Document x1X4z5oRjdY5keJzXNOyxkpd1

Noveimbcr, \^5t> PLAINTIFFS li EXHIBIT WV-06471 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT^, s J332&& 2Ut ANNUAL MEETING INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION Trao$QCtioas Bulletin Ho. 30 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA MELLON INSTITUTE 4400 FIFTH AVXNUX Mnmmiwr.lll KTTSBURGB 13. tJL Copyright, 1957 Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. Pittsburgh, Pa. (Printed In U.S.A.) Twenty-first ANNUAL MEETING o! INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA HELD AT MELLON INSTITUTE PITTSBURGH, PA. NOVEMBER 14 AND 15, 1956 MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL, LEGAL, CHEMICAL-TOXICOLOGICAL, ENGINEERING, AND JOINT TECHNICAL CONFERENCES INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION An Association of Industries for Advancing industrial Health and Improving VTorking Conditions FOUNDED IN 1933 CONTENTS Management Conference Page Andrew Fletcher, Chairman *............................................... * . Address of Welcome General Matthew B. Ridgway............................................................3 Fouudatiuu Facts C. Richard Walmer, .. ........................................................................ Foresight in Industrial Health Andrew Fletcher.......................................................................... ...... Hygiene--Industry's Opportunity and Challenge George A. Beningtcn........................................................................^ Application of Communication to Industrial Health Mathew J. Beecher.............................................................................. 19 The Importance of Air Pollution Control Regulations in Industry Alexander Macdonald................................................... 2$ Afternoon Session Robert A. Moore. M.D., Chairman................................................... Si looking Forward in Medical Education as it Relates jn Industry Joseph *C. -Hjnsey- -BhA), > - . Epidemiology in Industrial Health Paul M. Densen, ................................................................................ Automation's Etfect on Environment Merald Lue ............................................................................................61 Operations E<*>oaivh : Problems in Health John D. Dillon................................................................................. 31 CONTENTS (Continued) t Medical Conference O. A. Sander, M.D., Chairman . . rAj 93 JEffective Educational Techniques in Industrial Health Counseling Raymond J. Murray, M.D.......................................................................95 Legal Aspects of Industrial Medical Praetioe William A. Challener, Jr. and Francis S. McQuilkin . . . 103 Legal Conference Theodore Hetzler, Jr., Chairman................................................117 Review of Occupational Disease Legislation--1956 Andrew Kalmykow............................................................................ 119 Air Pollution Control Leonard C. Johnson............................................................................ 127 Health Considerations in a World oe Expanding Atomic Power Medical Aspects Thomas L. Shipman, M.D.....................................................................139 Legal and Insurance Aspects Ashley St. Clair............................................................................ 145 Reactor Safeguards TrRogersTHcCuTioughrFh.D. . ............................................... Disposal of Radioactive Waste Joseph A. Lieberroan, Eng.D............................................................... 167 Chemical*Tox icoiogical Conference Anna M. Baetjer, Sc.D., Chairman............................................... 177 The Relative Rules of Carcinogenic and Xoin-aivinogenir Irritants in Problems of Occupational Cancer A. Wesley Horton, Ph.D....................................................................179 P.VEVMOfO.' Summary of Progiv W. Clark Cooper, ' Summary of an Em the Diatom it e-Proce- Andrew D. Hosey Some Medical and I of Diatomite Pneun. Kenneth W. Smitl Gas Chromatograph and Analysis of Yol John R. Lotz. Ph.I Engineering Confert Philip Drinker, S< Public Health Scrv Program on Air r<- Arthur C. Stern . Research ami Devo1 Cleaning of Utah T Leslie Silverman. Spread of Particul V.\ U. iiarriL Practical linin';!tic Robert T. Prinp Joint Technical Cot V. P. Ahearn. Cr Health Problem.' I Sale, and 1'se of 1 CONTENTS (Continued) - Page PxEOIOlONIOSlS IX THE DlATOMITE lXDl'.STRY Summary of Progress Report of Public Health Service Study . W. Clark Cooper, M.D. . . * ................................. 180 Summary of an Environmental Study of the Diatomire-Processinjr Industry Andrew D. Hosey..................................*................................. 182 Some Medical and Radiological Aspects of Diatomite Pneumoconiosis Kenneth IV. Smith, M.D.................................. ...... 1S9 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.D.,Chairman................................................... 201 Public Health Service Engineering Program on Air Pollution Control Arthur C. Stern...................................................................................203 Research and Development of Equipment for Cleaning of High Temperature liases Leslie Silverman, Sc.D.......................................................................... 210 Spread of Particulate Contamination from Stacks W. B. Harris........................................ S3S Practical Industrial Air Cleaning Problems Robert T. Prinj............................................................................ 245 Joint Technical Conference V. P. Ahearn, Chairman and Moderator........................... ...... 24i Health Problems Involved in the Manufacture, Sale, ami Use of Toxic Material* . . . . 249 breakdown. 1 doi knows: but it is : rocket 1 rip to.the of ali business, w sponding to one s This, in my tion which is sup; and offices, indue with such industr eerned with the ai to peelers" do the aided by tape reef are under survei needles or graph' are seeking applh steelmaking. auto food processing, and plants: we ' units within plan Today thaT i> tion that is movii tion of it. which 1 day of leisure tin to which you ad plant outputs can one control, one i New Problems / Industrial h; and treatment of progress, then* is of physical proliji multiple growth. The imminet 1 tention now and more controls in ii breadth, is fart In i to come, as will men who are woi It may he f<> managemeiit mi and office hecaii' i 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 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 LoQgshorements md fiarborworfeer's 'Compen sation Act--revises provisions as to special fund. Kentucky............S.B. 98 fChapter 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 ...HE 1397 (Act 355, Acts of 1955) effective March 29,1956, revises Occupational Diseases Act. S.B. 235 (Act 488, Acts of 1955) effective September 1, 1956. Amends Occunational Disease Act with reference to coverage of tuberculosis. Workmen's Compensation Study Commissions Massachusetts . .H.B. 2923 Maryland...........(appointed by Governor) Michigan ........... S. Res. 43 ..New.,York....... ,...JAl*isefandXQmmi&si&n) Virginia............. H.J.R. 91 (Public Officers) Atomic Energy Study Commissions Massachusetts .. S.B. 723, S.B. 791 New Jersey........ S.J.R. II New York ..........A. Res. 206 Ohio ................... H.R 215X , Rhode Island ...H.B. 937 South Carolina ..S.B. 531 Virginia ..............S.J.R 10 All With Pa Erecuttve It is singula be in Pittsburgh, as a striking exa: chic improvemen of the air polluti be the first to f Those of us who by visible evideit do it. Moreover, for its efforts in and redeveloping ing areas as the Thus it is p assigned me in a ruination who s;iv the lot of all com Air pollution regarded as a lo efforts were dim Professor Thomas early as lSf>2 X< stitute a nuisanc alone affords in tion against the e upon Ihe mere j>! jaeent property, pletely in effect ua modern industri;: numerable soum soum> of injury persons who migl appears obvious statutory law wa- Karlv Inca! i 3. Cowan. Thomas A. A. Industrial A ir Cleaning was the theme of the Engineering ('(inference. Program participants were, le ft to rig h t: Hubert T. Pring, Technical Director, Dust and Fume Control Division, Whcclabrator Corporation; Dr. Leslie Sil verman and Dr. Philip Drinker, Harvard University School of Public Health; A rth u r C, Stern, Robert A. T aft Sanitary Engineering Center, .U.S. public Health Service; W illiam H. Harris, Health and_ Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission; iind John M. Kane, Manager, Dust Control Products, American A ir F ilte r Company. PUBLIC HE PROGRAM R' Tile Cotmnuu Service is divided The medical prog) of Special Health : istered by engineet Because of this. w< gram as the "Pu Pollution Control. At tiie time ( Air Pollution Re> 159--84th Con"iv to limit the progi but to utilize tlio? the program load, neering program i is in universities, trol agencies, and Weather Bureau.. ment of Agrietiln. Training Personi This division ing persons in tin the one hand, the Taft .Sanitary Ei short-term trainit engineering, and . year. 287 persons On the other lien* are being assi-tei leading to advj.n grant-in-aid stipp allow students ie 45 per Cent for tl: and student Mipp urnaee fume control f cloth filtration to t of the work done, f dry-type dut# or furnaces, of which ms. The other type ices particularly is li-time operation at ins to be towards of problems which as soon discovered ution from electric uplex as was first oftop hood in cononi air and mixing 1 temperature as a . so that with synitively simple. One ventilate say a 20ange of 75 tons. A f tiie furnace roof in the design of .lavement of hood To cope with that nation of the furlise where the fur*1 but may not be `ouble carbide slag terior type of ven' appears that the anie whether it is is drawn into the the furnace. The lerations is merely f the furnace top hereas by directly n. to some extent, mace. All of these scale plant basis. y presentation on d there would be ne and 1 might be * I-H-F JOINT TECHNICAL CONFERENCE Chairman and Moderator: V, P. AHEARN Executive Secretary, National Industrial Send Association i * ,y rj"sj 4a M.*4 / kl lufgf-'si 4> S *** o<l SAo\See^ oS**-B| --.xgSCul'Vs -e8 E'C^iS , *2 j's JEe-A* yc*t,,'?0 S -5kIa*j_5;'Se--ta. cttj("s5-<-gs-.i ~* S5l*g 8 g~ ."*! =slsg-gSS-g|*-SS^ 6gj:x- wrs it * b* oj u o fet 4&**ft b*< 4*st Ji g> ec,s a " **T' S E'~`a *faot'>reSU--JS**S5i* jaO V s c a.jp e'SjK 1-; S. . 2 * . cg^jle M > `34Isj,5< ^elsS-SS*: *= * s .sk*^ Z-sUX-z j|-g -is-rsalS 1ft n * >-'r'm'. * cj E -- 05 ft ^ e *f5t* J-i -c ai, tS |c -- JS**-' ?5fIt: a s5* gss- ij 1 *^;k N B6 >CZclf+iV^e** *B*Cf5ii^'--4^E ,-*Cf<>t t^2&.5kft 3s:g>s*H. fJt c k. fftt42 ScEI*G S< -*- Li -*5*g kb 4*>f4sr1tfee_f.tj 4rS'5ft l wfv56t>.: SMi ti,5'**' *"T3Su wftE"''""tS ." <t"<a HEALTH PF MANUF OF Vice Pit Dtp General Act University F Resea Director, Holtc- . MODEKATOK tiling about the pn questions lias been | will be distributed most cases have l>e< doesn't mean that r pate. 1 want ter trial by 1 lie Moderator i names do not nppe; lieipunl is suppose members of the pat ` HEALTH PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF TOXIC MATERIALS A Panel Discussion MODERATOR: V. P. AHEARN Executive Secretary, National induitrial Sand Association PARTICIPANTS: P. W. BACHMAN. Ph.D. Vice Resident & Dircetot of Research & Development, Koppere Company, Inc. H. S. BAILE Deputy General Manager and General Counsel, General Accident, Fir* and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd. THEODORE HATCH University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; and Research Adviser, Industrial Hygiene Foundation L. C. McGEE, M.D. Medical Director, Hercules Powder Company C. R. OVIATT . Legal Department, IUnion Carbide and Carbon Corporation ^JOHN A. ZAPP, JR., Ph.D. Director, Hastell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, J. idu Pont de Nemours 4 Company, Inc. MODERATOR V. P. AHEAKX.- 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't mean that other panel mein hers are not supposed to partieipate. 1 want to make it clear that panel recognition is not necessary by tlie .Moderator for contributions by members of the panel whose names do not appear ut tin* left-hand side of the question. Each par ticipant is supposed to add 1o the contributions made by the other members of the panel whenever in his judgment there are additional . contributions to be made. The pa5nel participants mel this morn.ing 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 door rather than to the written-out questions. We hope that there will be door 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 drst question which 1 am going to ask the panel is: "How does one dedne `health problems"? What is meant by `toxic ma terial'?" 1 am going to ask Dr. MeGee to answer that question. DR. MeGEE: 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 whieh 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 react on his work in output, and so forth, in a broad sense. But 1 believe the meaning here is in a more limited sense of those deviations from the optimum physical, mental, and social ad justments whieh result from the contact with this thing called "toxic material." Passing then to the second part of Ihe question, "What is toxic material?" we are in trouble immediately. I find very few people, outside of those who are concerned with deleterious substances as ..they .affect man. who have a concept of Ihe 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 tilings that we consider essential to life, including food, vitamins, minerals, and water, can be "toxic"' to man. 1 believe Dr. Henry Smyth, Jr., defined "toxir" simply as a matter of too mticb. If we keep tbal in mind, we wilt realize then that we cannot circumscribe a certain group of materials and say ihese an* toxic, others arc not toxic. 1 must admit, and possibly Dr. Zapp can help us here, that - arbitrary detinitio DR. ZA1T: that l)r. Met lee 1 very many inter] --~--that we have in t; I cisitires to goven nit ion of toxic mi Dr. McGee r the report of tin 1 Association, in w (The Council for * fact, it states tha as to what const! And then, s stances is not p< when improperly be provided wit! cetera. So. here. by toxic materia warning of the to talk about thi is. the probabilit i or use of these i: MODERAT Now, 1 move on of the panel wi have already sa: You footlmi on this platforu this question: " : --as-applied't<<s`je | people involved 1 DR. 1U<T t to ail appt'ouvh - | 1 think tin encounters in t j plant. In a pin for the engbiee: and study ihes, operations .-;m help us here, that, for .purposes of orientation, we nmsl have some arbitrary definition of what is toxic. . DR. ZAIT: I can only express my agreement with the remarks that Dr. Metiee has made. The fern "toxic material" is subject to very many interpretations by different people. The great difficulty that we have in talking about them and in drawing up laws and pro cedures to govern the use of toxic material revolves about the defi nition of toxic material. Dr. McGee teas quoting to you just a few moments ago from the 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 n 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 tbe part of this group for- warning of tbe 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 A11EAUK: Thank you very much. Dr. Zapp. Now, I move on to the seeond 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 us-applied "to-pvwple-4n -oesoareluand .development .in comparison with people involved in regular production operations?" I)R. BACHMAN; 1 think this question in tbe firsl place refers to an approach to safety. In Unit respect. 