Document XR8E256XLv7JY9q2gYYejpNy4

JOSEPH e. li elleh JEROME H HECKMAN CHARLES M MEEHAN WILLIAM H BORGKESAXI. -JR. ROBERT R TIERS'AN wayne y black DAVJD L HILL martin * bercjovici JOHN S. ELDRED JOSEPH L HADLEY JR. carole c Harris MICHAEL F MORRONE LARRY S. SOLOMON JOHN B. IiliBECK CHRISTINE A. MEAGHER SHIRLEY' S. rt'JIMOTO LAWRENCE P. HALPBIK DEBORAH SHDR THINKER C. DOUGLAS JARRETT EDWARD L.KORWEK Vv LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckma-v 1150 17TM STREET. N. W SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON. D C. 20036 April 9, 1980 b- /C'Ooy 'Receiver iiJM TELEPHONE 202 457-1100 cable address"kelmanWRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER {202} 457-1116 To: The SPI-AN Producers Group The SPI-EDC Project Group The SPI-PVC Safety Group The SPI Styrene Monomer Safety Group The SPI-RP/C Occupational Safety and Health Steering Committee The SPI Ad Hoc Epichlorohydrin OSHA Committee The SPI-PVC Communications Committee The SPI-PVC Manufacturing Technology Committee Re: 1) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)/Department of Labor (DOL) Inter pretive Guidelines on Employment Discrim ination and Reproductive Hazards; 2) Occupational Safety and Health Adminis tration's (OSHA) Preliminary Draft of Proposed Labeling Regulations; and 3) OSHA's Proposal to Seek Current Infor mation Concerning the Workplace Use of Cadmium Through Voluntary Employer Survey Ladies and Gentlemen: Following up on our March 14., 1980 letter, enclosed herewith for your information is a copy of the correction notice and a related article from BNA's Occupational Safety and Health Reporter (OSHR) covering the Interpretive Guide- scc 5-1477 April 9 , 1980 Page Two KxiXER A-N^D Heckkan lines on Employment Discrimination and Reproductive Hazaras jointly issued by EEOC and DOL on February 1, 1980. Atr least one member of the PVC Safety Group has already indicated a strong interest in this item. Also in our letter of March 14, we supplied you with the Environmental Protection Agency's preliminary draft of proposed labeling regulations which would be applicable to hazardous chemical substances or mixtures. In so doing we told you that OSHA was developing its own labeling regulations and that the two Agencies may or may not coordinate . their ef forts. In this regard, enclosed is another recent arti-cle from OSHR which provides some information on the status", back ground and content of OSHA's draft Proposal. Furthermore, we are enclosing a paper on the Agency's current thinking in this area. Finally, we are sending an article outlining OSHA's plan to gather current information about the workplace use of cadmium through a voluntary survey of employers which use the substance. According to the article, the question naire would seek information about monitoring and exposure levels, workplace hygiene facilities, personal protective equipment, employee training, engineering controls, house keeping, demographic employment information and financial and economic information. The use of such' a survey technique, if permitted by the Office of Management and Budget through which it must be cleared, would establish an important new precedent with regard to significantly increasing OSHA's capacity to develop the data base which would support a proposed regulation. As such, it bears close attention by those .which might be sub ject to the same type of "voluntary survey," as opposed to the now-standard "request for information" approach used by the Agency. As always, should you have any questions, comments or suggestions relative to any facet of these matters, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us. Cordially yours, Enclosures /A * .. Joseph E. Hadley, Jr. see 5-1478  968 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER In defense of their study, Najarian insisted, "It will be 10 to 20 years before there's a consensus among scientists.7' He added that there is growing evidence which shows that workers exposed to very low radiation levels are in danger. Conspiracy Feared Due to the present lack of scientific consensus on low-level radiation, Irwin Bross, a member ot the consultant team, warned NIOSH researchers that there may be a conspiracy afoot to suppress any findings which indicate worker harm. Naming the National Cancer Institute, the Navy, and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) as co-conspirators, Bross alleged that in a June 19, 1979, Congressional hearing Colton and Najarian's second set of findings were attacked on methodology and generally discredited by Kennedy using NCI and Navy evidence. "This episode falls into a broader pattern of suppression of positive reports of the health hazards of low-level ionizing radiation that were reported in some detail in Serial 95-179 of the 1978 Congressional hearings," Bross said, He also charged that "the same tactics and even the same individuals were involved in these previous efforts to dis credit the findings of hazards that contradicted the official ,/Olicy that `low-level radiation is harmless' set back in 1955." Taking note of Bross's fears, Philip Landrigan, chief of