Document Y9wG6dXeKYzxa7YzmqVbvN2DN

DownloadSearchable PDFRandom document
A thi THE REFRACTORIES INSTITUTE SUITE 1517 301 FIFTH AVE PITTSBURGH. PA 15222 412/231 September IS, 1986 lb the Members of the Safety & Health Cfcnrnittee: SUBJECT: OSBA ASBESTOS STMOARD OSHA announced its Standard for Oocupational Exposure to Asbestos, Ttenplite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite (51 ER 22612), June 17, 1986. R. T. Vanderbilt Ooopany subsequently filed suit regarding the standard, which resulted in OSHA granting a temporary nine month stay of those portions of the standard which apply to non-asbestiform trerolite, anthophyllite and. actinolite. A copy of OSHA's July 18, 1986 letter to counsel for R. T. Vanderbilt Cfcnpany is enclosed for your infonration and action. OSHA is to announce a reopening of the rulemaking and will request connents regarding regulation of non-asbestiform trerolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. ttow is the time to formulate your camsents and recarmendations, prior to OSHA's announcement. Safety and Health Oomnittee members are encouraged to send oocrroents to TRI by OCTOBER 31, 1986. This will be an item on the next Safety and Health Onrmittee Meeting agenda. Charles G. hfcrvin Vice President fs end. cc: TRI Oour.sel Gxmittee Coordinator Hazardous Substances Qzrrmitcee U.S. Department Lab-Of JUL I 8S66 tor**x*tam SvcstfMTf CcajorwrviJ St/y *-<J i-wun Wv>ngion. OC *0210 Dennis- K. Race Akin, Gump, Strauss, Haver ft Feld 1333 Hew Hampshire Ave., Suite 40Q Washington, O.C. 20036 H.W. Dear Mr. Race:" This is in response to your July 14, 1986 letter on-behalf of R. T. Vanderbilt Co. in which you request that OSHA reconsider your request for a stay of the provisions of the revised standards promulgated June 17, 1986 governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite, to the extent the standards regulate occupa tional exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite C51 Fed. Reg. 22612 et. seq.}. The revised standards*, which amend OSHA's 1972 asbestos standard, 29 CFR 1910.1001 (1985), are scheduled to take effect July 21, 1986. For the reasons indicated below, I am granting a temporary stay of 9 months (until April 21, 1987) of the effective date of the revised standards insofar as they apply to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite, anthophy llite and actinolite. This stay is granted for the purpose of reopening the record and instituting supplemental rulemaking limited to the issue of whether non-asbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite should continue co be regulated in the same standards and to the same extent as asbestos, or should be treated in some other way. This stay applies oniy to the application of the revised standards to non-asbestiform tremolite, anthophy llite and actinolite. In all other respects, the revised standards will take effect as previously scheduled. It should be noted that during the pendency of the stay, the provisions of the 1972 standard governing occupational exposure to asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001 (1985)) will remain in effect with respect to regulation of non-asbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. (See 51 Fed. Reg. at 22732). OSHA if granting this temporary stay in part to enable the Agency to review a July II# 1986 letter from the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health JNIOSH) and certain related HIOSH staff memoranda which have recently been brought to it* attention# a* well as submissions by the R.T. Vanderbilt Co. and various trade associations concerning the appropriateness of regulating non-asbestiform tremolite#. anthophyllite and actinolite in the revised asbestos standards. OSHA believes# as stated in our July 9# 1986 letter# that it provided adequate notice to the public that its recent asbestos rulemaking would address whether the Agency'should 'amend the 1972 definition of asbestos# and the proper scope of the revised standards with respect to the three non-asbestiform minerals. However# OSHA.acknowledges that letters and petitions from rulemaking participants and non-participants have- been received since the revised standards' June 17# 1986 issuance# which contain additional comment# assertions#.and information which the rulemaking record may hot fully reflect# and which request an'opportunity to submit further information on thase questions. To assure that these submissions are fully.considered by OSHA# to allow public comment on these additional submissions# and to invite additional comment and evidence on all issues relevant to regulation of non-asbestiform tremolite# antho phyllite and actinolite# OSHA will shortly by Federal Register notice reopen the rulemaking record on the limited issue of whether non-asbestiform tremolite# anthophyllite and actinolite should continue to be regulated as presenting the same health risk as asbestos # or should be treated in some other way. Sincerely, .