Document 2qVQZr4E9q2ydOxEmB1pZLGLN

jl-V tct DlvJIor^^-'^Sg' " -J*&%r . /r*, -rVvv; -/u-.:' l^will dlrectiylmpact^vermi cul ite label sand: Haterfa >afetjr:Data Sheets. OeadtfAd forfcompl lance Is 9/26/84*. Che original proposed regulations raised two najor concerns: 1) the Regulations would have required listing all ingredients by name on product labels, and by name and percentage on Material Safety Data Sheets, and 2) the Regulations would have designated all known or suspect carcinogens present in 1 ppm, as extraordinarily hazardous substances. The final Regulations require labels and Material Safety Data Sheets to identify chemicals which are included on the Massachusetts Hazardous Substance List only. Nonhazardous ingredients do not have to be listed. The final Regulations still consider carcinogens present in 1 ppm to be extraordinarily hazardous substances. These have been specifically identified on the Hazardous Substance List with a *C* notation. Labelling and MSDS requirements are exempt if the hazardous substance is 1) intentionally added at <1X, 2) present as an Impurity at < 2X, and 3) present at <1 ppm if it is an "extraordinarily" hazardous substance. This will require that all vermiculite-containlng products (straight vermicullte, Monokote, Metro-Mix, etc...) list tremolite on the labels. It Is not necessary to identify any hazards associated with tremolite on the label. It impossible to include qualifying statements about potential exposure and amounts present. I would recommend using the following statement: "contains less than 0.005S tremolite fiber. Refer to the Material Safety Oata Sheet for additional information." Reference to tremolite is also required on all Material Safety Oata Sheets for these products. The supplemental information section on MSDS IZ-801 appears to satisfy this requirement for the most part. A revision to include the CAS Number for tremolite is necessary however. 10046187 SV:dn Attachment S. Venuti Footnote: When the original proposed regulations were issued, A.I.H. suggested that they would be challenged in court if significant changes were not made. Apparently, A.I.H. is happy with the final regulations. At a seminar - 6/26/84, w. McCarthy, Vice-President and General Counsel for A.I.H. commented that the 1 ppm level for carcinogens is "very low but probably appropriate." I also spoke with R. Mastrangelo, Associate Counsel for A.I.H. He voiced the opinion that the 1 ppm level designated for carcinogens n based on a sound foundation and consistent with the authority granted the commissioner of public health under the Act. He further indicated that A.I.M. had no interest in challenging this point in court. 10046188 Hew HaapsMre X__________________ X .Hew JerseyXIX Hew rork X X Rhode IslandXXX West VirginiaXX WisconsinXX OSHAXXX TOTALS 16 9 6 4 51 , i f" 1304618? ft _ legislation. 4/20/84 10046190 - 4 " H ,. "4 ( " - .. .v '. >- -: ._i'_Sf__-_S_ _t~_*^..-Tv. A*r"^' '' ` -:. ?4Sfc. v3c.~x.- 670.000 and ,,____________ ____ . M..,___-np, jfrea'dyl'testx Ciedfa tfRight-tor, ^^rcdBOcernal'Wtth th^^ - '"proposed DPH regulation^?particularly as they*apply to v ;v. ..**%laboratory exemptions^and trade secrets. The proposed ^9 processes are needlessly-convoluted and will not aid in - furthering the goals of the Right to Know Act. He would, however, like to take this opportunity to present some additional consents on ehe subject of Extraordinarily Hazardous Substances. Section 4 of the Massachusetts Right-to-Know law provides that: "For the purposes of this chapter, a toxic or hazardous substance is present in any mixture if it is one per cent or more of the mixture or two per cent if the toxic or hazardous substance exists as an impurity in the m*xt ure; provided, however, that the commissioner of DPH may, by regulation, raise the concentration requirement for a toxic or hazardous substance which he or she finds is not toxic or hazardous at the threshold levels; and may lower the concentration requirement for a toxic or hazardous substance including carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, and neurotoxins for which there is valid and substantial scientific evidence that the substance is extraordinarily hazardous." We fully recognize the need to establish higher or lower concentration limits based upon toxicity and support the granting of such authority to the Commissioner of Public Health. We feel strongly, however, that the implementation of this authority as proposed in the Department of Public Health draft regulations qoes beyond what