥blcb lnatruMntal 

deeIIed nec....ry for evalUation. 

PLmts were reted •• follows; those wltbpotem:lal

that Ghould H evaluated •• soon as poSllltble were r

COnditions that ahou14 be evalUated wlWn a yearv

wblch required evaluation .t lonser Intin.1s. up t

ratacl HC."and tbo.e In which no one wa. n.ted at 

hazard were rated "D." 

All Information from tbe qu..tlonnalre. wa. recorde

fOrlll. coded. rechecked. and prepared for computer I

were then designed to provide the infonatlon shown 

:sections of tbls report. 

6 
RESULTS 

Th. r.sults C!'f the Chicago SUrvey are pr.sented. In 

utllblng the basic outline 9f .21 sub-groups based. 

and SIC groups.. Results are pr.sented. on either a 

or on a percentase Nsls. Where results ar~ Uown 

NSis for reference la the total :tIWIIber of plants a

area as shown In Tables 1 and 2. De data presented

on Health Services, Slck-Absent.elsa Data, .•·abd0tb

of Plant and Vater Supply) were provided. bY lllaMI_

Included. In SUrvey Ob••rvatlon, and Need for Assist

by the surveyor during and after his waU: .. tl:irough o

HEALTH SEllVICES 

The health Hrvlces avaUable to the workers In th

Information are shown In Tables S throusb 26. Thls 

below. 

\lorkman'. Co!p!Ds!tlon 

Tabl.s S thrwsb 6(a) - Information w•• collected. o

COIIlpelUNItlon Is provtded., .lther t:brousb Insuranc. 

Insuranc.. The results presented. Indlcateon1y the 

Ing 1\UlIIber of workers, on both an actual lUPIIber and 

for which workmlm'. compensation Is l'IOt avallable. 

one quarter of one percent of the workers are l'IOt c

Insurance and these workers are In the very ...11 p

and. Servlce••* However, It should be rfllll8lllbered. tha

developed. for the survey, the nry l5IIIoIll plants wer

Ther.fore, in the Manufacturing plants with fewer t

In the other three SIC group. with l.ss tban20 em

UpeCt to find. a hl8her percentage of workers not c

~tlon Insurance. 

WThc Illinois Act on workman's componsstlon provide

net automatically covered by the Act may voluntar

7 
worker are grouped Into three types; three perc

Including 20% of the employ... had the .ervice 

tabl.s 7 and 8; one percent of the plant. inclu

employ..s bad a part-time physician. table. 9 a

plants vlth 68% of the workus bad an arrangeme

.n on-call basts, table. 11 and 12. Th. remain

four percent employ.... as shown In tabl.,. 13 a

servlces of a pbyslcl4n avaUabl. In a", IIIIIMe

of full-tl.. pbyslclans are larse pl.nts (gr.at

• speclally In the JlilrUfacturlll8 IZ'OUP. 'l'h. u.. 

does DOt appMr to be • popular practice. It l

the larse Indlastrl•• with .n Incnllillq l'IUBIber 

than Mlmufacturlng. The .rr.....nt between • 

for an on-oall nletlOlUlblp .. v.rypopular In 

surveyed reprdle.. of the size of plant. The 

arl.. oonoe.m.1ll8 the bowl... of the on-call p

In the plant, the potentld OCCUJNttloMl health 

worker Is axpo.... and the 11Umbar of tl... h. v

work area. It...t be a.1IU8Iiad that tM prllllllry 

".rt-tl_ r.latlouhlp .. the IIIIIdlcal IlllUlAseme

accldmts. Tho.. ...,10,.... which do not benefI 

pbyslclan under any circumstance are found. prim

IIIeIltil especially In the Services group. 

Murse',Servlce 

table. 15 and 16 - Thls survey qu••tlon was dea

on the utilisation of registered nurse. on eith

(replarly scheduled) basts. The r.sult. Indic

(l.a. than flve percent) out.lde of the very la

provide the service of a registered nur.e to th

45% of the workforce ....rv.yed are employed In p

of a reslster.d nurse are avallabl. on some res

!!Ploy.. aespontlble for First-Aid 

table. 17 and 18 - The practice of de.lsnatlng 

for providing first-aid In emergenoy situation

In the Industrle.. :surveyed. A very high percen

tban 7OX, apparently bad. aVlIllabl. to th_ t11e 

Individual who recognized as his, the responsi

in an industrial accident situation. 
py ; 

staff, insurance companies, governmental agencies,. 

plants, especially those in Manufacturing, were mo

such assistance. The primary source of such assist

insurance companies8 

rre-Employment a~ Periodic PhYsical Examinations 

Tables 23 through 26 - The use of pre-employment an

exaadnations is essentially restricted to the larg

than SOO employees. The industries most llkely to 

nations are tho.. in the SIC groups 40 through 49,

Transport~tion and Public Utilities. The likelihoo

this group would have a mechanism for giving mecllc

whatever reason, ls strikingly greeter than any of 

groups. A further refinement of the data, to indic

provide periodic medical examinations for workers 

revealed that lesa than nine percent of the total p

Includes mandatory, as well as voluntary examinati

ls only sllgbtly greater when only Manufacturing e

considered. 

SIClC-ABSENTEEISM DATA 

nle avallabiUty of worker's sick-absenteeism infor

t(, see if this coull~ be an approach for collecting 

establish morbidity' and occupational di..... occur

Records on Employee Ab..nces 

Tables 27 and 28 - A great majority of plants cove

maintain information on employee absence. The pri

accomplishing this is through the use of timecards

Records Which Indicate Reason for Absence 

Tables 29 tl'LX'cough 32 - If records were kept of em

additional questions were asked to ascertain wheth

questioned the reason for a worker's absence. Tab

the plants and corresponding number of wrkers whe

would record, as one reason, the fact that the wo

result of sickness. The results indicate that the 

especially in the Tz:'ansportaticn and Utillties sub

likely to k~ep records showing that the absence wa
of slclme.. that kept the .-ployee away from wo

of the sourc. of this Infor.metl.on. I •••• the em

nor was ...gement queried as t:o their polley, 

such InfGrmation. Many of the compillues who ma

were wllllng to supply Information such as the 

worker's occupatIon and home ZIP code without I

name. 

In Hdltlon to IIRfor.metlon on Eaployae Health S

ab.-teel.., .........t VIla questlOMd as to th

baaards In t:balr plent, ltn cooperation with th

Ryglene. U. S. Department of Health. Education, 

Chicago Bureau of Vater, llnfol'Rtlon vas obtain

sources a..nable to the !In-plant workers. 

!nowl'" of :Bulth aa..cds 

Tables 33 and 34 - At the ead of the que.tlonln

going Into the work .12:'811, th,~ surveyor askedth

"Many proce.... or _tarlab. ueed at lrOrk can b

of work.rs. Sometimes It Is fairly bard to ccjn

your plant do you feel that tb.... a ere enyhaallr

them und.r contro11" Approximately three-fouJ

personnel Interviewed did not feel a health huz

plallt. The Asults of thla question .Indlcate t

... lerger, management vas IDA likely to be 

theJ~e were ba..rds In the work area. It ahould 

thlB queutlon vaa asked of only one Individual 

vlallted, the one assigned the t.sk to provide I

occupational hHlth surv.y. 

Ddnldns Vat.r Source.! 

Tables 3S through SO - This Infor.met:on essenti

~Iees used by the plants for drlDklng water a

cross-connections Insia. tine plant as evldenc.d 

pres.sure or use of booster pUmps. Once In the 

obtained a one-gallon IllImple of water for analy

and a smaller sample for bact.riologlcal analys

WE:re obta1ned from drlnk~ng water sources In th

10 
Questionable Sanitation 

Tabl•• 51 and 52 - The evaluation of the plant sani

flve main area. of housekeeping" the avaUabUity o

and the adequacy of toU.t, vaahina, and eating fao

the UnIted Stat.s of America Standards Instltut.'. S

SanltatlonlO V1'Jre mad. available to the eUl'riyors. 

plant sanitation n. an area ofsubjectlvejudp.nt

not make .. polnt-for-polnt COIIIP8rtaon.bettt'~~ condU

His judgment as to adequacy of the sltuaticm 1Ms bei

knowledg. of the Standard and hIS eiperllll\Ofl. The .

vlth qu.stlonable sanitation a. 8hoWD In Table 51 re

of plants receiving an inat'..v-··",te rati.ns In anyone 

sanitation cateiC»rie.. As detailldicat.,.the .

mere Ukely to NCe~ ;'. an<\L •..:t:afaotC)ryra~lng. T

resulted prllllllrlly from the l.ok of lIcleCiU.te eating 

wa. much more likely to find employe.. eating In the 

no other place to sit, In the ...11 plents than In 

The major concern 1n this reprd. 1a the potentl.1 fo

tion of the food vlthanytoxlc aaentaln the worksh

consequanc~,. of lng••tlng th••e "tertah. 

Lightiy 

Tabl•• 53 and 54 .. Although light Il!iUsuring lnstrwa

In the survey, the jud~t a~ to the adequacy of il

ticular oper.tion n. probebly one of tbe easier d.t

qUiT 3d of the Industrial hygienist In a valk..throug

be seen In Table 53. theexlsteace of poor Ughtlng 

It 18 essentially concentrated In the smaller plant

and In Transportation and Public Utilities. 

