Document OJaq5NOL8eO26wEd0JvKynoMe

2Ut ANNUAL MEETING INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION TroDioctiont Bulletin No. 30 j j 11 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA 4400 run Avsrus MELLON INSTITUTE ft! IMPISH 13, WL 22*- Copyright, 19(7 Jndoatrlal Breton* Foundation of America, Inc. PitUburfh. Pa. (Prlntod in U.S.A.) INDUS MA ENG I ii i i Twenty-first ANNUAL MEETING of INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA HELD AT MELLON INSTITUTE PITTSBURGH, PA. NOVEMBER 14 AND 15, 1956 MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL. LEGAL, CHEMICAL-TOXICOLOGICAL. ENGINEERING, AND JOINT TECHNICAL CONFERENCES INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION An Association of Industries for Advancing Industrial Health and Improving Working Conditions FOUNDED IK ms A* i^l CONTENTS Management Conference Andrew Fletcher, Chairman Page 1 . Address of Welcome General Matthew- B. Ridgway................................................ 3 Foundation Fact* C. Richard Walmer. M.D............................................................ 4 Foresight in Industrial Health Andrew Fletcher........................................................................~ Hygiene--Industry's Opportunity ami Challenge George A. Beningtcn................................................ ...... . 10 Application of Communication to Industrial Health Mathew 3. Beecher...................................................................... 19 The Importance of Air Pollution Control Regulations in Industry Alexander Macdonald................................................................23 Afternoon Session Robert A. Moore. M.D.,Chairman............................................... 31 Looking Forward in Medical Education as it Relates to Industry Joseph C. Hinsey, Ph.D. ..........................................................31 Epidemiology in Industrial Health Paul M. Oensen. Sc.D.................................................................... 50 Automation's Effect on Environment Merald Lue..................................................................................61 Operations Research : Problems in Health John D. Dillon...................................... . T6 CONTENTS (Continued) Medical Conference 0. A. Sender, M.D., Chairman.......................................... .Effective Educational Techniques in Industrial Health Counseling Raymond J. Murray, M.D...................................................... Legal Aspects of Industrial Medical Practice William A. Challener, Jr. and Francis S. McQuilkin Page . 93 . 95 . 103 PNEt'Mii Summary of Pro. W. Clark Coope Summary of an I the Diatomite-Pn Andrew D. Ho? Some Medical an of Diatomite Pur Kenneth W. Sr. Legal Conference Theodore Hetzler, Jr,, Chairman.................................... Review of Occupational Disease Legislation--25>56 Andrew Kalmykow ............................................................ Air Pollution Control Leonard C. Johnson............................................................ . 117 . 127 Health Considerations in a Wori.d of Expanding Atomic Power Medical Aspects Thomas L. Shipman, M.D. ................................................ Legal and Insurance Aspects Ashley St. Clair............................................................ Reactor Safeguards C. Rosen McCullough, Ph.D................................................ Disposal of Radioactive Waste Joseph A, Lieberman, Eng.D................................................ . 167 Gas Chromatugrf: and Analysis of ' John R. Lotz, P: Engineering Confe : Philip Drinker. Public Health St-: Program on Air T Arthur C. Stern i Research and De^ Cleaning of llisrli ! Leslie Silvermai 1 j Spread of Partivi 1 W. B. Harris Practical Indnstri Robert T. Prin; Chemical-Toxicological Conference Anns M. Baetjer, Sc.D,, Chairman.................................... The Relative Rules of Carcinogenic ami Xonratviimgenie Irritants in Problems of Occupational Cancer A. Wesley Horton. Ph.D.......................................... ...... . 177 . 179 Joint Technical C< V. P. Ahearn, i Health Problem^ Sale, and 1'se of CONTENTS (Continued) Pneumoconiosis in the Diatomite Industry Page Summary* of Progress Report of Public Health Service Study , \V. Clark Cooper, M.D....................................................................180 Summary of an Environmental Study of the Diatomite-Proces-sing Industry Andrew D. Hosey................................................ 182 Some Medical and Radiological Aspects of Diatomite Pneumoconiosis Kenneth W. Smith, M.D.............................................................. 189 Gas Chromatography: A Means for Separation and Analysis of Volatile Materials John R. Lots, Ph.D. and Charles B. Willingham . . . . 295 Engineering Conference Philip Drinker, Sc.D Chairman.................................... 201 Public Health Service Engineering Program on Air Pollution Control Arthur C. Stem.......................................................................... 203 Research and Development of Equipment for Cleaning of High Temperature Gases Leslie Silverman. Se.D.................................................................. 210 Spread of Particulate Contamination from Stacks W. B. Harris.......................................................................... 233 Practical Industrial Air Cleaning Problems Robert T. Pring.................................................................... 245 Joint Technical Conference V. P. Ahearn. Chairman and Moderator.....................................24? Health Problem*. Involved in the Mannfartnre. Sale, ami I'so of Toxic Material*............................................ 249 11 * -> e8 1* e * Is litsZi bt, xLv. 5ab 1 ST* c i 2 s* 1 111 1 HhS breakdown. 1 knows: l>m it is rocket trip to ;h of all business, sponding to one This. in my tion which is sui and offices, inelu with such indusi: cerned with the a to peelers'' do ti. aided by tape rec' are under snrve: needles or graph are seeking appli* steelmaking, autr food processing, and plants; we units within plan Today that ition that is movjj tion of it. which ' day of leisure tin to which von ad plant outputs can one control, one t New Problems / Industrial h; and treatment of progress, there is of physical problmultiple groMth. The imtuinei tention now and more controls in breadth, is farth. to come, as will men who are wot It mac Ih` i'o manneeinent on and office l*ecaurelic)' front mono and error does have its advantages, at lea*' if there is not too much error. Without gradual improvements pressures are built up. El* treme remedies may then he suggested. These may well seem satis factory to only a few. Let us have evolution rather than drastic change. SUMMARY OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE LEGISLATION--1956 Congress S.2280 (Public Law 803--84th Congress) effective July 26, 1956, increases benefits under Longshoremen's and Harborworker's Compen sation Act--revises provisions as to special fund. Kentucky...........S.B. 98 (Chapter 342, Laws of 1956) effective August 1, 1956, revises occupational disease provisions. Maryland.......... S.B. 85 (Chapter 94, Laws of 1956) effective June 1, 1956, lengthens statute of limitations in case medical care is furnished. Massachusetts . ,H.B. 3140 (Act No. 602, Laws of 1956) effective November 4, 1956, revises rehabilitation provisions. New York.........S. Int 1588 (Chapter 696, Laws of 1956) effective March 1, 1957, enacts volunteer firemen's benefit law. Int. 3874 (Chapter 697, Laws of 1956) effective May 1, 1956, enacts amendments to volunteer firemen's benefit law. Pennsylvania ...HB 1397 (Act 355, Acts of 1955) effective March 29,1956, revises Occupational Diseases Act. 5.B. 235 (Act 488, Acts of 1955) effective September 1, 1956. Amends Occuoational Disease Act with reference to coverage of tuberculosis. Workmen's Compensation Study Massachusetts . .R.B. 2923 Msrylsnd..........(appointed by Governor) Michigan .......... S. Res. 43 New York........ (Moreland Commission) Virginia............H.J.R. 91 (Public Officers) Commissions Atomic Energy Massachusetts . .S.B. 723, S.B. 791 New Jersey....... SJ.R. 11 New York......... A. Res. 206 Ohio ................. H.R 215X Rhode Island . . .H.B. 937 South Carolina . .S.B. 531 Virginia............ SJ.R 10 Study Commissions [126] Ai With p Eicuti' It is siugul. be in Pittsburg!; as a striking ext civic improvexne; of the air pollut be the first to Those of us vh< by visible eviden do it. Moreover, for its efforts in and redeveloping ing areas as the Tims it is p assigned me in a mination who sa\ the lot of all coni Air polhitioi regarded as a lo efforts were direi Professor Thomas early as 2852 NY stitute a miisanc alone affords in tiou against the e upon the mere pi jacent property, pletelv ineffectua modern industria numerable source source of injury persons who migl appears obvious statutory law was Early local < J. (f'nwan. Thomas A Xu * (Sun (hts jiMpnjv |>ue 1 aoj jtw j*d c-|. >1 SJU-'PUJS' A\0[[B dll? p|B-Ut-lUHj tfApU 01 I>UIJ>BJ| l^tsvt? 2>UI.KJ .>JB IM{ JdtfiO dip UO iosjoiI ISo JB<*a* mi! ^uu^-mulu^ itum uu.>j*i.ioqs .uPirues ijx (j 'pupi( ouo dqi ai suoiadd dut DIStAtp SU|X asjaj SujUjBJj, piou^v jo mam nBdjng jdqjBd^ OB *SdpUd.3B JOJ} sdjiisJdAian ut a ueaSoJd iJuudda bo[ utBJ^oad dqi |i 5ZjlJjn 01 lllq 5jd oqi jiioti oi 3U0^ qif-8--6SI i uoanpo^ aty mti *qi iv jiuo^ uotinpoj f., *qj sb areas *stqi jo dsneoBg at3ad A*q psadist HBdH lepadg J ad jBoipsm aqj, piAlp SI SOt.UBg muio.-) *11 '(vaooHd ^ Dnand mace t'urae control cloth filtration to of the work done, dry-type dual or furnaces, of which -s. The other type *es particularly is time operation at -ms to be towards f problems which s soon discovered tion from electric plex as was first ftop hood in conm air and mixing temperature as a so that with syntivelv simple. One entilate say a 20* nge of 75 tons. A the furnace roof in the design of ilacement of hood To cope with that ation of the farse where the furVmt may not be ible carbide slag rior type of venappears that the me whether it is drawn into the die furnace. The `rations is merely the furnace top iereas bv directly . to some extent. iaee. All of these scale plaDt basis. presentation on there would be e and I might he I-H-F JOINT TECHNICAL CONFERENCE Chairman and Moderator: V. P. AHEARN Executive Secretary, National industrial Sand Association UHil .*qj JO sw|,M|I:MC(( ifvof]ilnv si inmii.ii) M.ldii ion o|i sjiunu J JI{1 ,\| (mu o) itniu | -rfiml ` JH(|1 UKcMll lU!w0(> M(j jABIj SrfSW.) JSOIH (Mtiujuisip jq iji.u ! u<Mi{ s-Kq suoijs^nh oj<J jnoqn Suup Hoxvaaaoiv* 3 I jo 55y jJUC) >dQ *>4 S!A mm 1=1^11 *S* 1 ^ 5 JO JflNVW dd HJ.1V3H HEALTH PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF TOXIC MATERIALS A Panel Discussion MODERATOR: V. P. AHEARN Executive ScereUry, Netiend Industrie! Send A$wcieti PARTICIPANTS: P. W. BACHMAN. PK.D. V*ee President A Dbeetei of Research A Development. Koppers Company, Inc. H. S. BAILE Deputy General Maaaier and General Counsel, General Accident, Fire and Ufa Assurcnee Corporation, Ltd. THEODORE HATCH Uarvenity of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; and Research AdWscr, Industrie! Hygiene FoundcttOft L C McGEE, M.D. Medical Director, Hereulci Powder Company C R. OVIATT Le$al Department, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation JOHN A. ZAPP, JR., PK.D. Director. Heslell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, E. I. du Pont de Nemours A Company, Inc. MODERATOR V. P. AHEARN: 1 would like to tell you some thing about the procedures for the operation of this panel. A list of questions has been prepared on the subject before us today, and copies will be distributed to the audience. Two members of the panel in most eases have been asked to be prepared to he called upon. That doesn'l mean that other panel members are not supposed to partici pate. I waul to make it clear that panel rei-ngnition is not neeessury by the Moderator For contributions hy meinlsers of the panel whose names do not appear at the left-hand side of the question. Kaeh partiuipanl is supposed to adit to the eontributious made hy the other jneinhers of the panel whenever in his judgment there are additional  contributions to be made. The panel participants met this morning to look over the questions and to discuss the program. After the recess, at 3:30, we propose to give priority to questions asked from the tioor rather than to tlte written-out questioas. We hope that there will be floor discussion even if we haven't answered all the written questions, because we want 10 establish the town hall atmosphere and to give each of you an opportunity to ask a question, to make a contribution, to challenge a member of the panel, or do any thing else that your democratic instinct suggests you do. The first question which 1 am going to ask the panel is: "How ; does one define 'health problems*? What is meant by `toxic nui- i terial't" 1 am going to ask Dr. McGee to answer that question. I DR. McGEE: In a broad sense, one might say that any deviation from optimum physical, mental, and social well-being is a health problem. That definition of health as tlte optimum state of mental, physical and social adjustment has been hatted about for a number of years. 1 believe for the purpose of this afternoon's contribution, how ever, the health problems involved should be limited to those deviations front optimum health which occur as a result of un exposure in manufacturing, sale and use of something which is called "toxic material." As the title is stated, of eourse, any deviation in health of a worker would react on his work in output, and so forth, in a broad sense. But 1 Iteiieve the meaning here is in n more limited sense of those deviations from the optimum physical, mental, and social ad justments which result from the contact with this thing called "toxic material." Passing then to the second part of tin* question, "What is toxic material?*' we are in trouble immediately. 1 find very few people, outside of those who are concerned with deleterious substances as they affect man, who have a concept of the large range in degree and character of toxicity. It is a word which menus what anybody wants it to mean. j Unfortunately, to sulwtitute for "toxic.'' "poisonous." "dele- j terious" or what have you, gets us no place. It so happens that every. - thing with which man is in contact can be troublesome and "toxic" if he gets too much. Those things thnf we consider essentia) to life. ! ineluding food, vitamins, minerals, and water, ran 1m- "toxic" to man. 1 lielieve Dr. Henry Smyth. Jr., defined "toxic" simply as a matter of too much. If we keep that in mind, we will realize then that we cannot circumscribe certain group of materials and say these are toxie, others are not toxic. ! must admit, and )w**sibly Dr. pp can [ 250 ] help us here, th; arbitrary definite DR. 5CAP1V that Dr. McGee very many inter that we have in 1 endures to gnver nit ion of toxic u. Dr. McGee the report of th Association, in v (The Council fo fact, it states th. as to what const And then, stances is not p when improper!;, be provided wit cetera. So, here, by toxic materia warning of the < to talk about thi is. the probabilit or Use of these t MODERAT Now, I move on of the panel wi have already $a: You footba. on this platforn this question: " as applied to pe people involved DR. BACH to an approach 1 l think tin encounters in 1 plant. In a pin for the engined and study the* operations can help us here. t luit, for purposes of orientation, we must have .some arbitrary definition of what is toxic. UR. ZAlT: l can only express uiv agreement with the remarks that Ur. McGee has made. The term."toxic material" is subject to very many interpretations by different people. The great difficulty that we have in talking about them ami in drawing up laws and pro cedures to govern the use of toxic material revolves about the defi nition of toxic material. Ur. McGee was quoting to you just a few moments ago from tiie report of the Council of Toxicology of The American Medical Association, in which are reviewed the various definitions of poison. (The Council found that there was no uniformity.) As a matter of fact, it states that there is no uniformity of legal or scientific opinion as to what constitutes a poison. And then, since a precise definition that would fit all circum stances is not possible, the Committee felt that any substance that when improperly used may produce harm by chemical action, should be provided with an appropriate cautionary label or statement, et cetera. So, here, we have not only difficulty in defining what we mean by toxic material, but also a concern on the part of this group forwarning of the consequences of misuse. 1 think what we really mean to talk about this afternoon is more properly defined as hazards, that is. the probability that an injury will occur in the manufacture, sale, or use of these materials. MODERATOR AHEAltN: Thank you very much. Dr. Zapp. Now, ! move on to the second question, unless at this stage a member of the panel wishes to add something to what these two gentlemen have already said. You football men will notice 1 am playing a seven-man lineup on this platform. I am going to ask my right tackle. Dr. Bachman, this question: "Do you think there is any basic difference in safety as applied to people in research and development in comparison with l>eople involved in regular production operations!'* DR. NACHMAN: 1 think this question in the first place refers to mi approach to safety. In that respect. 1 will fry to pass an opinion. 1 think there is a considerable difference in the safety that one encounters in the laboratory and that winch one encounters ill the plant. In a plant in the regular production operation, it is possible for the engineers to break a process down into many component parts an:l study these parts from the point of view of safety: the different operations can be adequately safeguarded. 1 think there is not very [251) mui'li difficulty in this, and it is rather rarely that we have accidents of any significant nature in processes that are continually operating in a repetitive manner. 1 think that is rather easy to control, and it is more feasible to train the operators in safety measures. Now, in contrast with that is a research laboratory. The men in the lalwratory are frequently working in unexplored and unknown areas. They may or may not, ami probably will not, know the toxicological or hazardous explosive properties of the materials with whieh they are working or of the materials which might l>e formed as a result of their researches. So. here, yon have only a few of the general rules of safety that apply. I think a great deal of it in the case of the research man depends entirely upon him. I think his approach to it must be one of safety consciousness. 1 think he has to really lire safely and to be effective this lias to be a part of his background, a part of his disposition. MODERATOR AHKARN: Thank you, I>r. Bachman. Now, Mr. Hatch. MR. HATfTI: 1 certainly agree with everything he said except the second point, attitude. Certainly, it is true that the people who are doing the basic research and development work should incorporate into their day-to-day thinking the needs with respect to safety to a greater degree than people out on the production line. However, it has been my experience, and I am sure many of the rest of us here hare had the name experience, that very often we find it just the other way around. The man who is doing research is so wrapped up in his research objective that he is inclined not to give very much considera tion to these other matters. J can recall visiting laboratories where, for example, they were using such a well-known agent as benzol and were slopping it around like water. At the same time, they might be quite concerned over the toxicity of the new and exciting material that they are developing. So, I am sure it is important to make sure that in the course of re search and development, these quest ions arc constantly raised, but I don't think we can rightly assume that the research people are always going to raise them. MODERATOR AHKARN: Thank you. Ted. T want in remind the panel that other contributions are always weleomed. Mil. BAII.K: May I interject one eomnieni ? The very disliiw lion that both gentlemen have made between the research operation and production operation suggests the desirability of a slightly dif ferent approach to the safety program with res|>ect to operation. In [252] the productieindividual. is< the research o lem. Therelor. provide for t trophes occur MODER. The next qv^here. "Does r. bility Policy. nor to admit 1 his customers Mr. Baih MR. BAI it should not. there is an ajr order that it I think it is o` part of both utmost coopei The basic tinetion hetw. other. Cnston manufacturer plaints as vo concerned wi: that might ar On the c surer to recoi that lie must have a sati.sfi turer. he can tion. The ini' as an identic; serving one r the customer- I hope I that subject, panv of stai claims in pre interference customers. the production operation, you are dealing with guarding against the individual, isolated accidents in the course of production, whereas, in the research operation, you are concerned with the catastrophe prob lem. Therefore, your program in that respect should be designed to provide for the type of action required in the event those catas trophes occur. MODERATOR AHEARW Thank yon very much. Mr. Haile. The next question gives us a chance to break out our legal talent up here. "Does not the obligation of the insured under a Products Lia bility Policy, particularly his agreement not to settle with a claimant nor to admit liability, interfere with a manufacturer's relations with his customers and with the public V* Mr. Baile. you can be the first one to answer that question. MR. BAILE: I believe the simple answer to the question is that it should not. 1 think at the same time you have to recognize that there is an apprehension on the part of some people that it does. In order that it shall not interfere with customer and public relations, I think it is of utmost importance that there be understanding on the part of both the insurer and the insured, and also that there be the utmost cooperation between the two. The basic understanding that has to exist is to recognizr the dis tinction between customer complaints on one hand and claims on the other. Customer complaints must be a concern of the insured, the manufacturer himself. He must be free to deal with customer com plaints as you deal in business relations, without necessarily being concerned with the legal basis of the claim or the legal possibilities that might arise out of your action. On the other hand, it is most important on the part of the in surer to recognize that the insured must be free to act in that way; that he must he free to deal with a customer in order that he will have a satisfied customer. Since that is the interest of the manufac turer. he can't restrain that action in order to protect his legal posi tion. The interest of the insurer and the insured must be recognized as an identical interest. They are not two parties: they are one party serving one aspect of the insured's business, which is his relation to the customers insofar as they are affected by his products. I hope I don't sound idealistic speaking as an insurance man on that subject. Ivecausc 1 think it is the actual practice of every com pany of standing to operate in the handling of products liability claims in precisely that way. If if is done that way. then there is no interference with the company's reunions with the public, the customers. [253] MODERATOR A1IKAUX: Thank you. Dr. Zapp. will you comment ! DR ZAPP: Well. 1 can't speak on this topic as a lawyer or as an insurance man. It does seem to me that there an* two separate concepts involved in tins question. One concerns the mechanism of settling claims which presume that there has been an injury for which the plaiutiff seeks to recover damages. The other part concerns the relations of the man ufacturer with his customers and with the public. Now, it seems to me that the manufacturer has a very definite responsibility to his customers amt to the public, and that is to joint 0111 to them how ins product can he used" with safety. Xotlui^r can interfere with tiiat responsibility on the part of the manufacturer. If, however, a claim arises which suggests either that the manufaeturer's statements were inadequate or in error, then you have this question of deciding alx>ut liability, which 1 fee) is a separate matter. MODERATOR AHEARN; Thank you, Dr. Zapp. The nest ques tion is, "What information respecting physical and chemical prop erties and toxicological properties of the material does the industrial hygienist need in order to develop the hazard control program!" Mr. Hatch. MR. HATCH: The answer to this question is very easy. You get all that is available. There is one very important aspect of this ques tion as to what information concerning physical and chemical and toxicological properties that the industrial hygienist needs. The im plication is that there is information with respect to the toxicological properties of the substance obviously essential to an understanding of the hazard. That doesn't tell the whole story, however. There must be added to this question; what information does lie need also with respect to the way in which the process operates in which this toxic sultstance is to be used! It is important for us to keep in mind that there is a very real difference in toxicity and hazard. Here is where the physical and chemical proj>crties as well as the toxicological prop erties come in. We know, for example, that two substances niav hi* equally toxic but unite different in resnoct to hazard. Thus, it should In* the hnhistriaj_hvgienist \ responsibility, to accumulate all tin* informal ion that is__ayailal)le, and It should )>e his resitonsilnlitv-io dm---! ..this mfonnaliorL.and determine to what extent more information is nvled. be cause lie can't limit his responsibility bv simnly saving that only so much is known about The substance and. therefore, drrisums liave to [254] t be based upon | additional intu, MODERAI DR. M.GK given. I wonder is useful in hn: that if you ha\ below that cans: and good operat guide. You may at levels above : MODERAT There are two rp points and we 1. "What . who sells it iD I; his own name oi suraer!" and. 2. "What adequate warnii consumer either instructions!" ! am conn: mr. ovia: of the toxic nat and of the care if the reseller f; packages if and should find out i ing to put the n the packages, threseller persists he should stop s. . ()f course. u l of trade lo whi who jire going to eonie from nush and so for the o a eertiiili extent knowledge In- m. vise liis pim-hii' be based upon this limits! data. He mum see to it that the necessary additional information is obtiiined. MODERATOR A1IEARN: Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: Accepting the suggestions that Ted Hutch has given. 1 wonder if he would admit there is a practical shortcut which is useful in human exposures to some materials. I refer to the fact that if you have an explosive hazard at a concentration in air well below that causing a definite, clear-cut. biological effect, it is a simple and good operating rule to take the lowest concentration needed as a guide. You may disregard certain properties which are evident only at levels above that level which can be tolerated for reasons of safety. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Dr. McGee. There are two questions on the list which hear essentially on the same points and we will therefore discuss them jointly. They are: 3. "What is the liability of a manufacturer of a toxic chemical who sells it in hulk for packaging and resale by the purchaser under his own name or brand in the event of an injury to an ultimate con sumer?