Appendix — Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Danfield

Supreme Court, U.S.

a

- | FILED

APR 4 1988

No. 87-1472 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR.

aseneainiaatie | CLERK a

oe

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1987

\ a

-\ 7,

‘ . \

LS A OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., et al.,

oC ' Petitioners,

\

Qe |

aN 3RUCE E. DANFIELD, et ux.,

Respondents.

APPENDIX TO

BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS

BRUCE E. DANFIELD, ET UX..,

IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

James C. Gavin

Counsel of Record)

GAVIN & GAVIN, P.A.

28 Tanner Street

Haddonfield, NJ 08033

509 ) 429-8200

Attorneys for Respondents

Bruce E. Danfield, et ux.

PACKARD PRESS | LEGAL DIVISION, 10th & SPRING GARDEN STREETS, PHILA, PA. 19123 (215) 236-2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

In The Matter of Asbestos Litigation Venued In

Middlesex County, transcript of proceedings of

Sommerer O, FOGS kei cee ccc euns la

Opinion of the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey, Campolongo v. The

Celotex Corp., No. 82-2953, (D.N.J. March 1,

EE 2 2 isa Ne es cea bd atten ea c.. OO

New Jersey Products Liability Act of 1987, N.J. Stat.

Ann. §§ 2A:58C-1 to 2A:58C-7 (West 1987)... 17a

U.S. NAvy, U.S. MARITIME COMMISSION, MINI-

MUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFETY AND INDUS-

TRIAL HEALTH IN CONTRACT SHIPYARDS

Cease ee ba onan er unes 25a

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Docket No. L 52237-81

IN THE MATTER OF:

ASBESTOS LITIGATION VENUED IN MIDDLESEX

ae se ale se ae ale aie

New Brunswick, New Jersey

September 10, 1984

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:

McCARTER & ENGLISH

BEFORE:

HONORABLE JOHN E. KEEFE, JSC

APPEARANCES:

BERTRAM GLASSNER, ESQ.

Att. for Plf. Heckman.

RONALD GRAYZEL, ESQ.

Att. for PIf.

ALAN DARNELL, ESQ.

Att. for Plt.

ANDREW T. BERRY, ESQ.

Att. for Dett. Owens Illinois

FRANCIS FOLEY, ESQ.

Att. for Deft. Porter Hayden

JAMES MELHUISH, ESQ.

Att. for Deft. Raymark Industries

PHILIP TORTORETI, ESQ.

Att. for Deft.

Daye F. Fenton, CSR

Middlesex County Courthouse

la

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

As much as I would like to come to the conclusion

personally that Beshada is different because obviously it

would be a-complete vindication of how I ruled on the

motion, it’s my obligation as a trial court judge to give

life and meaning to things that are written by the

Supreme Court and make some sense out of what they

imply.

It is my view that post Feldman, Beshada stands for

the atypical product liability case and that Feldman

stands for the typical case, whatever that is. If Justice

Schreiber, who is_a very intelligent man, intended with

the rest of the Court who joined him in this opinion,

wanted to reverse Beshada, they would have done so. If

they wanted to limit Beshada to those six cases on appeal

they would have done so. If there was any question in

their minds as to whether any of those six cases still

existed or whether I had disposed of them so that they

were concerned about affecting the rights of litigants in

whose cases they perhaps were ruling upon they could

have asked but didn’t. Instead they said that, “The

rationale of Beshada is not applicable to this case,” and

when I say to this case they mean the rationale of

Beshada is not applicable to the general typical liability

case. “We do not overrule Beshada but restrict Beshada

to the circumstances giving rise to its holding” and they

use the word circumstances as opposed to facts because

there were no facts which were decided in Beshada or

the cases that were joined with it.

The word circumstances has even broader meaning

I think than the word fact. There are circumstances

about Beshada which I think might conceivably be

applied to other types of product litigation if not in New

Jersey certainly in the United States. The circumstances

of Beshada, when you consider the presence of amicus

on the part of all litigants is that we have a vast number

of an who are injured by a specific product, the

injury is brought about over a long latency period and

3a

because of those factors and circumstances it is difficult,

both for Plaintiffs and Defendants, to intelligently try the

issue of state of the art.

| In justification for his reasoning in the opinion

Justice Pashman pointed to the fact finding process as

being one of the most difficult considerations for a trial

| Court and jury in that setting. I think he meant it to

| apply to a much broader setting but in terms of rational-

| izing why Beshada was not overruled it seems to me that

one of the factors and circumstances certainly is the

question of how difficult it would be in a multiple

defendant, multiple plaintiff case, for a jury to come to

some conclusion that at one point in time one defendant

knew and another didn’t, whether it was in point of time

that the actual injury occurred, things of that nature. So

when Justice Schreiber alluded to the circumstances

giving rise to its holding, I believe, obviously I’m not

sure, that that’s what he perhaps intended. I think after

the string of citations that really don’t deal with circum-

stances but rather factual decisions, when he alludes to

what may also have been known, he’s trying to point out

that that consideration relative to state of the art doesn’t

deal only with medicine it deals also with other sources

of information. I think anyone who was aware of what

transpired in the Beshada hearing before me if not

before the Supreme Court, knew that we were talking

about the Summer — Simpson documents and trade

association minutes and things of that nature and that it

wasn’t simply limited to a state of the art defense based

upon medical knowledge all those other things obviously

stem from what the medical profession was doing by

way of research. It doesn’t seem to me to be my, my right

to decide the issue of equal protection. If the Supreme

Court of New Jersey feels that the concepts of Beshada

should continue to apply to what they term as atypical

cases, asbestos litigation being one of them, I think the

question ought to be resolved by them as to whether

that’s a rational distinction based upon acknowledged

a

da

public policy and not violative of due process. But it

seems that there may be other classes of cases that

might fall within Beshada, namely the D.E.S. cases, the

dioxin, ground water pollution cases and probably vast

number of cases that possibly could fit into that atypical

circumstances. | don’t know how many.

So, as unhappy as I am about the existence of

Beshada continuing, as much as I would like to agree

with Mr. Berry, I feel that it's my obligation as a trial

Court Judge to give effect to what has been said and |

think that the conclusion I make at this time gives

meaning to the passage in the Feldman opinion which

takes place between pages 33 and 35 of that opinion. So

state of the art in my view remains irrelevant in the

continuing trial of asbestos litigation at least in Middle-

sex County and in view of my decision and the impact it

may have on the Defendants and in view of what I

consider to be a very interesting and important question

which ought to be decided by an appellate court before a

lot of people waste a lot of time and money, I am going

to stay trials in this County for a period of 30 days to

permit those people who are interested in applying for

leave to appeal on an interlocutory basis, the opportunity

to do so. I encourage you to do so.

That stay will apply to all cases, except those cases

in which the theory of recovery is not strict liability or —

the only one I can think of offhand is the Orrego trial

which is scheduled for September 24th, that case will

proceed forward since strict liability is not an issue in

that case and to be a little more specific | am adjourning

all trials through the week of October 22nd.

MR. LOCKE: Through and including?

THE COURT: Through and including the week of

the 22nd.

5a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANN MAE CAMPOLONGO, Exec- : Civil Action No. 82-2953

utrix of the Estate of Benjamin :

J. Campolongo, deceased; and :

ANN MAE CAMPOLONGO, :

individually, . : eae

Plaintiff. - MEMORANDUM

vs 7

THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, -

et al.

Defendants.

WOLIN, District Judge

Appearances: James C. Gavin, Esq

Gavin & Gavin

28 lanner Street

Haddonfield, NJ 08033

for plaintiffs )

David A. Speziali, Esq.

McCarter & English

550 Broad Street

Newark, NJ 07102

for defendants Celotex

Corp., et al.)

David D. Bromberg, Esq.

Budd, Larner, Gross.

Picillo, Rosenbaum,

Greenberg & Sade

150 JFK Parkway

Short Hills, NJ 07078

for defendant Combustion

Engineering, Inc.

eee

6a

A. BACKGROUND

Recently this court commenced a product liability

failure-to-warn trial involving insulation products con-

taining asbestos. After jury selection, the case was

settled. The warrant for the memorialization of this

memorandum lies in the case management decision of

the court with regard to the order of plaintiff's proofs,

the elimination of conduct-related testimony and the

severance of plaintiff's negligence and punitive damage

claims from those sounding in strict liability.!’ More

specifically, the quid pro quo for the relief sought was

defendants’ waiver of the affirmative defenses of as-

sumption of the risk and superceding cause. Defendants

also agreed to a jury instruction that an asbestos product

without a warning is a defective product as a matter of

law.

Undeniably asbestos exposure litigation has created

a court logjam of unprecedented dimension. It is esti-

mated that “more than 30,000 asbestos personal injury

claims were filed nationwide by 1986, and an additional

180.000 claims are projected to be on court dockets by

the vear 2010." In re School Asbestos Litigation, 789

F.2d 996, 1000 (3d Cir. 1986). The portent of this

staggering and almost incomprehensible number of

1. This court notes that under the New Jersey Products

Liability Act of 1987, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:58C-1 © 2ZA:58C-7

West 1987

I ihere is an urgent need for remedial legislation to establish

clear rules with respect to certain matters relating to actions for

damages to harm caused by products, including certain prin

ciples under which liability is imposed and the standards and

procedures for the award of punitive damages

Id. at § 2A:58C-l(a). However, this law appears by definition

inapplicable to asbestos product liability actions. See § 2A:58C-6

“The provisions of this act shall not apply to any environmental tort

action.”), and § 2A:58C-l(b) (4) (defining “environmental tort

action” as “a civil action seeking damages tor harm where the cause

of the harm is exposure to toxic Chemicals or substances”

fa

claims compels the legal and the judicial communities to

mutually rethink the organic structure of a product

liability trial, especially when it is premised on an

asbestos-related injury. The magnitude of the problem

invites the employment of extraordinary case manage-

ment techniques provided they equally serve the liti-

gants, the court and the ends of justice. See In the

Matter of Asbestos Litigation Venued in Middlesex

County, No. L-52237-81 (N.J. Super Ct., Law Div.),

aff'd, 99 N.J. 201, 491 A.2d 700 (1984) (severance of

compensatory from punitive damage claims); Wilson v.

Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 107 F.R.D. 250, 251 (S.D.

Texas 1985) (suits of fiftv asbestos claimants joined

together for single trial on bifurcated issues of liability

and punitive damages).

This court has not concluded that it will be unable to

afford every asbestos claimant a separate trial. Each of

these trials tend to be lengthy affairs; yet this court also

understands that an asbestos-related injury is often a

devastating and fatal occurrence requiring prompt judi-

cial attention. Therefore, a posthumous award, while

easing the family’s burden of loss, provides little solace

or comfort to the injured plaintiff. Further, the specter of

remediless claimants and culpable bankrupt corpora-

tions is a prospect more real than fanciful and a foun-

dation for judicial concern. Fortuitous docket placement

is a cruel and unkind measure for determining who shall

share and share not.

In the instant action Benjamin J. Campolongo,

through his executrix, seeks inter alia compensatory

and punitive damages. It is alleged that he was exposed

to an array of asbestos products and ultimately con-

tracted mesothelioma, a progressive and fatal disease.”

insulation contractor {rom 1929 to 1968 when he retired from a

» The plainutt was emploved by Robert A. Keasbey, as an

non-related brain abscess. His mesothelioma was diagnosed in

January. 1981 and he died in October. 1981 at 74 vears of age

Sa

By a motion in limine immediately prior to trial, the

defendants moved for a severance, at trial, of strict

liability claims, thereby precluding the presentation of

evidence directed towards a negligence theory as well as

a punitive damage claim. The plaintiff objected, assert-

ing that a trial limited to a strict liability theory contra-

venes Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(2) and would seriously preju-

dice plaintiff in his direct-case while providing no benefit

to the court. Plaintiff further contended that a severance

as anticipated by defendant's application will alter plain-

uiff’s burden regarding proximate cause and permit the

scrutiny of his conduct and that of others while avoiding

an examination of defendants’ conduct.

B. ANALYSIS

Rule 8(e)(2). a rule of pleading, focuses on pleading

and not the order of proof at trial.* Though there exists

authority permitting a plaintiff to plead and submit

alternative theories to a jury without the necessity of

election, Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fire Co. of New Jersey,

81 N.J. 548, 410 A.2d 674 (1981), this court is not bound

by that authority; nor is it controlling that other district

judges have chosen not to sever claims on past

occasions. !

3. Rule 8(e 2) provides

“A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or

defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one Count or

detense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more

statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made

independently would be sufficient, the pleading ts not made

insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more alternative

statements. A party may also state as many separate Claims 01

defenses as the party has regardless of Consistency and

whether based on legal. equitable. or maritime yrounds. All

statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in

Aule Li.”

