Document RmvGOMekjJaJ2LNBZNQg1nZn

CURRENT REPORT insure that materials purchased do not pose an unreason able hazard to worker health. The purchasing agent should require that all chemical shipments be accom panied by a material safety data sheet. Port said. Other jobs the industrial hygienists must do include: (1) Know what processes materials are going through. (2) Inventory the control measures used in the plant (ventilation, protective clothing, etc.), and insure that they are adequate and performing up to specifications. (3) Check emergency controls to insure that if primary systems fall, some backup is provided to protect workers. Exposures to health hazards should be well doc umented for two reasons. Port said. First, documentation will show compliance with federal or state standards. Second, records of low exposure may persuade an in surance canter to lower workers' compensation rates, he mid. , Fttond Agencies ASSISTANT LABOR SECRETARY REPORTS FEDERAL JOB SAFETY-HEALTH EFFORTS ANAHEIM, CAUF. - (By an QSHR staff corres pondent) - To upgrade the Federal Government safety program, the Occupational Safety and Health Administra tion must correct weaknesses, be firm about objectives, and revise guidelines. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration and Management, Fred G. dark, told the Western Safety Congress on May 21. In his keynote address to the Congress' Regional Federal Safety and Health Conference, Clark outlined norm of the OSHA efforts now being made to insure that federal workplaces are safe and healthful. Perhaps the most significant effort being made is the development of a new executive order to implement more fully the provisions of section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. dark outlined some of the provisions of the proposed order (Current Report, January 31, p. 1108), noting specifically that the role of Field Federal Safety Councils will be spelled out in detail. In addition, the criteria for federal agency safety pro grams will be revised and expanded, he said, in an attempt to insure that the safety and health program will be an important part of each agency's operation. Fkid Federal Safety Councils will serve as the focal points for safely and health problems that arise at agency field offioer, Clark said. Also, under the proposed new executive order, the field councils will be reconstituted to include representation from agency employees as well as the agencies themselves. As the leader m fcdtral job safety and health efforts, OSHA and the Department of Labor should be models of effective safety programming, Clark said. This has not been the case in the past, but now Labor Secretary Peter Brennan has charged Clark with responsibility for develop ing a compreitcnsive departmental safety and health pro gram tliat can serve as a model for oilier agencies. One of the first products of this program was publication of a 10-page safety booklet distributed to department em ployees, he said. A rehabilitation program for problem drinkers and drug users also a planned. dark pledged that the OSHA program would continue unfiKevery worker could feel afe on the job. _ f Litigation DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDS DECISION AGAINST INSULATION MANUFACTURERS A Ubel by the manufacturer on packages of insulation material informing the user that the for -- "may be hazardous" is not sufficient warning ol the gravity of the danger* associated with asbestos to an insulation worker wing the product, the U-S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled. The ruling, sued cm May S3, upheld a judgment for lire plaintiff entered in the (LS. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Qarsnee Bond v. Fibrebomri Paper Products Corporation tr d (No. 72-1A92). Hit suit war brought by the insulation worker against six manufacturers of {mutation materials containing asbestos for injuries cawed by failure of the firms to warn of dangers involved in handing asbestos. Three of the firms issued no warnings with their products, and the other three issued "cautions'* to alert contractorpurchaaert of the products. The defendant firms argued that the plaintiff had known for years that inhaling the asbestos dpst was harmful to his health, and that in fact the jury in the original trial had found the plaintilT guilty of contribu tory negligence because of this knowledge. The court noted that the three warnings were placed on the products only a few years before the plaintiffs suit. The warning labels, the court stated, constituted only diluted "cautions'* which did not suggest the gravity of the risk of exposure: the clanger of asbestosis, mesothelioma, or other cancers. The labels stated in essence that breathing asbestos in excessive quantities could be harmful, that the dust produced by the products should not be inhaled, and that respirators should be used where adequate ventilation control was not available. It was shown that the warnings were issued for the contractor-purchasers of the products and that the manu facturers never conducted tests to determine the extent of the danger from usage. Although there was evidence to show that the plaintiff was aware of possible harmful effects of the dust and that he faded to wear a respirator (which was not required on the job), the court held that contributory negligence in strict liability cases-is no! a defense "when such negli gence consists merely in a failure to discover the defect in the product, or to guard spinst the possibility- of Us existence." Only contributory negjigence "which consists in voluntarily and unreasonably proceeding lo encounter a known danger, and commonly passes under the name of assumption of risk" is a defense in a strict liability suit, the court held. In affirming the verdict of the district court, the court concluded that there was no compelling evidence that reasonable persons would have concluded that the piaui- tiff was aware of the risks but nevertheless continued to encounter them. ' C*mrrifh* C 1974 kjr Tk 0w, I Ailmrt' Inc. 42 061