Document oMaQy6Mb4axRY1KaJ8dD6Lzr7

L-21*2 mBPHONB NATIONAL 8-2388 Manufactxuring Chemists' Association, Inc (POUNDED 1872) 1625 Eye Street, N. W. Washington 6, D. C. Meeting of LABELS AND PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION COMMITTEE American Cyanamid Offices - Room 5810 Thursday, May 22, 1958 New York 20, N. Y. The meeting came to order at 10:00 A. M. on Thursday, May 22, 1958. MEMBERS PRESENT J. B. WilAIamson (Chairman). American Cyanamid Company N. M. Walker (Vice Chairman), Pennsalt Chemicals CorporationJohn H. Foulger, M.D., E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Edward J. Hogan, Allied Chemical Corporation Frank S. Low, Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation H. H. McIntyre, The Dow Chemical Company Thomas W. Nale, M.D., Union Carbide Corporation John B. Tuttle, Esso Standard Oil Company N. G. White (for George Brewer), Shell Chemical Corporation James D. KIttelton (Secretary), Manufacturing Chemists* Association, Inc. GUESTS Manfred Bowditch, Lead Industries Association Frank H. Carman, Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc. A. G. Cranch, M.D., Celanese Corporation of America MEMBERS ABSENT Chester L. French, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works J. T. Fuess, Distillation Products Industries Sanford J. Hill, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. R. D. Minteer, Monsanto Chemical Company R. G. Troup, J. T. Baker Chemical Co. 1.3 ALLIED COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 1.3.8 AMA Meeting i This meeting was held in Chicago on May 9th to consider the AMA Proposed Model Hazardous Substances Act. Dr Cranch attended the AMA meeting in a personal compacity, and reported the discussion which took place. L 1 j J L-243 AMA will hold a meeting with representatives of industry on Friday, July 25, 1958. The Chairman designated Dr. Nale and Mr. Hill to attend this meeting. 2.1 FEDERAL LEGISLATION Bureau of Explosives Definition of Flammable Solid and Corrosive'Liquid The principal objection which the Committee had is to the definition of corrosive liquid. This definition would classify as corrosive, mixtures containing more than 10% of mineral acid. The Committee felt that percentages should be omitted in any definition. Dr. Foulger agreed to prepare a memorandum concerning this definition and to send it to Mr. Mayhood. This letter appears as Appendix A. The Revision Subcommittee should consider the definition of corrosive which now covers only physiological mean ing. 2.3 CITY REGULATIONS 2.3-1 New York City (a) Proposed New York City Sanitary Code, Article 211, Hazardous Substances -- Article 211 of the Code would be handled in the same manner as the AMA bill. The Committee will make general recommendations to the subcommittee which will later meet with other interested associations. 211.01(a) -- Hazardous Substance The Committee noted that in the definition of hazard ous substance, the word substantial was omitted in the phrase "is likely to cause injury or illness to man.1* This would cover chemi cals even if they only caused a slight headache, sneeze or dizziness. After this discussion, It was moved, seconded and voted THAT, the word "substantial" be inserted in the definition of hazardous substance so that the phrase now readsr w. . .is likely to cause substantial injury or illness to man.` 1 1 " L-21|4 211.01(d) and (e) Flammable and Extremely Flammable In these definitions, the Tagliabue Open Cup Test would also apply to flammable solids. In our letter to the New York City Health Department, it should be mentioned that this Tagliabue Test does not apply to solids. 211.01(g) Irritant The Committee decided that the phrase "have been determined to" should be inserted in the second sentence of the definition. Thus, the sentence would read: "It includes strong sensitizing substances which on ordinary handling^ have been determined to cause an inflammatory reaction in the living tissue or some persons on immediate, prolonged or repeated contact." | Dr. Nale read part of his paper given at the 1958 ' Industrial Health Conference in Atlantic City and the Committee thought that this portion-of his talk relating to sensitizers might be included in our letter to the New York City Health Depart ment. This appears on page 19 of the paper. / 211.01(h) Poison The LAPI definition of poison is not an over-all criterion in determining whether to label, but merely. a. limita tion on highly hazardous substances. This is in addition to all I other classifications of chemicals using signal words, such as ! "DANGER," "WARNING," or "CAUTION." The Committee felt that the first part of the defini tion of poison was very indefinite and inconsistent. The statement mentions the amount of the poison which would have to be absorbed I by mouth or applied to the skin or other surfaces of the body, while in the second part of the statement, 100 ppm is mentioned for inhalation purposes. The first part of the definition in j mentioning other surfaces would also cover inhalation. One hundred parts per million would vary with the chemical depending upon its I molecular weight. The first part of this definition Is also ! Inconsistent with the fourth part. The Committee stated that Section 201.01(h)(2) is very vague and has little meaning and should be deleted. Only . Ij. or 5 chemicals would fall within this part of the definition ! and none of the chemicals are used In the home. Also, small amounts are not defined and there is no reference to a period of time. ( The Committee next discussed the third part of the poison definition. Dr. Nale said that of the 1,572 chemicals which j Union Carbide had tested, 58.!