1. Gogol v. Johns-Mancville Sales Corp. 995 bk. Supp. 971 1)

NJ. 1984): Valori 7 Johns-Mancille Sales Carp. slip op No

Ya

On the other hand, Rule 42(b) provides:

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to

avoid prejudice, or when separate trials wil [sic] be

conducive to expedition and economy, may order a

separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counter-

claim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue

or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counter-

claims, or third-party claims, or issues, always pre-

serving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared

by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as

given by a statute of the United States.”

Although this rule is discretionary, its implications are

clear. The litany of alternatives phrased in the disjunc-

tive permit the trial court to define the contours of a trial,

provided it preserves the inviolate right of trial by jury.

In New Jersey, the forum state, courts have uniformly

severed compensatory from punitive damage claims.°

Similarly, in our neighboring state of Pennsylvania, both

federal and state courts have engaged in varying sever-

ance procedures often staying the punitive damage

claims for a period of on > vear.®

The collective wisdom of these courts forged from

the crucible of experience is a persuasive influences

entitled to a substantial degree of judicial deference,

provided it accomplishes the goals of:

(1) simplification of the fact finding process,

§2-2686 (D N.J. Dec. 11, 1985); Anthony Meloni, et al. v. Johns-

Mansville Sales Corp, et al., slip op. No. 81-2542 (D. N.J. Oct. 1.

1986 )

5. Aside from Judge Keefe in Middlesex County, other judges

in Camden, Atlantic and Hudson Counties have also severed

compensatory from punitive damage claims

6 Inthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania, medical causation

and compensatory damages are tried first, followed by a liability

trial, and if necessary, a pumitve damage trial. In Philadelphia.

Judge Klemm of the Court of Common Pleas, has severed punitive

damage claims and staved them for a period of vears

10a

(2) lack of confusion,

(3) judicial economy, and

(4) fundamental fairness.

There exist other policy reasons and concerns beyond

those enumerated. Foremost, is the conduct of a trial

free of the inflammatory influences that naturally flow

from conduct-related proofs which possess the capacity

to adversely affect a product-oriented proceeding

through a disproportionate compensatory verdict. A bal-

anced trial provides for a verdict reasonably related to

the injury sustained and the resulting consequential

damages. However, as soon as conduct-related proofs

are intermingled with those that are purely product-

related, a fiery element has been added that has the

capacity to inject punishment under the guise of a

compensatory award. This is wrong and courts should

not permit this to happen when they possess the author-

ity to do otherwise. Indeed, despite Justice Clifford's

statement in Fischer v. Johns-Manville Corporation, 103

N.J. 643, 655, 512 A.2d 466 (1986), that “there is no

reason why a failure-to-warn strict products liability case

and a claim for punitive damages cannot be litigated

together”, he tellingly omits language of disapproval for

future disposition of severed asbestos-related claims.*

Simply put, the severance of the punitive facet of

damages from the compensatory claim with the concom-

itant elimination of conduct-related proofs guarantees,

to the extent humanly possible, a fair compensatory

award free of the taint and suspicion that pervades a

verdict when all issues are litigated together.

Most recently, this Circuit in In re Asbestos Litiga-

tion, 829 F.2d 1233 (3rd Cir. 1987), had the opportunity

7. Though this statement is dictum, it is surprising in light of

the Supreme Court's affirmance. In the Matter of Asbestos Litiga-

tion Venued in Middlesex County, 99 N.J. 201, 491 A.2d 700

(1984).

lla

to review an en banc order of the District Court, In re

Asbestos Litigation, 628 F. Supp. 7744 (D. N.J. 1986) (en

banc).® In referring to Beshada v. Johhns-Manville Prod-

ucts Corp., 90 N.J. 191, 447 A.2d 5399 (1962), the court

recognized case management as a primary judicial con-

cern and that expertise of the court with respect thereto

deserves due deference. 929 F.2d at 1240. The court

also accorded the presumption of regularity to the

Beshada choice of alternatives whem measured against

the social, economic and administrative nature of the

issues which confronted the Beshada court. Id.

The focus of Beskada was whether the product was

defective for lack of a warning. Therefore, the court

reasoned, a manufacturer’s knowledlge at the time he

distributed the product is not relevamt in a strict liability

proceeding. Unlike a negligence cliaim, knowledge of

the dangerousness of the product is imputed to defen-

dants. Freund v. Cellofilm Properties;, Inc., 87 N.J. 229,

432 A.2d 925 (1981). Though severely criticized,

Beshada survives but is limited to the circumstances

giving rise to its holding. Feldman v.. Lederle Laborato-

ries, 97 N.J. 429, 455, 479 A.2d 374 (1984). Since New

Jersey chooses to treat asbestos cases differently than

other product liability cases, it does mot require a quan-

tum leap for this court to suggest thait, as a matter of law

and policy, an asbestos-related product without a warn-

ing is a defective product. We have moved beyond the

risk-utility analysis and past concern of whether the

benefit outweighs the risk. Experience demonstrates

that an asbestos-related product is unsafe because a

warning could have made it safer at virtually no added

cost and without limiting its utility. Indisputably, a

8 The Third Circuit upheld a “rational basis” challenge to the

constitutionality of Beshada’s elimination of the state-of-the-art

detense in tailure-to-warn asbestos-related Claims grounded on the

theory of strict liability

—<- 12a

warning would have lessened exposure and avoided

countless injuries.

Since Freund stated unequivocally that there is a

difference between negligence and strict liability in

failure-to-warn cases, this distinction becomes more

pronounced when it is buttressed by legal fictions. First,

the imputation of knowledge in Freund and its subse-

quent endorsement in Beshada. Second, the declaration

here, that an asbestos-related product without a warning

is a defective product. As stated in Beshada “a major

concern of strict liability . . . is the conclusion that if a

product was in fact defective, the distributor of the

product should compensate its victims for the misfor-

tune that it inflicted on them.” 90 N.J. at 204, 477 A.2d

at 546. With Beshada in mind and with the awareness

that plaintiff still retains the burden of demonstrating

that the defective product was the proximate cause of

the plaintiff’s injury, this court is satisfied that the

proposed instruction is merely a logical extension of that

which has preceeded it. Moreover, it is a position that

the New Jersey Supreme Court could reasonably adopt.

Regardless of the instruction pertaining to finding

the product defective as a matter of law, none of the

salutary principles previously enumerated will be ac-

complished through bifurcation if the defendants are

permitted to advance conduct-related affirmative de-

fenses. Their presence invite rebuttal testimony of

equally egregious conduct-related proofs, thereby obvi-

ating the need for a severed trial. Abandonment of

traditional trial strategems will achieve a more formida-

ble purpose, that being a true compensatory verdict

reflective of the injury sustained. Under the current

state of strict liability law, this value judgment rests

solely with the defense and it is the sine qua non for that

which they propose—a conduct-free trial. Its prospect

invites analysis.

Central to the defense of assumption of the risk is

voluntary and unreasonable conduct wherein a plaintiff

isa

voluntarily proceeds to encounter a known danger.

Whitehead v. St. Joe Lead Co., Inc., 729 F.2d 238 (3rd

Cir. 1984). As Judge Gibbons stated: “Thus, assumption

of the risk has three elements: the plaintiff's conduct

must be (1) knowing, (2) voluntary,-and (3) unreason-

able.” Id. at 251-252 (citation omitted). The heart of the

state-of-the-art defense that Beshada precluded was the

showing that at relevant times the distributor did not

know nor could have known of the dangerous propensity

of an asbestos-related product. Thereafter, knowledge

was imputed to the distributor but it was not imputed to

those who were affected by it. Accordingly, to posit a

defense on that which the distributor did not know and

yet attribute that knowledge to an employee is illogical

and unsound. This is especially true when, as in many

situations, an employee has no meaningful control over

his work environment. 729 F.2d 252. Since contributory

fault was found to be unavailable as a defense in Suter v.

San Angelo Foundry & Machine Company, 81 N.J. 150,

406 A.2d 140 (1979), a design defect injury case occur-

ring in an employee-factory setting, its inapplicability

here is even more compelling.

The elimination of the affirmative defense of super-

seding cause or the intervening acts of others, however,

is more troublesome. In Menna v. Johns-Manville, 585

F. Supp. 1178 (D. N.J. 1984), aff'd 772 F.2d 895 (3rd

Cir. 1985), Judge Ackerman. when confronted with this

issue, observed that the plaintiff always has the obliga-

tion to demonstrate that a defect in the seller’s product

was the proximate cause of the injury. He then ruled

that the employer’s conduct as a “sophisticated cus-

tomer” was relevant to the question of proximate causa-

tion. Such a defense in non-asbestos cases has been

permitted as it pertains to the theory of concurrent

causation. See Michalko v. Cooke Color & Chem. Corp..,

91 N.J. 386, 400, 451 A.2d 170 (1982); Freund, supra,

87 N.J. at 245-248, 432 A.2d 925.

Ilda

Nevertheless, conduct of others connected with the

workplace, though relevant and admissible, is the type of

proof that plaintiff contends necessitates rebuttal by

allegations of defendants’ negligence. For example in

Butler v. PPG Industries, Inc., 201 N.J. Super. 558.

563-564. 493 A.2d 619 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 102

N.J. 298, 508 A.2d 185 (1985), the Appellate Division

noted that under a theory of employer's concurrent

proximate causation, the manufacturer still remaind

[sic] liable when responsible tor the original defect. The

court concluded that “the alleged negligence of |the

employer] could not exculpate ithe manufacturer| and

there was accordingly no warrant for the jury to be

presented with these proofs.” Id. at 564, 493 A.2d 619.°

In the instant action plaintiff submits that in a hyper-

strict liability asbestos case the only conduct appropriate

for measurement is that of other co-defendants whose

products are likewise identifiable at the job site. The

issue of concurrent causation is limited; it assumes a

horizontal plane. thereby avoiding the pitfalls of a verti-

cal attack. This court agrees.

A conduct-free trial, as requested by the movant, in

order to be procedurally fair requires the elimination ot

conduct as to all but co-defendants, thereby eliminating

the necessity for plaintiff to rebut through negligence

proofs any inference that his or his emplover’s conduct

contributed to his devastating injury and loss. Such a

9 Inasmuch as defendants assert that plainult’s employer ts at

least partially responsible for the injury the issue is whether an

action for contribution or indemnification arises against the em

plover. See. e.g. Stephenson v. R.A. Jones & Co Inc.. 103 N.J. 194.

200. 510 A.2d (1986) Cunder workmen's Compensation scheme

contribution recoverv by manufacturer against plhanutt’s emploven

allowed only if manufacturer is “secondarily or vicariously liable

not personally at fault) |") (citation omitted ). By analogy to Stephen

son and in light of the judicial policy underlying Beshada, this court

seriously questions whether detendants have a cause of action tor

contribution——thev are clearly more than mere passive tordeasors

Da

trial necessarily concerns itself with the following: (1)

product identification at the workplace, (2) that the

product without warning was defective, (3) that the

defect existed when the product was distributed under

the control of the defendant, (4) conditions of plaintiff's

exposure, (5) that the defective product was the proxi-

mate cause of the injury, and (6) medical causation.

Traditional notions of proximate cause affirmative de-

fenses predicated on the conduct of others do not lend

themselves to a Beshada-type case, and though legally

relevant, should be waived.

C. CONCLUSION

Returning to the wording and substance of Rule

42(b), the analysis of this court addresses all of the

salutary principles that partake of the rule. Undoubt-

edly, the elimination of conduct-related proofs will fur-

ther the convenience of all concerned as the result of the

diminution of the quantum of proofs required, expenses

of trial and jury utilization. Assuredly, a defined focus on

product defect and the compensatory damage aspect of

the case will serve to promote a fair and impartial verdict

devoid of conduct-related influences. Moreover, the abil-

ity of the jury to fathom all of the complexities of

asbestos-related litigation will not be tested through trial

by ordeal when methods for simplification of issues exist

without prejudice to the litigants.

With the court’s elimination of conduct-related

j proots for all litigants, the likelihood of prejudice is

lessened. The inflammatory aspect of the trial is re-

moved and perhaps all that remains is a sterile presen-

tation of facts. Although that type of presentation may be

dramaless and in another setting represent poor theatre.

it is the precise prescription for curing the ailment

caused by product exposure in an asbestos-related com-

pensatory damage trial.

0 SESS

l6a

But for the settkement of this case, the order of

proofs would have separated the strict liability count

from the negligence count and severed the compensa-

tory damage claim from that seeking punitive damages.