NIOSH's Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, assured him such possible threats would not thwart NIOSH's investigation of low-level radiation effects. The Portsmouth project is of such great importance, Lan drigan said, that 52 percent of his division's epidemiologic force is devoted to studying it. Reproductive Hazards DOL. EEOC ISSUE CORRECTIONS NOTICE FOR PROPOSED DISCRIMINATION GUIDELINES The Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and the Equal Employment Oppor tunity Commission March 14 issued corrections to errors in previously proposed guidelines on employment discrimina tion and reproductive hazards (45 FR 16501). Issued February 1, the proposed guidelines would prohibit policies which exclude workers from certain jobs on the basis of possible reproductive hazards, if the policies result in the blanket exclusion of only one sex (Current Report, February 7, p. 835; text of proposal, p. 852). Errors corrected by the March 14 notice were minor, and included incorrect references in the introduction to the docu ment to "polyvinyl chloride" rather than "vinyl chloride," and to "estrogen" rather than "synthetic estrogen." The DOL-EEOC notice of corrections appears in the Full Text section of this Current Report. Research Rail's remarks were delivered March 12 al the annual meeting of the Society of Toxicology in Washington, D.C. Rail also emphasized that there is a need for toxicologists to work with other scientists. Such cooperation "is critical to understanding the relationship between animal study results and human beings," he asserted. John W. Hanley, president of the Monsanto Company, urg ed toxicologists to advance from "the question of what chemicals do" in tests involving laboratory animals to "the questions of why and how they affect the human body." Toxicologists and other scientists have obligations in shap ing government policy concerning issues of public safety and health, Hanley stated. ' Although conceding that "risk acceptability is a political concern," he maintained that risk assessment is a scientific question which should be decided by scientific experts, not bureaucrats. "Risk is a complicated equation involving toxicity, hazard, and potential for exposure," he said. "I suggest that your segment of society is best equipped to develop that equation." Hanley asserted that toxicologists also-have an obligation to the public to "improve communication of toxicological in formation without raising the level of Hysteria.'' To facilitate this he suggested the establishment of a "truth squad" which could monitor public debates involving toxicological re search in order to counter false and misleading statements. "Anti-business bigotry" is threatening professional science with the "too common attitude that, however jealously you try to guard your independence, contact with business inevitably corrupts," he asserted, warning toxi cologists to be alert to those undermining forces. If sound science is not taken to the public, the "instant ex perts" will continue to proliferate bad science and to confuse and mislead the public, Hanley stated. It is the obligation of toxicologists to challenge the ``pseudo-scientists," he con cluded. Participation Needed Paul E. Toth, Ford Motor Company, stated that the infor mation most needed from toxicologists by industrial hygienists concerns advice and information on government regulation^. The toxicologist also can assist the industrial hygienist by participating in the preparation and presentation of testimony regarding government regulation qf toxic sub stances, reviewing substances manufactured c5f used by the company on a regular basis, recommending appropriate background monitoring, and advising the company of decom position products of manufactured or used substances, Toth said. Toxicologists are needed to conduct biological monitoring to assess employee exposure to toxic substances, to accom pany industrial hygienists on plant tours for a more com prehensive evaluation, and to recommend a safe substance as a substitute for a toxic one, he added. REGULATORY AGENCIES SEEN NEEDING EXPANSION OF TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH Toxicological research on both specific compounds and broad classes of substances must be "greatly expanded" to meet the needs of federal standard-setting agencies, accor ding to David P. Rail, director of the National Toxicology Program. Predictive toxicology and the role of reactive chemistry in loxicologic effects are areas requiring special emphasis, Rail noted. Comparative toxicology, or determining whether two different species will react similarly to a toxic sub stance, also should be explored further, he added. Litigation SEVENTH CIRCUIT DISMISSES PETITION FOR REVIEW OF FINAL ORDER AS 'UNTIMELY' An employer's petition for review of an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission final order was dis missed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit February 29, because the petition was filed too late. This decision in Midway Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. OSAHRC and Secretary of Labor (No. 79-2550) lets stand an administrative law judge's decision upholding a 3-70-RO Oc & rlc3' Rcpoi^r i: 2 ' 'VO < OC SO see 5-1479 CURRENT REPORT Yaello Shipyard, Inc.. Catano, P.R., is contesting an J1E.70G additional penalty for failure to correct violations of 191C.213{i)(1) for failure to guard a bandsaw adequately, 1910.219(d)(1) for failure to guard pulleys adequately. 