Workers Pot~!''!'ldll at Rble to an Occupational Heal

Tables 55 through 57(a) - Presented In the.e tables 

percent.eges of plants wh1cb have either no workers 

'have Oile or more yorkers potentially at risk to an 

M:IIar4. Also included. are the :wJI!ber and percentag

jected to be potent.lally at rl~. Tcble 56(a) Indi
haa.rd(s). Therefor••• work.r expoMd to beat. 

monoxide would count a. only one worker "at risk.

three u:posures. Froa th... results It appears t

worker is expoHCI to 2.25 haHI'CIa In his 'WOrkplac

ia shaWn In Tabla .57(0). 

txpo!!fns to Hard.lll or Ige4!s!latW !kmtgtW

T.bl.. 58 thftll&h 67 - The rMUlts11lCluc1ed11l '..

IlWIIIIer of planta wtilchhe". ... ~oyeeaeqo_~.

haEant which. In the opinion of· the~••v

mard_lly c::ontrol.le4.Inolu44ld "'tota

hasal'Cla._dentlfled"'oalba~.pb)'StCi

haaaJ:da. Alao ..~ed Is ~~of,"~

.... cat ria. of "nh ~:atCll'anl

control1: The t ...."UnIdent.l'llid.~cdcha_

that an employee .s expoHCI to an ·UDbofin....Io

_Ich could IIGt be obtained froa.tIIa WOR_... 

the 1JUI'ftYOI:. or.~cont:alMl:' ~ltol..IiQ~.,t

¥IO!!!!!1lI b ll1)ttM:.....~ ~of._.~

exponnta is the proMt: of ORe ~_1t.1P1ted:

baHr4ato wblch he bexpo.... Porexaiaplt.•• If· 

to car'boa IIDIIOX1de,leacl, heat" DOt... twoU1lld

free .Ulca dust, aDd a.bote.,only o,ne WOrk.. b

ofaight expo..re. ara present. two PMral......

cheaicala, two pby81cal qenc•• and· twoilus

_ber.of IDIIClequately or IIIIll'BlDally controU(MI. e

general cheIRloa18. pb)'.Ic::al 4Ii_tsseconc1,uDl4e

third, anc1 ilust fOurth, Oftrotll, there .I:a.1IIb

potential exposures to _rgluUy or Inadequately 

haorels (Tabla 59).w1th tha oveJ!"lfbalmins majorit

in Hanuf.cturlng. When this Infon.tlon 18 coapa

!IWilhr of expoaurea In 'l.bla 57(b), Itls seen th

haurds recol'Cled, wera rated .. -rslnally or I_d

The priority rlilting of the plant - I •••, the raDl

emplo!,"111 for asslatance In occupational health - 

12 
gg 

calculated value for the plant. It III an .atl_t. of t

for this plant to have .erloull occupatlonel health pro

result, one or two wo~ exposed to a poorl,. controll

involving carbon tlltrachlorlde or a alldlar hazardous as

In the plant being rated a. needing Immediate assistanc

possible rating categories are: 

Ilmledlate 

Tllble. 68 aDd 68(a) .. The plam: abould be vialted •• IIO

• nd .n In-depth eYIIluatlon ... becau.. ofthe hll'bl.

Involved. The need for coneotlve action b blpl,. pri

all so:M 916 plants, reproJaantlaa 6.3% of the total pt

jected as being; In this cateaocy. 

Assbtance Within One Year 

Table. 69 and 69(a) .. Althouab the 'potential ria to tb

workers Is .Iplflcant, further atudy nd enluatlon co

up to one ,...1'. Couective.Ct:i..........., .till 

This gr:oup contains 3,150 planta vhlcb repftaent21.ft 

plants. 

Delayed 

Tables 70 and 70(a) .. The plant eppears to have buarda

'but should heve a follow-upviflltwlthlaon."to .thne 

group contains 6,501 plants, or 4S.OX .of the total. 

No Assistance Required 

Tables 71 aDd 71 (8) - The plant_ apparent:lybas nO expo

chemicals or physical agents, and can ant:lclpate no ex

near future. Thls group contained 3,865 plants, repre

of all of the plants. 

Ce!2!rlson of Plant Ratlpg and Plant Ale 

Tables 72 through 76 - Included in these tables Is the 

plants by number of years at the location surveyed acc

gories of up to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years

longer•. As ~lown In Table 76, based on the single var

age. no apparent effect on the rating of .the .,lant as 

occupational health assistance appears except for the 

eategory. In this category there appears to be a sign

number of plants Into the Immediate need f~r assistanc
INDIVIDUAL H6ZARQ$ 

In evaluatlq exposure. of workera to specific pote

a..ents, the auneyot'. ".. requestedaleo. to ev.luate 

control of the .ltu.tlon. Table 77 u.ts tlte top te

on the ba.ta of the tot.l I'IUIiIber of worker. expo..

table dre the number of workers potentl.lly expo~t

(1) or _ralnally (M) controlled sltuatlonab8aedo

made In the nlk-throup auriay. It ~ldbe r ... 

revlev1Q8 . li1fonatlon .s ..~",lflc ••.~l••.. ~Y·."

entire woEkf0l'CMlVU ~Y8AI. '. ~~1fb4t8u..~~l

for .&lventia.......hl~ot~~.>Of.·· 

exposed to an 1~.ot~l1:~·· ....< .. 

Pould not be takena.anaWl~f~,~ 

an ladleatOr.. of. ·po~~l.l1Yt1a~ ••ltuatl~ 

number of workera upO" to an.tMlvt"l baUJ:d 1

and abould be conal4areda. auOb. 
DISCUSSION 

I'l'o1I the Inc.ptlOil of the aurYe)'d~l~.V4atlo"s~

coala of the tiUlfty dldllOt ·Iacl.... ~~l~..>I~.....~"'"

datloaa 01' OOUI'''. of aotIOlle~lj)l~.~M~

ded to be only an ....,l.ofthe~.lif>r . tt.~

be .,pnarated 'fl'Oll the .IN~. ~af0l!1llll~~~' .' ....•....... >........ ......

comblaatlon witb· other f.~.. Of~~"~.~l~lII·.~·

aatul'e, ¥blch arepartloularto the ~.lt~U.• ;~;~tl

for d.veloplns a _tbod fOrtbecOntJ:bl·of~t:tOlllil 

When tile results oftlll~IU~•• ;m 

aDd 14f424plaatsfl'tdl1rhl"~(.·· 

outUna of theprobl"ls~~. ..... •••~. 

workers at rlsk to .... oc....t~~l~ltbhaSajd•........... ·

than 4000 plants ¥bichshould~.I"f'el~·l"'l.t.e1,.·~t

year. Possibly of 1101:'. 11IJ!O~~.,~I'~~a

potential .X~IIUr... oheIi1C.liphpl<NI1:,.Or ...• 

of which Is qUtlatlOiUlble;' . . . 


:.__ . _ _ ''-' : ',t-,:,- .,.,>.',- __ .---,--,,<- .. ,'-_,>--- ::-"~_-':_-~

To develop anaotlOil prosra.b)%'~.tbe~Cif"" /

controlled e~aures, it 1at\eC~~"'1'7~~~1~ '~•..

ooeur vith respect to slse Ud t7JMa0f}ladUstr:r.fir'.. : 


occupational healthprosr_ccMentratiDII ..lelyontt!\ili

or more eJIIployees wouldaffeet, if J.~4Iff~ci1U\t•. 86'1 o

potentla~ exposures. HoweveE',lriJ:e.,lWln.l theotner 1

pthered In the survey, It IsilililMKt1at.,ly .pparenttha~q

persOlmel as w.ll as o1:her neceasarycOaponenta ofa 1o"

environment, are.lready In eXiatencet'0rllOst. of til.. ""

group. Information develop\aCl on the.vliUablllt)" of la-

• e"lees and related infolWlt:lonforthls gi:oup indieat

of the workers are covered by80me form of wo~t. ~

47% work In plants which maintliiln abs-.t:eelSlll r"!!cords wb

the worker':s sickness, 55% work In plants Wttere ,tbere IS 

physician, 100% an In plants whlchha:';eSOlie type of ar

a phy.lelan, and mere than 9'n are in plants ¥bleb utl1l

of a registered nurse on aresularly sobeduledbasls. I

15 
tp:'OUp _k•• It readll), .pparent t:bIIt _~ of the el--=_ uh

part of • prosr- to prevent OCOtl,.tloMl dl..... ere .1,....

exlstenc. In the ChlcaSO metroJlOUtan area. At the prellelt.t 

r.sourc•• ar. apparentl)' DDt belns effectlvel)' ohalllleled tOI

loal. Dev.loplq and _re effectlv.l)' utlUslns the.. valu

source. Is one courae of action vbloh could result fl'08l tbls 

However. It Is Important to naember that •• • h ..tt of the 

de.IP. tb(;. VH)' .....1~ ~l_ta. ~l~~J.Ytbo~,""t:b ~""'

or 1••• In the ..tu'l.. s~'~t:h.19~ :l.ss 

the TranaJlOrtatlonaad Ut:IUtl"~!I~~ .,.

T.bl. 57(.) lDdlcabi...t a•••1.. ~.~2 ..•.. ..... ..... ....• ••s 

percenta,. of work"'JIOteatl.l~ at~lIIk {l~~,"~~

.n overall ...luetl...,.. ~..._l;~pl~.Wl~l\;.J\lDMf:J'l-"te ••>

ftWIIMr of potentlill~bt.... ·.... ~I.. _"'~~;""tI

pl.nt occupatloaal beiltltbtmtb181at" a,,'f;aow to _J,~lt. . ~ 

'lb. Indu.trl.l hYIl~ .....1k-tbZ'oQj,h.~.tlie~l~ ~·

sune),. Is far froabetlJa ••tJl!pl.pJ."OOeduJ:e. ..... _.~t 

the result. It~i_Y bem1~1l~~!~;~':IiJ.~ .. 

prellalnar)'.;surve' ...···tbu••. 1.·.·~·..,·"'IOioae.~•• 

inltial.stl_teof .tbeprobl...,ItdOe. nat ;lIolftto~t 

detan••nd IIIOre lapoJ:'tantl)' It doe. l\C)~u....~Ylro~l""s

to a••lat the sun.,.,*: InBlllklft8.;hi.a~.~t.~~~~l

is slmUar to a pr.ftllil~.dl.anosl:a1lild,. •. t~elt·I~>_1

tbe first.tepln· ••••ailDj .Dd solvlns,thePftjbl"-' 

. - -..' 