The severed counts and claims would have proceeded

with the same jury at the conclusion of the first trial.

should the plaintiff so have elected to proceed.

The decision of this court was limited to the facts of

this case and although its reasoning may have similar

application in other asbestos-related cases, it is not to be

construed as a definitive determination applicable to all

asbestos-related claims. Its origins rest in this court’s

comprehensive analysis of the policy considerations ap-

propriate to asbestos litigation coupled with a genuine

concern that all asbestos injured claimants receive their

day in court. A necesary counter-weight between liti-

gants is that the eventual award, if any, be’ purely

compensatory and not reflect an added assessment of

punitive damages.

Dated: March 1, 1988

ALFRED M. WOLIN, U.S.D.J.

CHAPTER 58C

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Section

2A:58C-1. Legislative findings; definitions.

2A:58C-2. Liability of manufacturer or seller; proof by

preponderance of evidence product not

reasonably fit, suitable or safe for its in-

tended purpose.

2A:58C-3. Defenses.

2A:58C-4. Adequate product warning or instruction;

rebuttable presumption of adequacy after

approval.

2A: 5. Punitive damages.

2A:58C-6. Environmental tort action; inapplicability of

act.

A:58C-7. Burden of proof in product liability action;

establishment or alteration of existing

rule.

2A:58C-1. Legislative findings; definitions

a. The Legislature finds that there is an urgent

need for remedial legislation to establish clear rules with

respect to certain matters relaiing to actions for damages

for harm caused by products, including certain princi-

ples under which liability is imposed and the standards

and procedures for the award of punitive damages. This

act is not intended to codify all issues relating to product

liability, but only to deal with matters that require

clarification. The Legislature further finds that such

sponsors’ or committee statements that may be adopted

or included in the legislative history of this act shall be

consulted in the interpretation and construction of this

act.

b. As used in this act:

ee

l8a

(1) “Claimant” means any person who brings a

product liability action, and if such an action is

brought through or on behalf of an estate, the term

includes the person’s decedent, or if an action is

brought through or on behalf of a minor, the term

includes the person’s parent or guardian.

(2) “Harm” means (a) physical damage to prop-

erty, other than to the product itself; (b) personal

physical illness, injury or death; (c) pain and suffer-

ing, mental anguish or emotional harm; and (d) any

loss of consortium or services or other loss deriving

from any type of harm described in subparagraphs

(a) through (c) of this paragraph.

(3) “Product liability action” means any claim

or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by

a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the

claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of

an express warranty.

(4) “Environmental tort action” means a civil

action seeking damages for harm where the cause of

the harm is exposure to toxic chemicals or sub-

stances, but does not mean actions involving drugs

or products intended for personal consumption or

use. L.1987, c. 197, § 1, eff. July 22, 1987.

2A:58C-2. Liability of manufacturer or seller; proof by

preponderance of evidence product not reason-

ably fit, suitable or safe for its intended pur-

pose

A manufacturer or seller of a product shall be liable

in a product liability action only if the claimant proves by

a preponderance of the evidence that the product caus-

ing the harm was not reasonably fit, suitable or safe for

its intended purpose because it: a. deviated from the

design specifications, formulae, or performance stan-

dards of the manufacturer or from otherwise idential

19a

units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifi-

cations or formulae, or b. failed to contain adequate

warnings or instructions, or c. was designed in a defec-

live manner.

L.1987, c. 197, § 2, eff. July 22, 1987.

2A:58C-3. Defenses

a. In any product liability action against a manufac-

turer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a product

that was designed in a defective manner, the manufac-

turer or seller shall not be liable if:

(1) At the time the product left the control of

the manufacturer, there was not a practical and

technically feasible alternative design that would

have prevented the harm without substantially im-

pairing the reasonably anticipated or intended func-

tion of the product; or

(2) The characteristics of the product are

known to the ordinary consumer or user, and the

harm was caused by an unsafe aspect of the product

that is an inherent characteristic of the product and

that would be recognized by the ordinary person

who uses or consumes the product with the ordinary

knowledge common to the class of persons for

whom the product is intended, except that this

paragraph shall not apply to industrial machinery or

other equipment used in the workplace and it is not

| intended to apply to dangers posed by products such

f as machinery or equipment that can feasibly be

eliminated without impairing the usefulness of the

product; or

(3) The harm was caused by an unavoidably

unsafe aspect of the product and the product was

accompanied by an adequate warning or instruction

2 eae

20a

as defined in section 4 of this act.’

b. The provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection a.

of this section shall not apply if the court, on the basis of

clear and convincing evidence, makes all of the follow-

ing determinations:

(1) The product is egregiously unsafe or ultra-

hazardous;

(2) The ordinary user or consumer of the prod-

uct cannot reasonably be expected to have knowl-

edge of the product's risks, or the product poses a

risk of serious injury to persons other than the user

or consumer; and

(3) The product has little or no usefulness.

c. No provision of subsection a. of this section is

intended to establish any rule, or alter any existing rule.

with respect to the burden of proof.

L.1987, c. 197, § 3, eff. July 22, 1987.

2A;58C-4. Adequate product warning or instruction; re-

buttable presumption of adequacy after ap-

, proval

In any product liability action the manufacturer or

seller shall not be liable for harm caused by a failure to

warn if the product contains an adequate warning or

instruction or, in the case of dangers a manufacturer or

seiler discovers or reasonably should discover after the

product leaves its control, if the manufacturer or seller

provides an adequate warning or instruction. An ade-

quate product warning or instruction is one that a

reasonably prudent person in the same or similar cir-

cumstances would have provided with respect to the

danger and that communicates adequate information on

the dangers and safe use of the product, taking into

1 Section 2A:58C-4

2la

account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowl-

edge common to, the persons by whom the product is

intended to be used, or in the case of prescription drugs.

taking into account the characteristics of. and the ordi-

nary knowledge common to, the prescribing physician.

If the warning or instruction given in connection with a

drug or device or food or food additive has been approved

or prescribed by the federal Food and Drug Administra-

tion under the “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

32 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq. or the “Public

Health Service Act.” 58 Stat. 682. 42 USC $201 et

seq., a rebuttable presumption shall arise that the warn-

ing or instruction is adequate. For purposes of this

section. the terms “drug”, “device”. “food”. and “food

additive” have the meanings defined in the “Federal

Food, Drug. and Cosmetic Act.”

L.1987, c. 197, §4. eff. July 22. 1987.

2A:58C-5. Punitive damages

a. Punitive damages may be awarded to the claim-

ant only if the claimant proves, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the harm suffered was the result of

the product manufacturer's or seller's acts or omissions.

and such acts or omissions were actuated by actual

malice or accompanied by a wanton and willful disre-

gard of the safety of product users, consumers. or others

who foreseeably might be harmed by the product. For

the purposes of this section “actual malice” means an

intenuonal wrongdoing in the sense of an evil-minded

act, and “wanton and willful disregard” means a delib-

erate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of

probability of harm to another and reckless indifference

to the consequences of such action or omission. Punitive

damages shall not be awarded in the absence of an

award of compensatory damages.

b. The trier of fact shall first determine whether

compensatory damages are to be awarded. Evidence

relevant only to punitive damages shall not be admissi-

ble in that proceeding. After such determination has

been made, the trier of fact shall, in a separate proceed-

ing, determine whether punitive damages are to be

awarded. In determining whether punitive damages are

to be awarded, the trier of fact shall consider all relevant

evidence. including but not limited to, the following:

(1) The likelihood at the relevant time that

serious harm would arise from the tortfeasor’s con-

duct:

(2) The tortteasor’s awareness of reckless dis-

regard of the likelihood that the serious harm at

issue would arise trom the tortfeasor’s conduct:

(3) The conduct of the tortfeasor upon learning

that its initial conduct would likely cause harm; and

4) The duration of the conduct or any conceal-

ment of it by the tortfteascr.

c. Punitive damages shall not be awarded if a drug

or device or food or food additive which caused the

claimant’s harm was subject to premarket approval or

licensure by the federal Food and Drug Administration

under the “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” 52

Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq. or the “Public Health

Service Act.” 58 Stat. 682, 42 U.S.C. §201 et seq. and

was approved or licensed; or is generally recognized as

safe and effective pursuant to conditions established by

the federal Food and Drug Administration and applica-

ble regulations, including packaging and labeling regu-

lations. However, where the product manufacturer

knowingly withheld or misrepresented infermation re-

quired to be submitted under the agency’s regulations,

which intormation was material and relevant to the

harm in question, punitive damages may be awarded.

For purposes of this subsection, the terms “drug”.

“device”. ‘food”, and “food additive” have the meanings

detined in the Federal Food. Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

23a

d. If the trier of fact determines that punitive dam-

ages should be awarded, the trier of fact shall then

determine the amount of those damages. In making that

determination, the trier of fact shall consider all relevant

evidence, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) All relevant evidence relating to the factors

set forth in subsection b. of this section:

(2) The profitability of the misconduct to the

tortfeasor:

(3) When the misconduct was terminated: and

(4) The financial condition of the tortfeasor.

L.1987, c. 197, §5, eff. July 22, 1987.

2A:58C-6. Environmental tort action; inapplicability of

act

The provisions of this act shall not apply to any

environmental tort action

L.1987, c. 197, §6, eff. July 22, 1987.

2A:58C-07. Burden of proof in product liability action;

establishment or alteration of existing rule

I.xcept as otherwise expressly provided in this act.

no provision of this act is intended to establish any rule,

or alter any existing rule, with respect to the burden of

proof in a product liability action.

L.1987, c. 197, §7, eff. July 22, 1987.

25a

U.S. Navy Department « U.S. Maritime Commission

Minimum Requirements

FOR

SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH

CONTRACT SHIPYARDS

> wt:

Beer ES ES

Approved Approved

U. S. Navy U. S. Maritime Commission

Jan. 20, 1943 Feb. 9, 1943

United States Geverament Printing Office ¢ Washington ¢ 1943

26a

U.S. Navy DepaRTMENT U. S. Maratiwe Commission

WASHINGTON, D. C. WASHINOTON, D. ©.

To All Contractors Constructing Ships for United States Navy-

United States Maritime Commission:

As a result of the national conference on safety and health in ship-

yards holding contracts with the United States Navy and Maritime

Commission, conducted under the auspices of these agencies in Chicago

December 7 and 8, 1942, 2 unanimous agreement was reached upon the

minimum standards which have now been approved by the Navy De-

partment and United States Maritime Commission and which should

be put into effect in shipyards holding contracts with the two agencies.

These standards represent a specialized study based upon a fact-find-

ing survey on all coasts by experts in that field. They have received

the unanimous concurrence of the representatives of the medical and

eafety departments and of Inbor-management committees from ship-

yards on all coasts.

The necessity for conserving manpower and promoting the physical

welfare, health, and safety of what shortly will amount to one million

workers in shipyards requires that careful observance of standards for

the prevention of accidents and protection of health be accorded.

Aside froin the weight which must be given humanitarian considera-

tions, it is simply good common sense that as much care and attention

be given to protecting the human factors in the war production pro-

gram as is given machines.

Under the administrative direction of the Maritime Commission,

safety and industrial health consultants will be made available in all

regions wherein shipyards holding contracts with the Navy and the

Commission are located.

Each contractor is hereby given notice that the Navy Department

and the Maritime Commission will expect full and complete compli-

ance with the minimum standards which bear the approval of the

Navy Department and the Maritime Commission, and each is requested

to give full cooperation to the consultants on health and safety who

will be charged with the coordination and supervision of the safety

and health programs of the two agencies.

The cumulative restriction of manpower makes speedy attention

and comprehensive action in respect to the subject matter hereof of

vital importance.

E. S. Lano, Chairman,

Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy. U.S. Maritime Commission.

611314—--43-———-1 (1)

UNITED STATES NAVY—MARITIME COMMISSION

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

FOR

SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH IN

CONTRACT SHIPYARDS

S and H-1. Introduction.

1.1 The standards for industrial health and safety as presented in

this manual cover only minimum requirements. It is not to be

assumed that compliance with these minimum standards is insurance

of the development of good health and safety records.

1.2 It is recognized that in many shipyards, standards for health

and safety are already in effect which go beyond the requirements

of those listed here. The Maritime Commission and Navy urge that

any standards of higher level be continued and that where substandard

conditions of health and safety exist, they immediately be brought to

the required standard or better.

1.3 In all cases the use of the words shall or must indicates that

compliance with that section of the minimum requirements is manda-

tory. Where the words should or may are used the section may be

considered desirable but not necessarily mandatory under certain

circumstances which the contractor in his discretion may determine.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL HEALTH

H-2. Medical Facilities.