1910.309(b) for failure to secure an electrical cable proper ly. and 1915.83(d) for failure to make safety shoes available to all employees (No. 80-0274). Jerry E. Wylie Oil Drilling Company, Rising Star, Tex., is contesting a 51,750 penalty for an eight-item serious cita- 983 tion, including Section 5(a)(1) for failure to secure a mud hose at both ends. I910.309ia; for failure to guard electrical equipment adequately, and 1910.219ieHli(i) for failure to guard a horizontal belt adequately. The company also is contesting a $50 penalty for a nonserious citation for 1903.2(a)(1) for failure to post an OSHA notice informing employees of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Ncr^flO-OZSa). Full Text CORRECTIONS TO PROPOSEO JOINT GUIDELINES ON REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (45 FR 16501, March 14, 1980] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 1603 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 41 CFR Part 60-20 Interpretive Guidelines on Employment Discrimination and Reproductive Hazards; Correction agencies: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department or Labor. action: Proposed Rulemaking; Corrections of Contact Person, Introduction. Analysis and CrossReferences in the Proposal summary: This document corrects the third paragraph of the Introduction, the tenth paragraph of the Analysis, and the cross-references in sections 3(a)(2) and 3(a)(3) of the proposed rulemaking published on Friday, February 1,1930, at 45 FR 7514. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick D. Dorsey. Director, Office of Policy Implementation. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2401 E Street NVV.. Washington. D-C. 20506. 202-6347060, Josoph Hogan. Acting Director. Division of Program Policy. Office of Federal Contract Ccc piiance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor. Washington. D-C. 20210, 202-5239126. or James O. Henry. Associate Solicitor, OiTice of the Solicitor, U.S. Bingham, to all major American Department of Labor, Washington. D.C. 20210 202-523--8235. corporate medical directors. OSHA expressed its concern regarding SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In the employment practices which deny third paragraph of the Introduction (45 opportunities to any class of workers on FR 7514). the reference to "polyvinyl chloride" should have read "vinyl the basis of safety and health. These guidelines specifically address those chloride". The reference to "estrogen" situations, involving allegations of sex should have read "synthetic estrogen". discrimination." The reference to the May 31.1978 letter of the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health should have referred to the May'l. 1978 letter. As corrected, this paragraph reads as follows: 2. The twenty-second through twentythird line in the tenth paragraph of the Analysis (45 FR 7515) should refer to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, rather than to the "It was also during thia process that EEOC and OFCCP became aware of the National Institute of Environmental Health Safety. increasing number of employers and 8. The cross-reference at 45 FR 7517 a! contractors who are inliating policies the end of proposed Section 3(a)(2) excluding all women of childbearing should refer.to Section 2(d)(8). rather capacity from certain jobs because of than to paragraph 2(d)(b}. exposure to hazardous substances or conditions. Preliminary evidence indicates that as many as 20 million fobs may involve exposure in tife workplace to alleged reproductive hazards. Chemicals and physical agents which have been alleged to pose such hazards 4. The cross-reference at 45 FR 7517 at the end of proposed Section 3(a)(3) should refer to Section 2(d)(8). rather than to paragraph 2(d)(8). Signed at Washington. D.C. this 7th day of March i960. include lead, vinyl chloride, radiation, Eleanor Holmes Norton, synthetic estrogen, anesthetic gases, and Chair For the Commission. organic solvents. In response to such exclusionary practices the EEOC, op April 21.1978. issued a policy statement Ray Marshall Secretary ofLabor. indicating its concern about whether Donald Elisburg. such practices conform with federal Assist Secretory. Employment Standards anti-discrimination laws. In e May 1, Administration. 1973, letter from the Department of Weldon J. Rougeau. Labor's Assistant Secretary for Director. Office ofFederal Qontroct Occupational Safety and Health, Euta Compliance Programs. . 