*' and, 2. "What liability does a company have for its produet if an adequate warning lal>el is placed on the container hut the ultimate consumer either does not read the warning Ial>el or does not follow its instructions?" I am going to call on Mr. Oviatt first. MR. OVIATT; if the manufacturer adequately warns a reseller of the toxic nature of the material either on the !a)>e! or otherwise and of the care that should l>e used in handling it. he is not liable if the reseller fails to put such wanting on the package when he re packages it and sells it to the public. Of course, if a manufacturer should find out in any one of numerous ways that the reseller is fail ing to put the notice or the warning or any material part thereof on the packages, then he should cull the reseller's attention to it. If the reseller persists in disregarding those warnings, then I Ixdieve that he should stop selling it to him for his own safety. Of course, what should go on a label depends greatly on tbc class of trade to which any product is sold, the knowledge of the people who are going to use it. the chemical knowledge and results that might come from mishandling. So. you can't sa.v a label has to hear thus and so for the entire general public. And that would also control to a certain extent, what should go on a label to a reseller. It is what knowledge he may have of the clieiniejd.s sold and what In* should ad vise his purchasers as to the method <if use. [ 255 ] MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Mr. Oviatt. Mr. Baile. MR. BAILE: I think in answering the first of the two questions, you have to make a distinction between chemicals which are toxic as a normal attribute of the chemical itself on the one hand, and on the other hand the chemical which is toxic as a result of some dangercreating defect that exists in the chemical which would normally be harmless. Now. I think Mr. Oviatt *s answer is primarily directed to the first class where you are dealing with the chemical which is naturally toxic. Under those circumstances, when the purchaser is given full knowledge of the toxic character of it and the dangers that are in* herent, or the purchaser, without your telling him, has that know]edge, I don't think there is any liability on the part of the manu facturer. However, where the toxic character of the chemical is created by some defect in the manufacturing process, then I think there is liability on the part of the manufacturer. I don't think we are going to permit manufacturers to insulate their own carelessness in the manufacture of their product against consumers by the intervention of a middle man. MR. OVIATT: Mr. Baile, after all, the question was what is the liability of the manufacturer of a toxic chemical. Now a chemical is either toxic or not toxic, is that right 7 MR. BAILE: Not according to my friend at the beginning of the meeting. MR. OVIATT: If a chemical becomes toxic because of the de fect, that isn't the subject of our meeting today, is it? I thought we are just speaking of materials that are inherently toxic without any defect producing toxicity. MODERATOR AHEARN: I believe it would be helpful to the audience, Mr. Baile, if we had more pointed discussion of the second half of this question, because it seems to me it is a question which most people in this audience arc very much interested in. Will you poiDt your remarks specifically to that question! MR. BAILE: As Mr. Oviatt pointed out. the basic consideration in imposing liability upon a manufacturer of n chemical, which in its nature is toxic, is the obligation that is imposed upon him to dissemi nate the knowledge that he has of the dangers to the purchaser. Now, his only method of doing that in most instances is through labeling [256] the product \ particular m countered. H If, there ing on his p advantage oi either refus: clearly unde it constitutes which would manufacture .MR. OV is that the n MR. BA MODER that addition By the request of th panel are sp be regarded may assume We will producer of tion, researci MR. HJ morning tha get the prod We hav. substances ha even to the e: vance that he the material ' 1 recall one com pa m material req approval of another toxiup an elabo the material, adequate snf I would the product with an appropriate warning, stating prohibitions against particular use and providing an antidote in the event harm is en countered. Having done that, there is not much more he can do. If, therefore, lie meets that requirement--puts an adequate warn ing on his product--the unwillingness of an ultimate user to take advantage of the knowledge that has been made available to him. either refusing to read it or failing to understand that which is clearly understandable does not create a liability. On the contrary, it constitutes on the part of the consumer, the party injured, a fault which would bar any right of recovery that he should have against a manufacturer. MR. OVIATT: On the other hand, what you are really saying is that the manufacturer does not have to police his customers. MR. BAILE: I think that is a fair statement. MODERATOR AHEARN: 1 believe the audience appreciated that additional contribution from both of you. By the way, I forgot to say in opening this meeting that at the request of the panel. I want to make it clear that the members of the panel are speaking only for themselves as individuals and are not to be regarded as committing their companies in any way. I think we may assume that they and their companies are fairly close together. We will go on to the next question now: "In what way can the producer of a toxic substance aid in securing its safe use by educa tion, research, and development of control measures?" Mr. Hatch. MR. HATCH: We agreed in a preliminary panel meeting this* morning that this question answers itself. The point is. how can we get the producer to recognize and accept his responsibility? We have many examples in which the manufacturers of toxic substances have recognized and assumed responsibility in this respect, even to the extent of requiring the customer to show evidence in ad vance that he has made adequate provisions for the safe handling of the materia! before they will supply it to him. I recall when I was with the New York Labor Department that one company which was producing and distributing a highly toxic material required every potential customer in New Yovk to get the approval of the State for their proposed control. In the case of another toxic substance one of our largo chemical companies has set up an elaborate program of education of the ultimate consumer of the material, in recognition of the very important fact that, without adequate safoU^mcaNures. serious diflietiltn-s were bound to result. 1 would like to turn to the last item: the development of control [257] i measures. There is a particular responsibility and opportunity here on the part of the producer because, as I said earlier, the hazard can be magnified or minimized for a given toxic material by the manner in which the process equipment operates. It is the responsibility of the producer of such materials to take part in the development of safe-process equipment so that he will be iu a position to advise his customer on the kind of equipment in which he is to use this toxic material. when using a intervals until 1. That t and the contr<> 2. That it unusual sensit I refer not on idiosyncrasies MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank you, Ted. Dr. Bachtuan. A pan of DR. BACHMAN: I can only add to Mr. Hatch's remarks by call ing attention to an action one company is taking. They bring in the customer's employees who are going to use this material and give the employees of the customer a course in the handling of it. Now this, I think, is an excellent approach when you get to extremely hazard ous conditions. I don't know of anything that you can do beyond that. * I MODERATOR AHEARN: Now we come to two questions which i the panel believes should be grouped together also: *4What pro knowledge, orisihle individua looked and che. ring. If you do of us is that y By looking car. than otherwise MODERA' cedures should he followed to determine whether any of the plant DR. BACI personnel are abnormally sensitive to toxic materials. In conjunction with very little i with that: "How is a health problem to be anticipated? Recognized? pretty much sa Proved?" Dr. McGee. most of tile con DR. McGEE: In general, there are certain principles which some of ns feel should be followed. f i In the first place, we must know as much as we can about the biological action of the material concerned. We like to know how it 1 think it is on! one can discov. The only thing man from the a can affect the animal with which we are primarily concerned. There MODERA*] may be a species variation, such as the rabbit story Ted Hatch men tioned. The full story of biological action involves sonic understand ing of the molecular structure; action at a cellular level; the details of the chemical, metabolic and other changes brought about in the body, to the extent that our research methods and our understanding of metal>oIism of the body allows us to define those things. Secondly, .from the standpoint of man. the worker, it is quite essential that we know who in the plant has a deviation from his optimum state of health, when, where and why. We are not able to recognize or anticipate a health problem unless we know what to look for. ami actually do look periodically at this crucial am) continuing experiment in which the worker is involved. To accomplish that, we must know what his situation hcalthwisc is when he starts to work t (before exposure) and at intervals thereafter. MR. HAT( addition to the identifying a pj lei studies on e: with the other, and the environ to reveal signifi' With niech. a plant l>ceome in proportion t respect to them Tims. systemati< DR. Z.UP 1 think a large number of organizations, in order to Ih* careful frequently mad' [258] when using a new material, examine the worker at rather frequent intervals until they define for themselves: 1. That the average person does well under the circumstances and the control situation that exists at the plant; and 2. That in a sufficient experience they have not demonstrated an unusual sensitivity. I refer not only to tiie entire group of allergies, hut to some of the idiosyncrasies which are not too well understood. A part of this recognition of a hazard involves other than hasic knowledge, orientation and thinking about it day by day. A respon sible individual reviews some of the possibilities which may be over looked and checks and double checks to see if they are actually occur ring. If yon don't look. 1 will assure you that the experience of most of us is that you can miss them until they force themselves on you. By looking carefully for an untoward reaction you may find it earlier than otherwise. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Now, Dr. Bachman. DR. BACHMAN: Once again I am in a position of backup man with very little to say on the subject, because I think Dr. McGee has pretty much said what can be said. I do note that the point at which most of the conditions arise or appear is at the start of a new plant. I think it is only by following the points as made by Dr. McGee that one can discover or uncover the abnormal sensitivity of a person. The only thing that I know of that could be done is to remove the man from the action and pray that he doesn't get worse. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Dr. Bachman. Mr. Hatch. MR. HATCH: I would like to add to what Dr. McGee said. In addition to the continuing observations on the men for the purpose of identifying a problem area, it is equally essential that there be paral lel studies on exposure. The ultimate purpose is to compare the one with the other. So don't forget that it is the two together, the man and the environment, that have to be studied continuously in order to reveal significant relationships. With mechanization and automation the maintenance people in a plant become more and more important. There are more of them in proportion to production men and difficult problems arise with respect to them because their exposures are so varied and uncertain. Thus, systematic and continuing studies arc even more important. I)R. 2A PI'; 1 should like to comment on a suggestion that is frequently made; that is. why can't wc detect the abnormally sensi- [ 259] tive individual by some sort of screening test? For dermatitis, for example, why not a patch test before lie is put into contact with the suspected material on his job? Generally speaking, we do not recommend this procedure. I be* lieve one of the biggest scale attempts at this sort of thing was the testing of volunteers with mustard gas at the loginning of World War II. A great many were tested in an effort to determine individual variations in sensitivity. One consequence of this program was that some of the men were sensitized to mustard gas and therefore reacted abnormally whenever they came in contact with small concentrations. So. it is not a practical procedure to weed out the hypersensitive by a preliminary testing program if we are dealing with a sensitizer. The other comment is that we can anticipate certain types of difficulty. For example, suppose we are dealing with a chemical that produces kidney injury. It would not be wise to expose a man who has only one kidney; he might very well be abnormally sensitive. And that brings up the importance of an adequate, preplacement medical examination and a classification of a roan as fit or unfit for a certain type of exposure. DR. McGEE: May I add one thing which I think is important f It is the absolute necessity of a critical attitude in tying down the diagnosis. I know of a few areas where it is more important to cross* examine a diagnosis and prove it to the extent that it is possible to prove it than in occupational disease. The very act of having a high index of suspicion when supervising an operation with a potential hazard sometimes leads to false diagnoses that can be troublesome. I am reminded of the incident of the plant physician who was aware that a chemical could be a sensitizer of the skin and lead to a dermatitis. He showed me a case of a very stubborn dermatitis, stub* born because the roan had been removed from the exposure for six months and still had the skin lesions. 1 was visiting the plant at the time. I had a hunch of a different diagnosis when 1 saw the man's lesions, partly because I was not expecting contact dermatitis, as was the plant physician who lives with the problem every day. I asked the patient if there were members of his family who had similar skin trouble. There were two members who had similar complaints. The diagnosis proved to he scabies for all three of the patients. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much, We will go on to the next question. "Does the usual Products Liability Policy cover any and all liability that may be imposed upon ;i manufacturer for damages resulting from the use of his product8 MR. BAILE: I think the answer to that question is obviously no. I 260] First of all, it provided in t might be imp itself. That 1 product liabi basis." They damages arisi dent is used t point of time effects which : amount of sp. larly when vo liability result mind that a p a satisfactory be certain tha to call ``occur I thing i: basis is impc coverage of tfc pretty difficul more apparec road contract method is a li ing properties The other met avoid that. ^ pensive meth< MR. .T. < do not insura beyond the c MR. BA' out with the be very hapj would be ver, that, of cours pany individ' premium. Thhave been ex necessarily w So it is common to ii First of all, it does not cover any liability in excess of limits that are provided in the policy. Second, it does not cover the liability that might be imposed upon a manufacturer for damage to the product itself. That liability is excluded in the normal policy. Third, most product liability policies are written on what is called "accident basis." They cover liability imposed upon the manufacturer for damages arising out of the use of a product, caused by accident. Acci dent is used there in the sense of some event which is identifiable in point of time and place of occurrence, as distinguished from adverse effects which are cumulative over a long period of time or over a great amount of space. For that reason, it is very important, and particu larly when you are considering the exposure of a manufacturer to a liability resulting from toxic effects of the products, that you keep in mind that a policy which is written on the usual accident basis is not 8 satisfactory policy for your purposes. In that instance, you should be certain that your policy is written on what insurance men choose to call "occurrence basis." as distinguished from an "accident basis." I thing in one other instance the fact that it is. on an accident basis is important, because that also is designed to exclude any coverage of the results of business decisions that might be made. It is pretty difficult to illustrate that in a case of products. I think it is more apparent in the case of general liability policies. You take the road contractor who has two methods of tearing up an area. One method is a little cheaper for him. but it involves exposing surround ing properties to damage by shaking or noise or something like that. The other method, which might cost him a little bit more money, would avoid that. With that knowledge, he proceeds to follow the less ex pensive method. That is a business decision the company has made. MR. .T. C. WATERS: May I ask one question as to that! Why do not insurance carriers write policies on a broader basis so they get beyond the concept of accidents! MR, BAILE: 1 think to answer that question you have to start out with the premise that the insurance company, if it could, would be very happy to write policies on a completely broad basis. They would be very happy to insure the total liability of industry. To do that, of course, we would have to receive the total income of each com pany individually, which you would be unwilling to pay by way of premium. Therefore, it is the question of balancing the risk that you have been exposed to against what you are willing to pay for, not necessarily willing, but what yon can reasonably pay for. So it is a question of isolating those hazards which arc most common to industry generally and covering them, and excluding the [261] specific hazards of a particular company or industry which are sub* jected to a much greater hazard than any other part of that industry or any other industry. The second answer to the question, however, from the standpoint of products liability, is that the insurance industry in general will write the policy on an occurrence basis. What they are going to want to know in a particular industry is what are the hazards to whieh that company is exposed? And they will try to measure the rate that they charge in the light of those hazards. But. as an additional point, for the company that is exposed by virtue of the nature of its product to damage arising out of the toxic effects, it is most impor tant that they should have their policies written on the occurrence basis. I think in the main it will be an insurable risk on an occurrence basis. MODERATOR AHEARN: Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: I disclaim any knowledge of product liability poli cies. As a physician, I would hope that no device or arbitrary fac tors would ever lessen the desirability and need for a manufacturer to know those things about his products which are reasonable and which he should determine prior to their use. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. The next question is: "Inasmuch as your industrial experience has Wen quite broad, what, based upon that experience, do yon think constitutes the average corporate philosophy concerning management's responsi bility for the safety and protection of its employees?" Dr. Bachman. DR. BACHMAN: I think this is rather an interesting question, and, of course, can only W answered on the basis of one's own ex perience; and I think in arriving at any statement or any thought concerning what the average corporate philosophy is today, one must review what has happened over the course of one's lifetime. The gen eral approach to safety 30 years ago was quite different from what it is today. The companies that were mostly interested in the safety of their men were, in a large measure, those companies where yon bad sort of a paternalistic feeling between the owners of the company and towards their men. 1 don't think there was much of a concerted effort for safety. Some, perhaps, but not too great. Then as time went on and we grew, we have had a change in economic and sociological conditions. I think we have had manage ment people, as a whole, become much more socially conscious towards Their fellow man and conscious of their obligations to him over this 30-vear period. That has created a great deal of difference in the approach to developing safety measures for employees. [262] In add that safety very defini economy. 1 products It; more mone complicatec With t increasing, they obtain that they < production in tite Wst that he wo fatality woductiou tin. and these c approach t< has been sa in the work Again, agement to increases a> our organi? plant." An difficulties . From years who question m today by j it is likely teristio in 3 MODE MR. ( ject. I don years ago ' philosophy maries tha and they s Now V spend grea true of m- In addition. I think managements over the years have recognized that safety is economically sound for a number of reasons. It has a very definite monetary value when you consider our competitive economy. Processes have grown more and more complicated; new products have appeared. This has caused the management to spend more money in order to build plants which inevitably have become complicated. With the plants becoming more complicated and the production increasing, it has been very desirable for the management to see that they obtain the highest quality of work and the most skilled workers that they can. The skilled worker became a very intricate cog in the production wheel, and it was certainly most desirable to protect him in the !>est possible manner, to look out for his health and be sure that he worked safely. The loss through accidents or through some fatality would be serious, and, actually, mean a lot in dollars in pro duction time and production effort. I think this social consciousness and these other two factors have gone a long way in improving our approach to better and safer working conditions. Furthermore, money has been saved, and this has been well recommended in the savings in the workmen's compensation fees. Again. I think another factor that makes it worthwhile for man agement to have a very favorable attitude towards safety is that it increases and improves the morale of their workers, and I know in our organization we have a saying, "A safe plant is rather a happy plant." And usually, if you have a happy plant, yon have vour least difficulties and you get vour best work. From my own experience. I would say that whereas in bygone years when one approached expenditures for safety purposes, the question might 1* raised, "Js this necessary?", the attitude taken today bv most corporate managements is. '`Will this do good! If it is likely to do good, then put it in." I think this is rather charac teristic in my experience. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Mr. Oviatt. MR. OVIATT: Dr. Bachman has pretty well covered the sub ject. I don't know that all those who were safety conscious 25 or 30 years ago were paternalistic, hut there has been a definite change in philosophy. Twenty-five or thirty years ago there were small infir maries that companies established with part-time medical personnel, and they sat hack waiting for accidents to happen. Now they try to prevent accidents. They go to great lengths and spend great sums of money to prevent accidents, and 1 think this is true of most of the large corporations. Every year large sums of [263] money are spent on fully-equipped hospitals in the plants and in the office buildings. They have periodical examinations made of their employees. They have safety programs and training programs for the supervisors in the plants. All in all. industrial medicine has become a large part of the medical profession and a very important cog in an industrial organi zation. I know from experience that the presidents of some of the divisions of large corporations put up trophies to be competed for by the plants to see who can have the least lost-time accidents over a period. While the accident statistics may not bear out the statements that have been made, nevertheless, there is that consciousness and a striving all the time for bettering their record: and I think the rec ords over-all are being bettered even* year. As long as employers are conscious of this safety and what it will gain, not only in a monetary way, but in a happy, well-knit organization, they are not going to let up just because they have arrived at some degree of safety. I feel that is the philosophy today. MODERATOR A HEARN: Thank you. Now we will move on to another question: "Have there been recently substantial changes in the law respecting the liability of a manufacturer to one injured by his product!" MR. BA1LE: That term "recently" is a relative term. If I would treat it as meaning in this century. I would say yes, there have been what you might call substantial changes, a change in concept and a change in application of principle. Prior to 1916. generally in this country, yon would have beard the rule stated that a manufacturer has no liability for injuries re sulting from the use of his product beyond persons who are in direct contractual relations with him. In 1916, by the famous decision of Justice Cardoza, that principle was finally broken down and in lieu of it was adopted the rule; if a manufacturer would recognize that & defectively made product of his involved an unreasonable risk of harm to remote users or persons in the vicinity of remote users, that then he was under duty to make it carefully and from that has grown the general principle now, that manufacturers are, in the main, liable for defects in their products or for hazards against which they can guard, even to those persons who have no contractual relationship with them. Probably more important than that has been the change in the application of that rule. Needless to say. in any claim by remote users against a manufacturer, the problem of causation is a serious one. A [264 ] manufacturer m. through many h of time before it is then to detern manufacturer w. years our courts If there has beet courts--and I ar unfortunate ten tionable proof ol two main chan: changes and ha' manufacturer. MR. OVIA contractual rela the courts are i little too far. bi has opened a n< is all right as ! MODERA" go on to the m process equipm terial in order MR. HAT* but we don't h great possibilit: to one of relati of process equ than to work o it. that it shoalong the line right kind of industrial hvg with hazard co secondary mea redesign of tl control. There are necessary pro' equipment to i and to accept manufacturer may make his product at one place and it may travel through many hands over much territory and during a long period of time before it becomes a factor in somebody's injury. The problem is then to determine whether or not some activity on the part of the manufacturer was the cause of that injury. In the main, in the past years our courts required rather specific proof of casual relationship. If there has been a major change of our law. it is the tendency of our courts--and I am one of those who thinks it is a very undesirable and unfortunate tendency--to accept what I call hypothetical or ques tionable proof of relationship between cause and injury. I think those two main changes that have occurred have been very substantial changes and have greatly broadened the scope of the liability of the manufacturer. MR. OVIATT: I have very little to add. The concepts of non contractual relationship has been broadened the last few years. I think the courts are inclined to stretch that doctrine perhaps sometimes a little too far, but that old doctrine of McPherson vs. Bniek Company has opened a new thought on this question of liability, which I think is all right as long as they don't take it too far. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank yon very much. N'ow. we will go on to the next question: "`What are the possibilities of changing process equipment or methods of manufacture or use of a toxic ma terial in order to reduce the potential hazardt" MR. HATCH: I should like to speak at great length on this point, but we don't have the time. It is a very important point. There are great possibilities for changing a situation from one of great danger to one of relatively little danger through the proper design or choice of process equipment. I don't know of anything more frustrating than to work on a plant problem and to realize, while wrestling with it, that it should never have existed in the first place. Somebody along the line failed to give proper attention to the selection of the right kind of equipment so as to avoid the problem. I feel that the industrial hygienists who. up to now, have been largely concerned with hazard control though application of ventilation and other such secondary measures must, in the future, give greater consideration to redesign of the process equipment itself fm- purposes of hazard control. There are endless numbers of examples of the creation of an un necessary problem because of the failure of designers of process equipment to incorporate into their initial thinking ] west inns of hazard and to accept from the outset a responsibility to minimize the poten- [265 ] tial hazard which is on a par with the responsibility they assume for the operation of the process itself. DR. ZAPP: I would certainly agree with everything that Ted Hatch has said. I notice that tins question really concents three things: possibilities of changing process equipment, methods of manu facture. and use of toxic material. I am sure that we could think of examples of all three. Ted has spoken of changing process equipment of one sort or the other. Then, the manufacturer may sometimes be able to substitute a less toxic material. As far as the hazard of use is concerned. I can think of some examples. 1 think it is almost a truism that we can control any toxic hazard if we are willing to go to the trouble to do it. Now, sometimes economics is a decisive factor there. That is, if you have to take ex tensive measures to control a hazard, it may not be economically feasible to do it. ' MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank you, Dr. Zapp. Next question: ``Can one distinguish between health impairment resulting from effects of handling toxic material and that resulting from fear (anx iety states) of effects from handling such materials!" Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: I think the answer is "yes" for certain materials and "no" for others. If a satisfactory* differential diagnosis is to be made, there are two requirements. First, there must be some objective test which is specific for the effects of the material. By that I mean. # by reliable chemical analysis. Second, there must be the ability to rule out a similar effect from anything else with which the worker may have come in contact inside or outside the plant. In other words, we must be able to say that a specific health impairment resulted from the material in question and under circumstances where we can rule out other possible factors producing that end result. j An example is the anticholinesterase effects of certain phosphorus- containing insecticides. You have an objective test, in most instances f you have the opportunity to rule out other exposures which could I alter significantly the level of choline.stern.se in the blood: i There is another field, however, of materials whose effects are signs and symptoms which are rather vague. 1 feel the clinician can not be sure whether such illness is a result of actual exposure to a materia! which is known to give such vague symptoms in the early stages. Butterflies in the stomach, problems of sleeping, malaise and the like are symptoms found frequently in the man who has an enx- ; iety state. Sometimes the recognizatinn that the exposure is insitffi- j eient to produce the diseased state gives us n reasonably good clue that an anxiety is responsible. [266] I think all perienees examp cause one or mo particular expos: the same svmpt< the environment sure and to say for the episode t< fore, the entire t MODERAT "How adequate ieity for human DR. ZAPP being, then the V. animal. We can': we must accept Now, perha; man from the e physiology are r; produces liver d fairly sure that too sure about tl sj>ecies of suscep Now, with a tation is an imp* faction at result;through animal tainly learned a perhaps arbitrar setting up criter; By and lar There are materi in any experime- MR HATC" tative aspects. Ffindings on anim How adcqiti highly adequate Certainly, none the exj>eriinental given us inform;, the animal plays I think all the physicians present here will recall in their ex periences examples of epidemics of anxiety in groups of people be* cause one or more workers felt that he had developed illness from a particular exposure. He talked about it and others soon felt they had the same symptoms. In some instances we have sufficient control of the environment to know exactly what were the possibilities of expo sure and to say that it is impossible, under the amount of exposure for the episode to l>e a bona fide exposure with resulting illness. There fore, the entire thing must be on a psychosomatic basis. MODERATOR AIIEARX: Now, we will go to another question: "How adequate are animal experiments as a means of predicting tox icity for humAn beings?" DR. ZAPP: Jf we arc trying to predict effects on the human heing, then the human heing himself would he the ideal experimental animal. We can't iw man as an experimental animal, and, therefore, we must accept other species as an imperfect substitute. ~ Now, perhaps the soundest basis _foiL_predicting the effects on man "fromthe effects on_ animals is that our internal anatomy and physiology are rather similar. If we are dealing with a chemical that produces liver damage in o<?s and other animals, then we calTTte fairly sure that it wllM^roduce liver damage in man. We cannot be too sure about the quantitative relationship. There are differences in sj^ecies of susceptibility. Nyw. with all that, with the recognition that animal experimen tation is an imperfect substitute. T thipfo we can look with some satis. faction at results that we have obtained in nredictim* effects on ipan through animal experiments over the past 100 years. We have cer tainly learned a lot from the animals. ancTwe haveTwith the use of perhaps arbitrary factors of safety, been guided hv those results in setting up criteria for safe practices with resneet ro man. By and large, we have been successful. There are exceptions. There are materials that affect man in ways that we cannot reproduce in any experimental animal, but they are. fortunately, rather rare. MR. HATCH: I like the emphasis Dr. Zapp put on the quanti tative aspects. For obvious reasons, it is not possible to translate the findings on animals for direct application to man. How adequate are animal experiments? In some cases they are high!)"adequate and in some other vases tliev haven't bee?) adequate. Ceriamlv. none of ns want to go awnv from here with tin* idea that the experimental animal can give ns all the answers, hut they have plven ik information of enormous value. So. tln-re rTno nne^tton that the animal plays an important part in the study of toxic agents. [267 ] MODERATOR AHEARX: We have arrived at the moment when we would welcome questions or statements from the floor. If anyone has a question to ask about any phase of the discussion of the panel. I would welcome his getting up and giving his name and asking his question or making his suggestion. DR. ANNA M. BAETJER. Johns-Hopkins University: 1 know that the time is very limited, and we have not had time to cover all the questions. 1 would particularly like the panel to discuss two phases: one. the three questions that deal with the labeling laws and the importance of these; and two. how can the consumer determine the composition of toxic materials sold under trade names* MODERATOR AHEARX: As a matter of fact, we had grouped those three together. Dr. McGee, will you take off on those questions? DR. McGEE: How can consumers determine the composition of toxic materials sold under trade names? Sometimes it is almost im possible to do so, From the standpoint of a practicing physician treat ing acute poisoning, such information comes in too late for him to help his patient. His problem is that of taking a trade name and trying to find out what it means. He gets a chemical identity as the first step, and he still doesn't know what the material is in a pharma cologic sense. He has to have that material classified in a pharma cologic or toxicologic sense for the information to be of any help to him. If he doesn't know something of the biologic properties of the material, if he doesn't know the site of action, he will have no basis for intelligent therapy. Too frequently, in our present setup, that in formation comes to him a little late to be in the best interests of the patient. The labels are not big enough to contain all of this informa tion which might be required by the physician. There are in some packages inserts of descriptive material which can be of use to him in some instances. I think, frankly, we must improve techniques for getting the in formation that is required to the customer, and in turn, to his physician where there has been an accident and resulting illness. Poison control information centers may help. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank yon very much. Dr. Bach man, you are a chemical engineer. I believe everybody would like to hear your specific answers to the question of whether a manufac turer of toxic materials can Ik* compelled to follow labeling restric tions and cautions as recommended by the Manufacturing Chemists' Association. Also, we would like to have your comments on the cur rent status of efforts by a number of organizations, such as the Mann* [268] facturing Che standardize la: DR. BAC Association ha lieve manufaci of the Manuf.- ; think it is high possible, and I tempt to do th turing Chemis Now. as tc of the most ae ciation. In ma: which I believt Of course, organizations a ican Medical A gether and try always going i labeling. I thir down into com the same sourc< be that authori t that is enforce modera including the > I believe the A It seems t specifically to position of tox DR. ZAP! make one comr associations. T Precautionary Association, ai they will worl law or at least tions. The C> very same sub; With reap . I have just i factoring Chemists' Association, to develop adequate labeling and to standardize labeling. DR. BACHMAN: 1 don't believe the Manufacturing Chemists' Association has any authority. My answer to that is no, I don't be lieve manufacturers can be compelled to follow the recommendations of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association. On the other hand, I think it is highly desirable that they cooperate to the maximum degree possible, and I think the great majority of the manufacturers do at tempt to do this because most of them are members of the Manufac turing Chemists' Association. Now, as to the current status of these efforts, that is perhaps one of the most active committees in the Manufacturing Chemists' Asso ciation. In many cases, it has formulated codes and labels to be used, which I believe are being used. Of course. I think the crus of the whole question here is for such organizations as the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, The Amer ican Medical Association, and the chemical specialty people to get to gether and try to formulate 8 coordinated policy on labeling. We are always going to have difficulties if you have several approaches to labeling. I think we roust have a unified approach or, if it is broken down into compartments, these compartments must all originate from the same source. That is, they must originate from the same authority, be that authority one that results because people work together or one that is enforced by virtue of government action. MODERATOR AHEARN: There are a numl>er of associations, including the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, busy in this field. I believe the American Medical Association is equally active. It seems to me. Dr. Zapp. I should ask you to devote yourself specifically to the question. "How can consumers determine the com position of toxic materials sold under trade names!" DR. ZAPP: Before I answer that, Mr. Ahearn. I would like to make one comment on the current status of the work of these various associations. The Manufacturing Chemists' Association, through their Precautionary Committee, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Association, and the American Medical Association have agreed that they will work together towards wording of some uniform lalwling law or at least a set of principles that will guide these various associa tions. The C.S.M.A. group is now meeting in Philadelphia on this very same subject. That is the current status as far as I know. With respect to Question 21, I think that all three of the agencies I have just mentioned, the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, I [269] C.S.M.A., and A.M.A. agree that there should he more information , on product labels than there is at the present time. I believe with "respect to the industrial uses of chemicals, that industry is fairly well satisfied with M.C.A.'s principles of labeling ns expressed in its Manual of Warning Labels, with which 1 presume all of you are . familiar. However, when it comes to the consumer, and particularly the user of small packages of cleaning powder or toothpaste or^oement or what Rave vou. it is agreed that there sliould he more information on the label so tTat the user will have some idea of_the_jictiye ingre dients and some idea oi the hazards involved in an accidental expo sure to material,. One of the most frequent inquiries I suppose that we get in the du Pont Company is, what happens if a child swallows a little du Pont cement f It was never intended for that purpose, of course, but the question is. what happens? Fortunately, the answer to that is. "prac , tically nothing, don't worry about it"; but that's the thing that the person needs to be reassured about. The physicians, on the other hand, would like to see on the label the kind of information that would enable them to treat cases of accidental exposure. Now, with all the good will in the world on the part of these organisations, there are still many practical difficulties involved in formulating a set of label ing principles that will do the job to everyone's satisfaction. The householder really wants to know how to keep out of trouble and avoid calling the M.D.'s. And so it goes. Now. I think that something is going to be done, and out of all r this activity there will 1k> more product information on the labels. .Meanwhile, we have the resources that iJr. .\k-Gee told us about, tke poison control centers. There are one or two compilations that give us a goon deal ot lmormation altouTthe trade name products, and Dr. Hodge of the University, of itochestcr is coming out with an encyclo pedia which will g;ve more information of that type, tint, ultimately. the manufacturer is tlie best source ofTniorfflaHon if von nerd it. In most of these cases where information is^needed in ;i hurry. I think it can be best obtained by getting in touch with the manufacturer or i his branch office. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank von. Dr. frmp. Mr Haile. I believe to complete tlie discussion, von ought to answer thisqnestion: JL "Are present'labeling laws adequate with respect to requiring warn-^ ing and preventive measures as to toxic qualiiirs? ' MK. BA1LE: I think there we first have to define the sense in which we are using the term adequate. If we use the word in the sense that compliance assures immunity from liability for the manu- [270] facturer, our am we mean by ade< forcement to pre ferent answer. From the fir munity from lial labeling law. Th< facturer to brim people who are : herent in its u^ standard. Considering the laws to protei the laws as such view that the law necessarily a lag ability of legislat For that rea lation should be i tiveness uj>on de that broad gener able to more quic more effectively e specific and thus As you knov are bad. Even th and nothing else, or four federal st 28 separate state dinanccs that hn\ from tlie standp< however, they ar< the market tlie p statutes, and nee tively prevent ha ket is to exclude Mr. Abeam, ing laws arc ina<' they will be. mr. \vati:> question of whet material they are facturer, ourjmswer would be one thing: and on the other hand. *e mean frv_adeouatc in tne sense of sufficient r^njr^mpnts anden ferent answerr^^^^^^"^-TM"**1^"'* From the first standpoint, labeling laws as such do not give im munity from liability to a manufacturer by mere compliance with the labeling law. The common law itself imposes a duty upon the manu facturer to bnnp to the attention of the usersof his product anti eple who are in the vicinity of its use, the dangers which~re in ept in its use or mav flow from it, He jnnsL_eflmply_with that standard. Considering it from the second standpoint---of the adequacy of the laws' to protect the public from injury---! think we have to say that tiie laws as such are inadequate. I am also one of those whohas the view tJiat the laws will always be inadequate, because I think there is necessarily a lag between technology and its development, and the ability of legislators to act. For that reason, 1 have always felt that effective labeling legis lation should be broad and general in its terms and depend for effec tiveness U]>on detailed and limited regulations issued pursuant to that broad general statute. 1 think when this is done, we are then able to more quickly adopt regulations to changing conditions and to more effectively enable industry to comply, because they can be more specific and thus more clearly understood. As you know, the numl>er of labeling statutes that exist today are bad. Even the person who confines his attention to that subject and nothing else, and there are few people who do. not only has three or four federal statutes with which he must deal, but there are some 28 separate state statutes, and then there is a multitude of local or dinances that have other effects upon us. They have many advantages from the standpoint of imposing criminal liability. In all instances, however, they are not effective in enabling authorities to take out of the market the products that do not meet the requirements of those statutes, and needless to say. the only way that yon can really effec tively prevent harm from sulwtanees that are improperly in the mar ket is to exclude them from the market by confiscation. Mr. A beam. I would say by way of summary that, yes. our label ing laws are inadequate. They need to be changed and I am hopeful they will be. MR. WATERS: 1 think the audience would be interested in the question of whether industries should tell their employees that the material they are handling is toxic or carcinogenic. [271] MODERATOR AI1EARX: 1 think we decided to group that question with the question, ``ShonldinformfjtjonorMhemiesence^f Jtyi , toxjo^xgoswresmindttstry, obtained bv health departments, be given " to labor unions and employees or only to management t" Dr.~McGee. DR. McGEE: In answer to the first question. 1 have found no wy to conduct a program which will get the cooperation of the em- ' ployees without giving them the reasons for it. These people are en titled to it. I think the only successful programs that I have observed else where, outside of our organization, are those in which the employee has some knowledge of why he follows certain operating procedures regardless of what the end effect is of the material or the end effect might be in the materials that he handles. Therefore. I would say that we rmist give the employee that knowledge so that he can under stand and use it in coming to a conclusion as to why he must do cer iii tain things to protect himself. I think tfle same statements apply to ;t J organized groups and safety committees and union leaders. MODERATOR AHEARX: You draw no distinction as to infor mation made available? l' DR. McGEE: That's right. i FLOOR SPEAKER: It is required in Ohio to tell the employees of the toxic material in the department and it is required to repeat 'i it to them monthly. *. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank yon very much. - MAXFRED BOWDITCH, Lead Industries Association: I think :j there were two important matters not covered in the discussion of 5 . labeling. First of all. Dr. McGee said that very frequently the nature of the toxic substances gets to the doctor too late. I wonder if he is fj aware of the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has now ri* established over 30 poison control centers from coast to coast. There 'i. are 15 in the State of Florida alone. All of them are manned by tele- jj:: phone 24 hours a day. All are in charge of a physician, and at a [j meeting only day before yesterday it was agreed that the Public Cl Health Service will be asked to take over the national direction of |> these centers and see that current information is supplied to all of y; them. I really think that this is of importance. With regard to i the matter of warning labels, there is a body of laws known as the Pharmacy Laws, which were designed to protect the public in pur chases over drug store counters. In a court in one of the southern states recently, one of these laws was interpreted to cover a shipment of litharge in industry and an award of $18,000 was made on that i ! [272] basis, and at the p: ing to $$0,000 are dozeD of the statt interpretations. 0 representatives of mv understanding exemptions into tl MR. T. J. LJ to hear discussion tain a continuing hazardous occnpat MR. HATCI: who are attempts awareness of safe' of the employees, have had no spec awareness. I do ! risk if such aware everybody concer because of lack of MODERATC DR. ZAPP: the promotion or among employees only do it if they Now, when safety ment and is passt to the employees, quatelv, and the program. If the f where a mask is area where safet.' is going to unde: goes in with a m that others do li' and maintaining MODERATE general counsel c panelist to answ< to insurance can plovecs and the basis, anti at the present time I understand that further suits amount ing to $80,000 are before the courts. I am told that only about half a dozen of the states have adequate exemptions to prevent such mis interpretations. Only about three weeks ago 1 diseussed this with representatives of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, and it is my understanding that they will take steps to try to bring proper exemptions into the laws of the other states. MR. T. J. LANIGAN, General Electric Company: I would like to hear discussion on the question: '`How is it best possible to main tain a continuing safety awareness among employees engaged in hazardous occupations involving the use of toxic materials**' MR. HATCH; To have an effective safety program thepeople who are attempting to do this must maintain among themselves an awareness of safety needs that is stronger than the safety awareness of the employees. I have no particular procedure to suggest since I have had no special experience in developing and maintaining such awareness. I do know from experience, however, that there is great risk if such awareness is not maintained and developed on the part of "everybody concerned. We have all seen good programs break down because of lack of maintenance of awareness. MODERATOR AHEARN: Dr. Zapp, would you comment? DR. ZAPP: Iwill^only add to what Ted Hatch has said. I think the promotion of the continual awareness of the snfefv program among employees is a responsibility of supervision. Supervisors will only do it if they know that higher management wants them to do it. Now, when safety policy is set at the top lever of company manage ment and is passed on down through the various supervisory channels to the employees, then I believe the program can 1>e maintained ade quately, and the employees will have a continuing awareness of the program. If the foreman goes around sn area without wearing a mask where a mask is required or without wearing safety glasses in an area where safety glasses are required, obviously, by his example, he is going to undermine the whole program. If. on the other hand, he goes in with a mask on or goes in with safety glasses on and insists that others do likewise, he has a good chance of enforcing the rules and maintaining the continued awareness that this question speaks of. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Mr. Haile, yon are the general counsel of an insurance company. It seems to mo you are the panelist to answer these two questions: "What methods are available to insurance carriers to assist their insureds in the protection of em ployees and the purchasing public from the hazards of toxic ma- [273] terialst" and, "What methods are available to insurance carriers to * assist small industries in the detection and control of hazardous con- ditions?" MR. BA1LE: 1 think those questions are primarily directed to the insurance carriers' place in contributing towards the reduction of accidents in industry, either among the employees or in users of the product or in third parties who might be otherwise affected by the ac tivity of the employees of an industry. 1 think that it can probably come under eight points: First is the function that Dr. Zapp has already mentioned, that is, through the sale of the insurance there is brought to the attention of top management the importance of the safety program. It has a very direct influence on the amount of costs, a very substantial item in the cost of any industry. By bringing that to bear on the top management, you get the influence which Dr. Zapp suggested, which is so necessary, of that philosophy going down through the various echelons of the company. I Also, I think it is that very force that brought about the changes in the philosophy of industry that we referred to earlier. I think the \ safety awareness of industry has been, to a great extent, brought about by the influence of the salesmanship, if you will, of the insur ance industry. But in a more practical sense, the insurance industry contributes through its engineering facilities and its suggestions and participation in the development of safety programs in any industry. This consists of arranging and conducting safety meetings, distribut ing the proper type of literature, and the proper type of postings. Secondly, by its own engineering, it supplements the safety program of a company in ascertaining where the hazards in that industry exists. And in doing so, it approaches it. 1 think, with a greater ob jectivity, because it is uninfluenced by those unconscious influences which company people are subject to, such as the costs of changing a process, the reduction in time, or the increase in time which some change of process to incorporate a safety factor would involve. Another way in which they can contribute is in the preparation of a catastrophe plan for specific hazards. Insurance carriers can aid in the development of drills so that companies arc prepared in the event those catastrophes occur. Another manner in which they aid is in the supplying of infor mation for the preparation and distribution of safety material. The insurance industry acquires the collective knowledge of many indus tries and can bring that knowledge to the aid of a particular company. The insurance carrier also aids in the preparation of purchasing [274] agent manuals, wh materials into a pi production persot brought in, in ord Finally, 1 thi make is to maints culty that occurs : avoid accidents an to slacken off. E' think the fact thn , come in regularly people at the pro* it is that habit wh MODERATO rate on methods a tries T MB. BA1LE: should be drawn 1 are able to emplo; a sound safety pi small number of specialize in those carriers become at cal talent which r MR. OVIAT' panies look to th tion on these to.xi safety devices th; MR. BA1LE MR. OVIAT' smaller companie trained experts! MR. HAILE MR. OVIAT me out on this--t in making counts They go into tl mcmlations. MR. HAILE agent manuals, which is n method oi' coordinating the receipt of toxic materials into a plant, so that knowledge comes to the attention of the production personnel of the nature of the product that is being brought in, in order that proper safety precautions can be taken. Finally, I think the contribution that the insurance carrier can make is to maintain the awareness of safety. 