1 will try to pass an opinion. I think there is a considerable difference in the safety that one encounters in the laboratory and that which one encounters ill the plant. Jn a plant in 1 lie regular production operation, it is possible for the engineers to break a process down into many component parts and study these parts from the point of view of safety; the different operations can he adequately safeguarded. 1 think there is not very [251] much difficulty in this, aiid*it is rather rarely 1 hat we have accidents of any significant nature in processes that are continually operating in a repetitive manner. I 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 laboratory arc 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 he formed as a result of their researches. So, here, you have only a few of the general rules of safety that apply. T 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 on? of safety consciousness. I think he has to really live safely and to be effective this has to he a part of his background, a part of his disposition. MODERATOR AHliARX: Thank you, Dr. Bachman. Now, Mr. Hatch. MR. HATtTI: I certainly agree with everything he said except the second point, attitude. Orta inly. if 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 1 am sure many of the rest of us here have had 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 new and exciting material that they are developing, fio.d-TM -swe dt ds-dwporta-ivf dO'-mo-liC'-sK-re -that -ia 4be -course -of ...re search and development, those questions are constantly raised, but I don't think we can rightly assume that the research people are always going to raise them, MODERATOR AH EARN: Thank you. Ted. T waul In remind the panel tliaf other contributions are always welcomed. MI!. HAILE: May 1 interject one comment? The very dist'me lion that both gentlemen have made between the research operation and production operation suggests the desirability of it slightly dif ferent approach to the safety program with respect 1o operation. In [252] the prodnctioi individual, isi the research n lem. Therefor provide for f treplies occur MODER. The next (pier here. "Does i bility Policy, nor to admit his customer* Mr. Baih MR. BA1 it should not there is an aj order that it I think it is o part of both utmost coope: Tfie basic tinction hetwi other. Oust or manufacturer plaints as yo concerned wi that might ai On the c surer to reeo; that he must have a salisfi f'vrrer. -he -cam tion. The inn as an identic; serving one ; the customer- I hope I that subject, pany of sl.-M laini' in pn 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, vonr program in that respect should be designed to provide for the type of action required in the event those catas trophes occur. MODERATOR AHEAKM Thank you- 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 public7'' 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 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 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 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 snt'epest 'cf -tbe-'insurer^nd -the insuredjaust Jbe .xejCflgn.ized 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 customer*- insofar as they are affected by his products. 1 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 way. If it is done that wav, then there is no interference with the company's relations with the public, the customers. . [253] MODERATOR AIIEAtfN: Thank von. Dr. Zapp. will you comment? m, ZAPP: Well. 1 can't speak on lliis topic as a lawyer or as an insurance man. It does seem to me that there aiv 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 man ufacturer with liis customers and with the public. Now, it seems to me that the manufacturer 1ms a Aery definite responsibility to his customers _aml_to the public. jimEthat is_toj>oint out to them how ins prouuci can be used" with safety. Nothing can interfere with that responsibility on the' part of the manufacturer. If, however, a claim arises which suggests either that the nianufaeturer's statements were inadequate or in error, then you have this question of deciding about liability, which I 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 informats on does he need also with respect to the way in which the process operales in which this toxic substance Is to`be used'?'It is important for us "to 'keep `iirmnvd That there is a very real difference in toxicity and hazard. Here is where the physical and chemical properties as welt as the toxicological prop erties come in. We know, for example, that two substances may be equally toxic but unite different in resncct to hazard. Tims, it should he the indus trial hygienist's responsibility to accumulate all the information that is available, and it should he his responsibility to digest this informa tion anti determine to what extent more information is needed, he1 cause he can't limit his'responsibility hv simply saying that only so \ much is~known~about the substance'ami, therefore, decisions have to [254] | be based upon rl { additional infun MODERAT DR, Mi-GEJ given. I yonder is'usVfui in hun --thai-.H you hav< below that eausii and good operati guide. You inay at levels above tl MODERAT There are two <p points and we w 1. *`\Vhat i who sells it in lr his own name or sumer?" and. 2. What ! adequate warnjt consumer either 1 instructions?" T am going MR. OYIA' of the toxie ua* and of tlie car- if the reseller f; packages it and should find nut : ing to jiiit the n flie"packages. Th reseller per-i-ts he should stop s (>f course, v of trade to whh who aiv going ti conic from mi-) I and so for the i a certain extent knowledge he o: t vise hi- purelia- MODERATOR. AIIEARN: Thank you very much. Mr. Oviatt. Mr. Baiie. 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 chemie.il 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. Baiie, 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 .Ate,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. Baiie. 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 are very much interested in. Will you point your remarks specifically to that question? MR. BAILE: As Mr. Oviatt pointed onl. the basic consideration in imposing liability upon a manufacturer of a chemical, which in its nature is toxic, is the obligation that is i in jawed 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 wit particular use countered. Hat If, thereto ing on liis, pn advantage of ~ either refusin' clearly under*it constitutes o which would b, manufacturer. ME. OVL is that the ma; MR. BAII MODERA that additional By the wf request of the panel are spea be regarded a; may assume tl We will g * producer of a tion. research. MR. HA" morning that get the produ- We have substances hav -* -even *.o .the ex vance that he the material b ` I recall one company , materia] reqit: ; approval of t ! another toxic I up an elabora the material, ; j , adequate sab-; f 1 would h 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 adecjuate 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. OYIATT: 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 AHEARX: 1 believe the audience appreciated that additional contribution from both of you. By the way, 1 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 eontrol measures?" Air. 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 VUStomeryo'sIrow-evidence-in -ad vance that lie lias 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 Xew York to get the approval of the State for their proposed eontrol. In the case of another toxic substance one of our large chemical companies has set Up an elaborate proirrum of education of the ultimate consumer of the material, in recognition of the very important fact that, without adequate safoty measures, serious diflh-ulties were bound to result. 