Sinoe tbewalk-tbroulh aurYe)' do.~.not~~•• ...~i.F·jl1

contaallullits In' .tbeenvlrol'lJlleftt•.tb.v,~Jdlty~f. tile·.~~

tb. ImoWledg..tr.lrdq•.and tborou~of. tb.lIldlfldUalsO

the suna),. WIlen ••urveyor obs..-ve.aa e."h tOdQtlt b

quantitatlvel), eyalUAte whether or not tbeexposure exCeeds 

able valne" wthe must make a judpent. WIlenb.tNrVe,••n

Involvlns the bandUq of a chemical wblch_)',lv. rl•• tof

concentrations of a v.por. or be attempt. to .....S8 expo8tl

monoxide, he may be deaUns with asents which .r. OdO:d...

and tasteless; and In such situations h. _kes a subjective 

. as to the worker's exposure. . 

. . 

these comments are Inten4ed not to dO'llD&l'ade but·instead to 

the· complexU:y of th. Inplant envlr0nam,tal tiralk-tbroulh su

turn tbls dlscusslonef the technlqu.~ld lead to. bette

standing of how tbe results can best be used. 

16 
weldlns operation. The surveyor, In _1:810&1118 these 

contaminants, cannot ...sure the ...lou...... of tbe s

therefare he define. tbese condltiona as "potential e

substance•• " In oonduotlq this pert of tNt survey, 

at his disposal several aul.. or ...Ida to ..."t bla

banlful _tarials. Itlch of the..., .......1 h~

prooeas heands. !be ......l 11.,.,~JIltteat:l.

chealcala, abdprcw1d.. tbe~vttbot:bc .l~

oatalo& the potentially "'urdOUs exposureabe o~

or 

In ..,.aluatins,. 

naturalcOl\dltlona 

the surve$'OJ:' 

altlaate 

Observes. tbepot~lal ~. -cla.etil1

...~;

10081 exbaU.twmtll.tloa. on ...we1dl"l operat~tbe 

shieldins andtrarn!q 11pts ...... 1NIrrlars·are eJiIpl~

dustrlalXerayappUcatlons,the eff.eCltCtf... &enara1~U

by the sbe of the nrehoUSe In whlohfol'k· Uft tmCl

After obaervlns the potential baaarcl,..,.aluatlqthe 

it pose. to the health of thewol'tteJ::' lirtd0bservlq.t

naturalconditlons whiCh -7 a1t1s.te (or..unce)-=-

expostare,.the surveyor -sttb~~tde~or!\Ottbe

adequately or.inadequatel,.. control1id. ...Ia.·..l_...sUC

the surv8)'Or is actually daterabll"ll the pd.orltl•• 1

estabUsbed for further tn-depth surveys and posalble 

With tblsinforlMtlon be is inaposltionto rate a p

for as.lIItanee. 
Ii 

CONCLUSION 

lIltb tbb latonltS" It ....1...... 

....t u... thl.......,. caa." pat. It ~lIOt"''¥'II

...... ...I"'bl. ~.I1: I........1.alMt'j 

the Road outll... of the OGOUpIICloaal ....lt:il pro..

_t be euWIYlMd tmd retl....1:0 .... sr-c .exc.a

Gtnpol.tedtothe .cnpollaa ... _ ••18, W

pal of provldlq the WDdcer vltba ..r.. ad bealt

18 
REFERENCES 	 

1. 	 ~L.'r:!~tS'fh._!_':;

u. s. Gov........ Prlntlq Offlce......1Dltoa, 

2. 	 Sledleokl•.J. t.: .tbeOutlookof'&dj~~'J. ~

Prasented .t the Ocaupetl..l ..l ......I... 

Society Amlual MeetlllS.· ..,....Cbloaso

3. 	 Hal_na.H•• aad V. He rraskos .... ~'Evolutloa 

ProsraaalllState aDd toealGo.......... fu:t4

(Nov,): 942. 1964. 

4. 	 Kronenberz. M. H•• at al•• Il'Nluati_ of the I

Problems of Illinois. Prep.r.cs by Division o

Department of Public Hultb. adcaSO. 1939. 

5. 	 rllnn. It" He. at al.,chl"'''. - ·.C'Oo1ci~Hu

on Industrial Healthandlltat__.PJ:Gperid fo

ColIImltteeof the Chlcaso .. Cook County Health 

PubUc Hultb Service. 1947. 

6. 	 Powell. C. H•• et al•• 1'hePreU1IIlmtq' SurYeJ"

Assessment of the Natlon·.CkH:Upatl~l Health 

Transactions of the 3Oth,-IMeetlps of the 

of Governme1\tal llIdustrlalJlygteDlstf. pp. 60

7. 	 Standard Industrial Classification Manual. P

of Statistical Standards. Bureau of the Budse

DoculQents, U. S .. Government PrlntlllS Office. V

1967" 

8. 	 Kendrick, M. A•• at al•• indu8t~lal Hygiene S

Denver. Publlc " ..It'll.pOrt:s 38: 317. 1968

19 
20 
-- 

-- 

--

--

--

--

19 - 39 3,000 2,583 1,301 1,062 412 

40- 49 458 198 IS2 S7 

- < < 

50,55,59 1,880 62~_268 64 

<.._< ...,

r-------< 

10 -89 1,2S1 420 220 66 

Total 3,000 6,172 2,545 1.702 599 

TAM.!: 2 

EMPLOYEES IN CHICAGO AREA BY SUB.GROUPS 

SIC Employment Size Gro

Groups 8-19 20- 49 50 99 100-249 250-49

19 - 39 37,653 80,954 91,974 164,796 142,23

40 - 49 

13,714 13,494 22,832 18,90

50,55,59 56,830 41,930 40,707 20,92

10 - 89 37,871 28,881 32,645 23,08

Total 37,653 189,369 176,279 260,980 205,145 
--

--

--

--

--

SiC 


Groups 


19 - 39 

40- 49 

50,55,59 

70-89 

Totol 

G

250

_

8-19 

48 

48 

Employment Size 

20-49 

79 

20 

57 

40 

196 

50-99 

67 

15 

32 

23 

137 

100 -249 

116 

15 

28 

23 

182 

SIC Employment Size 

Groups 8-19 20- 49 50 99 100-24& 25

19 - 39 621 2.468 4.915 18.025 3

'. 

40 - 49 .... 611 1,068 2,438 

50,55,59 1,728 2,125 4.282 

70 - 89 1,255 1,443 3,498 

Totol 621 6.062 [ 9..551 28.243 4

22 
--

--

--

--

--

--

--

SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100-249 250

19 - 39 62 0 0 0 0 

40- 49 0 0 0 0 

50t55~59 0 0 0 0 

---

10 -89 62 18 0 0 

Totol 62 62 18 0 0 

TABLE S(a) 

PERCENTAGE OF PLANTS WITH NO 

WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION INSUJWICE 

SIC Employment Size 

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100 -249 25

19 - 39 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

40 - 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

50,55,59 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

70 - 89 4.1 4.. 7 0.0 0

Totol 0.9 0.7 0.0 0
--

--

--

--

--

--

SIC Employment Size Gro

Groups 8-19 20-49 50-99 100 -249 250-4

19 - 39 484 0 0 0 0 

40- 49 0 0 0 0 

_. 

50,55,59 ..­ 0 0 0 0 

....

70 -89 .... 1.751 1.800 0 0 

Total 1.751 1.800 0 0 

TABU: 6(.) 

PERCENTAGE OF WORKERSIIOT PROTECTED 

BY WOlUCHtS COJ.1PENSATIOII 

SIC Employment Size Gr

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250-4

19 .. 39 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

40 - 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

50,55,59 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

70 - 89 

4.4 5.• 4 0.0 0.0 

Total 

0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 

24 
--

--

--

819 20

49 50 

99 100 ..249 

19 - 39 2.0 1.2 2.9 3.4 

40- 49 -­ 5.2 7.1 0.0 

50.55.59 -­ 0.0 0.0 '.7 

-

70 -89 - 7.1 4.7 4.1 

Total -­ 2.3 2.7 3.2 

* Inclu1•• pl.-tlt for ....t...ftd.I.tt. ....._

location odiei:' t:hIa caa. .....1t~ _".,..

......ual'tUa) 

PEltCENTAGi:· OF EM1!'1.DDZS D PL

VI'fBFULT..-7IME -.tClAM 

c.'.C ~ 

SIC [",ployment Site 

Groups 8~ 19 20~49 50 99 100-24. 

19 - 39 2.0 1.1 20.8 2.4 

40 - 49 4.1 8.4 0..0 

50,55,59 0.0 0.0 7.3 

10 - 89 5.2 6.0 3.0 

Total .... 1..3 12.9 2.9 
--

--

PERCElf.rAGE OF PI...AftS WID 

rART-'rIME rRYSICIAM 

.. '''''v.I__ 

SIC 

Groups 

I 8-19 

Employment Size Group

20-48 50-98 100-249 250-418 

19 - 39 0.0 0.0 1.~ 3.4 4.8 

i 40- 49 

~ .55,59 

10 -89 

-­

-­

-­

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

.­ -

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

--.,."..~."