3 20 80 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS INC WASHINGTON QC 20037 see 5-1480 m fi\A 963 Current Report Labeling OSHA TO REVIEW REGULATORY ANALYSIS BEFORE PROPOSING CHEMICAL IDENTITY RULE Although a draft of a proposed labeling standard is being reviewed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials, the agency is awaiting completion and review of a regulatory analysis before publishing the proposed standard. According to several OSHA officials, the agency still hopes to publish its proposed labeling standard at about the same time the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its proposed labeling rule. The two agencies are working to develop complementary rules to cover labeling of hazardous substances through various stages of manufacture, formula tion. and use. Both agencies predict that labeling standards will be proposed by early summer. The regulatory analysis of the OSHA labeling proposal, prepared by Southwest Econometrics of Austin, Tex., should be presented to OSHA by the end of March, an OSHA official said. Bui the initial analysis would be subject to review and possible revision before publication. The review would be conducted simultaneously with agency review of the draft proposal, officials said. The labeling proposal being developed by OSHA covers the disclosure of chemical identity, while the EPA rules are ex pected to require hazard warning labels on regulated sub stances. Although OSHA officials declined to comment on specific provisions of the draft proposal, general issues to be covered by the standard include labeling of trade secret information, labeling of mixtures, employer maintenance of a list of chemicals used in the workplace and material safety data sheets on specific substances, and retention of labeling records. Some existing OSHA standards for specific chemicals in clude labeling provisions, and the generic labeling rule will not impose additional requirements, OSHA officials said. The generic rule is designed to fill in gaps for labeling sub stances where no specific standard exists. Oversight WHITING. LABOR OFFICIALS TESTIFY ON EDUCATION AND CONSULTATION FUNDS In the first of three Senate oversight hearings in the Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration's tenth year of operation, a top OSHA official and union representatives defended the agency's three-vear-old training and education and on-site consultation programs. Basil Whiting, deputy assistant secretary for OSHA, told a Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing March 18 that while enforcement of standards is the founda tion of a national safety and health program, training and education and employer assistance are needed if OSHA is to be effective. The committee, chaired by Senator Harrison Williams iD-NJ), will hear testimony about OSHA enforcement and an overview of OSHA's 10-year history in two future hearings. Whiting defended the Administration's request for a $40 million budget for compliance assistance activities in fiscal year 1.981 after Senator Howard M. Melzenbaum (D-Ohio) questioned whether "in the enthusiasm lor training and education and consultation programs, we have lost sight of the dollar cost." "I recognize the need to come in with the carrot rather than the stick," Metzenbaum said, but added there is not an "unlimited trough" from which to draw funds. Whiting responded that the cost of education programs would be paid regardless, in the form of higher injury and ill ness rates. He added that most small businesses do not have the resources for providing their own training and education programs. Whiting said that the agency's on-site consultation program, under which employers can receive free advice on improving safety and health conditions in their own facilities, is assisting employers to comply voluntarily with OSHA standards. More than 50 percent of on-site con sultations in 1979 were conducted in workplaces with fewer than 25 employees, he said. A 'Wise Investmerrt* The committee also heard from Francis X. Burkhardt, research director for the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. Burkhardt described a training and education program operated by the union under an OSHA "New Directions" grant as "not one of grandiose munificence on the part of an overendowed federal agency," but "one of the wisest in vestments in our nation's economy to be made with tax payers' money." Burkhardt told the committee that the $1.2 million spent by OSHA and the union over the past four years in training and education will be returned five-fold in the form of reduc ed cancer rates, fewer workers' compensation claims, and increased productivity. Burkhardt based the speculation in part on the facts that painters rank among the top five trades in workers' compensation payments, painters are three to five times more likely to develop lung cancer, and a painter's life expectancy is 11 years below the national average. `The full potential savings could easily be $500 million per year now lost in health costs, insurance premiums, lost wages and lowered productivity," Burkhardt said. Praise by Schweiker The description of the union's OSHA project drew praise from Senator Richard S. Schweiker, (R-Pa) sponsor of a bill to curtail OSHA inspections of small businesses (See related article in this issue). "I've been critical of OSHA, but the agency and (OSHA Ad ministrator] Dr. [Eula] Bingham