1 would like to turn to the last item: the development of eontrol 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 AHEARN: Thank you, Ted. Dr, Bachman. DR. BACHMAN: I can only add to Mr. Hatch's remarks hv 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 he 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 1 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 about 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. Wc 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 tin* worker is involved. To H'-eomplish that, we must know what his situation licaltliwjse is .when he starts to work (before exposure) and at intervals thereafter. I think a large number of organizations, in order to be careful when using a intervals until 1. That t: and the control 2. That it: unusuaHsensitr 1 refer not onl idiosyncrasies a A part of knowledge, ori* sible individual looked and chei ring. ]f you do of us is that y By looking care than otherwise. MODERA' DR. BACf with very little pretty much sa most of the con I think it is on: one can disevThe only thing man from The a MODERA) MR. HATt addition to the identifying a pi lei .studies -on -e with tlie other, and the enviroi to reveal sign iff With mech a plant become ill proportion 1 respect to them Thus, systemati' Di; z.wr 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 hasie knowledge, orientation and thinking about it day liv 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 you 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 fhat 'tliere`be TraTailel 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. DR. ZAP!': 1 should like to comment on a suggestion that is frequently made; that is. why can't we detect the abnormally sensi- [259] S? live 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 bfVoiunteers with mustard gas at the beginning 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 fir or unfit for a certain type of exposure. DR. MoGEE: Hay I add one thing which I think is important? 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 he 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 stil! had the skin lesions. I was visiting the plant at the ..time. ,1 .had,,a .luineh ^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 a manufacturer for damages resulting from the use of in's product ? MR. BA1LE: I think the answer to that question is obviously no. [260] First of all, ii provided in t might be imp itself. That 1 product liabi basis. ' damages arisi dent is used i point of time effects which ; amount of sp larlv when v< liability resul mind that a p a satisfactory be certain thf to call ; ` occur I thing i basis is imp< coverage of tl pretty diffieu more apparei road contraei meihod is a 1: ing propertie The other me avoid that. T pensive meth MR. .T. do not insura beyond the o< 'MR. "BA out with the be very hapj would be ver that, of cours pany individ premium. Tli have been ex necessarily n ! So it is i common to it 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 seuse of some event which is idTeStifiable 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 wlien you are considering the exposure of a manufacturer to a liability resulting from toxic effects of the products, that youkeepin 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 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; I 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 lie 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 you can reasonably pay for. So it is a question of isolating those hazards which are 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 eharge 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 toxie effects, it is most impor tant that they should have their policies written on the occurrence basis. 1 think in the main it will be an insurable risk on an occurrence basis. MODERATOR AIIEARX: Dr. McGee. DR, McGEE: I disclaim any knowledge of product liability poli cies. As a physician. 1 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 AHEARX: Thank yon very much. The next question is: "Inasmuch as your industrial experience has been 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, BACHMAX: 1 think this is rather an interesting question, and, of course, can only lie answered on the basis of one's own ex perience; and 1 think in arriving at any statement or any thought concerning what the average corporate philosophy is today, one must .review what lias happened over the course of one's lifetime. The gen eral approach to safety HO 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. I don't think there was much of a concerted effort for safety. Some, perhaps, hut 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 HO-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 h more hi oh" jjqmplicate< With i increasing, -they obtain That they < ^production in the best that he wc fatality wo duetion tii; and these < approach t has been s in the wor: Again agement Tc increases a our organi plant." At difficulties From years wbe question it today by it is likely teristic in MODI .MR. < joct. 1 don years ago philosophy mark's tin: and they * Xow 1 spend gre; true of in In addition. 1 tbink'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 eog 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 letter and safer working conditions. Furthermore, money has been saved, and this lias 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 tile morale of their workers, and 1 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 your least difficulties and you get 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 be 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 AH EARN: 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 lias 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 professibfr and a very important cog in an industrial organi zation. 1 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 produet?" 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 yon might c-all 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 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 a defectively made product of bis 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 produets 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 1 manufacturer n: through many 3 of time before i is then to deteri manufacturer u years our court: If there has bee" courts--and I a unfortunate lei tionable proof o two main chan changes and ha manufacturer. MR. OVI.A contractual rela the courts are little too far. b has opened a n is all right as 1 MODERA go on to the n process equipn terial in order MR. HAT but wp don't 1 great possibilit to one of relaf of process eqi: than to work c it. that it she along the lijv right kind of industrial hyg with hazard et secondary nice redesign of t control. There arcnecessary pn equipment to 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 oui -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. * 5IR. 