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total -­ 0.0 0.7 2.1 3.3 

'fABLE 10 

PftCEft'l'AGE OF EHPIDYEES III PJ.&r1'S 

VlD PAR'r-tD!EPBYSICIAM 

Employnient Size Grou

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100-241 250-499 

is - 39 0.0 0.0 1.5 10.4 1S.4 

- 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

,55,59 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

- 89 ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total -~ 0.0 0.8 6.9 11.0 
--

--

--

--

SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 !:

19 - 39 83.3 92.5 91.0 88.8 89.0 5

40- 49 68.4 85.7 100. 100. 6

~, -­

50.55.59 86.2 100. 88.8 100. 8

-' .--.-~.- f--

70 -89 59.5 76.1 75.0 73.3 8

Totol 82.0 90.6 88.0 89.6 6

UBLE12 

PEllCElflAGE OF EKPLO"tEES IN PUlffS 

llIrH PHYSICIAN ON CALL 

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employme". Size Groups 

20-49 5099 100-249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 87.3 93.2 73.9 82.6 79.7 34

40 - 49 -­ 79.8 90.0 100. 100­ 48

50,55,59 -­ 94.3 lao. 86.1 100. 85

10 - 89 

Totol 

.­

_. 

6l.0 

88.5 

66.3 

"" 

79~3 

77.1 

84.3 

-

70.2 

82.4 

79

41
--

--

--

--

PERCENT.~E OF PLANTS N~VtHG 

NO ARRANGEMENT WITH A PHYSICIAN 


SIC Employment Size Gro

Groups 8-19 20-49 50-99 100 -249 

250-49

19 - 39 14.5 6.2 4.4 4.2 0.0 

40- 49 26.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 

.~ -­

50,55,59 13.7 0.0 7.4 0.0 

" C" - _._---•

r..--" 

10-89 33.3 19.0 20.8 20.0 

Total 15.6 5.7 6.5 2.0 

UBLE 14 

PERCERTAGE OF EMPLOYEEs IH PLANTS 

RAVING NO ARRANGEMENt' WITH A PHYSICIAN 

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Emplctyment Size Gro

20-49 50 99 100-249 250-49

19 - 39 10.5 5.5 3.6 4.4 0.0 

40 - 49 -­ 16.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 

50,55,59 

10 - 89 

-­

d. 

5.6 

31.1 

0.0 

27.5 

4.4 

19.7 

0.0 

18.8 

To.ai -­ 10,,0 6.8 5.. 7 2.0 

28 
SIC I Groups Employment Size G

8-19 20-49 50-99 100 -249 250-

19 - 39 100. 100. 9B.S , 96.5 74

40 - 49 -­ 100. 92.8 93.7 84

50,55,59 -­ 98.2 100, 96.2 

--­

lOO

..._---

86

1-----­

70 -89 -­ 88.0 95.2 79.1 

Totol .­ 96.9 97.9 93.9 79

UBLE 16 

PERCENtAGE OF IMPJ.OYIIS 

IN PLANTSWIDI II) IIUBSE 

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment S:ize G

20-49 5099 100-248 250

19 - 39 100. 100. 80.2 84.4 62

40 - 49 -­ 100. 91.5 89.4 80

50,55,59 _.. 51.5 100. 96.4 100

10 - 89 

-­

Total 

-­

-­

87.4 

75.3 

96.9 

88.1 

80.2 

86.0 

76

69
-- 

--

--

SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 tOO -249 250

19 - 39 58.3 43.7 35.8 21.3 14

40- 49 .. 73.6 71.4 56.2 69

50,55,59 ".1 66.6 59.2 38

.- ~~ 

10 .. 89 .. 5'.' 71.4 '8.3 33

Totol .... 52.6 51.8 35.2 24

tA8J;I 18 

PDCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES 1ft PJ.AII!S 

ItO EMPLOYEE IESPONSIBLE 101. FIItSt'-A

SIC EmJ)I()Jment Size 

Groups 8-19 20·49 50 99 100-249 250

" 

I

19 - 39 42.8 43.3 51.3 17.7 12

40 - 49 81.1 66.8 51.7 62

50,55,59 .. 22.7 61.2 51.6 :J1

70 - 89 .59.9 69.7 62.8 31

Totol .­ 38.1 59.0 30.4 21 

30 
--

SIC 

Groups 

19 - 39 

40 - 49 

50,55,59 

r-------­

70 -89 

Total 

8-19 

39.5 

-­

-­

-­

-­

Employment Size Groups 

20-49 SO-99 100-249 250-499 ::

45.0 55.2 59.8 65.8 6

31.5 35.1 31.' 30.7 2

-­

37.9 42.4 55.5 38.4 3

.. - ._.-.-.- ­-r-

1'.0 19.0 25.0 26.1 1

_.­

36.4 44.9 52.4 5'.2 .5

TAItE 20 

PEltCDTAGE OF EMPLOYEES III PLAII'tS llECEIYUG OCCDPA'l

IlEAL'lB ASSISTANCE J'RCIII AN IIISuaANC£ COMPANY 

SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100 -249 250-499 :

19 - 39 43.8 44.7 64.0 57.5 68.5 4

40 - 49 47.7 35.7 39.6 37.0 2

50,55,59 ..­ 74.1 38.2 61.8 34.5 1

10 - 89 .... 18.1 18.4 20.1 26.0 3

Total' -.. .54.8 48..7 52.4 58.0 4

- 
--

--

SIC Employment Size Group

Groups 8-19 20-49
 50 -99 100·249 250-419 
 

19 - 39 .54.1 
 46.2 41.7 2.5.6 20.7 

40- 49 
 68.4 .50.0 43.7 15.3 

.~ ~ ~ 

50,55,59 .. .56.8 
 48.4 29.6 38.4 

1--­ ... _---.- ­ r

10 -89 .. 76.1 76.1 75.0 66.6 

Total .. 51.2­ 49.3 34.5 26.8 

rAB1E 22 

PERCDTAGE OF lI)ItQIS 1M PUIITS VI'lB 

NO OCCUPATIOIIAL HEAL'lB ASSIst'AIfCE 

SIC Employment Size Group

Groups 8-19 20-49 
 50 99 100 -249 
250-499 
 

19 - 39 41.4 4.5.8 33.7 22.3 19.4 

40 - 49 52.2 52.7 45.5 14.1 

50,55,59 .... 23.2 50.6 29.1 40.7 

70 - 89 ... 77.9 74.2 79.8 63.1 

- 1
 Totol I-­ 40.3 45.7 31.6 25.6 

32 

--

--

--

Groups 8-19 20-49 SO-99 100-249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 87.5 73.7 61.1 45.2 34.1 1

40- 49 31.5 50.0 12.5 0.0 

50.55,59 - 81.0 57.' 51" 30.7 1

- ~-~, -f-~ 

10 -89 83.3 71.4 66.6 66.6 1

I 

Total - 75.0 i 61.0 46.0 33.6 1

lUtE 24 

PDCEtI'lAGE OF YDIDRS DI I\WIIU WHICH DO ltOT 

eIVE rRE-EMPJ..O'fMEII! IXAMINAtlOllS 

SIC Emplo~me.nt ~ Size Grou!ls

Groups 8-19 20-49 5099 100-249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 74..7 75.9 49.3 39.9 26.6 

40 - 49 38.8 52.' 11.4 0.0 

50,55,5S .... 38.0 55.3 47.6 27.3 

10 - 89 , .. 82.0 68.0 63.9 65.8 1

ITot.ol .... Jj7.0 54.. 1 41.2 29.9 

-
--

--

--

--

--

PERCENrAGE OF PLANTS WHICH DO NOT GIVE 


PEIlIODIC PHYSICAL EXAHIHATIOItS 


SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 20-49 
 50 -99 100 -249 250-499 
 ~

19 - 39 87.5 91.2 92.5 76.0 65.8 4

40- 49 
 .. 36.8 71.4 n.2 38.4 1

.. 

50,55,59 86.2 81.8 74.0 46.1 4

~- .- '------­ .._•....-.-r-'

70 -89 80.9 to.4 66.6 66.6 "

Total .. 83.7 87.9 70.3 61.0 3

TABLE 26 


PEllCENTAGE OF lIORDIS- III PLANTS WHICH DO NOT 


GIVE PEltIODIC PRYSICAI. EXAMlHATlORS 


SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 
 20- 49 
 50 99 100-249 
250-499 
 ~5

19 - 39 89.2 90.9 75.0 70.8 67.6 23

~-...­

40 - 49 43.5 71.1 24.2 38.0 2

50,55,59· 39..3 
 83.4 69.2 44.6 I 82

10- 89 
 Sl.5 92.0 64.9 51.5 40

Total I-. 62.7 79.5 6.5 .. 9


.-­

61.8 21

J... UtA 

34 
--

--

--

--

--

--

--

SIC Employment Si

Groups 8-19 20-49 
 50-99 100-24

19 - 39 91.6 87.5 86.] 94.8 

40 - 49 89.4 100. 87.5 

50,55,59 I 
 84.4 14.a 100. 

10 -89 92.8 95.2 87.' 

Total 87.8 88.4 93.9 

TABU: 28 


PDCElCTAGE OF EMl"LCJYIZS D l'LAlt

RECORDS OF EHPI..OYE£ ABS

SIC Employment S

Groups S-19 20-49 
 50 99 
100-24

19 - 39 94.1 86.6 90.5 94.5 

40 - 49 89.8 100. 90.4 

50,55,59 94.1 85.1 100. 

10 - 89 93.8 89.3 89.8 

Totol ... 91.4 89.7 94.4 
Groups 

py

Gou

8-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 

19 - 39 25.0 32.5 44.7 58.1 62.1 

40- 49 

•• 42.1 64.2 50.0 100. 