# John A. Pendergrass <' Assistant Secretary of Labor The' Refractories Institute 1102 One Oliver Plaza Pittsburgh, pa. 15222 412-281-6787 May 1, 1978 Qrr~C T++C p^CSiOCnT To the Members of the Environmental Protection Committee: R. E. Sesalke, Chairman R. 8. Arthur R. B. Crawford G. J. Fink R. F. Grady R. H. Giffin Paul Klauss L. H. Lamar C. E. Lindsay S. C. Porter J. R. Wohler A. P. Green Refractories Company North State Pyrophyllite Harbison-Walker Refractories Basic Refractories Martin"Marietta Chemicals North American Refractories General Refractories Company_ Babcock & Wilcox Company Kaiser Refractories Globe Refractories Freeport Brick Company Subject: Suspected Carcinogens Attached is the list of chemical substances classified by NIOSH as suspected carcinogens which some refractory producers use in their laboratory and/or manufacturing operation. This is the list I referred to in my remarks at the committee meeting on April 18th. You may recall that this list was used by the Safety and Health and Toxic Substances Committees for preliminary indi cations of how extensive a problem the industry might have if the proposed OSHA regulations were issued as proposed. At your request, we will use it in a similar fashion in anticipation of new programs from the EPA. Would you please review this list and determine to the best of your current knowledge: 1. Which, if any, of these substances are currently being dis charged from your plants and the method of discharge (air, water, etc.); 2. Are there any other suspected toxic substances and/or suspected carcinogens being discharged? If so, which ones and how? The information you report will be held in strict confidence and used only for the purpose of compiling a master list for reference purposes. No other action by committee members is required at this time. Please report back whether or not you have any chemicals to add to this list so I can be sure everyone has completed the review. It is obvious from the list that a very broad range of chemical substances is involved. If you are in doubt about whether a chemical substance being discharged is considered carcinogenic or not, report it anyway, and I will check it against the NIOSH master list of suspects to see whether it belongs on our final list. o OO c DSN NO 5 2 500 52500 31500 93 50o) 36750 6'- 750 1 f<000 6fi 750 ,'000 '<5500 6U 7 50 66500 '-9000 A PRELIMINARY LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES LISTED 1 N NI0SH PUBLICATION 77 - l*i9 REPORTED BY SOME REFRACTORIES PRODUCERS PRIME NAME OF COMPOUND (with alternates mentioned) Acetic Acid, (EtHylenedlnltrllo) Tetra-,Tr1 sodium Salt Syn: EDTA Tr1 sod 1um Salt RANK CODE 0000 COMMENTS Status: Currently tested by NCI for carc1nogcn1ci ty by S t.mdari bloassay protocol as of April 1976 Acetic Acid, Lead (2+) Salt Acetic Acid, Nitrllotrl-- Trlsodlum Salt, Monohydrate Acetone Mil Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic ---- Status: Currently tested by NCI for carcinogenicity by standart Bloassay Protocol as of Aprl1 1976 0000 Status: Undergoing NCI testing U/J6 Anthracene(coal tar pitch component) 1 Arsenlous Acid, Konosodlum Salt M12 0000 Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic, Neoplastic Review: Carcinogenic determination: human suspected Asbestos Benzene Benzene, Nltro 2-B1phenylol, Sodium Salt Syn: Dowlclde Boric Acid Syn: Orthoborlc Acid 2-Butanone Syn: Ethyl Methyl Ketone; Ketone, Ethyl Methyl; Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Carbon Dlsulfide M03 nn 0000 Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic Review: Carcinogenic determination-human positive- Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic, Neoplastic Review: Carcinogenic determination: human suspected 3101 0000 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic 0000 Status: Undergoing NCI testing A/76 Carbon Tetrachloride 'on :1c Effects: Carcinogenic, Neoplastic ;57C00 159500 128500 129550 l'<0250 3h 2000 J6h 750 166 500 :8 57 5p^ 111090 128000 '!<8ooo Co rbowax 1000 Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Ether . 0000 Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Ether, Sodium Salt Syn: Carboxymethylcellulose, sodium salt; sodium carboxy methyl cellulose 4101 Chromate of soda Chromic acid, Chromium (3+) salt (3:2) Chromic acid, Dlpotasslum salt ^ 3111 Chromic acid, DlsodIum salt Syn: Chromate of soda Chromlte 0000 -- Chromium 4102 Chromium (III) oxide (2:3) 4102 Chromium (VI) oxide (1:3) Coal tar, aerosol--*"''"Cobalt (II) nitrate (1:2) Cobalt (2+) oxide 1.3,2-DIoxathlolane 2,2-dloxlde 7202 210! 