1 think the great diffi culty that occurs in many industries is that yon develop a program to avoid accidents and prevent accidents, h has a peak, and then it tends to slacken off. Every once in awhile it needs to he rejuvenated. 1 think the fact that the engineers of the insurance carrier and its staff come in regularly and constantly bring safety to the attention of the people at the production level helps establish the habit of safety and it is that habit which in the long run will prevent many accidents. MODERATOR AHEARN: On that same point, will you elaborate on methods available to insurance carriers to assist small indus tries t MR. BAILE: 1 might say this: 1 think there is a distinction that should be drawn there. In some industries, because of their size, they are able to employ the technical talent which is required in effecting a sound safety program: whereas in other industries, because of the small numlier of employees they are not able to have people who will specialize in those particular problems. In that instance, the insurance carriers become another arm of the company and supply it with techni cal talent which it doesn't have available within its own personnel. MR. OVIATT: Mr. Baile. isn't it true that the insurance com panies look to the larger manufacturers many times to get informa tion on these toxic materials, on the processes that are used and the safety devices that may be necessary! MR. BAILE: Very much so. MR. OVIATT: And then they can impart that knowledge to the smaller companies that are not in a position to hire these highly trained expertsf MR. BAILE: I would say that is definitely true. MR. OVIATT: There is also another way--! think you will bear me out on this--that insurance companies have been helpful. That is in making counts--fume counts, petrographic analyse*,, and so forth. They go into the plants to make those and make their recom mendations. MR. BAILE: Yes. that is right. [275] MR, OVIATT: I would like to add just one word if 1 may to the earlier question on efforts to develop adequate labeling and to standardize labeling. Those on the panel who spoke to that question failed, I think, to mention the fact that the Manufacturing Chemists' Association at present has a law, a proposed federal law for labeling and for the far more important matter of confiscation. You can have criminal statutes all over the place, but throwing a mau in jail or fin ing him $10,000 will not save the life of someone using a chemical that is not properly labeled. I think this confiscation feature is all-impor tant. This new law that M.C.A. proposes does take care of that ade quately as to the defining of what a poison is and setting forth tests for determining a poison. Now, what will become of that law, no one knows. That is the present status of the M.C.A.'s efforts. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank you. DRBACHMAX: I would like to comment in reference to earlier questions. Tomaintamsatetvawareneg>von_musti^^>Aha^acomany has to tell its employees what the nature of the materials is which they are handling, whether they are toxic or carcinogenic, because you can never havea safety program unless you give the people working with toxic or carcinogenic materials such information. 1 don't think that was adequately emphasized before. I think as far as the question of the most economical and best way a small plant can get help on problems of toxicity and industrial hygiene, the obvious answer is a good consultant. I don't know if there is enough consulting work done in a continuous manner with the different smaller companies. DR. THOMAS L. SHIPMAX, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory: I would like to have this question discussed: "If a manufacturer con forms to the highest standards of an industry in the manufacture of his product, will that be a complete defense in an action against him for injuries resulting from his product f" In placing tins question before the panel, I would like to remind them of the experience of some of the electrical product manufacturers and their difficulties with beryllium. MODERATOR AHEARX: Mr. Oviatt. let me ask you to answer That question. MR. OVIATT: I think that can be categorically answered as "no." There have been cases where a court has held that even though the standards of the industry have been followed, the highest stand ards. that under the circumstances those standards weren't high [276] enough. Ea and go bey industry. T MODE thing to th MR. r mannfactu that the la statute, by standard. i under thosi Xow, i court or jt standards c finder to u* spread ado determinin have said t ness, can ` reasonable I don't thi careless pr 12 jurors c I migl I have alw man be evt MR. S like to hav procedure required ff particular!; product is It is : toxic mat* chaser, wh if that is r MR. 1 a maniiffl' attribute'let's '-ay. t that T enough. Each individual manufacturer must assess his own product and go beyond, under certain circumstances, the standards set by the industry. That is so even though labeling laws arc followed. MODERATOR. All EARN: Mr. Baile, would you care to add some thing to that answer? MR. BAILE: By way of addition: The responsibility of the manufacturer is essentially one to conform with the standard of care that the law imposes. Now. that standard may be imposed either by statute, by judicial decision or by what is probably a pretty vague standard, namely, tbe standard of care of a reasonable man acting under those circumstances. Now. in determining whether that third standard has been met, a court or jury should take into consideration what the practices and standards of an industry are. but they are only a measure for the fact finder to use and are not binding upon them. In other words, the wide spread adoption of a particular method or practice will be a test for determining whether or not reasonable care was used. But the conrts have said that 12 lay people, who don't know a thing about the busi ness. can say yon could have used more care. I can't believe that reasonable care can he any more than an industry would use, because I don't think industry would ever adopt, as a widespread practice, a careless practice if there were a safe one. The court seems to think that 12 jurors can say they can. I might say, whenever I have been confronted with that problem. I have always remembered the one judge who said the only reasonable man he ever knew was his wife's first husband. MR. SCHWENZFE1R, JR., Brush Beryllium Company: 1 would like to have the expression of the panel on the distinction in labeling procedure between what is required for a retail product and what is required for industrial products. It has )een inferred that it is not particularly important to exercise greater care in labeling if the product is to be handled in commercial use, though it may be in retail. It is implied in another question that the manufacturer of the toxic material can pass the responsibility on to the corporate pur chaser. who. in turn, passes the hazard on to his employer. I wonder if that is really correct MR. HAILE-. If I understand your question, it is this: Whether a manufacturer has a duty with respect to giving warnings as to the attributes of the product to the ultimate consumers where he sells, let's say. to a middle purchaser who repackages it--or something like that? [277] MR. SCHWENZFEIR, JR.-. No, intermittent handler is another i production concern, like this bulk packaging that was in one of the earlier questions of the program. MR. BAILE: Your question, then, concents the liability of the . manufacturer who distributes in bulk to people who handle that prod uct in transportation and who are employees of the purchaser who use it in some manufacturing process? MR. SCHWENZFEIR, JR.: Right. MR. BAILE: I would say by way of answering that, first of all. I.C.C. regulations, of course, control to a large degree the require ments of labeling in transportation. Now, they are designed primarily for the protection of employees who are handling it in transporta tion, and, of course, conformance with that is required and if there is a lack of conformance and injury results to employees of carriers who are transporting it, liability would be imposed. From the standpoint of the employees of the purchaser of the product, the problem there, as I see it. is this: The law imposes upon the manufacturer the obligation to give warning, reasonably calcu lated to call to the attention of the users or potential users of the product the hazards that are apparent in that product. Now. notice, it is a duty of reasonableness that is imposed upon them. It would be an utter impossibility for the manufacturer of car bon tetrachloride, let's say, to go to every employee in every manu facturing plant that uses that and inform them as to the hazards that are involved in the use of it. So, the law recognizes, under those cir cumstances, that if the manufacturer brings to the attention of the purchaser whose employees are going to use it. the hazards of that product, or if the purchaser without having it brought to his attention is aware of the hazards of that product, then there is no obligation on the part of the manufacturer to inform them, because the law never requires a man to do a vain act. You don't have to tell somebody the dangers in a product when he already knows them. Then the law im poses upon that employer the duty of providing hi* employees with a safe place to work and of passing on knowledge of hazards to the employees so the employee can take such action and exercise such care as is necessary for his <nvn protection. Does that answer the question or am l still missing it. MR. SCHWENZFEIR. JR.: That's it. Thank you. MODERATOR A1IEARN: Now. is there another question from the floor? [278] MR. W. W. hear discussion 01 governmental grc control of hazard; MODERATE answer that quest MR. HATCH had in mind--ob' Industry, pr. that can be best order that the pr very specific way to make sure of ) York, where unde for industry, it is including represe: who supply eqnij labor unions, and Now. I think ing of this proce< lem pertaining to tionlar industry v. use of that same be reasonable rep from this point ot regulation which trations. Take ca for control of thigoveming its con- This is rcco' are made for the ; by those people f and experience. < those who do part lation which will. We had in tli same purpose her regulations pert;; the industries wh to hoar on the pr tions which woulr industries that d> MR. W. W. HODGE, Koppers Company, Inc.: 1 would like to bear discussion on the question of how industry can best work with governmental groups in order to be certain that regulations for the control of hazardous materials are proper and reasonable. MODERATOR AHEARX: Mr. Hatch, we had assigned you to answer that question. MR. HATCH: I am not certain what the framer of this question had in mind--obviously, there are many different answers to it. Industry, presumably, does have a large volume of information that can be best utilized by working with governmental agencies in order that the proper regulations be formulated. I have in mind one very specific way in which industry is working with an official agency to make sure of proper regulations, and that is in the State of New York, where under the procedures for developing or regulating codes for industry, ft is required that an advisory committee be formulated, including representatives from the industries directly involved, those who supply equipment to be used in industry, representatives from labor unions, and so on. Now. I think the important point here is this: in the very framing of this procedure, recognition is given to the fact that the prob* lem pertaining to the use of a particular toxic substance in one par* tioular industry may be different from the problem that arises in the use of that same toxic substance in some other industry, and that to be reasonable regulations roust recognize this. Regulations developed from this point of view are distinguished, for example, from a general regulation which consists principally of a list of permissible concern trations. Take carbon monoxide, for example: adequate regulations for control of this hazardous gas should be different from regulations governing its control in steel mills. This is recognized in the New York procedure, and provisions are made for the active participation in formulation of industry codes by those people from the industries who do have needed information and experience. Obviously, to be objective, it must be agreed by all those who do participate that the purpose is to come out with a regu lation which will, in fact, prevent ill health or accidents. We had in this room not long ago a public meeting which had the same purpose here in Pennsylvania. Prior to the official adoption of regulations pertaining to a certain industrial hazard, people from the industries who could bring important information and experience to hoar on the problem were invited to attend and contribute sugges tions which would make the final code more effective. 1 believe that the industries that do have this information should welcome and. indeed. [ 279 ] should search for opportunities to bring this information to the official agencies and work with them in translating it into reasonable regulations. MODERATOR AHEARX: Now, we have room for about one more question. Who has a question to ask? R. C. ERICKSON, Aluminum Company of America: How would you propose to bridge the gap between safety and the business re vealing trade secrets when such became necessary in the interest of safety? DR. BACHMAN: Of course, the question of trade secrets is rather an interesting question. If you have rather a fundamental patent on a process, you usually are adequately protected. Let's try to confine ourselves to the area where we say the patent protection is not available. I think this is going to be a tough one. Frankly, 1 think about the only way that it could be handled would be--well, there are two ways. If the number of companies in volved were small. I think it likely that Company A possessing the trade secret might be quite willing to make the information available to Company B with the sole restriction that this information not be used by Company B except insofar as it was used for the purposes of protecting the health of the employees or for rendering the work safely. If the secret information or the confidential information, let us say, were to be used for purposes of profit in the manufacture of the item, there Company A would properly expect a remuneration from Company B. This is fairly standard without the element of safety. There are a lot of companies today that go out and deliberately buy confidential information rather than patent information. When you go beyond the relationship existing between the few companies and try and say that this is something that would be broadly applic able to a great number of companies, I don't know how you could do that except through some form of perhaps very fine social feeling, let us say, social consciousness on the part of the company possessing those trade secrets and indicating a willingness to make available to their fellow countrymen at large such information. I think that is the only other possible approach whereby you can achieve that. So, I think you have two cases; one. where the number of com panies involved are limited, this eon be handled. Where the compan ies involved are not limited and very larg'-. then you must depend. 1 believe, entirely upon the social consciousness of the management of the company holding the trade secret. [280] MODERA undertake con. cullies to a in: DK. BAC lieve people a: MODERA wishes of tbe Mr. Baile. Mr. the contributn had a disting' a very profits I would li audience. You has inspired t audience to ha MODERATOR AIIEARX: You would never think it wise to undertake concealment if the price of concealment was to bring diffi culties to a man's health! DR. BACHMAX: Of course, I am a little bit biased. I don't be lieve people are such blackguards that they would do those things. MODERATOR AHEARN: Gentlemen. 1 think I anticipate the wishes of the audience when I express to Dr. McGee, Dr. Bachman, Mr. Baile, Mr. Oviatt, Dr. Zapp, and Mr. Hatch, your appreciation of the contribution which they have made to our knowledge. We have had a distinguished panel, and I hope and believe that we have had a very profitable session. 1 would like to say on behalf of the panel, you have been a good audience. You have been very attentive and very courteous, and that has inspired the panel to do a good job. You have to have a good audience to have a good panel. We have hsd both here today. [281] 1*H-F SCIENTIFIC STAFF C. B1CHAID WAIMEB, M.O. Managing Diractar OANIEl C. BBAUN, M.D. Madieal Diraetor K. H. SCHBENK. Fh.0. Baiaorch Diractof THEOOOBE HATCH, SJ*. tavaorc* Adafcar FBANK F. BUFEBT, FkD. Haad Chamical Anolytt FAU1 G*OS$, M.D. taworch PaihalogiH MAIUN t WESTBICK, PAD. Baraord* Toi<atogrtl Ul SCHBBSBS. it, M.fji. Haad hdvcirtof Hygiana Enginttr 1. M. MNEtN|Y. i*. AuitioM Bataarch Teiieotegi* W. J. SOttBBSS. M.F.H. Mwfctol Hygian* tnglr*r rrwEi toueb Bataart* AuittaM JOAN MaDONAlD tiHtrct AaaWM KUttl a GtAF laboratory Tadmido* RUN C ttAMOND OB** Managar VTVUN M. COlONNA Editor I-H-F RESEARCH ADVISORY COUNCIL W. K KAMOB, ScO, CI<Ma>... TKfODOBI HATCH. SJA. Saarttory. L R CABLETON, M.D....................... 1 E. ECKABDT. M.D........................... W. M. GAFAFU, S^....................... A. i. LANZA, ALD............................... W. F. VANT, SfcO.............................. .......................................... Mala* butkvta .... Gradual* SrtooJ *1 PabQt Haalrti, Uiwra'irfy #f Pifttbtagb; aad fcdvtirial Hygiaaa Fawidatlaa ............................ Msnd Staa> Cowpaay E A 6ng*aartog Company ....................U. $. Public HaaM Earvka ............. Wdvfa a* Mduttriel Madietoa, N.Y.V--Ball**ua Madfcdi CaMai ... .MMa Safaiy Appiianca* Cawpeny Canarpl Cavnial: T. C. WAT|'. Eia O. A. SAHOEB. M.D, ( A. C. KAMMfl. M.D.. P. C MAUN. M.D. Sf U L NAMUR M.O... B. K KIHOE. KO... (. M. KUNE, M.D....... C- HOWAtO MAtCY. L C McOEE. M.D.... M. N. NEWQUIST. M.C ft R J. BOBEBTS, M.D.. u c. e. ut, W. F. SHEPABD. M.D J. F. SHBONTS. M.D.. c w. Smith. m.d... T. C WATBM, CAc**. ANDIEW KALMTKOw K i. OENTNOITS.... q THEODOKE HETTUl, J A L Mill.................... A. C WITH............... M. M. MCKSON.......... C t OVIATT............ A A BEGAN................ IVAN SABOlflBN......... DOUGLAS SOUTAB... F. C WACHTEt.......... G. A. WBSS............... W. L SmmEBmAN. .. FHIUF PBNXn. ScD, ( IEE SCHBEIBEIS. it, Sac A. V. SENDEE............... A. D. SBANDT, ScD... i. V. OrMAltt, PAD . j m. Kane................... c. F. MeflWAIN......... t G. MBTEB, FTkD..... B.T. FtING................... C. w. SCHWEN2FE1EB. ANNA M. BAETiEB. Set FAUl GBOSS, M.D, $ E. C. BABNES......... a F. C. FUNT.................... R V HENDtJCKS........ 0. 0. IB$H, PaD.......... j. F. MOBGAN............. F. A. FATTY................. L t. BENES.................. E. D. SAllEE................. H. f. SMYTH. iB, PAD H. i. STOKINGEB. FAD C. A. BISHOF, FVD, Ci H. M. SCHtfNK. FK.D. : K C. BAUMAN............ ii U CBAUEY.............. M. F. KEIlEY................ G. M. SAUNDfBS. M.D I-H-F COMMITTEES o. A. SANDER. M.D. CheinnoA.............. A. C. HAMMER, M.0, Ce-Chpiropn____ 0. C MAUN, M.D, Sprretery.................. L C. HAMUN, MX>...................................... t A. tEHOE. M.D...................................... I M. KUNE. M.0......................................... C HOWARD MARCY, M.D....................... t C MeGEE. MO....................................... M. H. NEWOUIST, MX>.............................. N. X ROIERTS. M.0.................................... C 0. SKIT. M.0........................................ W. P. SHEPARD. *AO................................. X P. SHRONTS, M.0................................... K. W. SMITH, M.0..................................... MEDICAL COMMITTEE ..................................... Morgwettp Unnortiiy, School f Modicino ... .Unirenity of Pbttbwrgh. Gtoduol* School ol Pvbfic Hoabb ......................................................... Indwtrioi Hygiene Powidptioo .....................................................Amerkon Irak* Shoo Comgaoy ...............................Unnonity of Ctocinnoti, Kettetinf laboratory ............................................................... Generol Elecfrk Cimwi ................................................... Tulorcvtotit leogve oI Panbwrgb ............................................................. Herctdei Poder Comply .......................................................................... Tbo Toaai Caagaay ......................................................... Standard Oa Company {N. JJ .........UM*ony of Mkhigan, Crodvol* School of Pvbk Heath ............................................ MetropoBten lifo Imuronco Coogm .............................................................................. General Wk. Me ............................................................. JohncMenvilio Corporate* LEGAL COMMITTEE T. C WATERS. Chobaa*...................................................................................................................... MIet 4 Stackbridga ANOtEW KALMYKOW. Secretory............................................................. A*ocJotton of Cewelty 4 Sarety Cffldii K J. GENTHOITS......................................................................................................................tepufelk Stool CarparaHet THEODOIE MET2111, It............................................................... Notional Anodefien of Mwtoal Coiuody Cw1n 1 L KIU................................................................................................................................................Pord Motor Cnmpmry , A. C HMTTH................................................................................................................... ....Owonc-minoit Glow Ceapeay I H. M. JACKSON........................................................................................................................ Johr.Mofi*o Corporation C R. OVJATT........................................................................................................... Union Carbide 4 Carbon Cerg orodor X X REGAN....,..................................................................................................................... The Seif.lnivrert Annotation IVAN SAIOWBN........................................................................................................Quebec Atbotioi MM* AmodatM I DOUGLAS SOUTAt.............................................................................................America* Soilbg 4 Rafbitog Company P. C. WACHTER....................................................................................................... PoMttyhronla Clou Sand Corginbo* G. K WBSS.................................................................................................................................. Rom* Cdblo Corpora*** W. E. BMMERMAN................................................................................................................................... S*n Oi Comgf PREVENTIVE PMtUP DfUNKER, ScD, Ombao*. UE SCHKBIBS. It, Secret*?... A. V. lEN&tt.............................. A. 0. ItANOT, Sc.0...................... X V. GtIMALH, PK.0................... X M. KANE................................... C P. McELWAIN........................... L 0. MBTER, PKD....................... R. T. WING................................... C w. SCKWEN2P8ER, 14........ ENCtNEECMG COMMITTEE .Horrord Uftnorthy School of PeMc Haobi ........................ btdintriol Hygtono Paindadaa ........................ National Load Caopaay .............................. SaiMahont Stool Cimpnay ...............................Gonorot OacMc Ccapwi ........................ America* Air fator Cnmpaay international Swneu Machine* Corporation ...................... Employer! Mwreak of Wawoaw ............................ Whoolabrator CorgaiokM ............................... Irvrb borydliao Caapaay CHEMICAl'TOXICOLOGICAL ANNA M. lAfriEt. StD, ChoMao*. PAUL CROSS. M.0, Secretory........... t C SAtNES..................................... P. c. PUNT.......................................... N. V HEND8CK3.............................. O. D. KISH. PKD............................... I, f. MOIGAN................................... f. A. PATTY......................................... L. t tENES.......................................... t 0. SALUE....................................... H. P. SMYTH. Jt, P4D...................... H. I. STOUNGtt. Ph.0..................... COMMITTEE ..........................John> Napkin* UnNonby ................btducfriol Hygtono Porodatioo .... WoihnghowM Bectric Cargoratiaa ..................HosobAHot Glow Caaigaoy Emo toioorA 4 Enginaorlf Cootgaay ........................ Oo Chomkol Coopooy ..Tbo PonntyfyaMo toBrood Coogooy .................. Gonorot Motor* Corporation ....................nrilDg* Patroloan Catpaoy ........................Amor*#* Con Camgaoy ......................................... Moteo Mwitaro ..........U. S. Pvblk Haabh Sornco AIR C A. USHOP. PKD. ChovM*.. H. K. SCHRENK. Ph.0, Socrotory H. C IALLMAN........................... L. v. CRAiifr............................... K. P. KIILIY................................. & M. SAUNDERS. M.0.............. . POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ............. United Stotoi Stool Corporation ...............btdvMriol Hygiono Fwidetion ............. Air PolMion Control Auociotion ............. Alvolnum Company ol AnUKa Pritbwrgh Coniolidotion Coni Coatgony ........... Sotony Mobd Oil Company, Me MELLON INSTITUTE Ili*H<]<jiiiii1er>. i` Industrial Fyumlation Mellon Institute is an endowed nonprofit cor porate body for conducting comprehensive investigations on important problems in the pure and applied natural sciences, for training research workers, and for providing technical information adaptable to professional, public and industrial advantage. November, X^Sfe. 2Ut ANNUAL MEETING INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION frostoctfoat Bulletin No. 30 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA 4400 FIFTH MIHOT MELLON INSTITUTE prngauisH ia, pa. L Twenty-first ANNUAL MEETING of INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA HELD AT MELLON INSTITUTE PITTSBURGH, PA. NOVEMBER 14 AND 15, 1956 MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL. LEGAL, CHEMICAL-TOXICOLOGICAL, ENGINEERING, AND JOINT TECHNICAL CONFERENCES INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION An Association of Industries for Advancing Industrial Health and Improving Working Conditions FOUNDED IN' IMS CONTENTS Management Conference Andrew Fletcher, Chairman Page 1 . Address of Welcome General Matthew B. Ridgway..............................................................3 Foundation Facts C. Richard Wslmer, M.D............................................................................4 Foresight in Industrial Health Andrew Fletcher...................................................................................7 Hygiene--Industry's Opportunity and Challenge George A. Beningtcn..........................................................................10 Application of Communication to Industrial Health Mathew J. Beecher.................................................................................10 The Importance of Air Pollution Control Regulations in Industry Alexander Macdonald.......................................................................... 