2.1 Personnel.—Yarids employing up to 5,000 men should have two

full-time physicians, and one additional physician for each additional

5,000 men. Yards with less than 2,000 to 3,000 men will not need

full-time physicians,

2.2 Specialists in the various branches of the medical profession

availxble in the area should be consulted as indicated.

2.3 Yards employing up to 5,000 men should have in the main

dispensary six full-time nurses and three additional nurses for each

additional 5,000. Aduitional nurses will be required for first aid

stations.

2.4 There should be at least three clerks employed in the medical

department for each 5,000 employees.

2.5 One ambulance driver should be available per ambulance per

shift.

28a

H-3. Physical Facilities.

~ 3.1 The medical department should be provided with:

a. A waiting room with suitable registration facilities,

b. A general treatment room.

c. An eye treatment room.

d. A minor surgery room.

e. A ward with three beds for the first 5,000 employees, and one

bed for each additional 10,000.

f. Doctors’ offices and private examining rooms.

g. A nurses’ office and dressing room.

A. X-ray room for yards empluying 5,000 men and above.

i. A physiotherapy room.

j. Toilet facilities for doctors, nurses, and patients.

k. A storeroom for gencral medical stores.

}, X-ray files and viewing room.

82 First-aid treatment rooms, manned by nurses, should be pro-

vided wherever there is overcrowding at the main dispensary and

loss of time due to distance from shipways and shops. ‘These sub-

stations may be located under building ways or near locations where

the number of men working is large so that the distance a man need

travel to a eub-station will not excced approximately 400 yards.

H- Equipment.

4.1 The following equipment should be provided:

a. One ambulance for each 15,000 employces, or reasonable frac-

tion thersof, with an orcinary passenger car always in reserve.

b. In some yards a station wayon is used satisfactorily inside the

yard apd an ambulance used only for trips outside.

o. An X-rny unit for yards employing about 5,000 men and above.

d. Medical and surgical stores required for minor surgery, eye

injures and physiotherapy.

H-5. Records and Forms.

5.1 The following records and forms are recommended:

Nore.—/n an eme--gency no form need be filled out.

a, A form authorizing the workman to report to the medical de-

partment for examination or treatment issued by a foreman or lead-

ing man or other supervisor. This shall show time of issue, arrival

at dispensary, discharge from dispensary and return to work.

4. Appointment form for revisits and retreatments issued by the

pbysicians and nurses.

e. A disposition form issued by physicians and nurses indicating

return to work, hospitalization, to home, or other disposition.

d. A complete and accurute permanent filing system recording per-

sonal data, nature and cause of injury, diagnosis, treatment, disposition,

and results.

29a

e. The necessary state and insurance company fortns.

f. Daily report to the safety department showing all new cases for

the day, together with the nature and cause of injury, and the diagnosis,

g. ‘The adoption of the standard nomenclature when made availuble

by the Council on Industrial Health of the American Medical Associa-

tion, Chicago, Illinois.

H-6. Examinations.

6.1 Physical examinations to insure proper placement of employees

shall be given.

6.2 Periodic check examinations shall be given men working in

occupations potentially huzurdous to themselves or others, as for ex-

ample to crane operators, locomotive and hoisting and portable engi-

neers. Periodic check examinations should be given men in jobs in

which there may be health hazard, as for example to-sand ovlasters,

radium and X-ray workers, and paint sprayers.

6.3 Special examinations such as X-ray, seriologic and urinalyses

shall be given in the individual cuse as indicated und in accordance

with local needs.

H-7. Air Raid Precautions.

7.1 Tho medical department shall locate, equip, and maintain such

emergency first aid dressing stations as may be deemed necessary to

handle air raid casualties.

7.2 A certain number of yard employees shall be trained in first

aid procedures to render assistance to the medical department in

handling air raid victims.

7.3 Close cooperation should be maintained with the local civilian

defense officials in order that evacuation and care of air raid victims

nay be carried out to the best advantage.

7.4 In keeping with local army and navy regulations, steps should

be taken to provide protection of dispensaries by sandbags, or other-

wise, from fragments and concussion of bombs.

H-8. Responsibilities of the Medical Services.

8.1 Frequent inspection of the yard by the medical staff shall be

required in order that physicians may become familiar with shipyard

jobs and thus help intelligently in preventing accidents and seated

tional disease.

8.2 Close collaboration shall be maintained with the safety depart-

ment especially in regard to records of accidents and absenteeism.

8.3 It shall be the joint responsibility of the medical and safety

departments through the supplies department to know the composition

of puints, thinners, paint removers, and other chemicals used in the

yurd, and to seo that the workers exposed are protected by the best

sufety practices.

30a

8.4 As in the general practice of medicine the confidential rela-

tions of doctor and patient shall be maintained.

8.5 It is certain that in the near future women in large numbers

are to be employed in the mechanical trades. It is necessary in ship-

yards to make special provisions for this class of patients. This will

necessitate the establishment of separate waiting, treatment, and

examining rooms. In yards where the number of employees is large,

it may be logical to establish a separate dispeusary for the handling

of women patients.

H-9. Sanitary Inspections.

9.1 Cafeterias and cantecns.—It shall be the duty of the medical de-

partment to adapt from Army and Navy standards, in reasonabie con-

formity with the local health department rules, and inspection scheme

to include preemployment examination of food handlers, quality and

quantity of food, general cleanliness and comfort, screening, dishwash-

ing, garbage and waste disposal. ‘These inspections shall be made at

unscheduled times and never less than once each week.

9.2 Water supply, sewerage, and waste disposal—In cooperation

with Maritime and Navy engineers the medical department shall inspect

and report upon the above as often as seems advisable, but not less than

twice yearly.

9.3 Salt tab/ets—Salt tablets shall be made available to all em-

ployees and shall be kept in covered dispensers appropriately located.

H-10. Respiratory Protective Equipment for Shipyards.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines, 4800 Forbes Street, Pittsburgh, Penna.,

maintains a laboratory which tests and approrcs for use in industry

respiratory protective equipment of all kinds. The Maritime Coin-

mission and Navy will require the use of ¢pproved equipment through-

outall yards. The safety department shall be responsible for instruct

ing men in the proper use of such equipment and for Che maintenance

of ample supplies.

10.1 Details of Bureau of Mines respirators with names of manu-

facturers, prices, and descriptions can be obtained from the Bureau or

from the Maritime Commission.

10.2 Thesafety department shall be responsible to the management

for cleaning and sterilizing all such equipment as often as may be agreed

upon with the medical department. (A method for such sterilization

is included in these standards; see section 11-12.0)

10.3 General requircments for 2" sprrators,—

a. Adequate protection as defined by American Standard Safety

Code for the Protection of Heads, Eyes, and Respiratory Organs.

Handbook H-24, Nov. 1, 1938. Superintendent of Documents, Wash-

ington, D. C.; price 15¢.

6. Comfort (light weight and not obstructive to vision).

319

H-11. Jobs Requiring Respiratory Protective Equipment.

11.1 Dust.—

JOBS PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Silien of Sand Dusts (as in sand biast-{ (1) Abrasive blasting helmets.

(2) Dust respirator.

(1) Air line respirator.

ing)

Lead Dust (as in mixing paint)... -- (2) Lead dust respirator.

(1) Air line respirator.

Asbestos (ns In covering pipes) —------ (2) Dust respirator.

11.2 Metal fumes and smokes.—

JOBS PROTECTIVE DEVICES

(1) Air line respirator.

Iead and zine oxide from welding and

burning.

(2) Fume respirator for lead.

(3) Dust respirator for zine oxide.

11.3 Solvent vapors.—

Jons PROTFOCTIVF. DEVICES

Spray painting, both Indoors and out- )

IN a solos ee sad a acct eked

Paint removing, usually indoors_.__._-_ | (1) Alr line respirator.

Cementing, usually indoors_.__.______ (2) Chemical cartridge respirator.

Cleaning, usually indoors___..-___.__~

Degreasing, usually indoors___...___-_-

11.4 Acid gases and mists.—

JOBS PROTECTIVE DEVICES

oe at, | en eee

Cleaning (indoors) .........---------- | (1) Mist respirator.

Degreasing (indoors)..........-.--_-- (2) Chemical cartridge respirator.

11.5 Alkali mists.—

J0n8 PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Cleaning (indoors)__.....-...-_.._.- (1) Mist respirator.

Degreasing (Indoors) -..-.--__.--__- 2) Chemical cartridge respirator.

11.6 Asphyriating atmospheres.—

PROTECTIVE DEVICES

(1) Nose mask.

(2) Oxygen-breathing mask.

{3) All-service mask,

11.7 Avr sepply for air-line masks of all kinds.—Air at a com-

fortable temperature and free from odors and excessive moisture

sometimes is difficult to furnish, especially for outdoor jobs in winter.

Air quality and temperature shall be tested by the Safety Depart-

ment and shall meet the suggestions of the American Standard

Safety Code for air-supplied respirators (sec. 10.3a).

H-12. Sterilization of Respirators.

12.1 Each worker who needs a respirator should be assigned his

own respirator, Where this is not done, it is important that the

respirator be sterilized in addition to being cleaned. Adequate ster-

ilization may be accomplished by—

511514 —-43——2

S24

a. Washing the rubber and metal parts with soap, a brush and

warm water, after which the respirator is sterilized by immersion

for 10 minutes in a solution of formalin made by placing one part of

40 percent formaldehyde solution into nine parts of water.

b. Washing the rubber and metal parts with soap and warm water,

after which the respirator is sterilized by dipping in a 3 percent

olution of carbolic acid, a 2 percent solution of lysol, or a 70 percent

solution of denatured alcohol.

oc. Subjecting the respirator to sterilization by a moist atmosphere

of antiseptic gas, preferably formaldehyde, for a period of ten min-

utes at room temperature.

d. After following any one of the outlined procedures, the respira-

tor should be rinsed with water and hung up to dry. ‘The respirator

should not be used until it has been dried thoroughly.

e. The filters, felt screens, and elastic headbands should be removed,

if detachable, before washing or sterilization of the respirator, unless

it is evident that washing and sterilization will not harm these

parts.

122 The National Safety Council has issued an Industrial Data

Sheet No. D-Gen. 16, “Cleaning and Sterilizing Goggles and Res-

piratory Equipment.”

H-1%. A Guide for Prevention of Industrial Disease in Shipyards.

13.1 Eight common types of disease and methods for their pre-

vention are given in the following sections. Help in applying these

methods will be given by the local Safety Department and by safety

and medica! consultants of the Navy Department and the Maritime

Commission.

13.2 Flashburna and foreign bodies in the eye —

a. Effects on workers: “Flash” is a surface eye burn resulting from

even momentary unprotected exposure to the welding arc. In this

condition the eye is painful and sensitive, especially to light. An

eye flash shal! be treated only by the doctor or by methods he has

prescribed.

b. Foreign bodies in the eye shall be removed only under the doc-

tor’s orders or by methods he has prescribed. Like flashburns,

they are preventable.

o. For safe practice:

All workers:

1. Whenever near welding arenas wear antiflash goggles which

have been approved by the Safety Department.

2. Wear safety goggles when grinding, chipping, buffing,

scratch-brushing, or forging.

Welders:

3. Wear approved antiflash goggles even when helmet is being

worn.

4. Use portable screens to protect the eyes of fellow workers.

13.3 Lead poisoning.—

a. Sources: In general, any job in which dust, fume, or smoke

from any substance containing lead is breathed daily.

b. For example:

Jon : WHEN MATERIAL 18:

Welding Metal, coated with paint

Cutting containing lead.

Burning Lead.

Shrinking Lead pigments.

Grinding

Buffing

Spray painting

Mixing paint pigments

¢. Job can be done safely with:

1. (a) Special ventilation: Use a local exhaust hood approx-

imately 8 inches from the job and drawing at least 200

c. f. m. into the heod with filtration of the discharge, or

discharge, to a place where the contaminated air will not be

breathed, or

(b) Wearing of fume respirators, or

(c) Wearing of supplied air respirator.

2. Periodic medical examination which includes blood and

urinalyses.

13.4 Solvent vapors.—

a. Sources: In general, any job in which solvent vapors are

breathed. For example:

Spray painting.

Painting.

Using paint remover.

Applying cements.

Paint brush and spray gun cleaning.

b. Job can be safely done with:

1. Segregation of such work, and

2. (a) Special ventilation as may be required.

(b) Provision of spray booths with exhaust system.

da

(c) Wearing of special respirators:

(1) For spray painting: Supplied air respirators or air

line hoods.

(2) For other jobs: Chemical cartridge respirators.

(See H-10 on respiratory protective equipment.)