50,55,59 .. 36.2 39.3 51.8 

.-... 

53.8 

. .._----- _.­

66.6 

1---.-­

70 -89 ..­ 45.2 42.8 5('.,0 

Totol .... 36.9 44.5 55.3 65.6 

TAII.B 50 

PEIlCENtAGE OF EMl'.LODES III rLMItS WlICH 

DIP ucoms OF ABSiRCE DUE TO SICDESS 

SIC 

Groups Employment Size Grou

8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250-499 

19 - 39 30.4 32.4 58.5 55.0 69.0 

40 - 49 .... 34.8 52.4 57.3 100. 

50,55,59 -­ 72.1 37.5 45.5 52.4 

70 - 89 _. 57.4 41.8 46.0 72.3 

Totol .... 55.0 SO.6 52.9 70.5 

36 
19 - 39 

40- 49 

6.2 10.0 13.4 19.6 18.2 

-­ S.2 28.5 25.0 53.8 

.­ - ­

_..
 50,55,59 6.8 3.0 11.1 15.3 

~---------.....

..' •

70 -89 .... 7.1 14.2 0.0 u.s 

. 

.... .' 

Total .... 8.1 12.0 '16.2 21.0 

' .. 5 ...... ..... 

TA1L132 

PER~:......,..!rJ~o".~_

SIC .·E~'I~m!nt~i~.,.~J'~~

Groups 1- 8-19 .20-4t;Dl00~~"~i:'41J

. '.. 

19 - 39 3.9 7.4 12.1 20.9 30.1 

.. .. 

40 -49 4.1 21.6 31.1 58.3 

..... 

50,55,59 52.0 3.6 4.5 17.5 

70- 89 .... U.8 15.1 0.0 17.9 

Tofal j ... 28.9 11.4 17.2 30.1 

." 
SIC 

Groups Employment Size Group

8-19 20-49 50 -99 100-249 '250-499 

19 - 39 79.1 70.0 67.1 63.2 52.4 

40- 49 

-

-­ 84.2 85.7 75.0 61.5 

50,55,59 -­ 75.8 84.8 77.7 

-­ -

76.9 

b-. -----~--

73.3 

1

70 -89 -­ 85.7 76.1 83.3 

Total -­ 76.0 74.4 69.2 58.1 

TABLE 34 

PERCDlTAGE OF DfPLOYEES IN l'LANTS WHERE MANAGEME

REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT IHINK THE.-:E WERE ANY HEALTH H

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Size Group

20-49 50 99 100-249 25(}-499 

19 - 39 78.7 73.6 55.0 6:3.2 57.1 

40 - 49 -­ 85.7 85.9 11.6 70.0 

50 r 55t 59 -­ 80.8 80.6 75.9 75.2 

70 - 89 -­ 87.5 83.7 86.7 66.0, 

Totol -­ 79.7 67.5 68.3 60.9 

38 
--

-- -- -

--

--

--

p

19 - 39

, 

I 40- 49

50,55,59 -

70 -89 

Total 

SIC 

Groups 

19 - 39 

40 - 49 

50,55,59 

\ 

J 70 - 89

Total 

.- 1"-----'r ,_....--.-.

8!S.6 100. 93.1 

93.1 96.1 95.1 

.. ..... 36 

8-19 

89.8 

_. 

50-99 

96.9 

8-19 

87.5 

20-49 

90.0 

100-249 

95.7 

250-499 

96.3 

78.8 78.8 87.S 84.2 

82.7 93.9 100. 100. 

.... i ?i,l 

..- 88.1

PElCENTACE OF .I.01'EESIIt 'JLAltrs 


WHICH USE MUIIICIPAL WA'lD POa DIUltUltG 

EmpiOf""nt Siz. Gr':'

20-49 

90.4 

85.4 

88.2 

96.6 

90.9 

50 99 

98.1 

91.0 

91.8 

84.4 

94.2 

100-249 


95.9 

79.4 

100. 

100. 

95.7 

250...

96.0 

81.1 

100. 

99.4 

95.6 
-- -- 

--

--

--

PERCENTAGE OF PLANTS WHICH USE 


PRIVAtE V!LLS FOR DalJfJCING '\lAtEa 


r SIC Employment Size Gr

Groups 

8-19 20-49 50-99 100 -249 250-4

19 - 39 ~f'O 3.7 1.4 4.1 3.

--, 

40- 49 5.0 7.0 12.4 14.

50,55,59 .­ 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.

, " ,---.-

10 ~e9 -.. 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1-, - Totol 2.9 1.2 3.7 3.

b.-.._ 

SIC 


Groups 
 8-19 

- 39 

40 - 49 

50,55,59 

10 - 89 

Totol 

PERCENTAGE OF IMPLOYEES IN PLANtS VBIC

PRIVATE WEI.LS FOR D.IlINKlNG '\lATER 


. Employment Size 

20-49 50 99 

G

I 

I 

1.9 3.8 0.9 

._---,......, 

0.0 3.5 

...... 0.3 0.0 -

-~ 1.. 6 0..0 b_-.... 

2.~, 0.7 

100 -1.49 250-4

4.0 3..

20.5 13.

0.0 0.0 

0.0 t G.O 

4==- ''-:
--

--

--

SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-

19 - 39 8.3 4.9 1.4 0.0 0.

40- 49 15.6 14.1 0.0 0.

"" 

50,55,59 15•.5 6.0 0.0 0.

r---<" '- r-- 

10 -89 2.3 14.0 0.0 5.

Total ..­ 8.3 5.4 0.0 o.

TABlE 40 

P!i.CDrAGE OF DIP10YEES IN PJ.AJtTS U

USED BO'1'TLED VATER FOR DRlNUNG 

SIC 

Groups 

19 - 39 

1------­

40 - 49 

r50,55,59 

. 10 - 89 

Totol 

Employment Size G

8-19 20-49 50 99 100 0 249 250-

6.3 4.6 0.8 0.0 0.

... 14.5 5.4 0.0 0.

,.,. 11.3 8.1 0.0 0.

-

M" r,;-15.5 0 ..0 n.5 

.... , 6..4 j' 5.0 0 ..0 0 .. 

-:,-­ ~ ...-
-- --

--

PERCENTAGE or fJ..AMS WICII HAYE VAtD 

AND otHER PIPED LIQUIDS Ul4DU PltESSU

SIC Employment Size Gr

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 .. 99 100 -249 250-4

19 - 39 0.0 7.4 19.3 23.0 37.

40- 49 .... 15.6 21.1 6.2 22.

- ,. 

50,55,59 12.0 11.1 2'.8 15.

"~""

70 -89 -. 9.' 14.0 3.9 S.

Total t.e 18.3 19.3 30.

-'42 

'OCIftAGE or 1IOIIIItS. 'JLAII'lS VIIIClI 

VA'1'£R AND 0'fR£R LIQUIDS VIDa l'IISSU

" " 

.'" ',' 

19 - 39 0.0 1.3 14.1 26.7 47.

40 .. 49 .. 3.0 15.3 19.9 27.

50,55,59 11.7 16.0 32.7 29.

70 - 89 4.6 13.1 3.2 7.,

I-­

Total 8.3 14.3 " 23.8 41.1

42 
SIC 

Groups Empie. yment Size Gr

8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-4

19 - 39 10.4 8.7 14.8 12.7 15.

40- 49 

-­

-­ r---­

5.0 7.0 6.2 14.

50,55,59 .­ 8.6 IS.O 14.6 

8.2 

1-----­

..

15.

- ...••

25.

f-.. 

r---' 

70 -89 -­ 4.7 

-­

4.6 

Total -­ 7.5 12.7 11.8 16.

TABLE 44 

PERCENTAGE OF WIllIS 1M n.vr.rs VRICII 

HAVE EXPERIENCED INADEQUAtE VA'tU PUSSU

SIC 

Groups ~ -19 

~mploy",."t Size G

20-49 50 99 100-249 2$)-4

19 - 39 7.9 7.3 12.9 10.4 12.

40 ~ 49 -­ 1.6 0.7 13•.5 9.4 

50,55,59 

-­

70 - 89 

... 

_. 

28.7 

2.6 

10.1 

3.8 

29.3 

7.7 

13.

31.

Total -­ 12.5 10.2 11.8 14.
URCENTACE or PLAtiTS V;UCH USE BOOStD 

PUtCPS OM VATD SYStEM 

SIC 

Group. 8-19 

Employment Size Gro

20-49 50-99 100-249 250-49

19 - 39 12.5 8.7 17.J 31.5 40.2 

40- 49 

50,55.59 

("-' 

10 -89 

-­

-­

-­

10.3 3'.3 31.0 22.' 

-­ . 

13.1 6.0 33.2 37.2 

'-' ~" .--,.. " 

14.2 47.3 45.6 39.6 

Total .. u.s 20.6 33.6 38.1 

'l'AII.E 46 

U1CL-.TAGE or WOIQIts III l'LAIITS Wlfla! 


USE BOOST.··nNtS OR WAUl SYSmI 


SIC 

Groups Employment Size Gr

8-19 20"4$ 50 99 100-249 !50-49

19 - 39 9.5 10.3 14.3 43.3 ,40.6 

40 - 49 -­ !.O 43.6 50.5 28.1 

50,55,59 -­ 12.3 2.9 40.4 

51.1 

10 - 89 -­ 12.4 55.4 58.1 49.6 

Total -­ 11.0 21.7 45.4 41.2 

44 
SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 

19 - 39 

8-19 20-49 SO-99 100 -249 250-499 

18.7 6.2 11.9 8.4 8.3 

f--~- r---'" 

40- 49 _. 5.0 0.0 12.4 7.0 

---I-----­

50,55,59 .­ 1.7 2.9 3.4 1S.2 

1---------1-'--­ .­ ""------­ -.­ - 

10 -89 7.0 0.0 3.9 5.1 ­ .­ 

Total 

.-­ 4.9 6.9 7.4 8.' 