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 A HEARNThank yon very much. Now. we will go on to the nest 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 their initial thinking questions of hazard and to accept from the outset a responsibility to minimize the poten- [265] . ' * r tial hazard which is on a par with the responsibility they assume for I think all ' the operation of the process itself. periences exanif DK. ZAPP: I would certainly agree with everything that Ted Hatch has said. 1 notice that this question really concerns three things: possibilities of changing process equipment, methods"6? manu facture, and use of toxic material. cause one or me particular expos the same syiupt the environment sure and to say I am sure that we could think of examples of all three. Ted has i for the episode t spoken of changing process equipment of one sort or the other. Then, fore, the entire t 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 MODERAT "How adequate icitv for human economics is a decisive factor there. That is, if you have to take ex DR. ZAPP tensive measures to control a hazard, it may not be economically being, then the 1 feasible to do it. . ' animal. We can' MODERATOR AHEARN: Thank you. Dr. Zapp. Next question: we must accept "Can one distinguish between health impairment resulting from Now. perha effects of handling toxic material and that resulting from fear (anx man from the e iety states) of effects from handling such materials?'' Dr. McGee. physiology are r produces liver t DR. McGEE: I think the answer is "yes" for certain materials fairly sure that and "no" for others. If a satisfactory differential diagnosis is to be too sure about t made, there are two requirements. First, there must be some objective species of suseej test which is specific for the effects of the material. By that I mean, i Now, with by reliable chemical analysis. Second, there must be the ability to rule out a similar effect from anything else with which the worker may tation is an imp* faction at result 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 : through animal tainly learned a the materia] in question and under circumstances where we can rule out other possible factors producing that end result. . ; perhaps arbitral setting up enter An example is the anticholinesterase effects of certain jiho^phoras- By and lar contairiing insecticides. You have an objective test, in most instances [ There are muter.' you have the opportunity to rule out other exposures which could ! in any experinn 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 such vague symptoms in the early MR. I1ATC tative aspects. F findings on an in: ITow adcqii; stages. Butterflies in the stomach, problems of sleeping, malaise and highly adequate the like are symptoms found frequently in the man who has an anx Certainly, none iety state. Sometimes the rccognization that the exposure is insuffi | the experiment a cient to produce the diseased state gives us a reasonably good clue given us inform; that an anxiety is responsible. , tlie 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 be a bona fide exposure with resulting illness. There fore, the entire thing must be on a psychosomatic basis. MODERATOR AIIEAUN: Now. we will go to another question: "How adequate are animal experiments as a means of predicting tox icity for human beings?" DR. ZAPP: Tf we arc trying to nrediet effecb?jm_Jhehumi^ being, then the*hninan being himself would he Hie 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 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 dogs and other animals, then we can be fairly-sure that it will produce liver damage in man. We cannot he too sure about the quantitative relationship. There are differences in species of susceptibility. Xmv. with all that, with the recognition that animal exuerimentation is an imperfect substitute. I think we can look with some satis faction at results, that we have obtained in predicting effects on man through animal experiments over the past 100 years. We have cer tainly learned a lot i'rom the animals, anil we have, with the use of perhaps arbitrary factors of safety, freen guided nv 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: 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 direet application to man. IIow adequate are animal experiments? In some cases they are highly adequate and in some other cases they'haven't been adequate. Certainly, none of ns want in go awnv from here with the idea that the experimental~;mimal can give us all the answers, hut they have jriven ns information of enormous value. Mo. "there is no Question that the animal plays an important part in the study of toxic agents. [267] MODERATOR AHEAR-X: 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. ANXA M. BAET.TER, Johns-Hopkins University IT 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 doosn'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 hiologie 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.mnstJm.p,rove .teclmiques for getting the in formation that is required to the customer, and in turn, to his physi cian 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 be 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 Manu- [268] facturing Cher standardize lal DR. BAC: Association halieve manufact of the Manuft : think it is high possible, and I tempt to do th turing Chemis Now, as tc of the most ac ciation. In mat which I believ. Of course, organizations ; ican Medical getlier and try always going labeling. I thn down into com the same sourc be that author r that is enforce MODERN including the . I believe the - It seems specifically to position of to> DE. ZAP l make one com associations. T Precautiouary Assoeiation. a' they will wor law nr at least lions. The Ct very same sub. With resi i 1 have just , facturing Cheinists' 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 approacli 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. Abeam, 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 labeling 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, [269] C.S.M.A., and A.M.A. agree that tliere should he more information r on product labels tlian there is at the present time. I believe with respect to the industrial uses of chemicals, that industry is fairly well satisfied with M.CA.'s principles of labeling as expressed in its Manual of Warning Labels, with which 1 presume all of you are , familiar. However, when it comes to flic consumer, and particularly --the user of small packages of cleaning powder or toothpaste (wcement or wliat have you, it is agreed that there sitould lie more information on the label so that 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 du 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": hut 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 somethin" is going to be done, and out of all this activity there will he more product information on the labels. Meanwhile, we have the resources ffiat Dr. McGee told ns about, the poison control centers. There are one or two compilations that give us a gooct deal ot intormation about the trade name products, and Dr. Hodge of the University of koctiester is coming out with an encyclo pedia which will give more information of that type. Hut, ultimately. the manufacturer is the best source olintormaifon if von need it. In most of these cases where information is needed in a hurry, 1 think it can be best obtained by getting in touch with the manufacturer or his branch office. MODERATOR AIIEARN: Thank vou. Pi1. Znpp. Mr. Baile._I^ believe to complete the discussion, you ought to answer this question: Jjt "Are present labeling Jaws adequate with respect to requiring warn ing and preventive measures as to toxic qualities'.' MR. BAILE: T tit ink 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] r i facturer. our ans we mean by adeq forcement to pro forent answer. From the fir rnunity from liab labeling law. The facturer to brinj 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 legislat For that rea lation should be ! tiveness upon d< that broad gene: able to more quit more effectively * specific and tints As yon kno' are bad. Even tl and nothing else, or four federal s 28 separate stale dinances that ha' from the stand] however, they ar the market the [ statutes, and nee fively prevent ha ket is to exclude Mr. Ahearn. ing laws are imo they will be. ,1111. WATK question of who! material they are facturer. our answer would be oni* thing: and on the other hand. we mean hy adequate m the sense of sufficient requirements and en forcement to protg<d_tjie_j>ubIic from injury, I think there' is a dif ferent answer1. 