13.5 Zine fume fever (zinc chills or shakes) —

a. Sources: In general, any job in which the fumes from heated

zinc are breathed. For example:

JOB : WHEN MATERIAL I8 :

Welding Galvanized metal

Cutting Zinc

Shrinking Zine alloy

Pouring zinc alloys Lrass

b. Job can be safely done with:

1. Special ventilation: Local exhaust hoses or hoods located

close enough to operation at all times to remove smoke

completely.

2. Wearing of special respirators.

Nore—There are no known cumulative effects from zinc chills.

13.6 Fiberglas.—

a. Effects on workers: Men working with Fiberglas may develop

a dermatitis or conjunctivitis which are skin and eye conditions.

It is best to transfer to another job those who continue to be sensitive.

1. Both experimental and practical evidence show conclusively

that the inhalation of Fiberglas causes no lung damage.

2. The cement used with Fibergias may contain a toxic solvent

such as carbon tetrachloride (CCI,) which can cause severe

illness or even death if the cement is used indoors with

inadequate ventilation.

b. For safe practice:

1. Clothing: Supply loose coveralls with collars and sleeves but-

toned over cheesec!vth.

2. Goggles: Should be worn.

3. Shower: Should be taken rather than bath, at end of shift.

Respirators are usually not necessary, but if a cement containing

a toxic solvent is used, proper protection either by ventilation

or by a respirator must be supplied and used.

13.7 Asdestosis.—

a. Sources: In generul, nny job in which asbestos dust is breathed.

For example:

JOB: WHEN MATFRIAL I8:

Handling. © Asbestos

Sawing. Asbestos mixtures.

Cutting.

Molding.

Welding rod salvage.

b. Job can be done safely with:

1. Segregation of dusty work and,

2. (a) Special ventilation: Hoods enclosing the working proc-

ess and having linear air velocities at all openings of

100 feet per minute, or

(b) Wearing of special respirators.

8. Periodic medical examinution.

13.8 Silicosis.—

a. Sources: In general, any job in which the dust of free silica

(sand) is breathed daily. For example:

JOB

Sand-blasting

Sand packing of pipes

Shot blasting of castings

b. Job can be done safely with:

1. Isolation of dusty process and, in addition,

2. Special ventilation: In the case of sand-blasting, the wagk

should be done_in the standard type of sand blast room,

cabinet, or machine.

3. Special respirator for dust-containing free silica.

4. Periodic examination by doctor.

13.9 Dermatitis.—

a. Sources: Excessive or improper use of cleaning agents such as

gasoline. It is not at all uncommon to find dermititis caused by

excessive use of common soaps such as those used in laundering.

Cutting oils, certain greases, certain insulating materials used on

electric cables and conduits can cause dermatitis.

b. Job can be done safely with:

1. Precautions against excessive use of the causative agent.

2. Advice of the medical department in the use of protective

salves and creams.

—————————————— a—TN erreaaS__~_~_._ =

eee ee

36a

H-14 Ventilation Standards.

14.1 Ventilation is required to control temperature and to remove

air impurities, as from welding and paint spraying.

14.2 The maintenance of proper working conditions shall be the

responsibility of the safety department, whose staff shall work in

close cooperation with the welding, paint, and electrical departments.

Air analyses and tests shall be made by the safety and medical

consultants of the Navy Department and the Maritime Commission

as may be needed.

14.3 Personnel of Department.—

a. Number:

1. The size of the ventilation crew will vary with the type of

ship, equipment available, etc. The head of the sufety

department will be responsible for the organization of the

safety department or division.

2. There shall be a ventilation supervisor on each shift respon-

sible to the head of the safety department. Under the su-

pervisor there shall be a sufficient crew to inspect and

maintain good working conditions.

8. An EC-2 ship shall have at least one ventilation man aboard.

Larger ships, or ships like carriers with considerable gal-

vanized welding, shall have at least two ventilation men.

4. The number of ventilation men on the night shifts shall be

in proportion to thc construction crews.

5. The ventilation crew must have available a maintenance and

repair crew of sufficient size to keep equipment on the

job and operating efficiently. Long waits during which

equipment is idle must be avoided.

b. Training:

1. The ventilation supervisor (that is, the safety engineer) shall

be trained to handle tho entire ventilation program in the

yard. Local educational institutions, State Industrial Hy-

giene Units, Maritime Commission engineers, and other

sources are available to give this training.

2. The ventilation supervisor shall organize classes, demonstra-

tions, and short talks on standard procedures for ventilating

specific spaces on the ships.

14.4 Type of equipment needed —In ship construction, two types

of ventilation are used—local exhaust as for removal of welding

fumes at the point of origin, and general ventilation to supply fresh

air to confined working spaces.

37a

a. Local exhaust:

1. A common length for a local exhaust hose is forty feet. In

ordering exhaust fans for use with local exhaust hoses, the

following specifications should be met; Capable of drawing a

minimum of 200 c. f. m. through each of 3-inch (or 4-inch)

diameter flexible hose. Fans should have provisions for at-

taching three or more local exhaust hoses per unit.

2. In the interests of power economy, it is undesirable to move

much more than 200 c. f. m. through each local exhaust hose.

6. General ventilation: .

1. It is frequently desirable to introduce air into large working

spaces such us deep tunks, fore- or after-peaks. This is done

in many yards by using a flexible fabric duct, with metal

elbows, and a fan of about 5,000 c. f. m. capacity.

2. It is desirable sometimes to supply a quantity of fresh air

into the double bottom, Here a 2,000 c. f. m. unit may be

used,

3. These two examples represent the two extremes of this type

of work, and therefore are the two extremes in fan sizes.

Fun static pressures in each case should exceed four inches

of water.

4. For general ventilation of a ship engineroom during construc-

tion, a 10,000 c. f. m. blower is recommended. On the other

hand, operations in confined quarters where heat is gen-

erated (plate shrinking, for example) may use a small

portable fan to circulate the air. For this purpose, small

blowers of from 800 to 1,500 c. f. m. shall be provided.

oe. Ventilating procedures:

1. Local exhaust shall be used whenever a welding operation is

being conducted in a confined space, or whenever galvanized

metal is being welded. Local exhaust is always a suction

process. Never blow a stream of air upon a welding arc.

2. Many welders think thut it is enough to hold the end of the

suction hose in the same compartment with the welding

operation. ‘This is not so. In order to capture the welding

fumes, the end of the hose must be within six or eight inches

of the arc, assuming a 200 c. f. m. volume per hose. Beyond

this distunce, the suction hose is ineffective.

3. The air supply to a general ventilation fan must be fresh

vutside air. Recirculation of uir already contaminated shal!

not be permitted. A minimum of 400 ¢. f. m. per welder

shall be supplied to a given working space such as # deep tank

when general ventilation is used alone.

38a

4. In warm weather, air movements or drafts are helpful, while

in cold weather a minimum of air movement is desired and

local exhaust will serve best. In temperate weather, it is

most satisfactory to use a combination of local exhaust and

general ventilation.

14.5 Coordination of department with construction program.—

a. The ventilation supervisor shall keep abreast of construction,

and thus anticipate the ventilation needs.

b. The construction foremen shall inform the ventilation depart-

ment of ventilation needs before the needs occur.

c. Blackboards, boxes, signal lights, or similar devices shall be

installed on board and used to inform the ventilation department of

immediate needs.

14.6 Supplementary ventilating procedures.—

a. Ventilating confined spaces, such as the fore- or after-peaks and

deep tanks, is greatly simplified by the temporary removal or cutting

through of certain plates.

b. For example, the fore-peak of a Liberty ship can best be ventilated

by cutting a combination access and ventilation hole through the

watertight bulkhead near the ship’s bottom.

o. The tank top can be left off of the midship deep tanks until all

welding has been completed in this space.

d. Aside plate can be left or cut out of the engineroom at the bottom

deck level.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFETY

S-2. Managements Part.

2.1 It is absolutely essentiul, if a successful accident-prevention

program is to be installed and opernted, that top plant management

take an active and interested part in the work. The same supervision

given any other important activity in the shipyard shall be given the

safety program.

2.2 The responsibility of management insofar as industrial safety

is concerned shall be considered to include—

2.21 The provision of a safe working environment.

2.22 Training of employees for safety.

2.23 Establishment of an accident record and reporting system

which will definitely tic into nationally uniform report-

ing, record, and statistical requirements.

2.24 The appointment, where necessary, of a safety engincer

(or a safety director) and staff to install, maintain, ane

properly supervise an uccident-prevention program.

39a

225 The issuance of instructions to all division or department

heads, foremen, leaders, leadingmen and to any persons

in supervisory capacity, that they are considered respon-

sible for preventing accidents which involve employees

working under their direction and requiring them to

comply with all of the provisions of the accident preven-

tion program in effect in the shipyard.

226 An active and interested participation in safety through—

(a) Review of, und executive action on, safety

records,

(b) Regular attendance at sufety meetings.

(c) Action upon good or bad departmental safety

records through personul interviews with de-

partment heads.

(d) General letters, for bulletin board posting, nd-

dressed to employees and discussions of good or

bad yard accident record.

(e) By setting a good example. (Goggles, safety

shves, hard hats and other necessary protective

equipment shall be used by any executive who

exposes himself to yard operations.)

S-3. Safety Director and Staff.

3.1 <A full-time snfety director (title may be safety engineer or

sufety inspector, etc.) and staif shall be appointed for all shipyards.

(See Section 3.25 for duties and responsibilities.) The safety director

shall report to, and be responsible to, the highest ranking managerial

executive or his designated representative.

3.2 The staff in the safety department in addition to the safety

ilirector, shall consist of :

3.21 An assistant safety director in yards having 3,000 em-

ployees or more except that there shall always be at

least one safety engineer per shift.

3.22 One safety engineer (safety inspector) for each additional

1,500 employees. Example: If a yard has 35,000 em-

ployees there would be required a safety director and an

assistant plus 21 safety inspectors.

3.23 The staff of engineers shall be distributed over the three

shifts in proportion to the number of employees on each

shift.

3.24 One clerk and/or stenographer for the first 5,000 employees |

and one clerk for each additional 7,500 employees. (It

is not tu be assumed that the time of safety inspectors

or the safety director can be spent on clerical detail. All

office functions, while adequately supervised by the safety

511314—43—_3

40a

director, should be carried on by clerks so the greatest

possible amount of tire of the safety director and his

staff may be spent in the shipyard.)

8.25 The duties and responsibilities of the safety director shall

include: .

(a) Complete responsibility for formulating, adminis-

tering and making necessary changes in the ship-

yard accident prevention programs within the

limits of authority granted by the shipyard man-

agement. ‘The safety director shall also be re-

quired to correlate the shipyard accident pro-

gram with the minimum safety and health

standards of the United States Navy Depart-

ment and Maritime Commission.

(b) Submission of regular monthly, weekly or daily

reports on the status of safety directly to the gen-

eral manager or his designated representative.

(c) Acting in an advisory capacity on all matters per-

taining to safety to the management, general

manager, superintendents, foremen, quartermen,

leadermen, purchasing department, enginecring

department, commissary department, or con-

tractors.

(d) Maintenance of the accident record system, mak-

ing all necessary reports, personal investigation

of all fatal or serious accidents, investigation

through his staff of all accidents, securing super-

visor’s accident reports, checking corrective

action taken by supervisors to eliminate acci-

dent causes,

(e) Supervising, or closely cooperating with the train-

ing supervisor in the safety training of all em-

ployees. {See Section 6.26.)

(f) Correlating safety work with medical department

to insure proper selection and placement of

employees.

(g) Making personal inspections and supervising in-

spections by staff und by specia! employee com-

mittees, for the purpose of discovering and

correcting unsafe conditions or unsafe work

practices BEFORE THEY CAUSE ACCI-

DENTS.

(h) Exchanging information with other shipyards on

best safety methods and consulting with United

dia

States Navy Department and Maritime Commis-

sion Regional Safety Consultants on safety

problems which cannot be solved with methods

or information at hand,

(i) Making certain that all federal, state or local laws,

ordinances or orders bearing on industrial safety

are complied with.

(j) Securing any necessary help or advice from the

state labor departments on matters pertaining to

safety and health.

(k) Initiating activities that will stimulate and main-

tain the interest of employees in sufety.

(1) Acting as secretary of all safety committees and

in such capacity he shall prepare an agenda for

each such meeting covering the business to be

discussed and, he shall prepare for the record,

minutes of each such meeting.

(m) Directing the activities of his staff including the

assistant safety director, so that the shipyard ac-

cident. prevention program will be efficiently op-

erated. It is expected that the safety director

may delegate certain responsibilities to his staff

engineers, such as that of acting as secretary of

certain of the safety committees. Permission

for such delegation of authority is expressly

given in the interest of efliciency and for training

the safety staff.