23 Afternoon Session Robert A. Moore, M.D,, Chairman..................................................... 31 Looking Forward in Medical Education as it Relates to Industry Joseph C. Hinsey, Ph.D. ................................................................... 31 Epidemiology in Industrial Health Paul M. Densen. Sc.D............................................................................... 50 Automation's Effect on Environment Merald Lue.............................................................................................. 51 Operations Reseaivh : Problems in Health John D. Dillon....................................................................................... *5 CONTENTS (Continued) Medical Conference O. A. Sander, M.D., Chairman .Effective Educational Techniques in Industrial Health Counseling Raymond J. Murray, M.D. Legal Aspects of Industrial Medical Practice William A. Challener, Jr. and Francis S. McQuilkin Page 93 95 103 Legal Conference Theodore Hetaler, Jr,, Chairman................................................ 11? Review of Occupational Disease Legislation--1956 Andrew Kairoykow............................................................................ 119 Air Pollution Control Leonard C. Johnson.............................................................................. 127 Health Considerations in a World or Expanding Atomic Power Medical Aspects Thomas L. Shipman, M.D.......................................................................139 Legal and Insurance Aspects Ashley St. Clair.............................................................................. 145 Reactor Safeguards C. Rogers McCullough, Ph.D...........................................................161 Disposal of Radioactive Waste Joseph A. Lieberman, Eng.D................................................................ 167 Chemical-Toxicological Conference Anna M. Baetjer, Sc.D,, Chairman...................................................177 The Relative Roles of Carcinogenic and Noncaivinogenie Irritants in Problems of Occupational Cancer A. Wesley Horton, Ph.D........................................................................179 PnEI'-MOC. Summary of Prog; W. Clark Cooper Summary of an E: the Diatomite-Pnx Andrew D. Hose Some Medical and of Diatomite Pneir Kenneth W. Smi Gas Chromatugraj and Analysis of V< John R. Lot2, Ph Engineering Confei Philip Drinker, ' Public Health Ser Program on Air P Arthur C. Stern Research and Dev Cleaning of High Leslie Silverman Spread of Partieu W. B. Harris Practical Industri. Robert T. Pring Joint Technical Co V. P. Ahearn. C! Health Problems 1 Sale, and 1'sc of T CONTENTS (Continued) PNEUMOCONIOSIS IN THE DlATOMITE INDUSTRY Page Summary' of Progress Report of Public Health Service Study . W. Clark Cooper, M.D.............................................................................. 180 Summary of an Environmental Study of the Diatomite-Proeessing Industry Andrew D. Hosey............................................................................... 182 Some Medical and Radiological Aspects of Diatomite Pneumoconiosis Kenneth W. Smith, M.D.................................................................. 189 Gas Chromatography: A Means for Separation and Analysis of Volatile Materials John R. Lotz, Ph.D. and Charles B. Willingham............................195 Engineering Conference Philip Drinker, Sc.DH Chairman................................................... 201 Public Health Service Engineering Program on Air Pollution Control Arthnr C. Stern......................................................................................203 Research and Development of Equipment for Cleaning of High Temperature Oases Leslie Silverman. Se.D.............................................................................210 Spread of Particulate Contamination from Stacks W. B. Harris......................................................................................233 Practical Industrial Air Cleaning Problems Robert T. Pring...............................................................................245 Joint Technical Conference V. P. Ahearn. Chairman and Moderator...................................247 Health Problems Involved in the Mannfartnrc. Sale, and T'sc of Toxie Materials............................................. 249 breakdown. 1 doi knows: hut it is ; rocket trip to the of all business, w sponding to one s This, in my tion which is sup; and offices, indue! with such industr cerned with the a\ to peelers" do the aided by tape rece are under survei needles or graph' are seeking applu steelmaking, auto food processing, and plants; we 5 units within plan Today that i> tion that is niovii tion of it. which 1 day of leisure tin to which yon ad plant outputs can one control, one j. New Problems / Industrial h; and treatment of progress, there is of physical prohl* multiple growth. The iimninet ten tion now and more controls in breadth, is fartlx to come, as will men who are woi It may U* f<> management on and office l**eau> relief from mom' and error does have its advantages, at least if there is not too much error. Without gradual improvements pressures are built up. Ex treme remedies may then be suggested. These may well seem satis factory to only a few. Let us have evolution rather than drastic change. SUMMARY OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE LEGISLATION--1956 Congress S.2280 (Public Law 803--84th Congress) effective July 26, 1956, increases benefits under Longshoremen's and Harborworker's Compen sation Act--revises provisions as to special fund. Kentucky............ S.8. 98 (Chapter 342, Laws of 1956) effective August 1, 2956, revises occupational disease provisions. Maryland............ S.B. 85 (Chapter 94, Laws of 1956) effective June 1, 1966, lengthens statute of limitations in ease medical care Is furnished. Massachusetts ..H.B. 3140 (Act No. 602, Laws of 2956) effective November 4, 2956, revises rehabilitation provisions. New York.......... S. Int 1588 (Chapter 696, Laws of 1956) effective March 1,1957, enacts volunteer firemen's benefit law. Int. 8874 (Chapter 697, Laws of 1956) effective May 1, 2956, enacts amendments to volunteer firemen's benefit law. Pennsylvania ...HB 1897 (Act 356, Acts of 1955) effective March 29,1956, revises Occupational Diseases Act. 5.B. 235 (Act 488, Acts of 1955) effective September 1, 1956. Amends Occucational Disease Act with reference to coverage of tuberculosis. Workmen's Compensation Study Massachusetts ..H.B. 2923 Maryland............(appointed by Governor) Michigan............S. Res. 43 New York..........(Moreland Commission) Virginia..............H.J.R. 91 (Public Officers) Commissions Atomic Energy Massachusetts . .S.B. 723, S.B. 793 New Jersey........ SJ.R. 11 New York.......... A. Res. 206 Ohio .................... H.R-215X Rhode Island ...H.B. 937 South Carolina . .S.B. 531 Virginia.............. SJ.R 10 Study Commissions [126] Alf With Pe Executive It is singula: be in Pittsburgh, as a striking exa) civic improvemen of the air polluti be the first to f Those of us who by visible evident do it. Moreover, for its efforts in : and redeveloping ing areas as the * Thus it is passigned me in a mination who sav the lot of all cone Air pollution regarded as a lo efforts were direc Professor Thomas early as 1852 NY stttute a miisanc alone affords in tion against the e upon the mere pi jaeent property, pletely ineffectual modern Industrie numerable source source of injury persons who migJi appears obvious statutory law was Early local < 1. <N>wan. Thomas A. No. -i. e::.2S. <sun Industrial Robert T. AI' riirnCg,leTaencinhgnicwaalsDthireectthoerm, eDuosf t thaendEnFguimneeerCinogntCrool nDfeivreisnicoen., Program participants were, Wheelabrator Corporations left to right: Dr. Leslie S il verman and Dr. Philip Drinker, Harvard U niversity School of Public H ealth; A rth u r C. Stern, Robert A. T a ft Sanitary Engineering Center, U.S. Public Health Service; W illiam B. H arris, Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission; and John M. Kane, Manager, Dust Control Products, American A ir F itte r Company. ins ju)pnjs pue .ioj him add of i S4Ui>piUS AVOjJB Ins piB'Ut-imuS Apu 04 tfuipBOJ Sisvit 2>U(.H{ OJB mj aoqto dt|4 uo osjdd ^3 *aBdA* ttu 'duuMntfud ikj4 u.-4-4.ioqs .<4B4!UBg 4JBX 4 4puBq oao oqj at suosadd 3ut istAip siqj, sjj Suiuieox iK>tj3y jo 4adra iBdang jaqiBd^ ib 'sdi.-mdSe [oai dtjisadAtun at st leaSoad <Jutaaaa ?o( uteaSoad aqj 4 ozi{i)n 04 4Uq ad ai|4 4imt[ 04 '"0 W&--6SI ; aotwuog atv tat; aqj 4V uuoo uotjnnoj ,, aqj sb axvaS stqj jo asnBoag it3ad Aq paaa^st pan ptoadg jo jd jBoipata aqj, pi.Vlp St MTAJdg mtuof) aqj, JVdOOHd i Diiand 4 K JOINT TECHNICAL CONFERENCE Chairman and Moderator: V. P. AHEARN Executive Secretary, National Industrial Sand Association UK't U|J JO S.t.HpU'UM *.*sr>tldns st jiimii.-ii) ha<M jou op s^ujru J -i|i .\q (mu nj juw.w | i JHIJJ UUdUi | USWOp <H| dABl[ WSW.) JSOIIt pdiitqujsip dq j|j.\\ I uddq sq suoij&mb cud dip jnoqw Stmp HOxvHaaorc 3 /V 'v <*x jO >9y |ju*C) d>Q 4 '!A JO JDNVW id HJ.1V3H A ^ mm ^ n .x^S-iS3! 5ss:5 ? zj oj=o?S2:.s --- *2L og.*.?s "Cwe 3! L3 w 8 ?- 3 3.03 " HEALTH PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF TOXIC MATERIALS A Panel Discussion MODERATOR: V. P. AHEARN Executive Secretary, National Industrial Sand Association PARTICIPANTS: P. W. BACHMAN. Ph.D. Vice President 4 Director of Research 4 Development, Koppcts Company, Inc. H. S. BAILE Deputy General Manajer and General Counsel, General Accident* Fire and Ufc Auuranec Corporation, Ltd. THEODORE HATCH University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; and Research Adviser, Industrial Hygiene Foundation L C McGEE. M.D. Medical Dimeter, Hercules Powder Company C R. OVIATT Legal Department, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation JOHN A. ZAPP, JR., Ph.D. Director, Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. MODERATOR V. P. AHEARN: I would like to tell you some thing about the procedures for the operation of this panel. A list of questions has been prepared on the subject before us today, and copies will be distributed to the audience. Two members of the panel in most cases have been asked to be prepared to he called upon. That doesn't mean that other pane! members are not supposed to partici pate. 1 want to make it dear that panel recognition is not necessary by the Moderator for contributions by members of the panel whose names do not appear at the left-hand side of the question. Each par ticipant is supposed to mid to the contributions made by the other ^neinhers of the panel whenever in his judgment there are additional t 249 ] contributions to be made. The panel participants met this morning to look over the questions and to discuss the program. After the recess, at 3:30, we propose to give priority to questions asked from the fioor rather than to the writtcn-out questions. Wc hope that there will be fioor discussion even if we haven't answered all the written questions, because we want to establish the town hall atmosphere and to give each of you an opportunity to ask a question, to make a contribution, to challenge a member of the panel, or do any thing else that your democratic instinct suggests you do. The first question which 1 am going to ask the panel is: ``How does one define `health problems'? What is meant by `toxic* ma terial'?" 1 am going to ask Dr. McGee to answer that question. DR. McGEE: In a broad sense, one might say that any deviation from optimum physical, mental, and social well-being is a health problem. That definition of health as the optimum state of mental, physical and social adjustment has been hatted about for a number of years. 1 believe for the purpose of this afternoon's contribution, how. ever, the health problems involved should be limited to those devia tions from optimum health which occur as a result of an exposure in manufacturing, sale and use of something which is called "toxic material." As the title is stated, of course, any deviation in health of a worker would reaet on his work in output, and so forth, in a broad sense. But 1 talieve the meaning here is in a more limited sense of those deviations from the optimum physical, mental, and social ad justments which result from the contact with this thing called ``toxic material." Passing then to the second part of the question, "What is toxic material?" we are in trouble immediately. 1 find very few people, outside of those who are concerned with deleterious substances as they affect man, who have a concept of the large range in degree and character of toxicity. It is a word which means what anybody wants it to mean. Unfortunately, to substitute for "toxic," "poisonous." "dele terious" or what have you, gets us no place. It so happens that every* thing with which man is in contact can be troublesome and "toxic" if he gets too much. Those things that we <*onsider essential to life, including food, vitamins, minerals, ami water, can 1m- "toxic" to man. 1 believe* Dr. Henry Smyth, dr., defined "toxic" simply as it mutter of too much. If Wc keep that in mind, we will realize then that we cannot circumscribe a certain group of materials and say these are toxic-, others are not toxic. 1 must admit, and |*ssibly Dr. Zapp can [250] help us here, that arbitrary definitio; DR. ZAPP: ! that Dr. McGee I; very many inter] that we have in 1; cednres to goven nition of toxic m< Dr. McGee ' the report of tlu Association, in w (The Council fov fact, it states tha as to what consti And then, s stances is not p< when improperly be provided wit! cetera. So, here,' hy toxic materia warning of the e to talk about thi is, the probahilit. or use of those n MODEHAT Now, I move on of the panel wi> have already sai You footbal on this pl&tforn this question: " as applied to pepeople involved DR. BAt'il to an approach i 1 think the encounters in t plant. In a pla for the engiueci and study thesi operations can tiei} us here, that, for purposes of orientation, we must have some arbitrary definition of what is toxic. DR. ZAl'P: I can only express my agreement with the remarks that Dr. Mellee lias made. The term "toxic material" is subject to very many interpretations by different people. The great difficult}' that we have in talking about them and in drawing up laws and pro cedures to govern the se of toxic material revolves about the defi nition of toxic material. Dr. McGee was quoting to you just a few moments ago from tiie report of the Council of Toxicology of The American Medical Association, in which are reviewed the various definitions of poison. (The Council found that there was no uniformity.) As a matter of fact, it states that there is no uniformity of legal or scientific opinion as to what constitutes a poison. And then, since a precise definition that would fit all circum stances is not possible, the Committee felt that any substance that when improperly used may produce harm by chemical action, should be provided with an appropriate cautionary label or statement, et cetera. So, here, we have not only difficulty in defining what we mean hv toxic material, hut also a concern on the part of this group forwarning of the consequences of misuse. 1 think what we really mean to talk about this afternoon is more properly defined as hazards, that is, the probability that an injury will occur in the manufacture, sale, or use of these materials. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Dr. Zapp. Now, 1 move on to the second question, unless at this stage a member of the panel wishes to add something to what these two gentlemen have already said. You football men will notice I am playing a seven-man lineup on this platform. I am going to ask my right tackle. Dr. Bachman, this question: "Do you think there is any basic difference in safety as applied to people in research and development in comparison with people involved in regular production operations?" DR. RAt'IIMAN: I think this question in the first place refers to an approach to safety. In that respect, 1 will try to pass an opinion. 1 think then* is a considerable different in the safety that one encounters in the laboratory and that which one encounters in the plant. In a plant in the regular production operation, it is possible for the engineers to break a process down into ninny component parts anti study these parts from the point of view of safety; the different operations can be adequately safeguarded. 1 think there is not very [251] i jnm'li difficulty in this, and it is rather rarojv that we have accidents of any significant. nature in processes that are continually operating in a repetitive manner. 1 think that is rather easy to control, and it is more feasible to train the operators in safety measures. Now, in contrast with that is n rcseareh lalwratory. The men in the lalwiratory are frequently working in unexplored and unknown areas. They may or may not, and probably will not, know the toxico logical or hazardous explosive properties of the materials with which they are working or of the materials which might l*e formed as a result of their researches. So, here, you have only a few of the general rules of safety that apply. I think a great deal of if in the case of the research man depends entirely upon him. I think his approach to it must be one of safety consciousness. I think he has to really lire safely and to be effective this has to be a part of his background, a part of his disposition. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank you, Dr. Bachman. Now, Mr. Hatch. MR. HATC-11: 1 certainly agree with everything he said except the second point, attitude. Certainly, it is true that the people who are doing the basic research and development work should incorporate into their day-to-day thinking the needs with respect to safety to a greater degree than people out on the production line. However, it has been my experience, and T am sure many of the rest of us here have hail the same experience, that very often we find it just the other way around. The man who is doing research is so wrapped up in his research objective that he is inclined not to give very much considera tion to these other matters. 1 can recall visiting laboratories where, for example, they were using such a well-known agent as benzol and were slopping it around like water. At the same time, they might be quite concerned over the toxicity of the now and exciting material that they are developing. So, I am sure it is important to make sure that in the course of re search and development, these questions are constantly raised, but 1 don't think we can rightly assume that the research jieople arc always going to raise them. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank you. Tod. T waul lo remind the pane! that oilier contributions are always welcomed. MR. BAIJ*K: May I interject one comment ? The very (Jisfim* linn that both gentlemen have made between the research operation ami production operation suggests the desirability of a slightly dif ferent approach to the safety program with respect to operation. In [252] tlie production individual, iso; the research oj lem. Therefor: provide for t! trophes occur. MODERA The next que here. "Does n bility Policy. ] nor to admit 1 his customers Mr. Baile MR. BA1 it should not. there is an ap order that it I think it is o: part of both \ utmost coopei The basic tinetion betwt other. Cnston manufacturer plaints as vo concerned wii that might ar On the o surer to recoj that he must ^ have a satisfi turer. he can j tion. The int< as an identic: serving one a the customer? I hope I that subject, pany of sfai claims in pre interference customers. the production operation, you are dealing with guarding against the individual, isolated accidents in the course of production, whereas, in the research operation, you are concerned with the catastrophe prob lem. Therefore, your program in that respect should be designed to provide for the type of action required in the event those catas trophes occur. MODERATOR A HEARN. Thank you very much. Hr. Haile. The next question gives us a chance to break out our legal talent up here. "Does not the obligation of the insured under a Products Lia bility Policy, particularly his agreement not to settle with a claimant nor to admit liability, interfere with a manufacturer's relations with his customers and with the public!" Mr. Baile, you can be the first one to answer that question. MR. BAILE: I believe the simple answer to the question is that it should not. I think at the same time you hare to recognize that there is an apprehension on the part of some people that it does. In order that it shall not interfere with customer and public relations, I think it is of utmost importance that there be understanding on the part of both the insurer and the insured, and also that there be the utmost cooperation between the two. The basic understanding that has to exist is to recognize the dis tinction between customer complaints on one hand and claims on the other. Customer complaints must be a concern of the insured, the manufacturer himself. He must be free to deal with customer com plaints as you deal in business relations, without necessarily being concerned with the legal basis of the claim or the legal possibilities that might arise out of your action. On the other hand, it is most important on the part of the in surer to recognize that the insured must be free to act in that way; that he must 1* free to deal with a customer in order that he will have a satisfied customer. Since that is the interest of the manufac turer, he can't restrain that action in order to proleet his legal posi tion. The interest of the insurer and the insured must be recognized as an identical interest. They are not two parties; they are one party serving one aspect of the insured's business, which is his relation to the customers insofar as they are affected by his products. I hope I don't sound idealistic speaking as an insurance man on that subject, because 1 think it is the actual practice of every com pany of standing to operate in the handling of products liability claims in precisely that wav. If it js done that way, then there is no interference with the company's relations with the public, the customers. MODERATOR AIIEAIiN: Thank you. Dr. Zapp, will you comment? DR. ZAPP: Well, 1 can't sneak on this topic as a lawyer_or as an insurance man. It does seem to me that there are two separate concepts involved in this question. One concerns the mechanism of settling claims which presume that there has been an injury for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. The other part concerns the relations of the manufactnrer with his customers and with the public. Now, it seems to me that the manufacturer has a very definite responsibility to ms'customers and to the public, and that is to point out to them how his product can he used with_safetv. Xothing_can interfere with tiiat responsibility on the part of the manufacturer. If, however, a claim arises which suggests either that the manufacturer's statements were inadequate or in error, then you have this question of deciding about liability, which 1 feel is a separate matter. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you, Dr. Zapp. The next ques tion is, "What information respecting physical and chemical prop erties and toxicological properties of the material does the industrial hygienist need in order to develop the hazard control program ?" Mr. Hatch. MR. HATCH: The answer to this question is very easy. You get all that is available. There is one very important aspect of this ques tion as to what information concerning physical and chemical and toxicological properties that the industrial hygienist needs. The im plication is that there is information with respect to the toxicological properties of the substance obviously essential to an understanding of the hazard. That doesn't tell the whole story, however. There must be added to this question; what information does lie need also with respect to the way in which the process operates in which this toxic substance is to be used! It is important for us to keep in mind that there is a very real difference in toxicity and hazard. Here is where the physical and chemical properties as well as the toxicological prop erties come in. We know, for examnle, that two substances may he equally toxic but mute different in respect to hazard. Thus, it should be the indus trial hygienist's responsibility to accumulate all the informal ion that is available, and [t should ho bis r<.si>hnsihilitv.io nicest this informa tion amf^lctenninc to what extent more information is needed, be cause be can't limit his responsibility by simply saying that only so_ much is known about the substance and, therefore, decisions liave to [254] I be based upon tl. | additional infon MODERATE DR. MeCiEl given. I wonder is useful in hmr. that if you have below that causii and good operati guide. You may at levels above tl MODERATE There are two qu points and we w 1. "What i who sells it in bi his own name or suraer?" and, 2. "What 1 adequate warnin consumer either instructions?" I am going t MR. OVIA1 of the toxic nat and of the care if the reseller f. packages it and should find out i ing to put the nthe packages, th. reseller persists he should stop s- Of course, u of trade to whir who are going to i`ojnc from mish and so for the e a eertain extent knowledge lie tin vise lij.s purehas be based upon this limited data. He must see to it that the necessary additional information is obtained. MODERATOR AHEARX: Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: Accepting tile suggestions that Ted Hatch has given, 1 wonder if he would admit there is a practical shortcut which is useful in human exposures to some materials. I refer to the fact that if you have an explosive hazard at a concentration in air well below that causing a definite, clear-cut, biological effect, it is a simple and good operating rule to take the lowest concentration needed as a guide. You may disregard certain properties which are evident only at levels above that level which can be tolerated for reasons of safety. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank you very much. Dr. McGee. There are two questions on the list which ltear essentially on the same points and we will therefore discuss them jointly. They are: 3. "What is the liability of a manufacturer of a toxic chemical who sells it in bulk for packaging and resale by the purchaser under his own name or brand in the event of an injury to an ultimate con sumer?" and, 2. "What liability does a company have for its product if an adequate warning label is placed on the container hut the ultimate consumer either does not read the warning label or does not follow its instructions?" 