4101 see: TQ35000 Status: Undergoing NCI testing 4/76 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic See: GB29550 IARC Review: carcinogenic determination: animal positive Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic IARC Review: carcinogenic determlna tIon: animal suspected IARC Review: Indefinite Toxic Effects: Neoplastic IARC Review: carcinogenic determination: animal positive Toxic Effects: Neoplastic IARC Review: carcinogenic determination: animal suspected Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic IARC Review: carcinogenic determination: animal suspected Status: NI0SH candidate subject for hazard review (carcinogens Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic IARC Review: Indefinite Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic Toxic Effects: Neoolastlc rnrimiUAnY LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES (continued) 78 000 Diphenyl Amine 0000 EDTA Trisodium Salt 79750 05750 Ethane, I,1,l~TrIchloro Syn: 1,1,I-TrIchloroethane Ethanol, 2-Butoxy Syn: Ethylene Glycol, Honogutyl Ether 0000 0000 63000 .. Ethyl Alcohol Syn: Ethanol 33500 Ethylene, Chloro-,Po1ymer Syn: Polyvinyl Chloride 36750 Ethylenedlamine,N,N*-01 ethylOlnffiroso 3112 4|0! ~- 26500 56250 Ethylene Glycol, Honobuty! Ether Ethylene Oxide Fluorescein, DfsodSumSalt 1|I01 *--1 O 76000 d5OO0 `9000 65500 50750 Hexamethylenetetramine Iron (III) Oxide Iron (II) Sul fate (1:1) Hagnetlte Mercury MethacrylIc Acid, Methyl Ester Mylar 4101 0000 3101 3101 4101 4101 MiirIlot rI ace 11c Acid See: AH52500 Status: Undergoing NCI testing 4/76 Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic IARC Review: Indefinite Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic See: KJ85750 IARC Review: Indefinite Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic IARC Review: Indefinite Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic See: TQ79000 See AJ0I750 3P.iqc f'i'i l ImiMARY LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES (continued) M 7 750 Nitrous Acid, Sodium Salt .0000 -22750 9-0ctadecenoIc Acid, (Z) Syn: Oleic Acid 2101 Oleic Acid <'*3750 01Ivfne 310! Orthoborlc Acid 71750 - Pe troleum 3121 : 73500 ILU^ Petroleum Asphalt Syn: Asphalt (steam refined) ---- - y Plienanthrcne (coal tar pitch component)3121 03250 Phenbl 3121 ooO :95000 133250 '5000 179000 W 5B00 UflCOO Phenol, Pentachloro Syn: DowSclde G Phosphoric Acid, Tr!sodium Salt Polyethylene Polyethylene Glycol Syn: Carbowax Polyethylene Terephythalate film Syn: Mylar Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polystyrene Polyvinyl Alcohol Syn: PVA 3101 0000 1)202 3101 -- -- -- Status: Undergoing MCI testing V?6 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic See: RG22750 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic See: ED*s5500 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoolastlc Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic Status: Undergoing NCI testing U/J6 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic See WL6'i750 Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic P,t rjr h . i'UtlllUNARY LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES (continued) P.1QC 5 Polyvinyl Chloride PVA See:KV03500 See: TR01OOO See: W73300 U2h500 Serpentine 3101 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic v 7 3 300 W35000 Y80500 Il'725Q l fi ^ 600 l6'i 7 50 TlI I 100 Silica, Crystalline-Quartz Syn: Quartz; Silica Flour (powdered crystalline silica); Silicon Oxide,Dl-(Sand) Silica Flour (powdered crystalline sI}lea) Silicon Oxide,01-(Sand) Silver Sodium Azide Sodium Bisulfate 101 0000 Sodium Chloride Sodium Chromate 0000 Stearic Acid, Methyl Ester Styrene Polymer 3101 IjIOI Sulfuric Acid, Honosodlum Salt Syn: Sodium Blsulfate Toxic Effects: Neoplastic See: W7330Q See: W73300 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Status: Undergoing NCI testing h/~}b See: WTIIIIQ0 Status: Undergoing NCI testing V76 See: 0829550 Toxic Effects: Neoplastic Toxic Effects: Neoplastic W50750 n.22750 552500 rf62500 Tannic Acid Tltanlum Oxide Syn: Titanium Dioxide Tltanlum Dioxide Toluene Urea 101 0000 Toxic Effects: Carcinogenic IARC Review: carcinogenic determination: animal positive Status: Undergoing NCI testing ^/76 0000 0000 See XR22750 ^-Status: Undergoing NCI testing V?6 THE REFRACTORIES INSTITUTE 1102 OLIVER PLAZA PITTSBURGH, PA. 13222 July 18, 1978 To: The Official Representative of Each Active and Associate Member Company in the United States: Subject: PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION OF SUSPECTED CARCINOGENS The day after the Institute's testimony at the OSHA hearings on suspected carcinogens, OSHA released its long-awaited preliminary classifications. While these lists are only tentative and subject to change as the rulemaking process continues, they do give us the first authoratative indication of how chemical substances in use in the refractories industry may be controlled. )l am attaching a list of OSHA's proposed Category I, II and III classifications for chemicals reported by members of the TRI Safety and Health Committee as being in use in the industry. There are 14 substances classified as Category I, five as Category II, 22 as Category III, and one (Silica) classified both as Category II and III--a situation I am trying to clarify. Needless to say, I was disappointed to see so many Category I classifications for our industry. Chromium compounds received more attention than I expected, but coal tar and coal tar pitch compounds received less. Remember, however, that these are only tentative classifications. CATEGORY I Exposure to substances classified as Category I is considered to constitute "a grave danger" and such chemicals are proposed to be regulated most strin gently, first under an emergency standard, then under a permanent standard designed to reduce workers' exposure to the "lowest feasible level" or possibly zero if substitutes are available. Activities required of manufacturers or processors by the proposed permanent standard include (i) exposure monitoring and measurement; (ii) regulated (limited access) areas; (iii) control through engineering and work practices; (iv) respiratory protection; (v) protective clothing and equipment; (vi) housekeeping; (vii) waste disposal; (viii) hygiene facilities; (ix) medical surveillance; (x) employee training; (xi) precaution ary signs and labels; and (xii) recordkeeping. The extent of these activities \would be similar to those discussed at the May membership meeting in connection ./with the proposed silica standard, but the cost impact would probably vary from substance to substance. . 1 2- - CATEGORY II Category II substances are potential carcinogens for which the evidence is "only suggestive" rather than convincing. They would be regulated less stringently, but the regulation would require most of the activities mentioned above in one form or another. A major difference is that ex posure limits, instead of being at the "lowest feasible level", are to be set at the level of existing OSHA standards (29 CFR 1990.1000), or (where none exists) at "an appropriate level based upon acute or chronic effects of exposure...other than carcinogenicity", or,'if the present OSHA standard is inadequate to prevent those effects, it shall be lowered by the Secretary to an "appropriate" level. Also, there is no emergency standard provision for Category II substances, nor a requirement for regulated areas, nor the need for special lunchrooms. The difference in the cost of compliance for a Category I classification compared to Category II for a given substance could vary from trivial to catastrophic, depending upon the difference, if any, between an "appropriate level" to prevent acute.or chronic effects from exposure and the "lowest feasible level". CATEGORY III Category III substances require no special new controls but since they are recognized toxic substances there may already be recommended or regulated exposure limits which should still be followed. Category III substances can of course, be upgraded to II, or II to I, if new- test results or other con vincing scientific information is forthcoming. STRATEGY If the OSHA procedure is adopted as proposed and these classifications are upheld, it is obvious that many extremely expensive and far-reaching changes in how the industry does business will be required. This is not the time to throw in the towel, however. It js_ the time to get to work on developing a counterstrategy. If you have any data on these Category' I or II classifi cations which would indicate they are incorrect (overly stringent), now is the time to get it together. In fact, if you can get such information in my hands by August 1, I can have it included in the post-hearing record. Of particular interest here is the question of whether Chromium (III) should be controlled to the same degree as Chromium (VI), as well as the question of whether either deserves a Category I classification. Beyond that, it will take further discussions and planning to decide how TRI should respond to these initial classifications. One thing seems clear to me, however, and it is this: we stand a much