(n) Subinission of the required reports on the status

of safety in the shipyard to the interested gov-

ernment agencies at the time and intervals here-

inafter requested.

S-4. Accident Prevention Forms and Reports.

4.1 The safety director shall cause to be designed and put into use

at least the following forms and records:

4.11 Supervisor's report of accident.—

(a) Giving all vital data on case plus statements as to

unsafe uct and/or unsafe condition, reason un-

safe act or condition was permitted to exist or

occur, and the immediate corrective action

taken or recommended. (See Form 1.)

4.12 Safety engincer’s recommendation form.—

(a) Form used by safety staff to record recommenda-

tions made during inspection. Used for fol-

low-up. Made in triplicate; one to leader-

Ser ewes acc eees comes + oes see. qed £pog

&mfuy

““youz ‘sued ‘sup

HB “sul

i:

"PICS “YOU “SUL

Se ore wed foua3y

houasy

Aup jo omy

“asp Linfuy

“ydaq

Bonedn2O

WO} B07]

zojsey |

WASP Spon

“ON [Hes

@gn LON OG

42a

|

=

CB-ITb ‘§ qdeiseied 39s) “[ may

— iT paxreyD

:04%qQ ®NAL :4q pausis (21)

4 Seouatind20 AWS quaaaid 0} puauuiosar nok op 2UM (IT)

G8aouUaLMII0 IBlWYys yuaaaid 03 eucp nok savy yey (QI)

(He ‘Bureosiod pway ‘peyeyndwe quinyy 34812 ‘397

Wa] Usyorg ‘pusy peyersse, :Afoeds) ‘“eseasip jeuoijyedno20 40 Amfuy Buyjnsez aquosag (6)

(2 “uewdmbe aarsa301d Ar0jerdsaz esn 0

SIMj¥Z ‘[asIq2 Ppawoorysnur Sujsn ‘euws> Burpwojiaao ‘sai3303 Papiaoid avam 03 einjtez

:Ay}29dS) {aeswesip [wuolyednd20 40 yuaploow pasnes yey} (Ajajesun) Buorm auop sem yey yy

(8)

(ne Queudindse Suysinuaa yo you, ‘Bui¥wys eanosjzap ‘sap

“PU Baxorq :hppoeds) {eswasip peucyjednd50 40 yuapiooe pesned UO!ZIPUCD Sj¥SUN yeyA, (2)

cccereceeseenece (0 ‘peueddeq qeqm ‘Bulop sem pamrfuy qwym) pny eseo 0 quapjo2a8 aquiosaq (9)

waaiale a - “me ne

messeesssne “on s8peg OWEN :westauziM (9)

“ard we

wccccccece: + sccces ee: jo amoy quapjso8 30 tg (>)

quawyzedeg woyjedn3s29 (£)

ON e3p¥g — ‘eefojdwe peinfuy yo aareny (Zz)

(ams) (4419)

past yo awen (1)

"9 ‘q ‘uopuryss 4

‘ONSHS Joqw] jo nwaing ‘so1ysyQHIg Amfuy] Te3sNpuy Jo aorstaiq eyy 07 YUuow Burnoj

“10} 94 JO MIST O43 Aq (poder yyy UT Pasano> YUOW ayy 403) ArBWuINS Aanfuy Ajyquo

OU) Ge pejwur oq OF “Arwssacau ft apis 49430 esr) “A]lmz UOIsanb Arana damsuy ‘“a[qetue

“MOD 7OU JO 4dyjaYm (OSEES!P [BUdIZEdNI90 Jo esed 40) Ainfuy Burqesip L1as0 4OZ 4YNO [IF

SaSV4aSIC IWNOILYdNDI0 YO INAGIIOV 4O LUOdTY S.UOSIANAdNS

O62 “ME dawnaep sasjdua peacuddy

SPPeou-ces “EN Resing jaSdpng

SGUVAdIHS SZLVAId

AAYN °S ‘ll — NOISSINWOD AWLLIIVW °S ‘fn

SAFETY EXC INEERS RECOMMENDATION FORM

BLANK SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

Tor Location

Date Time

4m inspection of operatianse under your supervision revealed

tho following unsafe practices and/or conditions:

NOTE: (Unsafe acta or conditions to be described

here and numbered. Bedge numbers or nemoe

of men involved may be listed.)

Move conditions or practices last observed (1) (2) (3)

Corrected at once? If not, vhen will corrective action be taken?

Signed

Safoty Department

Dato cheoked Signed

(Used only if condition io not

corrected at once.)

Safety Dopartment

Ho, 000

NOTFS: (1) Siso, epproximatcly 3" x 5"

(2) To be mado out in triplicate (See &.12)

(3) Form neod not be filled out if condition te

corroctod at once wiloss unsafe act or con-

dition ie a repetition or a flagrant violation

of eofety ruloo is involved,

(4) If check shove existence of same unsafe act or

condition the matter ehould be referred in

writing, to the proper oxecutive for action.

Foum 2. (See paragraph 8. 4.12-a.)

44a

man or quarterman on job, one to general

manager, or other designated executive, one to

safety department files after use to check per-

formance. (See Form 2.)

4.13 United States Navy Department and Maritime Commission

monthly injury summary.—

(a) To be submitted monthly to United States Navy-

Maritime Commission. (See Form 3 attached.)

To include over-all breakdown of predomi-

nunt accidents, types and causes, uccident fre-

quency, total number of fatal cases, total of

lost-time cases and the time lost, ete. 7'his

form to be used also for report to management

of shipyard. ‘To be submitted in triplicate as

required on form. (See Form 3.)

(b) The following formula shall be used in deter-

mining accident frequency rates for shipyards:

1. Accident Frequency=

Number Disabling Injuries X 1,000,000

‘Total Man-Hours Worked for Period

Covered

2. A disabling injury shall be considered

to be any injury which results in a man

being unable to report for work on the

next regular day or shift after the

accident, or one which calls for a

standard time charge being made re-

gardless of whether time is actually.

lost. If time is lost duc to the injury,

subsequent to the initial return to

work, then the injury shall be

accounted as disabling. —

4.14 Minutes of safety committee meetings. —

(a) Minutes of meetings should show date and time

of meeting, names of those present, action on

unfinished business, brief description of new

business discussed and action taken or ordered

by the committee on each item. The discussion

should always include the predominating acci-

dent hazards of the yard and the means sug-

gested to control them.

(b) Various committee forms will be made available

to shipyards on request.

4.17 These forms and any others pertuining to industrial safety

or health shall be filed and made available to authorized

45a

U. &. MARITIME COMMISSION — U. & NAVY

PRIVATE SHIPYARDS

BUURY SUMMARY FOR MONTH OF. 19.

‘Taree copies te be submitted by the 16th of the mee heme , together with the Supervicer’s i heer

dente for each injury reperted during the menth, to the Dirloien of industrial lajury Stetietics, U. & Burese of Ratio

tice, Washington, UL. C.; one copy te the Chief Sefety Consultant, U. S. Maritine mission, Washingtoa, D. C; and ons

copy t@ the Kegional Safety Lent, U. M Marlume Cormmission, ia tbe region in which the shipyard ie lece

4. Name of compesy..... - — - «iin do iu alli »-ncndthinetilipinedina catia

R Leentics of shipyards sdigienesian a0 nuniipiae sun _

(Cay) eee

RIPOSURE DATA

R Aver ber of a ee we a & Tote) emplepee-dears werted —

(leclubee clerteal [aa ol execu ven ) ——

Namber Deye Lest

INJURY DATA Caceres Of greater Per injuries ay am

cr sever during eormert

Dieobiing ‘juries wonth thee formerty woah exported

reported

(a) ie) (e) (4)

& Petelties xx

it ened al nel

1. Temporary total

a TOTAL xrr

8 Nee-dieabling injuries » > & > > & § xx.

Total samber of dinabling injartes (hem 8) 5 1,000,008

1@ Preqmearcy rete pietcnieaiaklliniets Total pont nem 0

11. Yearty freqecncy rete te dete —e

a « enue a: -c0-ememe eo. eso ae eee ae eee ne ee 8 ee

Report made out by - ip ais ay waists -tusy dinieten SCN oA “acest |

INSTRUCTIONS

1. A @eabdling injury is ene which revults im death, mont impairment (threagt sapetetion or lens of use of ony body

part), or time bose beyond the dey or shift oo whicd lojury occurred.

2 Show in columa (2) [ef Injury Dots) the total number of injurtes which escurred the month, and 2 wlane (0)

a fetality

the samber of insures which were deteriained to bs more severe than formerly re . Fer abe

lajory formerly reported ae & pernaneot impairment if the injury resulted la death during the meath covered by this report,

and explaw briefly onder "Comments ~

& In colume (c) show the actual days lost during the month becawese of injuries which eorerred uring the cerrent mesth

ln cotume (4) show the number of days lost during the current month because of injuries which were reported in ays 4

month. De not use ASA. tine charges for deaths or permanent impairments For fatalities show the sumber of days i

veniog between the day of injury an death (ie, ‘f deeth occurs on the dey of injery show ne time lost) For

impeirments show the number of deys during which the injured persoe was usable

(Over)

Foru 3-Front. (See paragrapb S. 4.13~a.)

Tete!

toa

ACCIDENT CAUSE ANALYSES FOR THE MONTH

HP ETT ual ely

afl] WT Tey yy il itt it df ery

Tg DARN HAHA ECE

a i gl

Ha Ht ag Hite

ETE aca

iste — pene _ pec} ae et HE

“a ada

bra

representatives of the United States Navy-Maritime

Commission upon request,

S-5. Safety Committees.

5.1 The safety director, in cooperation with the shipyard general

manager, shall cause to be formed and put into effective operation at

least the following sufety committees.

5.11 Central safety committce.—

(a) Membership: management representative (chair-

man), safety director (secretary), all superin-

tenmlents, foremen, medical department repre-

sentative, quartermen or leadermen, and one

employee.

(b) Membership of all but management representa-

tive, medical department representative and

sufety director may be rotuted—terms of 2

— hs each but rotation to be arranged so only

of committee changes each month.

(c) maaan Shall be monthly or more ya

necessary,

(d) Duties: This is the policy forming committee hee

safety work. They review the monthly report

us submitted to the United States Navy-Mari-

time Commission and other records to deter-

mine the course of safety work for coming

period. They decide such matters as type of

sufety equipment to be used and how it shall be

made available to men, types of safety training

to be used, whether accident prevention plan is

being adherred to, interplant contest awards,

etc. Such committees shall review the investi-

gation on fatal or serious accidents and make

recommendations. All Committee members

are expected to make practical suggestions to

improve shipyard safety. ‘They also review re-

ports of other committees to make certain sug-

gestions and recommendations are properly

followed through.

(e) Secretary: The safety director shall act as secre-

tury, prepare an agenda, take minutes, prepare

a report of committee meeting, and distribute

copies of reports to members. Tle shall follow

through with other cominittees, the suggestions

aml recommendations of the central safety

committee,

Sa

5.12 Supervisors’ safety committee.—

(a) Membership: Management representative, sufety

director, medical department representative,

superintendents, foremen, quartermen, and

leadermen. This is u rotating committee; ro-

tation should be arranged so all of the super-

visory staff serve in their respective periods,

i, e., superintendents change each four months,

foremen each two months, quartermen and lead-

ermen each month. In no case should an entire

group change at one time. Where a depurt-

ment or unit of a department hus an unusually

peor record then the responsible supervisory

staff—superintendent, foremen, quartermen or

leadermen should be retained on the committees

until their record is at least equal to the ship-

yard average.

(b) Meetings: Shall be monthly or semimonthly or

more frequently, as necessary.

(c) Duties: The primary purpose of this committee

is the stimulation and maintenance of interest

und the education of its members in accident

prevention. The shipyard accident record

shull be reviewed, the predominant types of ac-

cidents and the predominant causes of these

accidents shall be discussed. Suggestions and

recommendations to improve the records are

solicited from each member. At least one

timely subject must be discussed at each meet-

ing; i. @., such as eye injuries and their preven-

tion, electric shocks, hand tool accidents, etc.

Methods of avoiding accidents due to these

operations should be presented by the commit-

tee members.

(d) The committee shall review reports of ull fatal

and serious accidents and suggest preventive

action. It shall review reports of inspection

committees and check on the quality of the sug-

gested corrective action for unsafe conditions

or practices reported.

{e) The committee shall carry out the suggestions

and recominendations of the central committee.

(f) Outside speukers such as safety engineers, insur-

ance men, State Department of Labor men or

ihen from other shipyards, may be used from

a

time to time to stimulate interest of committee

members in accident-prevention work. Sound

lilm strips, motion pictures or other similar

media on safety subjects can and should be used

if available and practicable.