1 am going to call on Mr. Oviatt first. MR. OVIATT: If the manufacturer adequately warns a reseller of the toxic nature of the material either on the lal>el or otherwise and of the care that should he used in handling it. he is not liable if the reseller fails to put such warning on the package when he re packages it and sells it to the public. Of course, if a manufacturer should find out in any one of numerous ways that the reseller is fail ing to put the notice or the warning or any material part thereof on the packages, then he should call the reseller's attention to it. If the reseller j>ersists in disregarding those warnings, then I Mieve that he should stop selling it to him for his own safety. Of course, what should go on a label depends greatly on the class of trade to which any product is sold, the knowledge of the people who are going to use it, the ehemiea! knowledge and results that might come from mishandling. So. you can't sav a label has to hear tints and so for the entire general public. And that would also control to a certain extent, what should go on a label to a reseller. It is what knowledge he may have of the chemieals .sold and what he should ad vise his purchasers as to the method of use. [255] MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Mr. Oviatt. Mr. Baile. MR. BAILE: I thick in answering the first of the two questions, you have to wake a distinction between chemicals which are toxic as a normal attribute of the chemical itself on the one hand, and on the other hand the chemical which is toxic as a result of some dangercreating defect that exists in the chemical which would normally be harmless. Now, I think Mr. Oviatt's answer is primarily directed to the first class where you are dealing with the chemical which is naturally toxic. Under those circumstances, when the purchaser is given full knowledge of the toxic character of it and the dangers that are in herent, or the purchaser, without your telling him, has that knowl edge, I don't think there is any liability on the part of the manu facturer. However, where the toxic character of the chemical is created by some defect in the manufacturing process, then I think there is liability on the part of the manufacturer. I don't think we are going to permit manufacturers to insulate their own carelessness in the manufacture of their product against consumers by the intervention of a middle man. MR. OVIATT: Mr. Baile, after all, the question was what is the liability of the manufacturer of a toxic chemical. Now a chemical is either toxic or not toxic, is that right? MR. BAILE: Not according to my friend at the beginning of the meeting. MR. OVIATT: If a chemical becomes toxic because of the de fect, that isn't the subject of our meeting today, is it? I thought we are just speaking of materials that are inherently toxic without any defect producing toxicity. MODERATOR AHEARN: I believe it would be helpful to the audience, Mr. Baile, if we had more pointed discussion of the second half of this question, because it seems to me it is a question which most people in this audience arc very much interested in. Will you point your remarks specifically to that question? MR. BAILE: As Mr. Oviatt pointed out. the basic consideration in imposing liability upon a manufacturer of a chemical, which in its nature is toxic, is the obligation that is imposed upon him to dissemi nate the knowledge that he has of the dangers to the purchaser. Now, his only method of doing that in most instances is through labeling [256] the product wi particular use countered. Ha lf, therefo ing on his pr advantage of either refusin clearly unders it constitutes < which would 1 manufacturer. MR. OVI is that the me MR. BAI MODER. that additions By the w; request of the panel are spec be regarded ?. may assume t We will ; producer of a tion, research. MR. HA' morning that get the prodt We have substances hav even to the e* vance that he the material 1 I recall ^ one company material requ: approval of i another toxic up an elabor; the material, i adequate safe' 1 would 1 the product with an appropriate warning, stating prohibitions against particular use and providing an antidote in the event harm is en countered. Having done that, there is not much more he can do. If, therefore, he meets that requirement--puts an adequate warn ing on his product--the unwillingness of an ultimate user to take advantage of the knowledge that has been made available to him, either refusing to read it or failing to understand that which is clearly understandable does not create a liability. On the contrary, it constitutes on the part of the consumer, the party injured, a fault which would bar any right of recovery that he should have against a manufacturer. JIR. OVIATT: On the other hand, what you are really saying is that the manufacturer does not have to police his customers. MR. BAILE: I think that is a fair statement. MODERATOR AHEARN: I believe the audience appreciated that additional contribution from both of you. By the way, I forgot to say in opening this meeting that at the request of the panel, I want to make it clear that the members of the panel are speaking only for themselves as individuals and are not to be regarded as committing their companies in any way. 1 think we may assume that they and their companies are fairly close together. We will go on to the next question now: "In what way can the producer of a toxic substance aid in securing its safe use by educa tion, research, and development of control measures ?" Mr. Hatch. * MR. HATCH: We agreed in a preliminary panel meeting this' morning that this question answers itself. The point is, how can we get the producer to recognize and accept his responsibility? We have many examples in which the manufacturers of toxic substances have recognized and assumed responsibility in this respect, even to the extent of requiring the customer to show evidence in ad vance that he has made adequate provisions for the safe handling of the material before they will supply it to him. I recall when I was with the New York Labor Department that one company which was producing and distributing a highly toxic material required every potential customer in New York to get the approval of the State for their proposed control. In the case of another toxic substance one of our large chemical companies has set up an elaborate program of education of the ultimate consumer of the material, jn recognition of the very important fact that, without adequate safety nieasnres. serious difficulties were bound to result. 1 would like to turn to the last item: the development of control [257] measures. There is a particular responsibility and opportunity here on the part of the producer because, as I said earlier, the hazard can be magnified or minimized for a given toxic material by the manner in which the process equipment operates. It is the responsibility of the producer of such materials to take part in the development of .safe-process equipment so that he will be in a position to advise his customer on the kind of equipment in which he is to use this toxic material. MODERATOR AH EARN: Thank you, Ted. Dr. Bachman. DR. BACHMAN: I can only add to Mr. Hatch *s remarks by call ing attention to an action one company is taking. They bring in the customer's employees who are going to use this material and give the employees of the customer a course in the handling of it. Now this, I think, is an excellent approach when you get to extremely hazard ous conditions. I don't know of anything that you can do beyond that. MODERATOR AHEARN: Now we come to two questions which the panel believes should be grouped together also: "What pro cedures should be followed to determine whether any of the plant personnel are abnormally sensitive to toxic materials. In conjunction with that: "How is a health problem to be anticipated? Recognized? Proved?" Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: In general, there are certain principles which some of us feel should be followed. In the first place, we must know as much as we can alnmt the biological action of the material concerned. We like to know how it can affect the animal with which we are primarily concerned. There may be a species variation, such as the rabbit story Ted Hatch men tioned. The full story of biological action involves some understand ing of the molecular structure; action at a cellular level; the details of the chemical, metabolic and other changes brought about in the body, to the extent that our research methods and our understanding of metabolism of the body allows us to define those things. Secondly, .from the standpoint of man. the worker, it is quite essential that we know who in the plant has a deviation from his optimum state of health, when, where and why. We are not able to recognize or anticipate a health problem unless we know what to look for, and actually do look periodically at this crucial and continuing experiment in which the worker is involved. To accomplish that, wc must know what his situation healthwise is when lie starts to work (before exposure) and at intervals thereafter. 1 think a large number of organizations, in order to Is* careful , [258] when using a t intervals until ' 1. That tl and the control 2. That in unusual sensiti* 1 refer not onl; idiosyncrasies v A part of knowledge, orie sible individual looked aDd chee ring. If you do) of us is that y< By looking care than otherwise. MODERA1 DR. BACH with very little pretty much sai most of the con 1 think it is onl. one can discovt The only thing man from the a MODERAT MR. HATC addition to the * identifying a pi lei studies on e: with the other, and the environ to reveal signifi* With mech. a plant l>ecome in proportion t< respect to them Thus, systematit DR. 2APP frequently mad* when using a new material, examine the worker at rather frequent intervals until they define for themselves: 1. That the average person does well under the circumstances and the control situation that exists at the plant; and 2. That in a sufficient experience they have not demonstrated an unusual sensitivity. I refer not only to the entire group of allergies, hut to some of the idiosyncrasies which are not too well understood. A part of this recognition of a hazard involves other than basic knowledge, orientation and thinking about it day by day. A responsible individual reviews some of the possibilities which may be over* looked and checks and double checks to see if they are actually occur ring. If yon don't look, 1 will assure you that the experience of most of us is that you can miss them until they force themselves on you. By looking carefully for an untoward reaction you may find it earlier than otherwise. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Now, Dr. Bachman. DR. BACHMAN: Once again 1 am in a position of backup man with very little to say on the subject, because I think Dr. McGee has pretty much said what can be said. I do note that the point at which most of the conditions arise or appear is at the start of a new plant. I think it is only by following the points as made by Dr. McGee that one can discover or uncover the abnormal sensitivity of a person. The only thing that I know of that could be done is to remove tbe man from the action and pray that he doesn't get worse. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Dr. Bachman. Mr. Hatch. MR. HATCH: I would like to add to what Dr. McGee said. In addition to the continuing observations on the men for the purpose of identifying a problem area, it is equally essential that there be paral lel studies on exposure. The ultimate purpose is to compare the one with the other. So don't forget that it is the two together, the man and the environment, that have to be studied continuously in order to reveal significant relationships. With mechanization and automation the maintenance people in a plant become more and more important. There are more of them in proportion to production men and difficult problems arise with respect to them because their exposures are so varied and uncertain. Thus, systematic and continuing studies are even more important. DR. ZAPP: 1 should like to comment on a suggestion that is frequently made; that is. why can't we detect the abnormally sensi* tive individual by some sort of screening test? For dermatitis, for example, why not a patch test before lie is put into contact with the suspected material on his job! Generally speaking, we do not recommend this procedure. I be lieve one of the biggest scale attempts at this sort of thing was the testing of volunteers with mustard gas at the Iteginning of World War II. A great many were tested in an effort to determine individual variations in sensitivity. One consequence of this program was that some of the men were sensitized to mustard gas and therefore reacted abnormally whenever they came in contact with small concentrations. So. it is not a practical procedure to weed out the hypersensitive by a preliminary testing program if we are dealing with a sensitizer. The other comment is that we can anticipate certain types of difficulty. For example, suppose we are dealing with a chemical that produces kidney injury. It would not be wise to expose a man who has only one kidney; he might very well be abnormally sensitive. And that brings up the importance of an adequate, preplacement medical examination and a classification of a man as fit or unfit for a certain type of exposure. DR. McGEE: May I add one thing which I think is important? It is the absolute necessity of a critical atTitnde in tying down the diagnosis. I know of a few areas where it is more important to crossexamine a diagnosis and prove it to the extent that it is possible to prove it than in occupational disease. The very act of having a high index of suspicion when supervising an operation with a potential hazard sometimes leads to false diagnoses that can be troublesome. I am reminded of the incident of the plant physician who was aware that a chemical could be a sensitizer of the skin and lead to a dermatitis. He showed me a case of a very stubborn dermatitis, stub born because the man had been removed from the exposure for six months and still had the skin lesions. 1 was visiting the plant at the time. I had a hunch of a different diagnosis when 1 saw the man's lesions, partly because I was not expecting contact dermatitis, as was the plant physician who lives with the problem even- day. I asked the patient if there were members of his family who had similar skin trouble. There were two members who had similar complaints. The diagnosis proved to be scabies for all three of the patients. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. We will go on to the next question. "Does the usual Products Liability Policy cover any and all liability that may be imposed upon a manufacturer for damages resulting from the use of his product? MR. BA1LE: I think the answer to that question is obviously no. i [260] First of 8ll, it provided in tl might be imp< itself. That li product liabil basis." They damages arisix: dent is used tl point of time effects which a amount of spr larlv when vo liability result mind that a p a satisfactory be certain tha to call "occur) I thing ii basis is impo coverage of tb pretty difficul more apparen road contractmethod is a li ing properties The other met avoid that. ^ pensive meth< MR. .T. < do not insura ' beyond the d MR. BA! out with the be very hapi would be ver; that, of courspany individ< premium. Th< hove been ex ; necessarily w So it is common to i) 1 i First of all, it does not cover any liability in excess of limits that are provided in the policy. Second, it does not cover the liability that might be imposed upon a manufacturer for damage to the product itself. That liability is excluded in the normal policy. Third, most product liability policies are written on what is called "accident basis." They cover liability imposed upon the manufacturer for damages arising out of the use of a product, caused by accident. Acci dent is used there in the sense of some event which is identifiable in point of time and place of occurrence, as distinguished from advene effects which are cumulative over a long period of time or over a great amount of space. For that reason, it is very important, and particu larly when you are considering the exposure of a manufacturer to a liability resulting from toxic effects of the products, that you keep in mind that a policy which is written on the usual accident basis is not a satisfactory policy for your purposes. In that instance, you should be certain that vonr policy is written on what insurance men choose to call "occurrence basis." as distinguished from an "accident basis." I thing in one other instance the fact that it is on an accident basis is important, because that also is designed to exclude any coverage of the results of business decisions that might be made. It is pretty difficult to illustrate that in a case of products. I think it is more apparent in the case of general liability policies. You take the road contractor who has two methods of tearing up an area. One method is a little cheaper for him. but it involves exposing surround ing properties to damage by shaking or noise or something like that. The other method, which might cost him a little bit more money, would avoid that. With that knowledge, he proceeds to follow the less ex pensive method. That is a business decision the company has made. MR. .T. C. WATERS: May I ask one question as to that? Why do not insurance carriers write policies on a broader basis so they get beyond the concept of accidents? MR. BAILE: 1 think to answer that question you have to start out with the premise that the insurance company, if it could, would be very happy to write policies on a completely broad basis. They would be very happy to insure the total liability of industry. To do that, of course, we would have to receive the total income of each com pany individually, which yon would be unwilling to pay by way of premium. Therefore, it is the question of balancing the risk that you have been exposed to against what you are willing to pay for, not necessarily willing, but what yon can reasonably pay for. So it is a question of isolating those hazards which arc most common to industry generally and covering them, and excluding the [261] specific hazards of a particular company or industry which are sub jected to a much greater hazard than any other part of that industry or any other industry. The second answer to the question, however, from the standpoint of products liability, is that the insurance industry in general will write the policy on an occurrence basis. What they are going to want to know in a particular industry is what are the hazards to which that company is exposed? And they will try to measure the rate that they charge in the light of those hazards. But. as an additional point, for the company that is exposed by virtue of the nature of its product to damage arising out of the toxic effects, it is most impor tant that they should have their policies written on the occurrence basis. I think in the main it will be an insurable risk on an occurrence basis. MODERATOR AHEARN: Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: I disclaim any knowledge of product liability poli cies. As a physician, I would hope that no device or arbitrary fac tors would ever lessen the desirability and need for a manufacturer to know those things about his products which are reasonable and which he should determine prior to their use. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. The next question is: ``Inasmuch as your industrial experience has been quite broad, what, based upon that experience, do you think constitutes the average corporate philosophy concerning management's res]>onsibility for the safety and protection of its employees?" Dr. Bachman. DR. BACHMAN.- I think this is rather an interesting question, and, of course, can only he answered on the basis of one's own ex perience; and I think in arriving at any statement or any thought concerning what the average corporate philosophy is today, one must review what has happened over the course of one's lifetime. The gen eral approach to safety 30 years ago was quite different from what it is today. The companies that were mostly interested in the safety of their men were, in a large measure, those companies where you had sort of a paternalistic feeling between the owners of the company and towards their men. 1 don't think there was much of a concerted effort for safety. Some, perhaps, but not too great. Then as time went on and we grew, we have had a change in economic and sociological conditions. I think we have had manage ment people, as a whole, become much more socially conscious towards their fellow man and conscious of their obligations to him over this 30-vear period. That has created a great deal of difference in the approach to developing safety measures for employees. [262] In addi that safety very definit economy. P products ha more monet complicated With tl increasing, i they obtain that they e; production in the best that he woi fatality wot ductiou tim and these o approach to has been sa in the work Again, agement to increases at our organic plant." An difficulties ; From years whei question m today by j ( it is likely teristic in l MODF. MR. C ject. I don years ago > philosophy maries tha* and they s. , Now tl spend grea : true of | In addition. I think managements over the years have recognized that safety is economically sound for a number of reasons. It has a very definite monetary value when you consider our competitive economy. Processes have grown more and more complicated; new products have appeared. This has caused the management to spend more money in order to build plants which inevitably have become complicated. With the plants becoming more complicated and the production increasing, it has been very desirable for the management to see that they obtain the highest quality of work and the most skilled workers that they can. The skilled worker became a very intricate cog In the production wheel, and it was certainly most desirable to protect him in the best possible manner, to look out for his health and be sure that he worked safely. The loss through accidents or through some fatality would be serious, and, actually, mean a lot in dollars in pro duction time and production effort. I think this social consciousness and these other two factors have gone a long way in improving our approach to better and safer working conditions. Furthermore, money has been saved, and this has been well recommended in the savings in the workmen s compensation fees. Again, I think another factor that makes it worthwhile for man agement to have a very favorable attitude towards safety is that it increases and improves the morale of their workers, and I know in our organization we have a saying, "A safe plant is rather a happy plant." And usually, if you have a happy plant, yon have vour least difficulties and you pet your best work. From my own experience, I would say that whereas in bygone years when one approached expenditures for safety purposes, the question might le raised, ``Is this necessary?", the attitude taken today by most corporate managements is. "Will this do good? If it is likely to do good, then put it in." I think this is rather charac teristic in my experience. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank yon very much. Mr. Oviatt. MR. OVIATT: Dr. Bachman has pretty well covered the sub ject. I don't know that all those who were safety conscious 25 or 30 years ago were paternalistic, but there has been a definite change in philosophy. Twenty-five or thirty years ago there were small infir maries that companies established with part-time medical personnel, and they sat back waiting for accidents to happen. Now they try to prevent accidents. They go to great lengths and spend great sums of money to prevent accidents, and 1 think this is true of most of the large corporations. Every year large sums of [263] money are spent on fully-equipped hospitals in the plants and in the office buildings. They have periodical examinations made of their employees. They have safety programs and training programs for the supervisors in the plants. All in all. industrial medicine has become a large part of the medical profession and a very important cog in an industrial organi zation. I know from experience that the presidents of some of the divisions of large corporations put up trophies to be competed for by the plants to see who can have the least lost-time accidents over a period. While the accident statistics may not bear out the statements that have been made, nevertheless, there is that consciousness and a striving all the time for bettering their record: and I think the rec ords over-all are being bettered every year. As long as employers are conscious of this safety and what it will gain, not only in a monetary way, but in a happy, well-knit organization, they are not going to let up just because they have arrived at some degree of safety. I feel that is the philosophy today. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Now we will move on to another question: *`Have there been recently substantial changes in the law respecting the liability of a manufacturer to one injured by his product?" MR. BA1LE: That term "recently" is a relative term. If I would treat it as meaning in this century. I would say yes, there have been what you might call substantial changes, a change in concept and a change in application of principle. Prior to 1916, generally in this country, you would have heard the rule stated that a manufacturer has no liability for injuries re sulting from the use of his product beyond persons who are in direct contractual relations with him. In 3916, by the famous decision of Justice Cardoza, that principle was finally broken down and in lieu of it was adopted the rnle: if a manufacturer would recognize that a defectively made product of his involved an unreasonable risk of harm to remote users or persons in the vicinity of remote users, that then he was under duty to make it carefully and from that has grown the general principle now, that manufacturers are, in the main, liable for defects in their products or for hazards against which they can guard, even to those persons who have no contractual relationship with them. Probably more important than that has been the change in the application of that rule. Needless to say. in any claim by remote nsers against a manufacturer, the problem of causation is a serious one. A [264] manufacturer m; through many h of time before it is then to detero manufacturer w years our courts If there has beer courts--and I ar unfortunate ten tionable proof oi two main chan; changes and ha' manufacturer. MR. OVIA contractual rela* the courts are i little too far, bv has opened a ne is all right as 1< MODERA'; go on to the n< process equipmterial in order : MR. IfATC but we don't h great possibillti to one of relati of process equ than to work o it. that it sho: along the line right kind of industrial hyg with hazard co secondary mearedesign of tl control. There are necessary pro! equipment to i and to accept manufacturer may make his product at one place and it may travel through many hands over much territory and during a long period of time before it becomes a factor in somebody's injury. The problem is then to determine whether or not some activity on the part of the manufacturer was the cause of that injury. In the main, in the past years our courts required rather specific proof of casual relationship. If there has been a major change of our law, it is the tendency of our courts--and I am one of those who thinks it is a very undesirable and unfortunate tendency--to accept what I call hypothetical or ques tionable proof of relationship between cause and injury. I think those two main changes that have occurred have been very substantial changes and have greatly broadened the scope of the liability of the manufacturer. MR. OVIATT: I have very little to add. The concepts of non contractual relationship has been broadened the last few years. I think the courts are inclined to stretch that doctrine perhaps sometimes a little too far. but that old doctrine of McPherson vs. Buiek Company has opened a new thought on this question of liability, which I think is all right as long as they don't take it too far. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Xow. we will go on to the next question: "What are the possibilities of changing process equipment or methods of manufacture or use of a toxic ma terial in order to reduce the potential hazard ?" MR. HATCH: I should like to speak at great length on this point, but we don't have the time. It is a very important point. There are great possibilities for changing a situation from one of great danger to one of relatively little danger through the proper design or choice of process equipment. I don't know of anything more frustrating than to work on a plant problem and to realize, while wrestling with it, that it should never have existed in the first place. Somebody along the line failed to give proper attention to the selection of the right kind of equipment so as to avoid the problem. I feel that the industrial hygienists who. up to now, have been largely concerned with hazard control though application of ventilation and other such secondary measures must, in the future, give greater consideration to redesign of the process equipment itself for purposes of hazard control. There are endless numbers of examples of the creation of an un necessary problem because of the failure of designers of process equipment to incorporate iiito the'iv initial thinking questions of hazard and to accept from the outset a responsibility to minimize the poten- [265] tial hazard which is on a par with the responsibility they assume for ?l the operation of the process itself. DR. ZAPP*. I would certainly agree with everything that Ted Hatch has said. I notice that this question really concerns three things: possibilities of changing process equipment, methods of manu facture, and use of toxic material. I am sure that we could think of examples of all three. Ted has spoken of changing process equipment of one sort or the other. Then, the manufacturer may sometimes be able to substitute a less toxic material. As far as the hazard of use is concerned. I can think of some examples. I think it is almost a truism that we can control any toxic hazard if we are willing to go to the trouble to do it. Now, sometimes economics is a decisive factor there. That is, if you have to take ex tensive measures to control a hazard, it may not be economically feasible to do it. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you, Dr. Zapp. Next question: "Can one distinguish between health impairment resulting from effects of handling toxic material and that resulting from fear (anx iety states) of effects from handling such materials!" Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: I think the answer is "yes" for certain materials and "no" for others. If a satisfactory differential diagnosis is to be made, there are two requirements. First, there must be some objective test which is specific for the effects of the material. By that I mean, by reliable chemical analysis. Second, there must be the ability to rule out a similar effect from anything else with which the worker may have come in contact inside or outside the plant. In other words, we must be able to say that a specific health impairment resulted from the material iD question and under circumstances where we can rule out other possible factors producing that end result. An example is the anticholinesterase effects of certain phosphoruscontaining insecticides. You have an objective test, in most instances you have the opportunity to rule out other exposures which could alter significantly the level of cholinesterase in the blood: There is another field, however, of materials whose effects are signs and symptoms which are rather vague. I feel the clinician can not be sure whether such illness is a result of actual exposure to a material which is known to give sueli vague symptoms in the early stages. Butterflies in the stomach, problems of sleeping, malaise and the like are symptoms found frequently in the man who has an anx iety state. Sometimes the recognition that the exposure is insuffi cient to produce the* diseased state gives us a reasonably good clue that an anxiety is responsible. 1 think all ' periences examp) cause one or moi particular exposi the same svmpto the environment sure and to say for the episode t< fore, the entire t! MODERATE 1 "How adequate . icity for human DR. ZAPP: being, then the h animal. We can't we must accept < i Now, perha] man from the ei physiology are r; produces liver d fairly sure that too sure about tl 8}>ecies of suscep Now, with a tation is an impc faction at results through animal tainly learned a i perhaps arbitrar, i setting up eriteri . By and lar. There are materi in any experimc' , MR, HATC1 tative aspects. F< findings on anim How adeqm: highly adequate Certainly, none * the experimental given us informa the animal plays ] think all the physicians present here will recall in their ex periences examples of epidemics of anxiety in groups of people be cause one or more workers felt that he had developed illness from a particular exposure. He talked about it and others soon felt they had the same symptoms. In some instances we have sufficient control of the environment to know exactly what were the possibilities of expo sure and to say that it is impossible, under the amount of exposure for the episode to l>e a bona fide exposure with resulting illness. There fore. the entire thing must be on a psychosomatic basis. MODERATOR AHEARN: Now. we will go to another question: `'How adequate are animal experiments as a means of predicting tox icity for human Iteings?" DR. ZAPP: If_we are trying to predict effects on the human being, then the human being himself would he tTe ideal experimental 'animal. We can't use man as an experimental animal, and, therefore, we must accept other species as an imperfect substitute. ' Now, perhaps the soundest basis for predicting the effects on man from the ettects on animals is that our internal anatomy and physiology are rather similar. If we are dealing with a chemical that produces liver damage in dogs and other animals, then we can W fairly sure that it will produce liver damage in man. We cannot be too sure about the quantitative relationship. There are differences in sj>ecies of susceptibility. Now. wjj^jjlljQyij, with the recognition that animal exnerimenJation is an imnerfeetsubstitute. I think we can loqk with some satis. faction at results that we have obtained in r>redietim> pffAeis_on man through animal experiments over the past 100 years. We have cer tainly learned" a lot from the animals, and we have, with the use of perhaps arbitrary factors of safetyguided fey those results in setting up criteria for safe practices with respect to man. By and large, we have been successful. There are exceptions. There are materials that affect man in ways that we cannot reproduce in any experimental animal, but they are, fortunately, rather rare. MR. HATCH: 1 like the emphasis Dr. Zapp put on the quanti tative aspects. For obvious reasons, it is not possible to translate the findings on animals for direct application to man. How adequate are animal experiments? In some cases they are highly adequate and in sonic other cases tTiev haven't been adpfjnnte. Certainly, none of ns want to go away from here with the idea tlmt the experimental animal can give ns all the answers, hut they have given us~niformt<>n of enormous value. So. thmrjjsno question^ that the animal plays an iroportant"part in the study of toxic agents. [267] MODERATOR AHEARN: We have arrived at the moment when facturing Chem we would welcome questions or statements from the floor. If anyone standardize lab< has a question to ask about any phase of the discussion of the panel, I would welcome his getting up and giving his name and asking his question or making his suggestion. DR. BACI Association has lieve manufacti DR. ANNA M. BAETJER, Johns-Hopkins University: 1 know of the Manufa that the time is very limited, and we have not had time to cover all : think it is high! the questions. 1 would particularly like the panel to discuss two possible, and I phases: one. the three questions that deal with the labeling laws and tempt to do th: the importance of these; and two. how can the consumer determine turing Chemist the composition of toxic materials sold under trade names? Now, as to MODERATOR AHEARN: As a matter of fact, we had grouped those three together. Dr. McGee, will you take off on those questions? of the most act ciation. In mac which I believe DR. McGEE: How can consumers determine the composition of Of course, toxic materials sold under trade names? Sometimes it is almost im organizations a possible to do so, Prom the standpoint of a practicing physician treat ican Medical A ing acute poisoning, such information comes in too late for him to gether and try help his patient. His problem is that of taking a trade name and always going 1 trying to find out what it means. He gets a chemical identity as the labeling. I thir first step, and he still doesn't know what the material is in a pharma down into com; cologic sense. He has to have that material classified in a pharma the same sourc< cologic or toxicologic sense for the information to be of any help to be that author! him. If he doesn't know something of the biologic properties of the * that is enforce- material, if he doesn't know the site of action, he will have no basis for intelligent therapy. Too frequently, in our present setup, that in formation comes to him a little late to be in the best interests of the patient. The labels are not big enough to contain all of this informa tion which might be required by the physician. There are in some packages inserts of descriptive material which can be of use to him in some instances. MODERA including the > I believe the A It seems t specifically to * position of tox I think, frankly, we must improve techniques for getting the in formation that is required to the customer, and in turn, to his phvsician where there has been an accident and resulting illness. Poison control information centers may help. DR. ZAP] make one conn associations. T Precautionary MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you very much. Dr. Bach man, you are a chemical engineer. 3 believe everybody would like to hear your specific answers to the question of whether a manufac turer of toxic materials can he compelled to follow labeling restric tions and cautions as recommended by the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, ai they will worl law or at least tions. The C> , very same sub; ' Association. Also, we would like to have your comments on the cur With resp , rent status of efforts by a number of organizations, such as the Manu- \ I have just } J [268] factoring Chemists' Association, to develop adequate labeling and to standardize labeling. DR. BACHMAN: I don't believe the Manufacturing Chemists' Association has any authority. My answer to that is no, I don't be lieve manufacturers can be compelled to follow the recommendations of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association. On the other hand, I think it is highly desirable that they cooperate to the maximum degree possible, and I think the great majority of the manufacturers do at tempt to do this because most of them are members of the Manufac turing Chemists' Association. Now, as to the current status of these efforts, that is perhaps one of the most active committees in the Manufacturing Chemists' Asso ciation. In many cases, it has formulated codes and labels to be used, which I believe are being used. Of course. I think the crux of the whole question here is for such organizations as the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, The Amer ican Medical Association, and the chemical specialty people to get to gether and try to formulate a coordinated policy on labeling. We are always going to have difficulties if you have several approaches to labeling. I think we must have a unified approach or, if it is broken down into compartments, these compartments must all originate from the same source. That is, they must originate from the same authority, be that authority one that results because people work together or one that is enforced by virtue of government action. MODERATOR AHEARN: There are a number of associations, including the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, busy in this field. I believe the American Medical Association is equally active. It seems to me. Dr. Zapp, I should ask you to devote yourself specifically to the question. "How can consumers determine the com position of toxic materials sold under trade names!" DR. ZAPP: Before I answer that, Mr. Ahearn, I would like to make one comment on the current status of the work of these various associations. The Manufacturing Chemists' Association, through their Precautionary Committee, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Association, and the American Medical Association have agreed that they will work together towards wording of some uniform lalxding law or at least a set of principles that will guide these various associa tions. The C.S.M.A. group is now meeting in Philadelphia on this very same subject. That is the current status as far as I know. With respect to Question 21,1 think that all three of the agencies I have just mentioned, the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, ' [269] giBSMEg r Ji ft 1< !i ' * i I i C.S.M.A., and A.M.A. agree that there should he more information . on product labels than there is at the present time. I believe with "respect to the industrial uses of chemicals, that industry is fairly well satisfied with M.C.A.'s principles of labeling as expressed in its Manual of Warning Labels, with which I presume all of you are . familiar. However, when it comes to the consumer, and particularly the user of small packages of cleaning powder or toothpaste or^ement or what have you, it is agreed that there"sIToukl he more information on the label so tliat the user will have some idea of the active ingre dients and some idea of the hazards involved in an accidental expo sure to material. One of the most frequent inquiries I suppose that we get in the dn Pont Company is, what happens if a child swallows a little du Pont cement? It was never intended for that purpose, of course, but the question is, what happens ? Fortunately, the answer to that is, *' prac tically nothing, don't worry about it"; but that's the thing that the person needs to be reassured about. The physicians, on the other hand, would like to see on the label the kind of information that would enable them to treat cases of accidental exposure. Now, with all the good will in the world on the part of these organizations, there are still many practical difficulties involved in formulating a set of label ing principles that will do the job to everyone's satisfaction. The householder really wants to know how to keep out of trouble and avoid calling the M.D.'s. And so it goes. Now, I think that something is going to be done, and out of all this activity there will he more product informaHon on the labels. Meanwhile, we have the resources that Ur. Nletjee told us about. t5e poison control centers. There are one or two compilations that give us a good (leal ot information about- the trade name products, and l)r. Hodge of the University of Rochester is coming out with an encyclo pedia which will give more information of that type. Hut, ultimately. the manufacturer is the best source of inlorfflaTion if von need it. In most^>7 these cases where information is needed in a burn-. I think it can be best obtained by getting in touch with the manufacturer or his branch office. * MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank von. Dr. Zapj). Mr. Baile. I believe to complete the discussion, you ought to answer this question: Are present ladling laws adequate with respect to requiring warn ing and preventive measures as to toxic qualities?" MR, BAILE: I think there we first have to define the sense in which we are using the term adequate. If we use the word in the sense that compliance assures immunity from liability for tlie manu- [270] facturer, our ans\ we mean by adeq forcement to prot ferent answer. From the fm munity from liabi labeling law. The facturer to bring people who are i) herent in its use standard. Considering the laws to protec the laws as such . view that the law necessarily a lag ability of legislate For that rea lation should be 1 tiveness upon de that broad gener. able to more quic more effectively e specific and thus As you know are bad. Even th and nothing else, or four federal st 28 separate state dinances that hav from the standjw however, they an the market the p statutes, and nee> tivelv prevent ha ket is to exclude Mr. Ahearn. ing laws are inad they will be. MR. WATK) question of whet material they are facturer. ourjmswer would be one tiling: and on the other hand. ferent From the first standpoint, labeling laws as such do not give im munity from liability to a manufacturer by mere compliance with the labeling law. The common law itself imposes a duty upon the manu facturer to brinp to the attention of the users of his product and Peopie who are in the vicinity of its use? the dangers which are inceer<rent in its use or may flow from rT He mnstleomply with that standard. Considering it from the second standpoint--of the adequacy of the laws to protect the public from injury--I think we have to say that tiie laws as such are inadequate. 1 am also"one of those who has the view that the laws will always be inadequate, because I think there is necessarily a lag between technology and its development, and the ability of legislators to act. For that reason, 1 have always felt that effective labeling legis lation should be broad and general in its terms and de]>end for effec tiveness upon detailed and limited regulations issued pursuant to that broad general statute. I think when this is done, we are then able to more quickly adopt regulations to changing conditions and to more effectively enable industry to comply, because they can be more specific and thus more clearly understood. As you know, the number of labeling statutes that exist today are bad. Even the person who confines his attention to that subject and nothing else, and there are few people who do, not only has three or four federal statutes with which he must deal, but there are some 28 separate state statutes, and then there is a multitude of local or dinances that have other effects upon ns. They have many advantages from the standpoint of imposing criminal liability. In all instances, however, they are not effective in enabling authorities to take out of the market the products that do not meet the requirements of those statutes, and needless to say. the only way that you can really effec tively prevent harm from substances that are improperly in the mar ket is to exclude them from the market by confiseation. Mr. Abeam. 1 would say by way of summary that, yes, our label ing laws are inadequate. They need to he changed and 1 am hopeful they will be. MR. WATERS: 1 think the audience would be interested in the 1 question of whether industries should tell their employees that the material they are handling is toxic or carcinogenic. MODERATOR AI1EARN: 1 think we decided to group that question with the question, "Should information on the presence of * t toxic exposures in industry, obtained by health departments, be_given * to labor unions and employees or only to management?" Dr. McGee. DR. McQEE: In answer to the first question, I have found no way to conduct a program which will get the cooperation of the em- * ployees without giving them the reasons for it. These people are en- titled to it. " I think the only successful programs that I have observed else where, outside of our organization, are those in which the employee has some knowledge of why he follows certain operating procedures regardless of what the end effect is of the material or the end effect might be in the materials that he handles. Therefore, I would say that we must give the employee that knowledge so that he can under stand and use it in coming to a conclusion as to why he must do cer tain things to Protect himself. I think tlie same statements apply to organized groups and safety committees and union leaders. MODERATOR AHEARX: You draw no distinction as to infor mation made available f DR. McGEE; That's right. FLOOR SPEAKER: It is required in Ohio to tell the employees of the toxic material in the department and it is required to repeat it to them monthly. MODERATOR AHEARX: Thank yon very much. MAXFRED BOWDITCH, Lead Industries Association: I think there were two important matters not covered in the discussion of labeling. First of all. Dr. McGee said that very frequently the nature of the toxic substances gets to the doctor too late. I wonder if be is aware of the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has now established over 30 poison control centers from coast to coast. There are 15 in the State of Florida alone. All of them are manned by tele phone 24 hours a day. All are in charge of a physician, and at a meeting only day before yesterday it was agreed that the Public Health Service will be asked to take over the national direction of these centers and see that current information is supplied to all of them. I really think that this is of importance. With regard to the matter of warning labels, there is a body of laws known as the ITiarmacy Laws, which were designed to protect the public in pur chases over drug store counters. In a court in one of the southern states recently, one of these laws was interpreted to cover a shipment of litharge in industry and an award of $18,000 was made on that [272] basis, and at the pi ing to $80,000 are dozen of the state interpretations. 0. representatives of my understanding exemptions into tl MR. T. J. LA to hear discussion tain a continuing hazardous occupat MR. HATCH who are attempts awareness of safet of the employees, have had no spec awareness. I do k risk if such aware everybody concer because of lack of MODERATC DR. ZAPP: the promotion o: among employees only do it if they Now, when safety ment and is passe to the employees, quatelv, and the program. If the f where a mask is area where safety is going to undei goes in with a m that others do li1 and maintaining MODERAT* general counsel < panelist to nnsw< to insurance can ploveos and the basis, and at the present time I understand that further suits amount ing to $80,000 are before the courts. I am told that only about half a dozen of the states have adequate exemptions to prevent such mis interpretations. Only about three weeks ago I discussed this with representatives of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, and it is my understanding that they will take steps to try to bring proper exemptions into the laws of the other states. MR. T. J. LAXIGAN, General Electric Company: I would like to hear discussion on the question: "How is it best possible to main tain a continuing safety awareness among employees engaged in hazardous occupations involving the use of toxic materials?*' MR. HATCH: To have an effective safety program the people who are attempting to do this must maintain among themselves an awareness of safety needs that is stronger than the safety awareness of the employees. I have no particular procedure to suggest since I have had no special experience in developing and maintaining such awareness. I do know from experience, however, that there is great risk if such awareness is not maintained and developed on the part of all seen^ n because of lack of maintenance of awareness. MODERATOR AHEARN: Dr. Zapp, would you comment? DR. ZAPP: I will only add to what Ted Hatch has said. J think the promotion of the continual awareness of the "safety'program among employees is a responsibility of supervision. Supervisors will only do it if they know that higher management wants them to do it. Now, when safety policy is set at the top level of company manage ment and is passed on down through the various supervisory channels to the employees, then I believe the program can be maintained ade quately, and the employees will have a continuing awareness of the program. If the foreman goes around an area without wearing a mask where a mask is required or without wearing safety glasses in an area where safety glasses are required, obviously, by his example, he is going to undermine the whole program. If. on the other hand, he goes in with a mask on or goes in with safety glasses on and insists that others do likewise, he has a good chanee of enforcing the rules and maintaining the continued awareness that this question speaks of. MODERATOR AH EARN: Thank you. Mr. Haile, you are the general counsel of an insurance company. It seems to me yon are the panelist to answer these two questions: "What methods are available to insurance carriers to assist their insureds in the protection of em ployees and the purchasing public from the hazards of toxic ma- [273] terialsf" and, "What methods are available to insurance carriers to * assist small industries in the detection and control of hazardous con ditions?" MR. BAILE: 1 think those questions are primarily directed to the insurance carriers' place in contributing towards the reduction of accidents in industry, either among the employees or in users of the product or in third parties who might be otherwise affected by the activity of the employees of an industry. I think that it can probably come under eight points: First is the function that Dr. Zapp has already mentioned, that is, through the sale of the insurance there is brought to the attention of top management the importance of the safety program. It has a very direct influence on the amount of costs, a very substantial item in the cost of any industry. By bringing that to bear on the top management, you get the influence which Dr. Zapp suggested, which is so necessary, of that philosophy going down through the various echelons of the company. Also, I think it is that very force that brought about the changes in the philosophy of industry' that we referred to earlier. I think the safety awareness of industry has been, to a great extent, brought about by the influence of the salesmanship, if you will, of the insur ance industry. But in a more practical sense, the insurance industry contributes through its engineering facilities and its suggestions and participation in the development of safety programs in any industry. This consists of arranging and conducting safety meetings, distribut ing the proper type of literature, and the proper type of postings. Secondly, by its own engineering, it supplements the safety program of a company in ascertaining where the hazards in that industry' exists. And in doing so, it approaches it. 1 think, with a greater ob jectivity, because it is uninfluenced by those unconscious influences which company people are subject to, such as the costs of changing a process, the reduction in time, or the increase in time which some change of process to incorporate a safety factor would involve. Another way in which they can contribute is in the preparation of a catastrophe plan for specific hazards. Insurance carriers can aid in the development of drills so that companies are prepared in the event those catastrophes occur. Another manner in which they aid is in the supplying of infor mation for the preparation and distribution of safety material. The insurance industry acquires the collective knowledge of many indus tries and can bring that knowledge to the aid of a particular company. The insurance carrier also aids in the preparation of purchasing ; [274) agent manuals, wh materials into a pi production persoi brought in, in ord Finally, 1 thi make is to mainta eulty that ocenrs i avoid accidents an to slacken off. E\ think the fact that come in regularly people at the pro< it is that habit wh MODERATO rate on methods a tries? MR. BAILE: should be drawn i are able to emplo; a sound safety pi small number of < specialize in those carriers become ai cal talent which i- MH. OVIAT panics look to th< tion on these tnxi safety devices the MR. BAILE MR. OVIAT' smaller companie trained experts? MR. BAILE MR. OVIAT' me out on this--1 in making counts They go into tl mendations. MR. BAILE agent manuals, which is a method of coordinating the receipt of toxic materials into a plant, so that knowledge comes to the attention of the production personnel of the nature of the product that is being brought in, in order that proper safety precautions can be taken. Finally, 1 think the contribution that the insurance carrier can make is to maintain the awareness of safety. 