better chance of softening their impact if we start work immediately instead of waiting for OSHA to publish final classifications. The time for response later when a notice of proposed rulemaking appears in the Federal Register will be far too short to accomplish any thing of sign!ficance. ~3~ I would appreciate hearing from each member who expects to be affected by these classifications as quickly as possfble during the post-hearing comment period. JWW/hm cc: Environmental Protection Committee Safety and Health Conmittee Technical Advisory Committee Toxic Substances Subcommittee H. W. Fulton, dr. PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION OF SUSPECTED CARCINOGENS REPORTED BY SOME REFRACTORIES PRODUCERS CATEGORY I CATEGORY III Acetic acid. Lead (2+) salt Asbestos Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride Chromic acid, Chromium (3+) salt (3:2) Chromic acid, Oipotassium salt Chromic acid, Oisodium salt Chromite Chromium C*~omium (III) oxide' (2:3) jiromium (VI) oxide (1:3) Ethylenediamine, N,N'-Dimethyl- N,N* Oinitroso Serpentine Tannic acid CATEGORY II Ethyl alcohol Iron (III) oxide Petroleum Petroleum asphalt Phenanthrene Silica, Crystalline (also Category III) Anthracene Boric acid Brucite Cellulose, Carboxymethyl ether. Sodium salt Cobalt (II) nitrate (1:2) Cobalt (2+) oxide Ethylene oxide Fluorescein, Disodium salt Hexamethylenetetramine Iron (II) sulfate (1:1) Magnetite Mercury 9-Qctadecenoic acid (Z) (Syn: Oleic acid) 01ivine Phenol Phenol, Pentachloro- (Syn: Dowicide G) Polyethylene Polyethylene glycol (Syn: Carbowax) Polyvinyl alcohol (Syn: PVA) Silica, crystalline (also Category II) Silver Stearic acid. Methyl ester Styere polymer SpI.Rot -- i " sdministrstor hsi "hesvy burden" lo suipected caremoceni u a legislative substantial issues in OSHA rulcmak:.-.; evpUin the b*n for hit decision :o permit the continued use of < c.-.emtcsl known to produce etnoer in espenmenist sr.tmtis.'* fflfv. Rucketshaus (D0T1. 438 F.2d 384. 390 n.t (D.C. Cir. t97T|; accord. EOF*. EPA (heptsdhlor end chlordsne). S44 F.2d 994, 1002 tudgment that is not open to question m this court. Congress s otrection lo EPA tc protect against incompletely understood dangers could not be earned out if we were to adopt the proof requirement! advocated by industry petitioners." proceedings, thus leading to more compact and useful Records in a shorn: period of time, in addition, this policy will result in continuity of approach, even in the face of changes of (D.C Cir. 1978). cert, denied. 431 U.S. 933 (1977): EOF*. EPA (tldnn and dieldnn). 310 Fid a 11302: see EOF v. Department of Health. Education and Welfare. 424 Fid at 1000-92. When firm evidence cstsblishes that a chemical ia a carcinogen, statutes generally leave an administrator no alternative but to This proposal marks a departure from QSHA's usual pattern of a substanceby-substance approach in setting health standards concerning exposures to potential occupational carcinogens. For the reasons set forth herein. OSHA policymakers. This new approach is intended to ameliorate certain administrative problems in standard setting. One significant aspect of past rulemakings concerning carcinogens waa the enormous time period between step in to protect the public. believes that such an approach is not OSHA s initial Federal Register notices -On the other hand, when the evidence is only proper and necessary but in fact and final judicial actions, for example, leoa than firm, but merely suggests that a chemical may be a carcinogen, the tame "heavy burden" may not attend administrative inaction. The dedsion to act in such a cate has been held to fell within the discretion of the Administrator. For example, compelling because of its "experience gained under this and other health and safety laws". (The Act section 6(b)(5).) Moreover. OSHA believes that by establishing a rational and predictable in its nine (9) year history. OSHA has concluded only seven (7) rulemaking proceedings in regulating carcinogens. Moreover, it should be noted that the total time the official process took horn us Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA. 514 F-2d 492 policy concerning the regulation of the date of the first official {8th Cir. 197S) (cn band. EPA sought to abate exposures to occupational carcinogens, announcement in the Federal Register to discharge of reining refuse into Lake Superior employers, employees, the general completion of the judicial review of the "under an acceptable but unproved medical theory." that the discharges were carcinogenic. 