(gz) Secretary: Same as for central safety committee.

5.13 Regular inspection committees.—

(x) Number: One committee for each department

und each hull.

(b) Inspection: Weekly or more often us necessary.

(c) Membership: At least two employees and a super-

visory employee of each job being inspected.

The safety director or staff safety engineer

should accompany the committee.

(ud) Duties: ‘To inspect their department or hull for

the purpose of discovering and having cor-

rected unsafe acts and unsafe conditions likely

to cause accidents. On each section of a job

they should be accompanied by a responsible

supervisory employee. ‘They are observers

only—the foremen, quartermen or leadermen

shall do all corrective work, Where « condi-

tion is discovered on which there is disagree-

ment the superintendent shall make the neces-

sury decision. J/azards immediately danger-

ous to health, life or limb shall be corrected by

the accompanying supervisor at once.

(e) The committee shall submit written reports to the

safety director and indicate whether accident-

producing conditions or practices have been

corrected. These reports shall be referred to

the supervisory safety committce by the safety

director. If necessury because of dangerous

conditions, he may refer them at once to the

general manager.

5.14 Special inspection committecs.—

(a) Staging inspectors, electrical inspectors, crane

inspectors, boiler inspectors, and others.

(b) Membership: Specially qualified individuals or

teams permanently assigned to work. (See

paragraph 5.15c.)

(c) Duties:

1. Staging inspectors: Daily or continuous in-

spections of all stages shall be made on each

50a

hull—or other locations where stages are

used. Report shall be made of all defects to

the responsible supervisor for immediate

correction. Copy of the daily report shall

be submitted to the safety director.

2. Crane inspectors: Weckly inspections shall be

made of all cranes and rigging. Reports

shall be submitted to proper department

heads for correction of unsafe conditions or

practices. Copies of reports on defects shall

be mide to the safety director.

3. Other inspectors: As above and at indicated

frequency.

5.15 Safety committecs—General.—

(a) Committees in addition to those specified in these

stundards, may be formed and operated if

desired,

(b) Representatives on all committees, when of a su-

pervisory status, should be appointed by the

shipyard general manager and held responsible

by him for active and interested participation

in the work of the committee. Employee rep-

resentation may be secured in the same manner,

or by appuintinent of employee committees,

union shop stewards or by election of union

members or by any other feasible means.

(c) The services of production employees having: re-

luted duties may be taken advantage of on

inspection committees. Staye erectors or re-

pair men may serve as permanent and continu-

ous staging inspectors, a man or men from the

ventilation crew may be utilized for checking

on ventilation practices. The reports of state

or insurance inspectors will be considered ade-

quate on boilers, xir compressors und receivers

or on other pressure vessels,

8-6. Employee Safety Training. .

6.1 The time for the safety training of an employee to start is at

the inception of his employment. After a physical examination,

which should be made to make certain that the employee is phiysi-

cally capable of performing safely the work he is requesting, the man

shall have explained to him the safety policy of the company by a

representative of the safety department. ‘This may be done indi-

vidually, in general yroups or in craft groups and the instruction may

5la

be supplemented by printed instructions in the form of rule books or

instruction cards.

6.2 Employees shall have in their possession, and be instructed in

the proper use of, all necessary personal protective equipmer.t before

being started on any job.

6.3 General safety rule books, craft safety rule books or safety

instruction cards should be supplied employees. Such books should

be concise but complete enough to furnish written record of all im-

portant safety rules. No rule shall be included which will not be

strictly enforced, ‘The assistance of United States Navy-Maritime

Commission safety engineers will be given in the preparation of such

rule books if desired.

6.4 All employees shall be instructed in their specific duties by

their immediate supervisor and they shall be made familiar with the

hazards of the job and instructed carefully in how to avoid them. It

shall further be the duty of the supervisor to constantly check all

employees so unsafe working practices may be corrected before

accidents occur.

6.5 Sufety instruction shall be correlated with all apprentice and

craft training schools. Sufety instruction in such schools or train-

ing courses shall include an explanation and demonstration of the

need for the safety equipment or safe practices specified and the strict

enforcement of all safety requirements in the classes, The instruc-

tors shall, by their own example, impress upon the learners the

importance of the sufety requirements.

6.6 Safety bulletin boards shall be located at each hull and shop,

and at such other locations where they may be desirable, on which

safety posters, letters or bulletins from the shipyard management or

safety department and other safety muterial may be posted.

6.61 The bulletin boards shall be located where the majority of

the employees ut a particular location will see thein.

6.62 The bulletin boards shall be well constructed, have a locked

glass cover and shall be lighted at night.

6.63 Safety posters and other material on bulletin boards shall

be changed at least semimonthly or more often. (Post-

ers will be made available by the United States Navy-

Maritime Commission for the use of shipyards. How-

ever, posters may be selected by the shipyard safety de-

partment from any source.)

6.7 Where shipyard house organs (magazines or newspapers) are

established, the safety director shall arrange to have a reasonable pro-

portion of the space devoted to safety (articles, items and cartoon cuts

relating to safety will be made availnble by United States Navy-Mari-

time Commission safety consultants.)

a2a

6.8 Sound-film strips and motion pictures on safety subjects should

‘be used where practicable. DPublic address systems, where installed,

may be used for safety messages to shipyard employees especially

during lunch hours or at shift changes.

8-7. Safety Supply Store.

7.1 A safety supply store shall be established in each shipyard

where safety shoes, safety hats, protective impact goggles and filter-

lens welding goggles shall be made available to shipyard workers.

Shoes may be sold at or near cost to employees, but safety hats and

impact and filter-lens goggles shall be issued to each employee but

shall remain the property of the company to be returned when the em-

ployee ends hisemployment. Equipment such as work clothes, gloves,

welders helmets, may also be stocked and sold to employees if desired.

7.11 Goggles may be stocked in the central tool room or first-aid

department but should be fitted as described in pura-

graph 7.2 following.

72 The attendant of the safety store should be skilled in fitting

safety shoes, and if goggles are also issued, he should be trained in

proper fitting and servicing of goggles.

8-8. Goggles.

8.1 Impact-resisting goggles of a type suitable for the particular

job and also of a type meeting the requirements of the United States

Bureau of Standards, shall be worn by every employee exposed to the

hazard of eye injuries. Practically every employee in the shipyard,

with the exception of those working inside offices at all times are either

directly exposed to eye injury from the work they do, or indirectly

through working near operations which are likely to produce flying

objects. (See paragraph H-10.3a, page 4.)

8.2 —Except Where temporary lack of goggles meke it impossible,

each employee shal] have his own pair of goggles. If it is necessary

to reissue goggles to different employees, the goggles must be sterilized

after each use.

8.3 Goggles supplied employees should be carefully fitted to their

face to prevent irritation and to prevent the entrance of foreign

objects around the edges. (See paragraph 7.2.)

8.4 All employees working in proximity to arc-welding operations

shall be required to wear anti “flash” goggles, of at least No. 2-5

shade (or equivalent), of a type meeting the requirements of the

United States Bureau of Standards. (Sce section 9.1 on welding for

additional eye protection for welders.)

8.5 Welding screens constructed of wood, metal or other suitable

material shall be used to protect the eyes of workers in proximity

to electrical welding operations, whenever their use is practicable.

53a

S-9. Welding—Are.

9.1 All welders shall be made familiar with the hazards of their

work and instructed in safe methods of performing the various <ypes

of jobs to which they are assigned.

9.2 Personal protection equipment used by welders shal] include:

9.21 Welders’ protective hood provided with the proper shade

of filter type lens for protection against the harmful

rays of the are and a clear cover glass to protect the

filter lens,

(xn) The shades or their equivalent recommended are:

Up to 30 amperes—No. 6-7 Shade.

30 to 75 umperes—No. 8 Shade.

75 to 200 amperes—No. 10 Shade.

200 to 490 amperes—No, 12 Shade.

Over 400 amperes—No. 14 Shade.

(b) Shades may also be selected from the following

table .

Welding oo

Rod diameter shade No

ah eenee ek cen ewnnnceccncen 10

sboges wo oe nn 0 5 oe 5 a en 5 eo ee eo eee 10

DE ee Reena bce cen oneconne 10

(Be ES Se Re a ae

i ek eae cce ne chaccnnewccoee 22

denn Rnennennencone pH

2 aa AR

Oty -- 2 tesa nnndianeeenenacne Ih

EE ONS ee 14

(c) The seihibin’s hood should be inspected at least

weekly to detect possible light leaks, cracked

protective glass, or badly fouled or missing

cover glusses. Any defects discovered shall be

corrected at once.

9.22 Protective leather welders’ jacket, long-sleeved wool shirt

with buttoned collar and leather welders’ glooves and

safety hat.

(n) It has been found satisfactory in the hot summer

months to substitute flameproofed cotton shirts.

If this is done, the flameproofing, which must

must be reapplied after each washing, should

be done under the direction of the shipyard.

‘This entails that laundering also be done by the

company. Commercial laundries are rapidly

undertaking this type of work.

9.23 Hardened and filter lens protective goggles with sideshields

to be worn under the hood for protection against harm-

54a

ful rays where the hood is raised and for protection

against flying scale and chips. The goggles should be

of a type meeting the requirements of the United States

Bureau of Standards and of at least No. 2-4 shade or

equivalent, '

9.24 Safety shoes or pull-on boots with cord or leather soles

and heels.

9.8 Welding screens (constructed of flameproofed fabric on wood

or metal frames, metal on metal frames, or plywood sheets joined by

rings) of a size sufficient to protect men working nearby from the

harmful effects of the electric arc rays shall be used on all electric

welding operations when practicable.

9.31 A type found very successful by one large company can be

economically constructed of 14” to %’’ plywood. Two

pieces about 18’’ x 30” are joined at two points along

one edge with 2’ x 1%” rings. The large size of the

rings allows the two pieces to lap sufficiently to muke a

lightproof joint, while the light weight of the assembled

screen makes men more prone to use them.

9.4 Welding leads shall be inspected at least once each shift, and

those found defective shall be repaired or replaced.

9.5 All welding leads should be coiled back to centrally located

stations after the completion of each shift or job.

9.6 Welding rod tips should not be thrown on decks or stages but

should be retained by the welder and turned in at the end of the day

for salvage,

9.7 Each electric welder shall make an inspection of the aren be-

low him, and of the opposite sides of bulkheads on which he is work-

ing, to make certain that there is no danger of falling or penetrating

sparks causing a fire. He and his helper must know the location of

fire extinguishing equipment and how to use it. It is recommended

that a fire extinguisher be available in the immediate area.

9.8 The safety of women welders presents several special problems

which should be carefully considered while women are being trained

and during their first several weeks on the job.

9.81 Women will at first be subject to excessive fatigue because

they are unaccustomed to shipyard work. In their en-

thusiasm they are likely to overdo and will, under such

conditions, be more prone to accidents and at the least,

absences may follow. They should, until they become

accustomed to the work, be carefully watched by super-

visors and if signs of fatigue are evident they should

temporarily be given lighter work.

55a

9.82 Work clothing fur women is still in the development stage.

In general, however, the following should be observed :

(1) Safety shoes or pull-on boots with cord or leather

soles and heels.

(b) Long underwear, union suit type (wool for win-

ter) khaki trousers and shirt, or coverall type

of overall with a drop seat and welders’ leather

uniform.

(c) It is desirable that the outer clothing, unless of

wool, be flumeproofed.

(d) Leather gloves.

9.83 Whenever possible, mechanical means of handling mate-

rial should be utilized in preference to manual handling.

S-10. Burners.

10.1 Equipment for burners shall be the same as that for welders

except that the leather clothing and welders’ helmets need not be worn.

Filter type lens protective glasses with side shields. No. 3-8 shades or

their equivalent should be worn. Flameproofed clothing is desirable.

10.2 All individual oxygen and acetylene and other gas lines shall

be turned off at the manifold at Junch hour and at quitting time or if

the burner must leave the immediate vicinity of his work during the

regular shift.

10.3 All hose should be coiled up to the manifold when shifts are

changed or when jobs are completed.

10.4 The practice of dusting the clothes by blowing oxygen on them

or using oxygen for ventilating or cooling purposes has resulted in

several fatalities and shall be absolutely forbidden. Oxygen shall be

used only in connection with burning or welding operations.

10.5 Each burner shall make an inspection of the area below him,

and of the opposite sides of bulkheads on which he is working, to muke

certain that there is no danger of falling sparks causing a fire. He

and his helper should know the location of fire-extinguishing equip-

ment and how to use it. It is recommended that a fire extinguisher be

available in the immediate area.