1 think the great diffi culty that occurs in many industries is that yon develop a program to avoid accidents and prevent accidents. It has a peak, and then it tends to slacken off. Every once in awhile it needs to he rejuvenated. I think the fact that the engineers of the insurance carrier and its staff come in regularly and constantly bring safety to the attention of the people at the production level helps establish the habit of safety and it is that habit which in the long run will prevent many accidents. MODERATOR AHEARX: On that same point, will you elabo rate on methods available to insurance carriers to assist small indus tries t MR. BAILE: 1 might say this: I think there is a distinction that should be drawn there. In some industries, because of their size, they are able to employ the technical talent which is required in effecting a sound safety program: whereas in other industries, because of the small numl)er of employees they are not able to have people who will specialize in those particular problems. In that instance, the insurance carriers become another arm of the company and supply it with techni cal talent which it doesn't have available within its own personnel. MR. OYIATT: Mr. Baile, isn't it true that the insurance com panies look to the larger manufacturers many times to get informa tion on these toxic materials, on the processes that are used and the safety devices that may be necessary T MR. BAILE: Very much so, MR. OV1ATT: And then they can impart that knowledge to the smaller companies that are not in a position to hire these highly trained experts? MR. BAILE: I would say that is definitely true. MR. OVIATT: There is also another way--I think you will bear me out on this--that insurance companies have been helpful. That is in making counts--fume counts, petrographic analyses, and so forth. They go into the plants to make these and make their recom mendations. MR. BAILE: Yes, that is right. [275] MB. OVIATT: 1 would like to add just one word if 1 may to the earlier question on efforts to develop adequate labeling and to standardize labeling. Those on the panel who spoke to that question failed, I think, to mention the fact that the Manufacturing Chemists* Association at present has a law, a proposed federal law for labeling and for the far more important matter of confiscation. Tou can have criminal statutes all over the place, but throwing a man in jail or fin ing him $10,000 will not save the life of someone using a chemical that is not properly labeled. I think this confiscation feature is all-impor tant. This new law that M.CA. proposes does take care of that ade quately as to the defining of what a poison is and setting forth tests for determining a poison. Now, what will become of that law, no one knows. That is the present status of the M.C.A.'s efforts. MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. DR^BACHMAN: Iwould like to comment in reference to earlier J^ questions. To maintain safety awareness von must sav that a company has to tell its employees what the nature of the materials is which tfc>v are handling, whether they are toxic or carcinogenic, because you can never havea safety program unless you give the people working with toxic or carcinogenic materials such information. I don't think that was adequately emphasized before. 1 think as far as the question of the most economical and best way a small plant can get help on problems of toxicity and industrial hygiene, the obvious answer is a good consultant. I don't know if there is enough consulting work done in a continuous manner with the different smaller companies. DR. THOMAS L. SHIPMAN, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory: I would like to have this question discussed.* "If a manufacturer con forms to the highest standards of an industry in the manufacture of his product, will that be a complete defense in an action against him for injuries resulting from his product!" In placing this question before the panel, I would like to remind them of the experience of some of the electrical product manufacturers and their difficulties with beryllium. MODERATOR AHEARN: Mr. Oviatt. let me ask you to answer that question. MR. OVIATT: I think that can be categorically answered as "no." There have been cases where a court ha9 held that even though the standards of the industry have been followed, the highest stand ards, that under the circumstances those standards weren't high [276] enough. Each and go beyon industry. Thr MODES, thing to that MR. BA manufacture: that the law statute, by j standard, nai under those c Now, in court or jur standards of finder to use spread adopt determining have said th. ness, can sa reasonable c. I don't thin careless pra< 12 jurors cat I might I have alwa> man be ever MR. SC like to have procedure b required fot particularly product is ti It is ir toxic mater chaser, who. if that is re; MR. B. a roanufaef attributes < let's say. to that ? enough. Each individual manufacturer must assess his own product and go beyond, under certain circumstances, the standards set by the industry. That is so even though labeling laws are followed. MODERATOR AIIE ARN: Mr. Baile, would yon care to add some thing to that answer? MR. BAILE: By way of addition: The responsibility of the manufacturer is essentially one to conform with the standard of care that the law imposes. Now, that standard may be imposed either by statute, by judicial decision or by what is probably a pretty vague standard, namely, the standard of care of a reasonable man acting under those circumstances. Now, in determining whether thst third standard has been met, a court or jury should take into consideration what the practices and standards of an industry are, but they are only a measure for the fact finder to use and are not binding upon them. In other words, the wide spread adoption of a particular method or practice will be a test for determining whether or not reasonable care was used. But the courts have said that 12 lay people, who don't know a thing about the busi ness, can say you could have used more care. I can't believe that reasonable care can be any more than an industry would use, because I don't think industry would ever adopt, as a widespread practice, a careless practice if there were a safe one. The court seems to think that 12 jurors can say they can. I might say, whenever I have been confronted with that problem. I have always remembered the one judge who said the only reasonable man he ever knew was his wife's first husband. MR. SCHWENZFEIR, JR., Brush Beryllium Company: I would like to have the expression of the panel on the distinction in labeling procedure between what is required for a retail product and what is required for industrial products. It has )>een inferred that it is not particularly important to exercise greater care in labeling if the product is to be handled in commercial use, though it may he in retail. It is implied in another question that the manufacturer of the toxic material can pass the responsibility on to the corporate pur chaser. who. in turn, passes the hazard on to his employer. I wonder if that is really correct. MR. BAILE: If I understand your question, it is this: Whether a mannfaeturer has a duty with respect to giving warnings as to the attributes of the product to the ultimate consumers where he sells, let's say. to a middle purchaser who repackages it--or something like that? [277] MR. SCHWENZFEIR, JR.: No, intermittent handler is another i production concern, like this bulk packaging that was in one of the earlier questions of the program. MR. BAILE: Your question, then, concerns the liability of the . manufacturer who distributes in bulk to people who handle that prod uct in transportation and who are employees of the purchaser who use it in some manufacturing process? MR. SCHWENZFEIR. JR.: Right. MR. BAILE: I would say by way of answering that, first of all. I.C.C. regulations, of course, control to a large degree the require ments of labeling in transportation. Now, they are designed primarily for the protection of employees who are handling it in transporta tion, and, of course, conformance with that is required and if there is a lack of conformance and injury results to employees of carriers who are transporting it, liability would be imposed. From the standpoint of the employees of the purchaser of the product, the problem there, as I see it, is this: The law imposes upon the manufacturer the obligation to give warning, reasonably calcu lated to call to the attention of the users or potential users of the product the hazards that are apparent in that product. Now, notice, it is a duty of reasonableness that is imposed upon them. It would be an utter impossibility for the manufacturer of car bon tetrachloride, let's say, to go to every employee in even* manu facturing plant that uses that and inform them as to the hazards that are involved in the use of it. So, the law recognizes, under those cir cumstances, that if the manufacturer brings to the attention of the purchaser whose employees are going to use it. the hazards of that product, or if the purchaser without having it brought to his attention is aware of the hazards of that product, then there is no obligation on the part of the manufacturer to inform them, because the law never requires a man to do a vain act. You don't have to tell somebody the dangers in a product when he already knows them. Then the law im poses upon that employer the duty of providing his employees with a safe place to work and of passing on knowledge of hazards to the employees so the employee can take such action and exercise such care as is necessary for his own protection. Does that answer the question or am 1 still missing it. MR. SCHWENZFEIR. JR.: That's it. Thank you. MODERATOR AHEARX: Now. is there another question from the floor? MR. W. w. y hear discussion on governmental grou control of hazardo moderator answer that questi> MR. HATCH had in mind--obv: Industry, pre that can be best v order that the pro very specific way i to make sure of p York, where unde-, for industry, it is including represei who supply equip labor unions, and Now, I think ing of this proeed lem pertaining to ticular industry n use of that some * be reasonable reg> from this point of regulation which trations. Take ca for control of thisgoverning its con 4 This is recog are made for the : by those people f and experience. < those who do part lation which will. We had in th same purpose her regulations perta , the industries wlv ' to lamr on the pr< tions which would . industries that d I MR. W. W. HODGE, Koppers Company, Inc.: 1 would like to bear discussion on the question of how industry can best work with governmental groups in order to be certain that regulations for the control of hazardous materials are proper and reasonable. MODERATOR AHEARN: Sir. Hatch, we had assigned you to answer that question. MR. HATCH: I am not certain what the framer of this question had in mind--obviously, there are many different answers to it. Industry, presumably, does have a large volume of information that can be best utilized by working with governmental agencies in order that the proper regulations be formulated. I have in mind one vers* specific way in which industry is working with an official agency to make sure of proper regulations, and that is in the State of New York, where under the procedures for developing or regulating codes for industry, it is required that an advisory committee be formulated, including representatives from the industries directly involved, those who supply equipment to be used in industry, representatives from labor unions, and so on. Now, I think the important point here is this; in the very fram ing of this procedure, recognition is given to the fact that the prob lem pertaining to the use of a particular toxic substance in one par ticular industry may he different from the problem that arises in the use of that same toxic substance in some other industry, and that to be reasonable regulations must recognize this. Regulations developed from this point of view are distinguished, for example, from a general regulation which consists principally of a list of permissible concen trations. Take carbon monoxide, for example; adequate regulations for control of this hazardous gas should be different from regulations governing its control in steel mills. This is recognized in the New York procedure, and provisions are made for the active participation in formulation of industry codes by those people from the industries who do hove needed information and experience. Obviously, to be objective, it must he agreed by all those who do participate that the purpose is to come out tvjth a regu lation which will, in fact, prevent ill health or accidents. We had in this room not long ago a public meeting which had the same purpose here in Pennsylvania. Prior to the official adoption of regulations pertaining to a certain industrial hazard, people from tire industries who could bring important information and experience to hear on the problem were invited to attend and contribute sugges tions which would make the final eode more effective. 1 believe that the industries that do have this information should welcome and, indeed. should search for opportunities to bring this information to the official agencies and work with them in translating it into reasonable regu lations. MODERATOR AHEARX: Now, we have room for about one more question. Who has a question to ask? R. C. ERICKSON, Aluminum Company of America: How would you propose to bridge the gap between safety and the business re vealing trade secrets when such became necessary in the interest of safety? DR. BACHMAN: Of course, the question of trade secrets is rather an interesting question. If you have rather a fundamental patent on a process, you usually are adequately protected. Let's try to confine ourselves to the area where we say the patent protection is not available. I think this is going to be a tough one. Frankly, I think about the only way that it could be handled would be--well, there are two ways. If the number of companies in volved were small, I think it likely that Company A possessing the trade secret might be quite willing to make the information available to Company B with the sole restriction that this information not be used by Company B except insofar as it was used for the purposes of protecting the health of the employees or for rendering the work safely. If the secret information or the confidential information, let us say, were to be used for purposes of profit in the manufacture of the item, there Company A would properly expect a remuneration from Company B. This is fairly standard without the element of safety. There are a lot of companies today that go out and deliberately buy confidential information rather than patent, information. When you go beyond the relationship existing between the few companies and try and say that this is something that would be broadly applic able to a great number of companies, I don't know how you could do that except through some form of perhaps very fine social feeling, let ns say, social consciousness on the part of the company possessing those trade secrets and indicating a willingness to make available to their fellow countrymen at large such information. 1 think that is the only other possible approach whereby you can achieve that. So, I think you have two cases; one. where the number of com panies involved are limited, this can be handled. Where the compan ies involved are not limited and very large, then you must depend. 1 believe, entirely upon the social consciousness of the management of the company holding the trade secret. [280] MODERAl undertake conee cutties to a mai DR. BACK lieve people are MODERA' wishes of the a Mr. Baile, Mr. < the contributio: had a distingni a very profitab I would lil audience. You : has inspired tl audience to ha' MODERATOR AHEARN: You would never think it wise to undertake concealment if the price of concealment was to bring diffi culties to a man's health t DR. BACHMAN; Of course, I am a little bit biased. 1 don't be lieve people are such blackguards that they would do those things. MODERATOR AHEARN *. Gentlemen. I think I anticipate the wishes of the audience when I express to Dr. McGee, Dr. Bachman, Mr. Baile, Mr. Oviatt, Dr. Zapp, and Mr. Hatch, your appreciation of the contribution which they have made to our knowledge. We have had a distinguished panel, and I hope and believe that we have had a very profitable session. 1 would like to say on behalf of the panel, you have been a good audience. You have been very attentive and very courteous, and that has inspired the panel to do a good job. You have to have a good audience to have a good panel. We have had both here today. I-H-F BOARD OF TRUSTEES ANDREW FLETCHER, Chairman President, St. Joseph lead Company. New York, R Y. CARL 6. POLLOCK, S.erofory Vie* President, Allegheny Lvdtum Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Fe. M. W. THOMPSON, Trnwrtr General Monoger and Treasurer, Tito HoD Chino Coatpony, lost Liverpool O. T. C. WATERS, Contra/ Cocmitl Milos & Steetbridge, Baltimore, Md. V. P. AHEARN Eutulht Soer*tary, National Industrial Sand Association, Washington 0. C, H. W. ANDERSON Vie* frosidont, General Motors Corporation, 0*troit, Mieh. JOHN BUGAS Vie* President, Ford Motor Compony, Doarbora, Mich. H. K. CLARK Director, Th* Carborundum Company, Niagara Folh, R Y. J. DEWEY DOR5ETT Control Monoger, Association of Cotuoby and Surely Companies, New York, K Y. PHILIP DRINKER, $c.D. School of PeWc Health, Harvard University, Boston, Mas*. A. R. FISHER Proiid*nt, JotmwMomrM* Corporotion, Now York, R Y. A. D. ROSS FRASER President, tom* Cobl* Corporation, tom*, R Y. WILLIAM 8. GIVEN, JR. Board Chairmen, American Broke She* Company, N*w York, R Y. OSCAR A. GUESER Vie* President, United States Smelting Refining and Mining Company, Salt lok* City, Utah A. Y. GREGORY President, Whit*h*ad Brother* Company, New York, N. Y. I A. C. HIRTH | j Ow*nt4Kno!> Clou Company, Toledo, O. | HARVEY B. JORDAN laocutiv* Vie* President, United States Steel Corporation, PRtsbvrgh. Po. 6. E. KUECHLE Vie* President, Employers Mutual liability Insurance Compony, Wovsou. W,s. A. J. LANZA, M.D. brttitute of Industrial Medicine, RY. U.--ketlevue Medico) Center GEORGE MIX7ER Oireclor, United Stotet Smelting lefining and Mining Compony, Boston, Moss. E. V. MURPHREE, Sc-D. President, Esso Research end Engineering Compony, New York. N. Y. ALAN M. SCAIFE Vic* President, T, Mellon A Sans, Pittsburgh, Po. It C TAYLOR Eaecuthr* Vie* President, American Con Company, New York, N. Y. C RICKARD WAIMER, M.D. Managing Director, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Pittsburgh. Po. W. P. YANT, Sc.D. Director, Keseoreh end Development, Min* Sofety Appliances Company, Pjttsburg\ Po. I-H-F SCIENTIFIC STAFF C RICHARD WAIMER, M.D. Monoplng Director DANttl C. MAUN, M.D. Medical Director M. H. SCHR6NK, PKD. Reieorch Director THEODORE HATCH, &M. Reteordt Advber PAUl GROSS, M.0. Reteorch Pothologitt PRANK F. RUPERT, PKD. Head Chemical Analyst MARIAN L WESTR1CK, PKD. Reteorch Toxicoiogit) ia schrbibs, jr, m.px Head bvduttriel Hygiene Engineer J. M. McNERNEY, JR. AuistoM Reteordt Toaieofegitf W. A SCHRBR8S, M.PX Wustrio) Hygiene Engkteet ETHEL TOLKER Reteordt AttdJont JOAN McOONAlD Retearch Asstdani Kim H. GRAP laboratory Technician EUEN C OtAMONO Office Manager VIVIAN M. COtONNA Editor I-H-F RESEARCH ADVISORy COUNCIL W. A. HAMOR. ScD, Chairman... THEODORE HATCH. SJA, Secretory. E H. CARlETON, mJ>....................... ft. E. ECKARDT, M.0........................... W. M. GAPAPI*. StJO....................... A. A IAN2A, MAI............................... W. P. YANT, Sc.0............................... .......................................... Melton bttftute .... Graduate School of PebQc Heolth, Unhertity pi Pirttburgh; an4 htdvttriel Hygiene Foendotion ............................. Mend Steel Company Etto Reteordt A EngineerMg Company .................... U. S. Public Health Service ............. bitiiMe of industrial Medicine. N.Y.U.--ReUevue Medical Center .... Mine Safety Applioncet Company General Ceuntef: T. C. WATER'. Eta O. A. SANDER. MJ>,, CP A. G. KAMMER. M.0, C D. C MAUN, M.D, Seri L . HAMUN, *J>........ 1 A. KEHOC, M. E. M. KUNE. M.0............ C HOWARD MARCY, f. L C McGEE, M.0......... M. N. NEWOU1ST, MA>. N. J. ROIERTS, M.D.... C. D. SEIRY. M.D........... W. P. SHEPARD, M.0... A f. SHRONTS, M.D.... K. W. SMITH, M.D. T. C WATERS, ChoirmeANDREW KAIMYKOW, A. A GENTHOITS......... THEODORE HETZUR, it A. C HIRTH.................... H. M. JACKSON............. c r. ovun........... A J. REGAN................... IVAN SAROURW........... DOUGLAS SOUTAR.... P. C WACHTBt............ G. a. wess............ W. L 8MMERMAN.... PHILIP DRINKER, StD, C LEE SCMREIRIIS. JR, Sec A. V. RENDER............... A. D. RRANOT, ScD.... A V. GRIMAlDt, PKD. . A M. KANE.................... C F. McElWAM............ & G. MSTER, PKD..... R. T. PR1NG.................... C W. SCHWBUFEISt, ANNA M. RAETJER, Set PAUl GROSS, MJ>, Sec & C. RARNES................ P. C. PUNT.................... u N. V HENDRICKS......... O. 0. IRISH. PKD.......... i. P. MORGAN............. P. A. PATTY.................... K. I. RENTS..................... E. 0. SAtlEE.................. H. F. SMYTH, JR, PKD. H. I. STOUNGER. PKD C. A. RISHOP, PKD, a. H. H. SCHRENK, PKD, f H. C. RAHMAN............ IV, CRAUEY................ H. F. HERtEY................. G. M. SAUNDERS. M.D. I*H*F COMMITTEES O. A SANDER, M.D* Chorrmon............ A. C. HAMMER, MX>* Co-Chairman... D. C 0RAI4N, M.D., Satrafory................ U t HAMUN. MJD........................................ t, A. KOtOE, M.D..................................... E. M. KUNE. M.D..................................... C HOWARO MARCY, M.D..................... L C MeGEE, M.D..................................... M. N. NEWOUIST, UlX>............................ N. J. ROBERTS. M.D.................................. C D. SELBY, M.O..................................... W. t. SHEPARD, MLb............................... 4. t. SHRONTS, M.D................................. K. W. SMITH. M.D.................................... MEDICAL COMMITTEE ....................................Marquette University, School of Medicine .. .University of Pittsburgh. Groduote School of Pubfie Haotlh ........................................................ Industrial Hygiene Foundation ..................................................... American Sreii* Shoo Company ..............................University of Gndnnoll, Kettering Laboratory ..................................................................... General Beets* Company ................................................. Tuberculosis Leogue of Rtisbergk ............................................................ Hercules Powder Comp pay ......................................................................... Tb* Taxes Cempuay ........................................................ Standard Oil Company (K 44 ... .University of Michigan, Groduote School of PwbSc Heobti ......... ................................ MefrepeCfen life Insurance Coippay ..............................................................................Generoi MB*, be ........................................ ................... Johns-MonvIUe Corporation LEGAL COMMITTEE T. C WATERS, Choirmen........................................................................................................................ MB*> & Stockbridga ANDREW KALMYXOW, SMtotory.......................................................... .Association of Casualty A Surety CompoMn A. j. GENTHOLTS........................................................................................................................Republic St**l Corporation THEODORE HETZUR, JR................................................................. Notionol Acsodotion of Mutaol Cosuotty Companies X L ......................................................................................................................................................... Ford Motor Company . A C. MIRTH.............................................................................................................................Owana-IOlnob dto Camp--y | H. M. JACKSON..........................................................................................................................Johns-MenvSn Corporation C A OVIATT.............................................................................................................Union Corbld* A Corby Corporeity 4. J. REGAN.................................................................................................................................The SetMnsurerc Association IVAN SABOURM......................................................................................................... Quebnc Asbestos Mining AmoriaHcn I DOUGLAS SOUTAR...............................................................................................Amerlcon SwWng A tafMng Coagony F. C WACHTER....................................................................................... .................Panmyfvonlo Gleu Send Corporotbn G. A WBSS.................................................................................................................................... Rom Cobla CorporoHen W. t ZIMMERMAN...................................................................................................................................... San Oi Company PREVENTIVE PHILIP DRINKER, Se.D, ChaPmon. LU SCHR8BEIS. 41, Secretory... A V. SENDER............................... A D. BRANDT, Sc.0..................... 4. V. GRIMALDI, PAD................. X M. KANE.................................... C F. McElWAIN........................... L O. MBTIR, FAD....................... A T. PRJNG................................... C. W. SCHWENZF6ER, 4R......... ENGINEERING COMMITTEE .Harvard University School of Pubfc HopPh .........................bdustrlot Kyglana Fotmdotba ................................. Notional laad Company ............................... Bethlehem Stool Company ...............................Gonnrol Electric Company ...................... American Air Fiber Company international Business Machine* Corporation .......................EmployeTM Mwtuolt of Wanton .............................Wheelabrotor Corporation ............................... Srvth BeryRium Company CHEMICAL-TOXICOLOGICAL ANNA M. BAET4ER, ScD* Choirmon. PAUL GROSS. M.D, Sncretory......... t C BARNES..................................... F. C. FUNT.......................................... N. V HENDRICKS............................... D. D. IRISH. PAD................................ 4. F. MORGAN................................... f. A PATTY.......................................... L L IENES........................................... e. d. Sallee........................................ H. F. SMYTH. 4R, PAD........................ H. I. STOKINGER, PAD..................... COMMITTEE ...........................Johns Hopbine UnhmnPy ................ Industrial Hygiene foundation .... Wnttinghsuso Electric Corporation ..................HoieWAtlos Gloss Compan; Esso leseorch A Engineering Company ........................ Daw Chemical Company . .The Pennsylvania RoSrood Company .................. General Motors Corporation .................... PWtflps Petroletmi Company ........................ American Con Company .......................................... Mellon Institute ..........U. S, Public Health Sendee AIR C A BISHOP. PAD* Choirmon.. K. N. SCHRENK. PAD, Secretary. H. C BALLMAN............................ L V. CRAUfY............................... M. t. HEBUY.................................. G. M. SAUNDERS, M.D................ POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ............. United Stotei Steel Corporation ........Industrial Hygiene foundation .......Air Pollution Control Association ........... .Aluminum Company of America Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Company ............. Socony Mobil Oil Company, be 1 ' Mellon Institute is an endowed nonprofit cor* porate body for conducting comprehensive investigations on important problems in the pure and applied natural sciences, for training research workers, and for providing technical information adaptable to professional, public and industrial advantage.