314 Fid at 329. The eourt concluded thtt the discharges should be abated, even though there would be a heavy cost, including possible loss of many jobs, to the local economy, id. at 314-20.323-40. Similarly, in Certified Color Manufacturers Association v. Mathews. 343 FJd 284 (D.C Gr. 1978). the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) terminated its provisional approval of s color tddibve used to dye food on the basts of a vigorously debated study of the additive's cardsogcruc effects. This court concluded that the FDA action should be upheld, based upon FDA's scientific judgment that the study was not conclusive, but was merely suggestive of carcinogenicity, id. at 237. "Courts have traditionally recognized a speoai judicial interest in protecting the public health, particularly where "the matter involved is as sensitive and fright-laden as cancer." Where the barm envisaged ia cancer, courts have recognized the need for action based upon lower stsndsrds of proof than otherwise applicable." Id. at 297-98 (footnotes omitted) quoting EOFv. EPA (DDT). 465 F.2d 328. 334 (D.C Or. 1972). The courts have frequently upheld regulations public, the scientific community and public interest groups will not only benefit from improved employee health, but also experience greater efficiencies in their own activities/ Employees are exposed to many substances on a daily basis. Obviously, most of these substances are not carcinogenic. Yet. some may be. OSHA believes that this general policy and. procedure wiH facilitate the sifting through the evidence concerning substances which may be imputed to be potential carcinogens and the application of uniform, predictable criteria in order to assess whether such substances should indeed be treated as carcinogenic. Without such a system and appropriate criteria. OSHA believes that this task cannot be accomplished in a timely and efficient manner. With an appropriate system and criteria, worker health will be protected efficiently without rediscuttmg or relitigating, time and time again, the same issues and without unnecessarily draining limited final standard does not necessarily include the time required to analyze the facts and develop the proposal in the first instance, which itself can be considerable/* Finally, it should be noted that the procedures followed in each of the following cases differed because of an attempt to speed up the process. None of the differing procedures succeeded in achieving that goaL a. Asbestos An emergency temporary standard regulating occupational exposures to asbestos was published on December 7. 1971 (36 FR 23207) and not judicially contested: a permanent standard was proposed on January 12.1972 (37 FR 466J and. after a short hearing, was published in final form on june 7.1972 (37 FR 11318); the permanent standard was contested in Industrial Union Department. AFL-CIO v. Hodgson on July 27.1972. and affirmed in 499 P.2d based on evidence of carcinogenic efleets. industry, union, public interest scientific See. e.g. American Iron tr Steel Institute v. OSHA. No. 78-2334. slip op. at 31-32 (3d Or. March 24. 1978) (coke oven emissions): Society of the Plastics Industry v. OSHA. 509 F.2d at 1311 (vinyl ehionde): Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers and government resources. As a result of this policy. OSHA believes that these limited resources will focus on the most *WKjI OSHA wifi not aUborate upon the !ef.ftby dm* coniuminf ` riletnAkiftfa Only two other health standards have been promulgated dur.ag the history of OSHA nameiy* standards re*uiaunt occupational espoauret to iBorftAie lead end cotton dual In the caac of the ataodard reguiauag occupational eaposure to lead, tha proposed final standard waa published on October 3.1771 (tO FR OPMJ. extensive heannea Association v, Brennan. S03 FJd 113.1139-60 eipenenced by other agtnctca under other itatutte. held ajod the EloxI aundard published on .N'ovemoer (3d Cir.) (same), cert dented. 420 U.S. 973 on excellent diacuation of the aatne probleau &L lm. a process that took over id month*. An (1974). "These cates demonstrate that inevitable tension attending regulation of carcinogens. Frequently, such regulations have severe economic impact. Indeed, soaetunea. as ppeere tn McCemy. "Substantive and Procedural Discretion m AdmAjatrs live Resolution of Science Policy Question* RgulstiA| CUrcinofens tn c?A and OSHA" 57 Corjfown La** journal 7Zi {February IdT-j) AIo i Seryef tr.d Rjakin. Economic and Technotcitcal FtaeOiLty tn appeal ia pending in the Court of Appeal* for the Diimct'of Columbia tn Lead Induttrtet. Inc. v OSHA. In tha case of the sundard rer^latme occupational espesure to cotton duit. in sdvsnce notice of proposed miemasing published on December V 177 i fid F7 a oropoaed alleged by industry