get a lot of credit" for offering grants to high-hazard industries, Schweiker said. Whole-hearted support of OSHA was voiced at the hearing by Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) who said te would continue to fight "efforts to break the [OSHA] law right open." "After 10 years a review is certainly needed," Javits said, but he voiced his opposition to legislative attempts which he said would treat employees of small businesses "as if their bodies and minds were second-rate to those working for larger employers." u` N'ciUO'-al Affa-rs Inc see LABELING Flo H. Ryer, Director U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Washington, D.C. The general approach of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to rulemaking in the health standards area has, in the past, consisted primarily of issuing specific standards dealing with employee exposure to in dividual or groups of chemical substances in the workplace. However, there is increasing awareness that the substance-by-substance approach is incapable of amount of time required to promulgate individual standards. Als(?a there are many provisions in OSHA standards that can be applied uniformity to all toxic or hazardous substances. Therefore, the concept of a different approach to rulemaking in the health area has developed. This approach involves the issu ance of generic standards, which are regulations that concern themselves with hazards of a class of materials or whole range of substances rather than focus ing on individual chemicals. Several standards are underway, or contemplated in OSHA, which are not limited to individual substances, but which incorporate this generic concept. see One such rulemaking activity is the.issuance of a cancer policy. This is a generic approach for evaluating evidence from animal and human studies in determining substances which pose a potential carcinogenic risk in the work place, Public hearings on this proposal began Kay 16, 1978 and ended June 25, 1578. The final standard resulting from this rulemaking will establish a general set of principles for regulating cancer-causing agents. Then, in succeeding rulemaking actions, individual substances will be treated according to these general criteria. Another generic approach to rulemaking is the Standards Completion Project. This project has as its principal focus the development of a single comprehensive health standard for nearly 400 toxic substances. The standard wilT incorporate the permissible exposure limits for these substances, as prescribed in Tables Z-l, Z-2, Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. Additionally, the standard will require the employer to obtain, and make available to employees, guidelines that contain industrial hy giene principles appropriate for these nearly 400 substances. The guidelines will contain specific information on subjects such as monitoring employee exposure, medi cal surveillance, personal protective clothing and equipment as well as recordkeep ing. Another example of the generic approach to standards setting is a standard dealing with the manufacture and formulation of pesticides. Pesticides are a class of substances that are manufactured because of their inherent capacity to kill or alter life forms. There are approximately 1400 active ingredients register ed by EPA, and these are used in the formulation of approximately 35,000 co.mrr.erical pesticide materials. We have seen the tragedies of inadequate management of human-exposure to some of these substances through the episodes of kepone, diethylstibesterol, dibromochloropropane, leptophos and others. Currently, we are engag ed in the development of a single regulation which would prescribe good industrial hygiene practices and occupational health principles for employers engaged in the see manufacture and formulation of pesticides. flow, 1 would like to discuss the generic labeling standard, which embodies certain principal and principals and provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. A major focus of Dr. Bingham's administration of OSHA is to as-Sure em ployee apprisal of the hazard to which there is ecposure. A fundamental aspect of implementing the goals of the Act is to assure adequate awareness of hazards in the work place on the part of employers and employees. Many of the tragedies of occupational health that we have witnessed in the workplace in recent years have been an outgrowth of ignorance on the part of both employers and employees regarding the hazards to which employees were exposed. CSKA's Iferitime standards contain provisions concerning the need to inform workers of the hazards to which they may be exposed. Employers who have engag ed in handling hazardous cargo are required to have available material safety data sheets which describe the chemical composition and hazards of the materials handled in that industry. There are minimal degrees of labeling requirements in almost all health standards recently promulgated by OSHA. A`Standard Advisory Conmittee, appoint ed by the Secretary of Labor, met for nine, months late in 1974, and^issued re ports and recommendations