S.F. Adopts Safety Rules for Use of VDTs : Health: The supervisors’ action makes it the first major city to adopt such regulations. The Chamber of Commerce will ask the mayor to veto it.

In an action watched closely by businesses and worker-safety proponents nationwide, San Francisco on Monday became the nation’s first city to set safety rules for the use of video display terminals in the workplace when the Board of Supervisors approved a controversial ordinance.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which has hotly opposed the measure as unreasonable and costly despite compromises aimed at appeasing businesses, immediately said it would urge Mayor Art Agnos to veto it.

Passage of the bill by a 7-4 vote puts San Francisco in the forefront of dealing with an issue that many observers have said represents a serious downside of technology.

In recent years, thousands of workers have begun suffering from vision problems and debilitating hand, wrist, arm and other injuries associated with frequent VDT use. Other concerns have been raised that radiation emissions from the ubiquitous machines might cause miscarriages and birth defects, although such cases have not been as thoroughly documented.

Sponsored by outgoing Supervisor Nancy Walker, the legislation has engendered intense debate and drawn the interest of government agencies, employers, politicians and worker-safety advocates nationwide. Although dozens of previous efforts to mandate such safety measures have failed, the bill’s supporters hope this legislation can serve as a model for other cities and counties in California and other states.

“The workers of this town do have a victory,” Walker said after a tense hourlong debate. She added, however, that earlier compromises have made it “a very weak ordinance” compared to what she had envisioned when she introduced the legislation in August.

The measure, which a week earlier had been approved 8 to 1 on a preliminary reading, would give companies with 15 or more employees two years to provide VDT users with adjustable furniture, anti-glare screens, proper lighting, training and 15-minute breaks every two hours. Failure to comply would make employers subject to a $500-a-day fine.

The bill also establishes a seven-member advisory panel that would begin in April to study VDT safety issues and recommend ways of preventing ailments associated with the machines.

Among revisions worked out in recent weeks by labor and business was the elimination of a requirement that VDT stations be at least five feet apart to minimize any potential exposure to radiation. Employers had successfully argued that such a rule would have forced them to rent far more office space, making the change too costly.

As it is, estimates of the cost of compliance vary widely, with businesses saying they would be forced to spend as much as $3,000 per VDT workstation and unions saying that the cost could be as little as $350.

Despite previous compromises, last-minute lobbying by Supervisor Doris Ward on Monday threatened to undermine the bill. She proposed an amendment that would have eliminated furniture requirements and instead would have simply mandated that the VDT task force make recommendations within two years.

At the urging of Walker, she changed her mind and voted against the amendment when it was reintroduced by Bill Maher, a supervisor opposed to the legislation. Walker, who said she has invested 4 1/2 years in the effort to regulate VDT use, agreed later that Ward had done her a favor.

Walker, however, said she fully expects that amendments will be proposed as the measure is more closely analyzed. In particular, she foresees that employers might win a hardship clause that would entitle some businesses to seek exemptions because of the expense of buying new furniture.

James L. Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco chamber, said the amendment would have been preferable to “requiring every employer to convert existing equipment.” In opposing the legislation, many of the city’s big employers have said they should be allowed to continue to take voluntary steps to upgrade workstations.

Barbara Kellogg, an organizer with Local 790 of the Service Employees International Union in San Francisco, said the debate came down to this: “We’re fighting for workplace safety; they’re fighting against government intervention. It’s a shame . . . with people getting injured on the job.”

The matter poses a sticky question for Agnos, who leads a city widely regarded as being pro-labor and anti-business. Small businesses, in particular, have argued that the VDT legislation would force some employers to relocate outside the city.

Scott Shafer, Agnos’ press secretary, said the mayor has not yet made up his mind and plans to talk with labor and business leaders. The mayor, who is expected to receive the legislation on Wednesday, is required to act within 10 business days.

“I want to sign VDT legislation that both labor and business can hold as a model,” Agnos said.

Late last year, a similar law in Suffolk County, N.Y., was struck down by a judge; that case is being appealed.