1 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 itselfimposes a duty upon the manu facturer to bring to the attention of the users of bis product and eople who are in the vicinity of its use7 the dangers which are in- ferent in its use or may flow from it/ He must_CQinply with that Standard- Considering it from tlie second standpoint--of the adequacy of the laws to protect the public from injury---Iriiink we liavetosav that the laws as such are inadequate. 1 anTalso^one of those who has the view that the laws will always be inadequate, because 1 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 upon 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 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 So 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 confiscation. Mr. Ahearn. I would say by way of summary that, yes, our label ing laws are inadequate. They need to be changed and 1 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 AIIEARN ;^X think we decided to group that question with the question, "Should information on the presence of r, toxic exposures in industry, 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, 2 hare 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_ofouroranization, 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 tile same statements apply to organized groups and safety committees and union leaders. MODERATOR AIIEARX: You draw no distinction as to infor mation made available? DR. McGEE: That's right. basis, and at the p jng to $80,000 are dozen of the stat. interpretations. O representatives of my understanding exemptions into ti MR. T. J. Lf to hear discussion tain a continuing hazardous oeeupa1 MR. HATCI who are attempti awareness of safe of the employees, have had no spec awareness. I do 1 risk if such awai t everybody coneer because of lack of FLOOR SPEAKER: It is required in Ohio to tell the employees MODERATE of the toxic material in the department and it is required to repeat it to them monthly. DR. ZAPP: the promotion o MODERATOR AIIEARN; Thank you very much. among employee- MANFRED BOWDITCIf, 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 he 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 1 fern-tire' "State `alone. All 'of them are -manned by 4eJe- 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 only do it if they Now, when safer ment and is pass< to the employees, quately, and the program. If the i where a mask is area where safe*; is going to unde goes in with a n that others do R and maintaining 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 MODEKATgeneral counsel * panelist to answ- states recently, one of these, laws was interpreted to cover a shipment of lilharge in industry and an award of $18,000 was made on that to insurance ear i ployt-es and the [272] basis, and at the present time ^ 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 present such mis interpretations. Only about three weeks ago 1 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. ME. T. J. LANIGAX, 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?'' ME 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 everybody concerned. We have ail seen good programs break down because of lack of maintenance of awareness. MODERATOR AHEARN: Dr. Zapp, would you comment ? DR. ZAPF: I will only add to what Ted Hatch has said. I think the promotion of the continual awareness of the safety urogram among employees is a responsibility of supervision. Supervisors will onlr do it it' 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 wearhig -safety -glasses in *au 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, Bade, you are the general counsel of an insurance company. It seems to me 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] terials?" and, "What methods^re available to insurance carriers to , assist small industries in the detection and control of hazardous con *" ditionsf" 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 ac tivity 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, Ute .r&dii&ti/m in .time, -or the -mewas? -in 4i-me -wMe-h -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 ami 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, w! materials into a pi production persoi brought in, in ore Finally, I thi make is to mainti cutty that occurs i avoid accidents an to slacken off. E' think the fact tha come in regularly people at the pro< it is that habit wl MODERATO rate on methods tries ? MR. BAILE should be drawn are able to emplo. a sound safety pi small number of specialize in those carriers become ai cal talent which i MR. OV1AT panics look to th lion on these tox' safety devices tin MR. BAILE MR.-OViAT smaller companu trained experts? MR. IU1LE MR. (>V1AT me out on this--' in making counts They go into ll memhitions. Mli. BA ILK agent manuals, which is n^nethod of coordinating the receipt of toxie materials into a plant, so that knowledge comes to the attention of the production personnel of the nature of the produet 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. I think the great diffi culty that occurs in many industries is that you 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. 3 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 elabo rate on methods available to insurance carriers to assist small indus tries ? MR. BAILE: 1 might say this: I think there is a distinction that should he 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 number 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 if with techni cal talent which it doesn't have available within its own personnel. MK. OY1ATT; Mr. Haile, 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, OV1ATT: And then they can impart that knowledge to the smaller compjmns -that - -net -in a .position to hire these highly trained experts ? MR. BAILE: I would say that is definitely true. MR. OV1ATT: 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] ME. OVIATT: I would like to add just one word if I 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, 1 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. . DR_BAOILMAN: Iwould like to comment Preference to earlier J questions. To maintain safety awareness vou must sav that a company lias 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 have a safety program unless you give the people working with toxic or carcinogenic materials such information. I 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. 1 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 im "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'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 enough. Each and go beyond industry. Tha MODERN thing to that ; MR, BA manufacturer that the law : statute, by jr standard, nar under those c Now, in < court or jury standards of finder to use : spread adopt determining have said thr. ness, can $a? reasonable ea I don't thinl careless prac 12 jurors ear 1 might I have alway man he ever AIR. SClike to have procedure brequired for qaantienlar'y product is P It is ir toxic mater chaser, who if that is re. MR. B a mantifit''t attributes < let `x say. P lhal ? I s 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? " SIR. 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 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 courts 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 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 tiiere 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 .requir.ftd ..forindustrial, .products. It has been inferred that it is not particularly important to exercise greater care in labeling if the product is to be handled in commercial use, thotigli 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. BAILE: If 1 understand your question, it is tins: `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 t production concern, like this bulk packaging that was in one of the earlier questions of the program. MR. BA1LE: 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, BA1LE: 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 he 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 4?art .of the .zaaau&otoner -t -inform them, -because the Jaw -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 I still missing it. MR. SCmVEXZFEIR. -JR.; That's it. Than!; yon. MODERATOR AIIEARX: Now. is there another question from the floor? [ 278] MR, W. \Y. I hear discussion on governmental grou control of hazardo MODERATO: answer that questi* MR. HATCH had in mind--obv; Industry, pro that can be best t 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. 