to the Agency on the development and promulgation of a hazardous materials warning standard. Vie have received petitions from.public interest groups, such as the Health Research Group, to promulgate such a stand ard. We have been encouraged-by Congressional Committees, including the Govern ment Operations Committees, to proceed with this important aspect of regulation to embody some of the central purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on labeling in the Federal Register on January 23, 1977. This notice high-lichted the advisory committee's report and recommendations, and invited public comments. see 5-1484 There have been and continue to be interagency activities concerned with 1abeling within several government regulatory agencies. The Environmental Protection.Agency (ERA) has new regulatory responsibilities and authorities under the Toxic Substance Control Act pertaining to labeling, as well as exist ing labeling provisions under the FIFRA Act, the Pesticide Registration Act. Other government agencies, notably the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Transportation and Food and Drug Administration also have regu latory responsibilities pertaining to labeling. Several specific provisions are being drafted for an OSHA proposed label ing standard and there are a number of areas in which public comment will be extremely helpful. First, it is the intention that the regulation will have broad applications, although clearly its principal effect will arise in industries engaged heavily in the namufacture, formulation, distribution of use of chemicals. Even at__ the retail sales level, hardware stores, grocery stores and drug stores, there is hardly an aspect of American commerce that does not, in one way of another, lead to potential employee exposure to those chemicals. One of the difficult legal aspects of this regulation is to clearly delineate those employments in which particular provisions of the regulation are to apply. Obviously we intend that the labeling provisions will apply to those business activities in which employee exposures to hazardous chemicals may most likely arise. The term "chemical", when used in connection with this proposal is to be defined in its broadest context. The rulemaking and comment period will provide an opportunity to suggest in what ways it might need to be limited. There .are two kinds of names being considered in this regulation, chemical names. Chemical names will refer to a set of nomenclature such as that employ ed by the Chemical Abstract Service, and the common name will refer to any other form of designation of the chemical in the workplace, whether it be numeri cal designation, a code name, a trade name or whatever. The first substantive requirement of a chemical identification regulation would be that employers and employees alike through labeling have access to information to identify the chemicals to which they are exposed. To accomplish this, the regulation proposes that employers be required to maintain two lists of chemical substances in their workplace, each of which contain the same infor mation, but in different order. The first list would consist of substances listed alphabetically chemical name with cross-reference to their respective common names, if any. The second list would be the alphabetical list of common names, cross-referenced to the chemical name. For example, if there is a vessel containing some chemical in the workplace that says "Acme X-100", there should exist, conveniently access ible to any affected employee, a list which yjould permit the identification of the chemical nature of "Acme X-100" by searching the list of common names, find ing "Acme X-100" and noting the corresponding chemical entities associated'with the substance . Similarly, the common name of a substance could be found from the list of chemical names. The second part of labeling to assire that employers and employees have access to information to identify the chemical to which they are exposed con cerns precautionary labels. This is the one place in which a regulatory action by OSHA could come into conflict with existing regulatory requirements of other agencies, as well as existing voluntary systems that require precautionary labels. We have an open mid at this point as to the appropriataness of OSHA's incorpo rating detailed precautionary labeling requirements in the final standard. This is one of the issues that we expect to focus on the rulemaking proceeding. The next substantive requirement of the regulation would be the requirement concerning data sheets for each hazardous or toxic substance. The employer would be require to develop or obtain, and to have readily accessible in the see workplace, a data sheet in the general nature of the material data sheets that are customarily in use now. It is not our intent, at this time, to specify or to mandate one and only one form and format for data sheets through out industry, but to recognize that the information could be presented in a vari ety of forms. Our concern is more for the substance of the information than its form. We have had a great deal of