TABLE 48 

PERCENTAGE OF WORDItS DI -P1.A1frS VllICII 

HAVE EXPElIEltCID 'EAS'r11lG VA'lD 

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Size Groups 

20-49 50 99 100-249 250-499 

19 - 39 13.2 3.9 8.8 6.4 7.2 

40 - 49 -­ 8.8 0.0 22.5 2.2 

50,55,59 -­ 0.3 6.2 7.1 24.9 

70 - 89 -­ 4.0 0.0 3.3 7.0 

Total -­ 3.0 6.4 7.1 7.7 
SIC 

Groups Employment Size Grou

8-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 

19 - 39 10.4 9.9 10.3 18.7 25.4 

,­

<,- 49 

ro-" 

..­ 0.0 

-­

14.1 6.2 .36.8 .-

0.0 

-.. .­

39.6 

-~-~ 

50,55,59 

....,,_0.__'" 

-­ 8.6 2.0 18.1 

29.1 

" 1-----­

10 -89 -­ 19.0 

.­

28.3 

Toto' -­ 10.7 11.5 18.8 25.4 

tABLE 50 

PllCEII'l'ACE or lIOIURS lit PJ.AN!S ..ICII 

GIVE ADDItlOHAL taEA'rMIlfr '1'0 WA!Ill SUftL

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Si~. Grou

20-49 50 99 100 -249 250-499 

19 .. 39 8.9 12.0 7.9 16.2 22.0 

40 - 49 .'" 0.0 16.0 10..8 42.3 

SO,55,59 .­ 10.0 1.4 20.2 0.0 

10 - 89 

.. 

Total 

_d 

.­

12•.5 

11.0 

2.5.0 

10.5 

37.4 

18.8 

38.4 

I 23.8 

46 
-- 

--

--

19 - 39 58.3 63.7 64.1 42.7 45.1 

.-,~ ...... ~ ..

40- 49 57.8 42.8 43.7 38.4 

._. '--­

50,55,59 53.4 48.4 37.0 7.6 

~.-,--~ -~ ," f---­ 

10 -89 ..­ 52.3 52.3 45.8 26.6 

Total 57.8 56.7 t.a.3 i 38.5 

TAUS! 

P~or~"""~ IN PLAHts WI'DI Q1JESI'ICtlIAIU UIIlT.dJ_ 

SIC 


Groups 


19 - 39 66.2 61.6 SO.5 43.3 39.7 

40 - 49 69.8 40.0 46.2 47.3 

50,55,59 38.7 45.8 45.4 1'.7 

10 - 89 46.7 45.4 48.4 29.1 

Total 51.8 48..4. 44.3 ••1 

* Include. adequacy of ••P.-. V.t',.~~:ppi,.. trt

eating fuUitt... '. 
SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Size Gro

20-49 50 ·99 100 -249 250-49

19 - 39 22.9 16.2 17.9 10.2 10.9 

40- 49 

50,55,59 

10-89 

... 

... 

-­

15.7 7.1 11.2 0.0 

. 

S.1 3.0 7.4 0.0 

2.$ 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total .. 9.9 10.S 1.0.4 7.5 

'l'AU 54 

fDCIII1'AGC or u-...... DIrI.OYI:a 

II PWrrs vrra 100& 'LIGlftIlG 

SIC 

Groups Emplpym.nt Size Gro

8-19 20-48 50 99 10·248 t50-48

19 - 39 29.7 13.5 14.7 6.9 10.S 

40 - 49 •• 9.1 10.6 30.a 0.0 

50,55,59 .. 3.1 1.7 11.1 0.0 

10 - 89 -­ 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total -­ 7.6 9.7 8.0 8.3 
--

--

--

--

--

---

p

8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 .. 249 250-499 

19 - 39 875 392 97 147 14 

,.--~-, .­

40 - 49 114 52 50 2" 

..­ ~-.... ,.,,-~ ~,-,~-"'-""---, 

50,55,59 759 294 96 n 

r-----.-... ---.~~. 

70 -89 , 719 146 76 23 

Totol 875 1,984 589 369 86 

'tABU 55(.) 

I'EIlCUTAGE OF PJAII'l'S VttH ., 


EMPLOYUS !VUllO '1'0 II A't ilIa 


SIC Employment Size GtO",

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100-248 250-489 

19 - 39 29.1 15.0 7.4 13.6 3.6 

40 - 49 26.3 28.5 31.2 46.1 

50,55,59 39.6 45.4 37.\) 38.4 

t-­

70 - 89 ... 54.7 38.0 33.3 40.0 

Totol 31.6 I 23.4 21.4 15.4 
--

----

--

RISK 'l'O A POTENTIAL OCCUPATIOIW. HEALtH 

(PI'ojeoted) 

SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250

19 - 39 2.12' 2.191 1.204 91$ 3

40- 49 344 146 102 

-~ 

50,55,59 -.. 1.121 332 172 4

--t----~-" ~,- - 

70 -89 .. 532 304 144 4

Total 2,125 4,Ule 1.956 1,333 5

'I'ABLE 56(a) 

PERCENTAGE OF PlNITS WI'DI OIIE OR NOU IHl

RISK '1'0 A POTElt'rIAL OCCUPATIOIUL HEALtH 

SIC 

Groups 

19 - 39 

40 - 49 

50,55,59 

10 - 89 

Total 

Employment Size G

8-19 20~49 50 99 100-249 250

70.9 85.0 92.6 86.4 96

-­ 73.7 11.5 68.8 53

-.. 60.4 '4.6 63.0 61

.. 45.3 62.0 66.7 60

-­ 68.4 76.6 78.5 84

50 
--

--

SIC Employ

, eont ~d Gro

Groups 8··19 20-49 50·99 100 ..249 250-49

19 - 39 18,483 28,503 27,283 57,371 38,649 

"--,----~ r" 

40 - 49 ... 2,979 1,360 2,274 1,071 

1-------" 

50,55,59 .. 9,442 5,102 7,505 1,597 

1-----­ .-­ r-~··· 

10 -89 6,402 6,300 4,ua 2,628 

Total 18,483 47,326 40,045 71,288 43,'" 

TABLE 57(.) 

PEIC!HTAGE OF IN-PLAItt IMPLOYEES AT liS

TO ONE 01 1«lRE POtENTIAL OCCUPATIOIIAL IIAZ

SIC Employment Size Gr·Q

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250..49

19 - 39 46.3 42.6 33.4 39.1 '6.1 

40 - 49 45.0 25.4 17.7 11.' 

50,55,59 .. 20.6 24.9 45.0 23.6 

10 - 89 20.0 24.5 16.1 19.' 

Total .... 31.3 30.1 ".9 32.3 
--

-- 

(PnJeoted) 

SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-

19 - 39 52,237 77,_ 61,130 119,636 88,7

40- 49 o.e 7,638 2,"1 6.561 1,8

-~---,

50,55,59 

!----"_._'­

~--~-

o,e 16,. 11,110 15,313

.­

1,7

-

10 -89 o,e 11,08' 24,340 7,212 6,0

Totol 52,237 "',103 91,911 148,792 98,3

TAIIZ 57(0) 

A¥EI.AGE .... or 11M... RI

JMlII.DYIE Ill. IIsI.* 

SIC Empl(lyment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 !OO-Z4& 250"

19 - 39 2.83 2.74 2.24 2,09 2.3

40 - 49 2,56 1.71 2.89 1.6

50,55.59 1.74 2.18 2.04 1.0

10 - 89 .­ 1.73 3.86 1.76 2.3

Total - 2.39 2.47 2,09 2.2

* , -

52 
--

Groups 8-19 20-49 -99 100 -249 250-499 

19 .. 39 1,687 1,5'6 853 7'4 329 

40- 49 ... _.

229 92 70 11 

I-----­ ._-­ - 

50,55,59 ... 693 137 115 21 

10 -89 

Totol 

. ~ 

•• 375 183 l24 31 

1,687 2,833 1,26$ 1,063 604 

TAILC " 

IftJMBBlt or I'ODII'rIAL ~UIII COlI$~ 

MAIOIHAU.! 01 

(fnJ"'" 

~tIL! ~ 

SIC Employment Groups 8-19 8-49 50 

" 

19 - 39 43,268 48,904 l.I,6fS 86,489 n,t" 

40 .. 49 1,680 1,020 I 2.515 634 

-'-­

50,55,59 .. 7,402 '.417 7,163 303 

70 - 89 6,070 :'1,160 2,938 :i,S'1 

J 

Totol 43,268 64,,0'6 S9t 260 ".165 62,184 
PLAN'IS wrm POTENTIAL EXPOSURES TO GENERAL CHEf-llCA

HAZARDS-~IARGlNAU.Y OR INADEQUATELY CON'J:ROLLEI' 

(Projected) 

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Size Groups 

20-49! 50 ­ 99 100 -249 250-499 ~5

19 - 39 1.000 1.111 446 533 272 16

40- 49 

50• 55~t 

10 -89 

-­

-

-­

160 

429 

281 

66 

98 

183 

50 

105 

48 

" 

13 2

-" 

13 1

".~-"--"-- t----- 

23 1

Totol 1.000 1.981 793 736 321 219 

TABU: 61 

IiIUM8£It OF !C1I'DttAL EUOSU1tES 1'0 GDDAL alEMICAL 

HAZA1tDS-HAIlCTh.\LLY 01. IRADEQUA'lELY COlI'l'IOLL£D 

(PnJeohd) 

SiC 

Groups 8-19 

EmploJment Size Groups 

20-49 5099 100-249 250-499 !!:5

19 - 39 16,119 27.945 11.968 27.370 22.268 29.7

40 - 49 - 918 831 592 252 7.0

50,55,59 

10-89 

-.. 