1 think ing of this proced lent pertaining to ticnlar industry n use of that same he reasonahi'- reg from this point oi regulation which trations. Take ea for control of thb governing its con This is recoL are made Tor the ; by those people f and experience. < those who do part lation which will. TVe had in th same purpose l.ej regulations pert a the industries wh 1o hear on the pr lions which wouh industries that d . ' !* MR, "W, W. HODGE, Koppers Company, Inc.: 1 would like to hear 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: 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, it is required that an advisory committee he formulated, including representatives from the industries directly involved, those who supply equipment to he 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 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 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. T-bis i recognized in the New York procedure, and provisions are made for the active participation in formulation (if industry'codes by those people from the industries who do have needed information anti 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 tins 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 bear on the problem were invited to attend and contribute sugges tions which would make the final code more effective. 1 lielievc that tile 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 regu lations. MODERATOR AHEARX; Kow, 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 1 DR. BACHMAN: Of course, the question of trade secrets is rather an interesting question. If you have rather a fundamental patent on a process, yon 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 he 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, Tctoirt "know liow yon 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 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] JIODERAT undertake conce. culties to a man DR. BACH lieve people are MODERA1 wishes of the a Mr. Baile. Mr. < the eontributioi had a distingui a very profitah I would lik audience. Von 1 has inspired tl: audience to ha^ MODERATOR AHEAKN; You would never think it vise to undertake concealment if the price of concealment was to bring diffi culties to a man's health? DR, BACUMAX: Of course, I am a littie bit biased. I don't be lieve people are such blackguards that they would do those things. MODERATOR AHEARS; 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 bare made to our knowledge. We have had a distinguished panel, and I hope and believe that we have had a very profitable session. I 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. [281] I-H-F RO ARD OF TRUSTEES ANDREW H.ETCHER, Chairman President, St, Joseph lead Company, How Ywlt, N. Y* CARL B. POLLOCK, Stentary Vico President, Allegheny ludlum Steal Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa, M, W. THOMPSON, Jnawrtr GcAtref Manager ond frioiuter, The Had Ctoifl Company, Coif Liverpool, O, T, C WATERS# Goneraf CotmieJ Milt & Stockbridge, Baltimore, Md. V. P. AHEARN Executive Secretary, Notion! Industrial Sand Association, Washington, D. C H. W. ANDERSON Vice President, General Motor* Corporation, Detroit, Mick, JOHN BUGAS Vice President, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Mtch, H. K. CLARK - I Director, Tke Carborundum Company, Niagara Foils, N. Y. 1 J. DEWEY DORSET! General Manager, Association of Casualty and Surety Companies, New York, N, Y, PHILIP DRINKER, Sc.D. SekooJ of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Mats. A, R. FISHER I I President, John^Monrilli Corporation, New York, N. Y, f A. D, ROSS FRASER President, Rome Coble Corporation, Rome, N. Y. WILLIAM B, GIVEN, JR. Boord Chairman, American Brake Shoe Company, New York* N. Y. OSCAR A. GLAE5ER Vice President, United Steles Smelting Refining and Mining Company, Salt Lake City, Utah A. Y. GREGORY President, Whitehead Brother! Company, New York, N, Y, I A. C HIRTH { I Owni`I|linoii Gloss Company, Toledo, O. \ HARVEY B. JORDAN Executive Vice President, United States Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa. ^^.JtUEGHLE Vice President, Employer* Mutual liability Insurance Company, Wausau, Wi*. A. J. LANZA, M.D. Institute of Industrial Medicine, N.Y.tJ.--Bellevue Medical Center GEORGE M1XTER Director, United Stoles Smelting Refining and Mining Company, Boston, Mass. ^ E. V, MURPHREE, Sc.D. President', Esso Reieorch and Engineering Company, New York, N. Y. ALAN M. SCAIFE Vice President, T, Mellon & Sons, Pittsburgh, Po. R. C. TAYLOR Executive Vic*= President, Americon Can Company, New York, N. Y. C, RICHARD WALMER, M,D. Monogrng Director, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pc. W, P. YANT, Se,D. Director, Research ond Development, Mine Safety Appliances Compony, Ptltibucgh, ?o. I-H-F SCIENTIFIC STAFF C. RICHARD WAIMER, M.D. MonQQing Director DANIEL C. MAUN, M.D. Medicof Director H. H. SCHRENK. Ph.D, Reteorch Director THEODORE HATCH, S.M. Reteorch Adviser PAUL GROSS, M.D. Reteorch Pothologiil FRANK F. RUPERT, PUD, Head Chemicot Anolyit MARIAN L. WE5TRICK, Ph.D. Rerearch ToxicologUt LEE SCHREIBE1S, JR., M.P.H. Head Industrial Hygiene Engineer W, J. SCHREIBEIS, M.P.H. Indutlrial Hygiene Engineer J. M. McNERNEY, JR. AtfUtant Reteorch Toxicologist ETHEL TOtKER Research Attntont joan McDonald Reteorch Asihfotir kiril h. graf loborofery Technician EUEN C DIAMOND Office Manager VIVIAN M, COLONNA Editor 1-H-F RESEARCH ADVISORY COUNCIL W, A, HAMOR, Sc.D., Chairmen.,. THEODORE HATCH, S.M., Secretory, t. h. carleton, m.d........................ R. E, ECKARDT, M.D........................... W. M. GAFAFER, Se.D...................... A. J. LANZA, M.D................................ W. P. YANT. Sc.D......... ...................... ......................................... Mellon Institute ....Groduote School of Public Heolth, University of Pitftburgh; and Industrial Hygiene Foundation ................... .. .Inland Steel Company EttO Reteorch &, Engineering Compony ..................... U. S. Public Health Service .......Institute of Indirttrio! Medicine, N.Y.U.-- Bellevue Medicol Center ... .Mine Sofety Appliances Company GenrrofCount*!? T. C. WATER?, Es" 0, A. SANDER, M.D,, Cft A. G. KAMMER M.O.. C D. C. RftAUN, M.D., Seer L. - HAMLIN, M,D...... R, A, KEHOE. M.D......... , M- KUNE, M.D............ C HOWARD MARCY, A 1. C, McGEE, M.D............ M. N. NEWQUiST. M.D. N. J. ROBERTS, M.D.... C 0* SELBY, M,D............ W. F. SHEPARD, M.D... J. Ff 5HRONTS, M.D,.., K. w. Smith, m.d......... T, C WATERS, Chairmar ANDREW KALMYKOW, A. J. GENTHOLTS........... THEODORE HETZLER. JR A, nmin. ......... . h. m. jackson,.......... c. r. OVJATT........... J. A REGAN.................... IVAN SAfiOURIN.......... OOUGLAS SOOTAt... . F. C. WACHTER............. G. A. wess................ w. t Zimmerman. ... PHILIP DRINKER, Sc.D., C LEE SCKREIB&S, JRm Sec A. V. BENDER................ A. D, BRANDT, Sc.D.. . . J. V. GRIMALW, Fh.D. . J. M. KANE. ................... C, A McElWAtN. .... 6, G. MEITER, Ph.D........ R. T, PRING..................... C. W. SCHWENIFEiER, ANNA M.^tfETTER.'ScTT PAUL GROSS, M.D., Sec E. C BARNES................. it K C. PUNT...................... N. V HENDRICKS......... D. D. IRISH, Ph.D........... J. f, MORGAN............. f. A. PATTY..................... L, E. RENES...................... E. D. 5Alt.Ec................. H. F. SMYTH, jR. Fh.D. H. E. STOKiNGER. PhD C, A. BISHOP. Ph.D.. O H. H. SCHRENK. Ph.D., H. C. BAUman............. TJ L V- CRAUEY............... H. F. HfflEY............... .. G. M. 5AUNDERS. M.D 0. A. SANDER. MD,, Cholrtnon,... A. G. KAMMER, ACD, Co-Chairmei D. C. BRAUN, M.D, Setrefory......... 