experience with the so-called OSHA Form 20, and its many derivatives. In general, that is the kind of information that we would propose that an employer obtain and have readily accessible to the employee. Our intent would be to specify a minimum amount of required information but not to limit the information that an employer could provide beyond that minimum. An important consideration of our proposed regulation is the question of who initially has the obligation to identify the chemical composition of a material in commerce, and who initially has the obligation to make available the information required to complete a data sheet. The emergency temporary standard (ETS) and the permanent standard for 'benzene, and the ETS and permanent standards for dibromochloroprppane are examples of the regulatory and legal concepts that intend to employ in the labeling standard. The manufacturer of these chemicals, or formulators of suppliers who are also employers, and the employer who first generates the substance which.enters commerce, win.be required, as.all subsequent employers will be, to comply with identification or labeling requirements and the data shee requirement. The regu lation will incorporate language which attempts to assure that .information, once generated, is not destroyed in the subsequent sale and distribution of that material. Therfore, the information which is generated upstream and in the formu lation process will be made readily available for transfer to subsequent employers and users. see '. 5-1487 Finally, the regulation will require that employees be advised of the existence of the chemical lists, the data sheets, and other specific kinds of information required to be generated by the regulation, and that they be advised of the con- tent of this i nforr.ati on and their right of access to it. That, in sux.T.ary, is the substance of the proposed labeling regulation. Your cc~ents and suggestions are invited. -7- see 5~i488 FACT SHEET tOP. THE KAZAJIDOvJS SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION STANDARD Scope and Application -The standard applies to all substances listed in the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory and the NICSH Registry of Toxic Effects which are hazardous or toxic. Substance Identification Lists -Elrployers shall develop and maintain substance identification lists in each work area. The chemical and common names and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number are to be included for each substance, with cross-references to the other applicable names. -Employers shall develop a workplace master list by compiling all work area lists. -All lists are to be made available to employees. Tne lists are to be updated annually. Labels -Any container of a substance subject to the regulation is to be immediately labeled, tagged, placarded or marked with the chemical name and CAS Registry Number of the substance. Containers bearing DOT or SPA labels are considered to be in compliance with -this requirement if the labels include the chemical name and CAS Number. -Labels and placards shall include all regulated substances present in concentrations greater than 0.1 percent. -labels and placards are to be prominently displayed to allow easy identification. -Labels are to remain affixed to containers of regulated substances which are sold, distributed or otherwise leave the employer's workplace. Substance Data Sheets (SDS) -Employers are to immediately obtain whatever substance data sheets are available for the regulated substances in their workplace, burnlecturers, suppliers, and industrial trace associations are potential sources of available SDS. SCC 5-1489 -1 -The OS shall ba :v-5e available to a. c'oyoas. -702 SD5 srisl 1 be rev.iev.-ad and u;>iated ajmuaily. jcores -Substance identification lists shall ba ir-aintained for thirty years. see 5-1490 956 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER OSHA, in accordance with 29 CFR 1903.4. considered the employer's refusal of its compliance officer's request to be a refusal of entry. OSHA indicated to the employer that it would seek a.n inspection warrant compelling the employer to permit the OCAW representative to participate in the in spection. The employer then requested to be informed as to when and where OSHA intended to secure a warrant so it could have an opportunity to be heard before a magistrate. OSHA refused because it is OSHA's policy to obtain inspec tion warrants ex parte. The employer then sought and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevented OSHA from ob taining an inspection warrant compelling entry of any non governmental employee upon its premises. The judge that granted the TRO then set the matter for a preliminary in junction hearing. During that hearing, the employer failed to meet its burden of proving "irreparable harm, injury, or loss as a result of defendants obtaining or seeking to obtain an inspec tion warrant compelling the entry of a union representative (or any nongovernmental employee), upon plaintiff's premises," according to the judge. The employer's argument that it might face contempt proceedings, should