the legislation intended. The draft regulation states that: "ExtraordinariIv Hazardous Substance means a substance which is a human carcinogen pursuant to 670.010(C)(1)." (Substances found on either the NCI, NTP or IARC lists)...and that "An extraordinarily hazardous substance shall be deemed to be present in a mixture if the concentration of such substance is qreater than one milligram per kilogram (1 ppm by weiqhtK" 1046l9t Ijjj language is clear the-need Cor a^spHecffic findina rt6'eaci> toxic or hazardous substance for whichra' lower - concentration is to be established. If the legislative intent had been otherwise, a separate generic statutory classification for carcinogens would have been established as was done in the Illinios Riaht-to-Know legislation, and/ in the OSHA standard. In addition, there are equitable and practical problems with establishing a generic level of l ppm for suspect circincq-mc components without any relation to potential exposures and ^^^e-respone relationships. Components are generally not purposefully added to products at levels between 1 ppm and 1%. Thus most substances covered by the draft generic standard would be residuals, byproducts, or impurities generated in the manufacturing process. The result of this rule would be to penalize those \companies with the analytical expertise and willinqness to Idetect substances at this level. While a 1 ppm standard has been recommended as a suggested exposure level for some workplace substances this has no relation to 1 ppm as a component in a product which may result in virtually no exposure. A case in point is benzene. Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment and is found naturally in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages and eggs. It is also present in gasoline at 20,000-40,000 npm^ Naturally occurrina benzene is also present in the ambient air. As a maior petroleum distillate benzene is present in trace? in many industrial, commercial, and consumer products yet exposure levels are minimal or ' non-existent and both the Consumer Product Safety Commission j and the Environmental Protection Aoencv have declined to requljte any such potential exposure?. 10044193 regulationsrvery1 careful ly. - ` ' 4 w. R. Grace t Co. supported Chapter 11IP as enacted by the General Court in 1983. Based upon the Act we had antic ipated the implementation of an orderly compliance program. However, when the Right to Know regulations appeared in draft form we were surprised, and somewhat dismayed, that in many cases they did not track the language of the Act and provided for unnecessary paperwork not directly connected with the concerns that had prompted the original passage of the bill. While we have many concerns % about the regulations, particularly those proposed by the Department of Public Health and Department of Labor and I Industries, I would like to confine my comments today to a few central issues. 1. DLI 21.06. Manufactured Mixture and Workplace MSDS. (a) The regulation states that for each MSDS "ingredients shall be listed in descending order determined by the relative amounts present in the 10046194 gflFaaenBsgM--wwnnimi i xcation for ntsv':` Further! V. ?)>$ provisional^ only appl icable] .............. to;: xardous leading to afs^tuation where r'h-- :? -: ?tht noDS requirement is triggered by the presence of i hazardous substance, the identity of which can be withheld as a trade secret, but containing non-hazardous 3 fastances which must be identified. (b) "Required MSDS". The first sentence of this section is in accordance with the statute allowing the employer the option of providing a mixture MSDS or an MSDS on each hazardous or toxic constituent element of a mixture. However, the second sentence then undoes the intent of the statutory language by potentiajly requiring the employer to provide both the mixture MSDS and the individual constituent MSDS, thus making the first sentence virtually meaningless as a practical ma - ter. (c) In both the manufacture mixture and workplace MS3S sect:ons ther-j are requirements that all ingredients b: listed in descer ing order and -2- sat the percent es 44195 labeling off;containers containing mixtures which requires labeling with the chemical name of each toxic or hazardous substance in the mixture, appears to he both contrary to Section 7A of the statute and, as a practical matter, in conflict with and negates any value in using mixture MSDSs as described in Section 21.06. Section 21.05 also addresses specific labeling require ments which exceed