10.6 Burners’ uniforms (overalls) shall be laundered at least weekly

except that if oil or grease is spilled on the clothing, it shall be changed

nt once. It is desirable that arrangements be made by the company

to have uniforms (overalls) laundered and fiameproofed.

10.7 Defective burning equipmeng such as torch, hose or cylinder

pressure regulatots (where cylinders are used), shall be repaired

immediately.

10.8 All oxygen and acetylene (gas) lines shall be inspected at least

once each shift and thoso found defective shall be repaired or replaced.

16.9 Standard color coding for oxygen and acetylene pipe lines

shall be observed for oxygen and acetylene. (Since it may be impos-

6a

sible to secure colored hose during the war, identification may be made

by any practicable means so long as every burner and burner’s helper

or any other person who has occasion to use oxygen-acetylene (gas)

equipment is thoroughly familiar with it.)

S-11. Cranes (Whirleys, Hammerheads, Bridge, ete.)

11.1 The safe loads as specified for cranes on single lift shall not

be exceeded.

a. For the guidance of crane operators, weights of all sections over

5 tons shall be plainly marked on the section in figures ut least 12 inches

high.

tLe On double lifts, crunes shall not be londed to more than 75%

of their combined rated capacities.

11.3. All crane operators shall be given a thorough physical exam-

ination upon employment und at at least yearly intervals thereafter.

Particular attention should be given to the cye exaimination.

11.4. Crane inspectors. (See section S. 5.14.)

11.5 All whirley and hammerhend cranes shall be provided with

bumper guards of 34”’ wire rope or equivalent set from 32 to 36 inches

from the ground, and fastened in the form of a half loop to all four

wheel covers at the leading and trailing ends of the crane.

11.6 All traveling cranes regardless of the type shall be equipped

with a clearly audible automatically operated signal which will indi-

cate that the crane is in motion. A siren or electric horn pitched toa

tone above or below the general noise level of operations is preferable

to a gong or bell.

11.7 The crane operator shall take signals only from the designated

hook tenders or riggers and no others. Took tenders shall be iden-

tified by special hats or arm bands.

11.8 All loads shall be lifted or lowered under power.

11.9 Employees shall not be permitted to pass between the leading

and trailing trucks of whirley cranes aT ANY TIME.

a. Wheel covers shall be provided which will protect all wheels of

whirley, gantry, hammerhead and bridge cranes to a distance of 1/4; inch

from the crane tracks.

11.10- Employees shall not remain under, or pass under crane

loads.

11.11 Trolley lines for cranes shall be protected against accidental

contact by men or material, by wood or other suitable sheathing, or

if the trolley !ines are elevated they shall have a vertical clearance of

at least 12 feet above the ground.

a. Bumper guards for trolley ends of bridge cranes should be pro-

vided to prevent the hoisting cables from swinging into the trolley

wires.

Ola

11.12 The crane operator shall be required to immediately notify

a designated department head of any defects he notices in the crane

or its equipment.

11.13 No person other thun the crane operator, a trainee, the

supervisor in charge of cranes, the crane inspector, repairmen on crane

repair jobs or safety department men shall be permitted in crane cabs.

No more than three persons shall be in the cab at any time.

a. Whenever possible, crane operators should be relieved on the

ground and not in the crane cab.

11.14 Except under emergency conditions and then only with the

approval of the safety department, men shall not ride loads. Men

rhall never be permitted to ride empty hooks or slings.

11.15 A clearance of at least 2 feet and preferably more shall be

maintained between the crane and any stationary object or materials,

Where existing structures make this clearance impossible, an exception

to this rule may be yvranted by the United States Navy-Maritime

Commission Safety Consultant after an inspection. a

11.16 Strong-backs or spreaders should be used on all lifts wheiy

there is danger of the load buckling or where the spread is so wide

slings or clamps may slip. Stecl strong-backs are preferable to wood.

11.17 The hook tenders shall familiarize themselves with the

woights of the vurious plates, shapes and sections handled, so chain

or cable slings of the proper size will be used on lifts,

11.18 All chain and cable slings and strongbacks should be clearly

marked, by color coding, to indicate the maximum safe load for which

they are to be used.

11.19 All electric cranes should be equipped with limit switches to

prevent double blocking.

11.20 Storage racks shall be provided for all chain and cable slings

ut points convenient to the operations so they may be safely stored

when not in use. All chain and cable slings shall be inspected before

each use by the hook tender and if found defective, shall be sent to

the proper department for repair. Such inspections shall be in addi-

tion to, not substitutes for, the regular inspections by the safety

depariment.

S-12. Plant Housekeeping.

12.1 Housekeeping shall be maintained at a high standard in all

parts of the shipyard at all times. The following rules shall (or

should, as indicate!) be put into effect:

a. Wide, well-defined roads, nisles, und passages shall be laid out in

the yard and shops and they shall be kept clear of obstructions and

shall be kept clean and free from debris. ‘Tho width of aisles and

passages in some of the older yards may be limited because of exist-

a

58a

ing structures, but an effort should be made to maintain a width of

twice that of the widest hand or power truck, plus two feet.

12.12 Aisles and passages should be defined by white or yellow

lines painted on the floors. Materials or machines

should not be permitted to encroach on these lines into

the aisle.

12.18 All staging platforms, ramps, stairways, walkways, or

other walkway surfaces on shipways shall be kept clean

of all debris such as welding rod tips, bolts, nuts, and

similar material. Welding leads, burner hose and air

hose should be elevated over or placed under the waik-

way surfaces or protected by cross-over planks. They

should be neatly arranged und not left in coils or loops

where they may cause men to trip and fall.

12.14 All deck areas on hulls shall be kept free of debris and

construction material shall be neatly piled so as not to

present a hazard to employees. (See par. S. 12.13 on

hose, etc.)

12.15 All deck openings shall, as soon as practicable, be pro-

tected with guardrails at least 42 inches in height set 12’’

back from the edge of the opening. Manholes may be

guarded by tacking three uprights to the deck and then

tacking a ring of the proper diameter to the top of the

uprights. Hutches, without coamings, nay be guarded

by tacking uprights to the deck at intervals of not more

than 10 feet and-fastening 2’’ x 6” or 2’ x 8”’ timber

rails in place at 42’’ from the deck. Midrails set 21’’

from the deck may be used also, and are especially rec-

ommended where women are employed.

(a) Where they are projecting stud bolts around the

manholes or tank tops, they should be protected

with either metal strips or wood covering to

prevent slips and falls or snagging of clothing

of workers.

12.16 All snow and ice shall be cleaned from stagings and plat-

forms (by turning the planks), and from decks, before

men on regular production are permitted to work on

them.

12.17 Free access shall be maintained at all times to all exists

and to all fire-ulurm boxes or fire-extinguishing equip-

ment,

12.18 All oils, paints, thinners, solvents, waste, rugs, or other

flammuble substances shall be stored and used strictiy

59a

in accordance with the requirements of the National Fire

Protection Association standards,

12.19 All staging lumber, or other lumber, when dismantled

shall have all nails or spikes removed or bent over.

12.20 Plates and shapes shall be stored cither in substantial

metal or heavy timber racks or stored flat on a substan-

tial timber or concrete foundation that will prevent

shifting.

(a) Plates and shapes shall be stored so there is at

least an 8-foot clearance from the center line

of railroad tracks.

12.21 Angle brackets und similar small pieces shall be stored in

racks,

S-13. Lighting.

13.1 A level of illumination should be maintained for the various

type of jobs in all shops, at least as high as that recommended by

the standards of the I}luminating Engineering Society.

Minimum Standards of illumination for certain industrial interiors

as recommended by the I!luminating Engineering Society are as

follows:

Mimi a

operating

foot-candica—

Type of Work ——

Assembly : work

a Lia ala, a/c cess cahs Sac nmin cmb

Tlic hitidinain ai.c tercntess aidin & 04. cebhentinicn rae banana: —

Oonstruction—Indoor :

EE a a Ce EE Ee Ne Sr T 10

snc crunsaness aie stinkipencislnttp a epuesitin dtedbtelldiabaeediadadidl 10

Foundries:

Charging floor, tumbling, cleaning, pouring and shaking out... am Ss

ee Get Oe -O0ee ROE... ccccuunsscsniaeennssnimnninls 10

Fine molding and core making-------_---~-.--- saith 20

Machine shops:

Rough bench and machine work ._------ 10

Medium bench and machine work, ordinary automatic machines, rough

grinding, medium buffing and polishing- 2

Paint shor;: ‘

Dipping, simple spraying, firing................ — 10

Rubbing, ordinary band puinting and finishing; art, stencil and special

UR eran en eS Da ae ae Eo 20

Power plants, engine rooms, boilers:

Lollers, coal und nsh hundling, storage battery rooms..- 5

Auxillary equipment, oil switches and truosfurmers__...----.------.. 10

engines, generators, blowers, compressors_..----.-..----------------- 15

PU Flee incident ernie ctgenengnictanindaninemanmiiamameen 10

Sheet metal works:

Miscellaneous machines, ordinary bench work - .-...---.-..---..... 15

I’unches, presses, sheurs, stumps, welders, sploning, medium bench

III stcesecienieittienctcicnin cence etc ces dpe inna eeicamaai tp eaaidead alata diaiia 20

60a

Minimom

operating

foot-candies—

Type of work oases

Bteel and iron manufacturing: work

Billet, blooming, sheet bar, akelp and slabbing milla_............-. 5

Boller room, powerhouse, foundry and furnace rooms_.............. 5

Cold strip, pipe, rail, rod, tube, universal plate and wire drawing_....- 10

Repair shops:

ee ee Gee GREND De enennnnenaseaceasenecenncescscess 10

Medium bench and machine work................-.....---..---. 20

ED Gene cannccccensenanencnncccesceecesesenseneeasceuse 10

St 2 MEE Gl coccesedadsasenenseasdaanneshocasonaces 20

BEIGE cacqnnececcasesnacacceesecesesnesces sacunececsaseencoesseses 2

Rtore and stock rooms:

ecient, iiitiida nice ain deanna nt die 5

Mcdium or fine material requiring care................--- 10

ES De Ree 10

Woodworking:

Ee 10

Sizing, planing, rough sanding, medium machine and bench work, glu-

> TERSSTEED, GORENG Rate ceneccennscnsssenccennsesesssscencescce 20

18.2 All lights should be provided with reflectors suitable for the

type of work being done and meeting the requirements of wartime

dim-out regulations. A regular schedule of cleaning and mainte-

nance should be instituted that will keep the lighting units at their

original efficiency.

S-14. Hand Tools.

14.1 All tool rooms issuing hand tools such as hammers, sledges,

chisels, spud wrenches, center punches, portable air-driven tools, port-

able electric tools and other tools should be inspected daily by a safety

engineer to make certain that only tools in good condition are being

issued. Tools in poor condition shall not be issued.

14.2 Workers’ personal tool kits should be inspected at monthly

intervals so defective tools may be discovered and repnired.

S-15. Handling Material (Manual).

15.1 All employees should be instructed in the proper method of

lifting. No limit can be set as to the meximum weight to be lifted

by one man, but it should be made clear to all employees that they

should secure help if the load is too heavy or too bulky for one man to

handle easily. Mechanical equipment should always be used when it

is available and its use is practicable.

15.11 Posters illustrating the proper method of lifting should

be displayed frequently and men observed lifting incor-

rectly should be reinstructed by their supervisor.

8-16. Machine Guarding.

16.1 All belts, pulleys, gears, chains, sprockets or other dangerous

moving parts of machines shall be completely enclosed with guards

bla

constructed of angle-iron brackets covered with heavy sheet metal or

Y%-inch wire mesh. Vertical or inclined belts shall be guarded to a

height of 6 feet above the floor. Horizontal belts over 8 fect above

the floor may be guarded only on the under side. Gears, chains and

sprockets should be guarded no matter where located.

16.11 Since metal may not be available for guards at present,

substantially constructed wood guards will be acceptable.

16.12 In all cases where state requirements are more stringent

than those given ubove, the state rulings must be fol-

lowed.

16.2 All machines shall be guarded at the point of operation so

employces will not be injured while operating the machine.

16.21 The standards of guarding for the various machines as

recommended by tho Insurance Rating Bureau should

be followed except where state requirements are more

stringent when the latter will take precedence.

S-17. Staging and Ladders.

17.1 United States Navy—Maritime Standards of Construction for

shipyard staging is in the process of development and will replace the

present recommended practice when published.

17.2 All staging, scaffolding, platforms and walkways shall be

constructed in accordance with the requirements of the California

State Industrial Commission except where existing state codes are

more stringent in which case the latter shall take precedence.

17.3 All ladders should conform to the American Standard Safety

Code on ladders.

O