1. t HAMUN. m.0............................ K A. MHOS, MD............................. t M. KONfc MD................................ C HOWARD MARCY, m.0............ L C MeGEE. M.D............................. M. K. NEWOUfST. M.0.................... N. i. ROBERTS, M.0.......................... C O. SELBY, M.O................................ W. P. SHEPARD, M.0........................ t. F. SHRONTS, M.O......................... K. W. SMITH, M.0............................ I-H-F COMMITTEES MEWCAt COMMITTEE ................................................ ........ .Morquette University, School of Medicine ............ .University of Pittsburgh, Graduot# School of public Hoetih .............................................................................. Mtrstriol Hygiene Foundation ............................................. ........................ ...American Broke Shoo Company ....................................................University of Cincinnati, Kettering laboratory ........................................................ ............................. General Electric Company ...................................................................... .Tuberculosis league of Pittsburgh ..................................................................... ....Hrcuiet Powder Company ........................... .......................The Texas Company ......................... ......................................................Standard Oil Company (N. J.) ..............................University of MJchfaen, Graduate School of Public Health ........................................................ .. .Metropolitan life Inwronce Compony .......................................................................................... .. General Mills, Inc. .................. ........................ ........................................ Johns-Monvill# Corporation T. C. WATERS, Chairman............. ANDREW KAIMYKOW, Secretory. A. J. GENTHOITS........................... THEODORE HETZiiR, JR................. A t. Hill................................... I A. C. WRTH.................................. .. H. M. JACKSON............................... C R. OMATT.................................... A A REGAN................................. .... I IVAN SABOURlN.............................. DOUGLAS SOUTAR......................... f. C. WACHTER............................... G. A. WBSS..................................... W. CMMERMAN......................... LEGAL COMMITTEE ......................................... ....Miles Sfockbrldge ............Association of Casualty & Surety Companies ............................................Republic Steel Corporation National Association of Mvtuol Casualty Companies ............................................. ford Motor Company \................................ ...Owe*,.Illinois Gloss Company \...................................... Johns-ManviHeCorporation .................. ..Union Carbide & Carbon Corporation .................................. .The Self'lnsuteTS Association f........................... Quebec Asbestos Mining Association .................... American SmolHng A Jtafamg Compony ......................... Pennsylvania Clots Sand Corporation ................................................Rome Coble Corporation .............................................................Sun Oi) Company PREVENTIVE ENGINEERING COMMITTEE PHILIP DRINKER, Sc.D., Chairman IEE SCHR0BE1S, JR, Secretory... A. V. BENDER................................. A. 0. BRANDT, $c.O....................... J. V. GR1MAIDI, Ph.D. ................ J. M, KANE..................................... C. F. MeElWAIN............................ E. O. MBTER, PhD........................ R. T. PffNG............................. C. W. SCHWEN2F0ER, J*.......... . .Hgrvord University School of Public Health ................... .Mdu>trial Hygiene foundation ............................ .. .Notional lead Compony ..........................Bethlehem Sleet Company ................................ General Electric Company .............. .. American Air filter Company .Intemationoi Business Machines Corporation ...........Employers Mutuols of Wausou ....................... .. Wheetobrotor Corporation ...............Brush Beryllium Company CHEMICAL-TOXICOLOGICAL COMMITTEE ANNA M. BAETJER. Sc.D., Chairman. *F*Ul-Gfc!>$S,rM.B.,nSato'r...____ E. C. BARNES.......................................... f. C. FUNT.............................................. N. V HENDRICKS.................................. D. D. IRISH, Ph.D.................................... J. F. MORGAN....................................... f. A. PATTY............................................ L E. RENES................. .......................... E. 0. SAUEE........................................... H. F. SMYTH, JR, Ph.D........................ H. E STOWnGER. PhD........................ ..................... .Johns Hopkins University .............. .Industrial Hygiene foundation ..., Westingsuse' Eleetrie' Corporation ................... Hoiel-Atlos Glass Compony Esso Reseercfc A Engineering Company ..................... ..Do* Chemkol Compony | ..The Penmylvonle Roilrood Compony ......... General Motors Corporotion ....................Phillips Petroleum Company m ......................... American Con Compony .................,.......... ...Mellon Institute ..........U. S. Public Heotth Service AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE C. A. BISHOP. PhD.. Choirmon.. H. H. SCHRENK, Ph.D, Secretory. H. C- Bauman............... ............. L V. CRAUEY................................ M. F. HEBIEY.............................. .... G. M- SAUNDERS, M.D................. .............. United Stoles Steet Corporation .................Industrial Hygiene Foundation .............. Air Pollution Control Association .......Aluminum Company of Americo Pittsburgh Consolidation Cool Compony ...... Sotony Mobil Oil Compony, Inc. 'I j Mellon Institute is an endowed nonprofit cor porato body for conducting comprehensive t investigations on important problems in the pure and applied natural sciences, for training researdi workers, and for providing technical information adaptable to professional, public and industrial advantage. kI V ! I be based noon' thi.s .lim.ited *data. Hejnust see to it that the, necessary additional information is obtained. MODERATOR AHEAHX: Dr. McGee. DR. McGEE: Accepting the suggestions that Ted Hatch has given. I wonder if lie would admit there is a practical shortcut which is useful in human exposures to some materials. 1 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 yon 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: 1. "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 product if an adequate warning label is placed on the container but the ultimate consumer either does not read the warning label 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 eilber on the laW) or otherwise and of the care that should be 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 ,l.o put .the .notice nr .the -wanning -nr-.any -material -part -thereof -on the packages, then he should call the reseller's attention to it. If the reseller persists in disregarding those warnings, then I believe thar 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 aiv going to use it. the chemical knowledge and results that might come from mishandling. So. yon can't say a label has to bear thus and so for the entire general public. And ihat would also control to a certain extent, what should go on a label to a reseller. It is what knowledge lie may have of the chemicals sold and what lie should ad , vise his purchasers as to file method of use.