both the federal Hazard Communication rules and the conditions of Section 7 cf the Act. %r The "container" should bear the name of the product used without the addition o%f components from the Mass. % Hazardous Materials list. The specific details as to the presence of toxic or hazardous constituents should be addressed on the Material Safety Data Sheet. The rationale for such an approach is covered in the Federal Register of November 25, 1983, pages 53300 through 53304. To require for an exemption from Chapter 111F. The draft regulation establishes a procedure which would in effect revoke that potential exemption. Section B, which includes the review criteria for the department, includes criteria that are quite clearly covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, such as adequate ventilation, firefighting, and safety equipment. Section C, which describes the material which must be submitted with the exemption applica tion, is much too broad and requires much more information than is necessary for the Department to make a decision as * to whether an applicant is Eligible for an exemption. These excessive items include 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15. Section H(3) establishes a procedure which would require additional submission of information on a periodic basis by the company holding a research exemption. This appears to be unnecessary 10045197 J ... rH'\ \ '.'*. ," V'- \r- $Ve-4*S' *c. '' '-- ' ' - irc.. . A>>;, ^ ' '. -'^1 ijdftconduct inspectio mission of; :* v ' .-, ; v .. .*V&V~-,, ...... . vs sect ton? as f: :. ^ %4i& wMfahBWedrwea;ctgo.v:-.b,eam.-.. ^SSara1 ^ > ' . - vf/ seccet"in : trade secret . an opportunity 5 ^ Qnxi toobtain an advantage over competitors; and (2) the competitor! -; must not know or use the trade secret. The Department has added a statement which must be made under pains of penalties and perjury by the applicant certifying that the information contained in this form is accurate and complete. Some basic inquiries attached with a statement as to whether in fact an advantage is gained and whether the competitor knows or uses the trade secret should be sufficient to meet the statutory criteria. There is no need to obtain most of the information suggested. Repeated inclusion of the adjective "detailed" in front of "explanation" should be struck... An "explanation* is that which is sufficient to describe. The addition of the word "detailed" is just a justification for continuing to request continuing submissions of additional information by the employer. I would predict that because of the uncertainty of the trade secret process as proposed the Department will receive more claims for trade secrets than would otherwise be sought. 10046198 ore likely to be residuals or byproducts. To list a chemical as hazardous because it contains some component at 1 ppm will probably result in a large number of mixtures falling within the regulations, when everything becomes labeled a hazard, then the truly hazardous materials will not receive proper respect and concern. Hazard warnings will be trivialized. As a simple issue of comparative risks, the use of gasoline at a service station involves a product witA a suspect carcinogenic component at levels of 20-30,000 ppm. % 6. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, MSPS Advisory. We would like to advise DEQE not to require a distinct Massachusetts MSDS. Grace, along with many other companies, is currently trying to resolve the inherent conflicts between the numerous state Right To Know Laws and :^Vr,disi'ince' statW't Cessnand wi 11 wake compliance -... -v.v T, J t 'traents :>. ft*.***i.a,-.'- -.-'.; .;.;? "rzysisi'! '.%.:> :-vr~; '*T. \'l `;^^V^V^/'^':-->, >' f"' tO;.take ipurkcommen t s, V." ' '.- . $companies, into^account in V^'v: ' it ions should be, ted* * ,Tw<4r`-;-v: -,;>- irt icu 1 ar iv?those|:pt4tne ; V;\"- rv " ___________s and the Department'; 'of - - - --., i - .< ^<4%*: **', ,, ' - ` -' >,. '-, -.= -> t- . Public Health, would result|na massive increase in paperwork v-.* ' : Vtr*:!- .>" along with attendant bureaucracy in both the government and in those companies subject to the regulations without commensurate improvements in worker safety or health. The Right To Know Bill as enacted last year, with regulations I that adhere to the meaning and the spirit of that bill, will do the job it was intended to do. However, the regulations as now drafted are more of an obstacle than a help towards obtaining the goal of Chapter 111F. Thank you. Assistant Counsel I004o2 { -7