petitioners in this cate, Refulanna To<tc Su2ttr-cr Under :he permanent standard published on Oecrmoer IS. such regulations may leopsrdiic plants or Occupational Ssfrtv a -<j Hrsith Act. 7 Ecsloey Law ITT (at FR M-t4d). extensive heannea Arid n April whole induitriea. and the ioba depending on Qua/tefty Lfci T~t acientiAc commentator* and May of !7T7. and final standards published as them. In tuch circumii Jhces. the lempt.uon to demand that the agency furnish conclusive proof ol carcinogenicuy tt support for the rrgulsiions is rrcsi. However the decision lo delegate authority to an agency to control ha*e alio recorur.encep a generic, .'atncf tnan a Caae OfCaa* approach *p regulating carciAQfens for tne same reaaona Vf National academy of Science*--Nat.onal rUirar*h COaACtl. Oecmqomaa.rif for Environment 1J 11 a.* b j Chemicala tn the to Cotton Oust and Cotton Quit m Cc'ton C.at pn une 13. 1P7 ta3 FR J73S0 and :r*.a: 4 process -si Nboa o*er montn* Ai;nu deed*? by \Court of Appeals lor *.*e 0<*nd' ul * Merenorland rfiei C.**.ient A hoc * Stands! tol.Rpt. - 12 467 on April 17.1974. m< entire process d. Coke oven emissions contested on January 17.1978. the stay consuming (bout 29 months.* b. Fourteen Carcinogens On July 8. 1972. OSHA requested information concerning fifteen substances (37 FR 13285). A psckege of fourteen (14| emergency temporery standards regtiitting occupational exposures to a like number of carcinogens was published on May 3. 1973 (38 FR 10929). contested in pan in Dry ColorManufacturers'Assn. v. Brennan and vacated on October 4.1973 by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals at 486 F.2d 98: an advisory committee was appointed and began its meetings on fune 25.1973. the proposed permanent An advisory committee concerning occupational exposures to coke oven emissions was appointed an August 12. 1974. and held twenty-eight days of meetings during which testimony was presented by numerous experts and parties and over 200 exhibit* received, the proposed permanent standard was published on july 24.197S (40 FR 40649). promulgated on October ZX 2976 (41 FR 46742). contested in American Iran end Steel Institute v. OSHA bn October 23. 1976. and affirmed in S77 F2d 825 on March 26.1978. petition for certiorari pending in the United States Supreme Court the entire process consuming 66 months so far. was denied in Vistuon v. OSHA on March 23.1978 in the Sixth Circuit a permanent standard was proposed on (anuary 17.1976. (43 FR 45762). hearings held in March and April 1978 and the final standard issued on October X 1978 (43 FR 45762). That final standard waa not judicially contested, although the entire process consumed 16 months even after the Manufacturing Chemists Association and Dow Chemical Co. on the one hand and E. L du Pont de Nemours k Co. Inc oa the other hand informed OSHA that such substance was a potential earomogen based on both animal and human evidence in March and May of 1977 respectively. standard was published on july IS. 1973 (38 FR 18800) and amended on August 18.1973 (38 FR Z2M1J. a heanng was held in September 1973 and the final standard published on (anuary 29.1974 {39 FR 3756). contested in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Assn. (SOCMAI v. Brennan I (H) on January 2? 1974 and SOCMA v. Brennan U tA) on February 4.197S. In SOCMA i. .Annan 1. the Third Circuit affirmed in part in 503 F.2d llSS on August 26. 1974. cert. den. on March 17.1975 in 420 U.S. 973. A petition for rehearing was denied on October 8. 1975. In SOCS1A v. Brenner. U. the Third Circuit affirmed m 506 F.2d 355 on December 17. 1974. A petition for certioran was filed on March 20.1975 and denied by the Supreme Court on October 8. 1975 sub nom. Oil. Chemical and Atomic Workers v. Dunlap m 423 U.S. 830. The e. Arsenic L Beryllium An advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning occupational exposures to inorganic arsenic was published on June 11.1974 (39 FR 20494). t fact-finding hearing was announced on August 30.1974 (39 FR 31644). held on September 20.1974. a proposed standard was published on January 21.1975 (40 FR 3392). a final permanent standard published os May 5.1978 (43 FR 19564). contested in ASARCO v. OSHA on May 5.1978 and judicial review is pending tn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and decision has been deferred pending the result of the Supreme Court decision in the case of the contested standard regulating occupational exposures to benzene, infra. The entire ongoing process has therefore consumed 67 months. In the case of c standard regulating occupational exposures to beryllium, the proposed standard was published on October 17.1975 (40 FR 4814). Hearings were held during August end September 1977. A final standard is pending with the process to date having consumed at least 51 months. In sum. OSHA believes that the length of time consumed in official regulatory . and judicial processes will be shortened after the promulgation of this Part for the following reasons: the periodic announcement of regulatory priorities and advance notice of identification and. classification criteria will enable all participants in the regulatory process, including OSHA staff, to act with greater efficiency and certainty tn framing the truly critical issues in any rulemaking and locating the required entire process consumed about 40 f. Benzene technical and icieaufic expertise early months. c. Vinyl chloride A fact-finding heanng concerning vinyl chlonde was announced on [anuary 30.1974 (39 FR 3874) and held on Feonary IS. 1974, An emergency temporary standard regulating occupational exposure to vwyl chloride was published on April 5. 1974 (39 FR 12341] and not |udiciiily contested, a proposed permanent standard was published on May 10. 1974 (39 FR 16698). the permanent standard published on October 4. 1974. (39 FR 33892). contested in The Society of the Plastics Industry v. OSHA on October 1. 1974. and affirmed in $09 F 2d 1301 on (anuary 21. 1975. cert dec tub nom Firestone Plastics US. Department or Labor m 421 992. on .May 27 197$. the enure An emergency temporary standard regulating occupational exposures to benzene was published on May 3.1977 (42 FR 225161. stayed in API v. OSHA by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 20. 1977. a proposed permanent standard was published on May 27. 1977 (42 FR 274621. published in final form on February 10.1978 (43 FR 5918|. contested in American Petroleum Institute v. OSHA on February 2. 1976. and vacated in S61 F.2d 493 on October 5.1971 certiorari granted m Marshall v. API 440 U.S. 906 on February 21. 1979 by the United States Supreme Court, the entire process, so far. consuming 31 months. g. Acrylonitrile On June 29. 1977 (42 FR 33043). and July 5. 1977 (42 FR 34328). OSHA requested public comments concerning in the proceeding. This should shorten and sharpen the rulemakings. Also the reviewing courts will be presented with rulemaking records of improved coherence, relevance and reduced size, aiding their deliberations. Other sdr"irntrcve problems faced by OSHA in promulgating regulations in this area on a caae-by-casc basis are expected to be mitigated by these regulations. OSHA had staled that the present system unreasonably takes the time of scientific experts who were asked to present statements concerning identical issues in various proceedings. For exsmpie. Dr. Rail (Director. NIEHS1 teitified: , I thirji the diicutxton at the uiucx cen **,d ihould continue forever. Mr Hjnion iof Dow Chemical Co.j Which foP^m r* process consuming IS months. "f (Istihj *w** f1 Oaui tq * t *. 11 *: of 80*(4}4 -erv OSHA occupational exposure to vinyl cyanide or acrylonitrile An emergency 'emporarv standard regulating occupational exposures was published on |anuary 17, 1978 (43 FR 25d6i. Or Sell icicntific forums. Sometime! he ferziiterr *eAey ** to nd l third* * ;e-ec'-!v nt **r accept the Cur?**t tute *rtO'-teiJje end rrfuUte Oft the of r>e ?gnt rmly tt (Mat the Owl- A GUIDE TO THE HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD Copyright 1984 By THE REFRACTORIES INST1TUTI 301 Fifth Avenue. Suite i 5 1 7 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 REFRACTORIES MANUFACTURING: COMMON CHEMICALS LIST The following list of chemicals has been compiled by The Refractories Institute's Toxic Substances Committee from chose sources* specified by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard for establishing that chemicals are hazardous or carcinogenic. It is intended as a reference list of chose substances commonly used in refractories manufacturing facilities thac appear in those source materials and require an MSDS under the OSHA Standard. This list is not to be considered comprehensive or current. CHEMICAL NAME Acetic acid Acetone Acetyisalicylic acid (Asprin) Alumina (alpha Alumina) Aluminum (Metal and oxides) Aluminum (soluble salts) Ammonia Asbestos Asphalt (petroleum) fumes Benzene Benzo (a) pyrene Borates Borates, cetra, sodiumsalts--anhydrous Boron oxide Butane Calcium carbonate/ marble Calcium cyanamide Calcium hydroxide Calcium oxide Calcium silicate Carbofuran Carbon black Carbon monoxide Chromate Chromate as Cr, Chromite ore processing ' 1 SOURCE* DOCUMENT 4 H a m e Caasl c OQU4 cVM Oe <v>4 uu u<0 < o<x?!!n > vne < OH se xx xx x * xx x xx xxx x xxx xx x x xx x x x x xx x x xx xx x x X