-

2.928 

2.778 

1,477 

6.540 

2.964 

176 

162 

2.570 

4

5

Totol 16.119 34.569 20.816 31.102 25.252 37.6
-- 

--

--

--

PLANTS WITH POTENTIAL EXPOSURES TO UNI

CHEHICAL HAZARDS-MARGINA.:.LY OR INADEQUATEL

(Projected) 

SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100-249 250

19 - 39 875 817 543 441 19

40- 49 91 52 40 1

50,55,59 462 78 57 

- 

70 -89 - 125 91 57 : 0 

Total 875 1,495 764 595 219 

. TABLE 63 

RUMBn OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES TO UNIDE

ClfEMICAL HAZARDS-IWlGINALLY OR INADEQUATELY 

(Project_>


- SIC Employment Size G

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250

19 - 39 5,999 11,545 16,643 18,832 12,

40 - 49 380 116 1.316 

50,55,59 - 3.191 1,950 3,040 

10 - 89 1,177 3.500 548 

Totol 5,999 Ui.293 22,269 23.736 12.

I 

I 

I 

I 
--

-- --

--

--

PLANTS WITH POTENTIAL EXPOSURES TO PHYSICAL HA

lI..ARGlNAl..LY OR IlIl.ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED 

(Projected) 

-
 SIC Employment Size Grou

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-499 

19 - 39 437 588 407 469 188 

40- 49 45 13 20 8 

50,55,59 198 78 28 9 

~ "_ .. _---. -. 

10 -89 156 36 57 15 

Total 437 987 534 574 220 

TABLE 65 

NUMBER OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES 70 PHYSICAL HAZA

MARGINALLY OR INADEQUATELY CONTROLLED 


(PrcJected) 


SIC 

Groups Employment Size Grou

8-19 '0-49 50 99 100 -249 250-499 

19 - 39 11.150 7.707 9.649 34.389 19,7'2 

40 - 49 -­ 380 12 667 297 

SO,55,59 -­ 1.052 1.024 779 105 

70 - 89 -­ 1.842 960 2.194 670 

Total 11.150 10.981 11.645 38.029 20.824 
PlA~S WITH POTENtIAL EXPOSURES TO DUST HA

MARGINAlJ.Y OR INADEQUATELY IIONTROLLEU 

(Projected) 

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Size Gro

20-49 50-99 100 -249 250-49

19 - 39 437 228 310 211 61 

40-49 .­ 0 0 0 0 

... 

50,55,59 

70-89 

-­

-­

132 

31 

39 

18 

,-­

9 .__.__. 

9 

0 

-".-,_

3 

Totol 437 391 367 229 64 

TABLE 67 


SIC 

Groups 

19 .. 39 

40 - 49 

50,55,59 

70 - 89 

Total 

,'. 

Employment Size Gr

8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250-4&

9,999 1.• 705 3,403 S.897 3.01

-­ 0 0 0 

-­ 230 965 380 

-­ 271 160 18 35

9.999 2.206 4,528 6,295 3,36

-
TABLE 68 

PLA.NTS WHICH IU:;QUIRE I~IEDIATE 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE 

(Projected) 

SIC 

Groups Employment Size Gr

8-19 20-49 50-99 100 -249 250-4

19 - 39 187 130 213 82 79 

40- 49 -­ 0 0 0 0 

50,55,59 -­ 66 19 9 0 

. --­ . 

0 

r---. 

10 -89 -­ 93 0 0 

Totol 187 289 232 91 79 

TABLE 68(.) 


PERCENTAGE OF PI..AHrS WHICft REQUIIlE 

Dl-lEDIATE OCCUPATIONAL REALm ASSISTA

SIC 

Groups Employment Size G

8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250-4

19 - 39 6.2 5.0 16.4 7.6 20

40 - 49 -­ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

50,55,59 -­ 3..4 3.0 3.7 0

70 - 89 p­ 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.

Totol -­ 4.6 9.2 5.3 14

58 
--

--

--

PLANTS WHICH REQUIRE OCCUPATIONAL 

HEALTH ASSISTANCE WInUN ONE YEAR 

(Projected) 

SIC Employment Size Group

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-499 

19 - 39 687 719 368 432 122 

40 - 49 45 26 50 13 

.­r

50.55,59 .. 198 39 48 --.-.- 0 - 

.-1"""----. 1

70 -89 125 36 67 7 

Totol 687 1.087 469 597 142 

TABLE 6'J(.) 

PERCENTAGE OF PLANTS 'WHICH REQUIRE 


ASSISTANCi WITHIN ONE YEAR 


SIC 

Groups Employment Size Group

8-19 20- 49 50 99 100 -249 250-499 

19 - 39 22.9 27.5 28.3 40.1 31.7 

40 - 49 -­

-­

10.5 14.2 31.2­ 23.0 

50,55,59 10.3 6.0 18.5 0.0 

70 - 89 _. 9.) 9.5 29.1 13.3 

Total -­ 17.3 18.7 34.6 25.5 
--

--

-- 

TABLE 10 


PLANTS WHICH REQUIRE DELAYED OCCUPATIONAL 


HEALTH ASSISTANCE (WITHIN 1-3 YEARS) 


(ProJac~e4) 

SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 20-49 50-99 100 -249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 1,437 1,438 58: 441 17l 

40- 49 229 79 70 17 

... 

50,55,59 858 294 124 41 

1-----­ ,­ - ~,~ ~.~ ~ .. ~~

70 -89 281 183 86 23 

Total 1,437 2,806 1,138 721 254 I 

TABLE 70(.) 

PERCENTAGE OF PLANTS WHICH REQUIRE DELAYED 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE (WITHIN 1-3 YEAlt

SIC 

Groups 8-19 

Employment Size Groups 

20-49 50 99 100 -249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 47.9 55.0 44.7 41.0 45.1 3

40 - 49 -­ 52.6 42.8 43.7 30.7 3

50,55,59 -­ 44.8 45.4 48.1 69.2 4

10 - 89 -­ 21.4 47.6 37.5 40.0 3

Total -­ 44.7 45..2 41 ..8 45.6 3

60 
-- --

--

--

HEALTH ASSIST&~CE ~~DER PRESENT CONDITION

(Projected) 

SIC Employment Size Grou

Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-499 

19 - 39 687 327 135 119 9 

. 40- 49 160 79 40 26 

- ~ .-~ 

50,55.59 792 294 76 18 

.- -. , . ­ 

r--'--' r--'-­

10 -89 813 164 76 27 

Totol 687 2.092 672 311 80 

TABLE 71(8) 

PERCENTAGE OF PLANTS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE OCCUPA

H~~TH ASSISTANCE UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS 

SIC 

Groups Employment Size Grou

8-19 20-49 50 99 100-249 250-499 

19 - 39 22.9 12.5 10.4 11.1 2.4 

40 - 49 -­ 36.8 42.8 25.0 46.1 

50,55,59 -­ 41.3 45 .. .• 

29.6 30.7 

10 - 89 -­ 61.9 

~ _ 

42.8 33.3 46.6 

Total -­ 33.3 26.7 18.1 14.5 
--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

tABLE 72 

PERCENtAGE OF PLANTS O-~ YEAR

AT IDCATION SURVEYED 


SIC Employment Size 

Groups 8-19 20-49 
 50 -99 100-249 
25

19 - 39 35.4 33.7 22.3 19.6 

40- 49 
 42.1 28.5 12.5 

- 

50,55,59 29.3 36.3 18.5 

. 

70 -89 21.4 19.0 20.8 

Total 

30.3 25.9 1 18.9 

TABLE 73 


PERCENTAGE OF PLANtS 5-10 YEAtt

AT IDCATION SURVEYED 


SIC Employment Size 

Groups 8-19 20-49 
 50 99 
 100-249 
25

19 - 39 12.5 18.7 4.4 17.0 

40 - 49 26.3 21.4 25.0 

50,55,59 27.5 12.. 1 
 37.0 

70 - 89 23.8 14.2 20.8 

Total a.o 9..1 
 21.3 

62 
--

-- --

--

--

--

--

--

--

SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 20-49 50 -99 100 -249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 22.9 23.7 26.8 24.7 20.7 

-

40 - 49 21.0 14.2 25.0 46.1 

50,55,59 17.2 24.2 11.1 38.4 

-~, ~ ~ -­ -~---...­ +- 

70 -89 33.3 28.5 20.8 13.3 

Total 21.5 25.5 22.2 24.4 

TABLE 75 

PERC~rAGE OF PLANTS 20 YEARS OR MORE 


AT LOCATION SURVEYED 


SIC Employment Size Groups Groups 8-19 20-49 50 99 100 -249 250-499 ~

19 - 39 29.1 21.7 46.2 38.4 52.4 6

40 - 49 10.5 35.7 37.5 15.3 2

50,55,59 25.8 27.2 33.3 23.0 5

70 - 89 21.4 38.0 37.5 26.6 5

To.ol 22.9 39.3 37.4 42.8 5
TAnLE 76 

YEARS AT LOCATION VS NEED FOR ASSISTANCE • PL

Yeors ot Need For Assistan

~----'-W-ith-in 1YeorI Delayed Location Immediate 

! 