it refuse to honor the OSHA inspection warrant, was rejected by the judge as "insufficient" to es tablish "irreparable harm, injury or loss," under existing case law. Since "irreparable harm, injury or loss" is a necessary element in obtaining a preliminary injunction, and the employer failed to prove that necessary element, the employer's request for a preliminary injunction must be denied, according to the court's opinion. This opinion, written by Judge Hugh Gibson, will appear in a future Decisions issue. Cadmium OSHA TO SEEK CURRENT INFORMATION THROUGH VOLUNTARY EMPLOYER SURVEY In an attempt to gather current information about the workplace use of cadmium, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is planning to conduct a voluntary ;urvey of employers which use the substance. Information from the survey, which will be conducted in dependently of any inspections, is to be used to help OSHA decide whether to develop a new standard for cadmium, ac cording to OSHA technical support staff. Although the survey will not be "statistically significant," it is intended to provide OSHA with an expanded base of in formation about ways to control hazards from cadmium, Mary Ellen Weber, OSHA's director of regulatory analysis, told OSHR. The survey, to be taken through a questionnaire, is also a "lest case" for finding different ways to prepare regulatory analyses of new standards, required by Executive Order 12044, Weber said. OSHA needs technological, economic, and engineering information about particular substances to prepare a regulatory analysis, and seeking the information directly from users of the substance may result in better in formation, Weber said. However, OSHA has in the past foregone the use of questionnaires because of an Office of Management and Budget requirement that surveys of more than nine respondents be approved. But in view of "increasing pressure" on the agency to better analyze regulatory analyses. OSHA decided to seek OMB approval and prepare a questionnaire, officials said. The questionnaire seeks information about monitoring and exposure levels, workplace hygiene facilities, medical monitoring, personal protective equipment and clothing, employee education and training, engineering controls, housekeeping, demographic employment information, and financial and economic information. No Inspection Tie OSHA is being "very careful to divorce" cdThpletion of the questionnaire from inspection activity, Weber said. Comple tion of the questionnaire is voluntary, and information from the questionnaire cannot be used in citations against an employer, she added. The agency is working with the Cadmium Council of the International Lead, Zinc and Research Organization, Inc., and hopes to secure employers' cooperation in completing the questionnaire through the trade association. OSHA officials said they hope to begin distributing the questionnaire in the next few weeks and to have initial find ings by the end of the summer. Although the questionnaire is to be distributed only among states with federal OSHA en forcement programs, OSHA officials do not yet have a definite idea of how many employers will b. asked to par ticipate. Program Directives EYE INJURY RISK FROM ARC WELDING DEMANDS EMPHASIS. OSHA NOTICE SAYS Results of a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey indicate that "special attention" should be paid to workplace hazards created by arc welding, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration told its field personnel. BLS data indicating a "high frequency" of eye injuries resulting from welding and cutting operations were transmitted to OSHA field offices in OSHA Notice CPL-2, dated March 3. According to data reported in the notice, 67 percent of the workers included in the BLS welding and cutting accident survey had suffered eye injuries. Of these injuries, 37 per cent were due to flash burns, and 32 percent to metal or hot slag. The survey also found that only 49 percent of the welders surveyed were wearing eye goggles or helmets with filtered lenses, and only 26 percent were using curtails or shields to protect other workers. Based on results of the survey, it appears that 29 CFR 1910.252(e)(2) on eye protection, and the corresponding standards applicable to the construction and maritime in dustries, "need special compliance emphasis" in workplace inspections, the directive stated. The text of OSHA Notice CPL-2, including six tables of BLS data published as Appendix A of the notice, appears in the Full Text section of this Current Report. Grants NIOSH PROPOSES REVISIONS TO RULES FOR TRAINING. RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on March 13 proposed regulations to revise its Training and research grants program and to exercise its- authority to award grants for health research in all types of mining. The institute proposed to revoke its regulations for "Grants for Advancement of Health in Coal Mining" (42 CFR Part 55) and to combine the provisions pertaining to grants for health research in mining with its regulations for 3-70-80 Occjpcliono! & Hl'oilh Repo < I O' 00VC- 3?3?--F-n.-400 t.0 see L 49 1