IVerySe

I 

0-5 4.1(1)' 

i 14.4 I 46.0 • 34.9 

I---.___-J.I____--;.__..::.__~._____... ; ----

I 

I

5- 10 I 

1------, , .L.,. 

I 19.6 : 46.1 ! 31.8 

I 

.. 'j-------1 

! 21.3 I 45.2 I

r~., d r.:.:- ---1 

10 - 20 I 4.9 

~·-......-I-·,·-- ..'-· .. > 20 I 11.4 

14.9 

All I 

Plonts I 

! 21.8 I 45.0 

(1) Qf all the plants whlch have been at a locatlon for 

4.1% require lrowedlate assistance. 

(2) Overall, 6.3% of the plants In the survey require Im

asslstfl-nce. 
(Projected) 

AGENT toTAL NUMBER INADEQUATELY (

OF WORKERS OR J?oARGINALLY(M

EXPOSED CONtROLLED EXPO

Noise, Continuous 63,970 56,345 

Carbon Nonoxlde 56,069 31,381 

'Welding Gases, 

Unspec. 40,630 33,056 

Cutting 011 Mist 30,495 13,989 

Heat Stress, Dry 27,003 22,549 

Noise, Intermlttant 23,681 21,243 

Ketones 22,830 15,176 

General Solvent 

Vapor 22,098 13,654 

Metal Fwne 20,101 14,707 

Ink Solvent Vapor lS,136 8,129 
APPENDIX A 

Fona Approved 

Budget Bureau No.68

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATIOR, AlCD WELF

PUBLIC BEALTH saYle! 

Consu.er Protection and Enviraamental Healtb 

Enviroauntal Control Administration 

Bureau of Occupatioaal Safety and Healtb 

Cincinnati, ~bio 45202 

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVEY (REVISED) 

1 alii repres".I.iD& the______, 

Assurance is hereby giveD that your identity and relaticmahip to any iaformat.iOD obta1Ded by reasOD of 

your participatIOD tn the Occupational Health Survey 

will be kept cODfidential nthiD the Public Health 

Service. As you _y know, we are studying occupational health .eada ip selected areas in the United 

States. To help in planning we need to know what 

kinds of first aiel, safety. and other health service. 

employers provide, I also need to walk through your 

facility with you to look especiaU.y at tbose areas 

where workers &~J' eDCounter potential health hazards 

such as solvents, welding fumes, du~t and gases. 

1 Date I I I I 

Establ1shlPent N8IIIe,_______,Co. "0,_____ 

Address___________________________~------

i:ity____________...:Zip Code'--______ 

2 

ECA-32 (Cin) 

(3-69) 

F

66 
4 Rating I:::Tl 

5 What is your chief product or servieel______

6 


7 	 Do you have more than one shift? L--/l Yes 

0'2 no 

8 	 How now71II\I\y ______________________________________ people do you bave on your payroll just___

8a 	 Holli 'IlIAD, are typists. bookkeepers. secretaries or other 	office workers' _______________ 

8b 	 How 'lllADy are outside sala.en or deliverymen whose 

prilllary work is outside your fecllity?______ 

That leaves about________in the work area. 

Is this correct? 

9 


10 	 Of those in tha work area. how mAUY are male? 

11 	 Of those in the work area, how 'lllADy are female? 

12 	 How mAUY years bas this plant ~en in operation 

at this location? 

0-5 1--1 5-10 1--1 10-20 I I 20 D 


13 	 Is your workmen's compensation insurance carried 

with an insurance company or are you self-insured! 

Insurance Company ~l 

Self-Insured 1--r2 

None 	 03 

ECA-32 (Cin) 

(3-69) 
Y••, Put Tiae 02 

Yea. OR Call 03 

110 	 Olt 

Do you have a registered nurse in your fa

at a regular: tille? 

Yea. Pull Tille 

Yes. Part Tille 

16 	 Do you ba". _ ...-loJee r .....llt1e &ra

first aid ..... DO dDc:cor or ...... 18 ....

Yes 0'1 

JIG 02 Q. 17 ...&. 

R.A. 03 Q. 17 • .;•• 

01 

·tZft 

Yes. Ot:her 	 0'3 

D.lt. 	 [':::14 

CJs 

II.A. 	 06 

18 	 Do you receive additional uaistaDc:e iR o

tional health fra.: 

Insuraace Coepany 

Other 

ECI\-32 (Cin)None 


(3-69) 


68 
20 Before you hire a new employee do you require 

him to t~ke a m.dical examinatloa? 

Yes, All I 11 

Yes, SOllIe 02 

No 03 

21 	 Do you have an arrangement for aay of your 

aaploy... to take a perIodic aecJieal 

examination! 

Y•• 01 

t::72 Q. 22, 23, • 14 R.A. 

22 For which aaploy•••? 

23 Are the examinations required or vobmt:.aryT 

24 How often are the exaaiDatioas given? 

Haw Ma1Iy Times a Tr

Which Arranged For Leas thaD Once Mor

Employees'~ No Req' d Yoluat.ary Once 

All I h I 12 03 I h 02 

Executive L...J LJ I I 0 0 

& Supervisory 

Thos'! in 

hazardous 

jobs 

110 I I 0 

Truck 

Drivers I f I I 0 0 

Food 

Handlers o CJ 0 cr 

ECA-32 (Cin) 

()-69) 
25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Do you have an arranaeMeat for your employees to 

shot. or i-.aizations for any of these dis_su? 

Flu Tetanus I 12 

Typhoid Any Other I 18 

lfoDe 

Do you offer your caploy••• 4D1 edueat:1OD1ll _ter

about health or l11neas? 

Yea 

Do you keap payroll recorda of all ampl.oyeu 

abs.lees fr~ work? 

Yes 

Do you keep paJ'Z'Oll recorda of all ....,l~ 

abserlCu fr~ work due to sic1me8.? 

Yes 

Q. 29" 30 B.A. 

Do your recorda show the DaIle of the sie1me8s 

that cau",ed the abSeIle.? 

Yes 

Could. I have a list of zip codes and occupations 

of those .-ployeea who were absent frOID work. 

due to sickness two weeks ago today! 

Many processes or _terials u••d at work. caD be 

daDgerous to the health of workers. SOIIIMtt1me. 

It is fairly hard to control such hazards. In 

your plaDt do you feel that there are any healtb 

hazards. even if you have thea UDder control? 

RCA-32 (Cia) 

(3-69) 

70 
ECA-32 (Cin) 

(3-69) 
RCA-32 (Cin) 

1(3-69) 

72 
plant meet the criteria for: 

I

I 

1 Housekeeping Yes 01 ftC) 02 

2 Water Supply 0'1 02 

3 Toilet Facilities 01 ,72 

4 	 Washtns Facilities 01 l12 

5 !atias Facilities 01 02 

6 	 Plant Ligbttns ~ 

Good 0'1 

Average 02 

Poor 0'3. 

7 Comfort Ventilation 

Adequate 0'1 

Inadequate 0'2 	 

8 	 Estiaated total number of employee. at risk for 

operations. 

9 Estiaated number of exposur.. rated I or M. 

RCA-32 (Cia) 

(3-69) 
10 

-2­

Estimated number of exposures rated A. 

11 How many hours are required to routinely su

this plant'?______________

12 How often in years should this plant be 1:'o

8urveyed?______________________________

13 Plant rating. 

at.. 

DB 

LIe 

OD 

ECA-32 (Cin) 

(3-69) 
APPENDIXB 

ABRIDGED VDSIOli 

(As UHCI for Chic..sw:v.,.) 

Major 

S£2Y2 

19 

20 Food and Elndred Products 

21 

22 Textile Mill Pl'oduoC. 

23 Apparel and otMI' ftntahed ProducC:. 

Fabrlcs and Sla11ar Hat:erlala 

24 

25 Furntture and Plxtures 

26 Papel' and AlUed Products 

27 Prlnt:lq, PubUsblq, aDd .uU. Ind

28 Chemlcab and AlUed Products 
31 

32 stone. ClQ'. aDd Gla.. I'rodt.tota 

33 rrt-ry Metal lacIullb"l.. 

34 Fabricated Metal rrodaots. ExctIpI

ltaobl...,. aDd 'lnupoJ:'t;atl_ Iq

35 MIIobl...,. IJIoet* Ueot:doal 

36 UeotI:loallCMld...,. Itl",..e:.

37 'lnupoE'tatIOil lIpa'a--t 

38 	 Prof........l. Sel.-tflo.... ec

Iutt'ulllDtaI ............0 ....

VIICob.. aDd CI... 

39 Hl...l1tmeMla tit I......... 1uI:I

41 toeal aDd ......... 'fRuIt ... 1a

r••eeaaer ~.'lctaC10il 

42 Hot:o&' Fnla1ll: 'bln......_ ....

44 v.tft 'blllll!l'ozli'tJMa 

'lnIwpoRad__ AIr 45 

46 	 Pl,.ll.~ 

47 'l'natJportaClOil s.nt.cu 

48 

49 11.ct&'lo Gas aDd Saalbu:7 SecYlc

50 Vbol...l. 'f1'e4e 

55 Auto.tl.... Dealu. ad ...1I. S

59 Retail 'fI'a6a - Hlsce11....... Iets

70 
72 Personal S.rvlces 

73 Miscellaneous auslne •• Sorvlce. 

75 AutomobU. aapalr. AutollobU. Services. awl Gel'''p. 

76 MIscellaneous aapalr ServIces 


79 Alluseaent and aecnatlon Sen10u Except: fobtlon Plcc:ure. 


80 Medical and Other Hultit Service. 

82 Educational Servlcu 

84 .......... Art Galled••, 80blalcel and Z00loSlcal GeReas 


89 Miscellaneous Services 

~..,

, ,