{. per cent of them would require a poison label under this part of the New York City definition of poison. Mr. McIntyre said that of the 1,250 chemicals which The Dow Chemical Company had tested, over 80 per cent would fall within L-Zk$ In urging the deletion of this part of the defini tion of poison, it should be emphasized that the definition would also cover salt and baking soda. 211.03 Transfer of Hazardous Substances; Reuse of Pood, Drug and Cosmetic containers A manufacturer of a chemical might not be able to continue using the closures he Is now using, since some of them are the same as those used in the food, drug and cosmetic Industry, It was suggested that the wording of the AMA bill be used for this section: "A re-use of food, drug or cosmetic containers still bearing original labels or identifiable as such by characteristic shape, impression or closures as containers for hazardous substances is prohibited." 211.05 Labeling Section 211.05(b)(2), specifies "the chemical, common or recognized generic name, not trade name only, of the hazardous substance or of each hazardous component." The Committee felt that the phrase "which contributes substantially to its hazard* shouid be added to-the end of this statement. The Committee was also critical of the last part of this subsection, (b)(2), dealing with the power of the Health Department to exempt certain labeling requirements. The Committee felt that the Health Department would have this power without try ing to spell It out by weight percentages. 211.05(b) (ij.) of the regulations is similar to that appearing in the AMA model bill. It would spell out a method for selecting which of the three signal words, "DANGER," "WARNING," or "CAUTION," should be used to indicate the degree of hazard. The same arguments against this particular provision apply as stated in the MCA letter to Representative Curtis on a similar AMA provision. 211.05(b)(7) of the regulation now reads as follows: "Instructions for first aid treatment and in the case of poisons, for an antidote, if available." The Committee considered this objectionable and prefers the word ing in the CSMA model bill. This wording Is as follows: "Instructions, when necessary, for the first aid treatment in case of contact or exposure, if the substance is hazardous through contact or exposure." L L-21J.6 211.05(e) reads: "Subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to a substance still in the development 3tage when it is used solely for experimental purposes and when it is known that no specific hazard exists but the potential hazard is not identified . . . ." The Committee said this was meaningless. It decided the wording should be: "Subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to a substance still in the development stage when it is used solely for experimental purposes and when no specific hazard is known to exist . . . 211.05(g)(1) would require that the precautionary information appear on the front label of this retail package of the hazardous substance. The Committee felt that this provision was unrealistic, since not all information is placed on the front panel. Furthermore, it is questionable whether a round container would be covered. 211.05(g)(2) would require that the precautionary information appear on "each package liner which contains any written, printed or graphic matter." This is undesirable since a simple statement such as "Made in the U.S.A.," etc., would require that precautionary labeling-information- appear on the liner. 211.05(g)(3) would require that the precautionary information appear on the label on each place where there are directions for use. This Is unworkable since directions for use might be on many sides of the container. This would mean that the precautionary information would have to be repeated wherever there were directions for use. The Committee concluded that 211.05(g)(1), (2), and (3) were unrealistic and unworkable and that the wording of the Bush bill be used. Cs James D. Kittelton Secretary Labels and Precautionary Information Committee Minutes Subject to Approval June 9, 1958 JDK/jmb ATTACHMENT ]OPY "APPENDIX A" E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY INCORPORATED Wilmington, Delaware Employee Relations Department I Mr. Charles H. Mayhood, Secretary I Chemical Packaging Committee j Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc. | 1625 Eye Street, N. W. JI Washington 6, D. C. Dear Charlie: BUREAU OP EXPLOSIVES PROPOSALS (Letter 2/17/58) FOR AMENDMENT of 1 ictrifflGom'ioJSi g1 mui itiun a------------------------------------------------------ At the meeting of the LAPI Committee in New York on May 22, the above subject was discussed and I was asked to write to you giving the conclusions of the LAPI Committee. In the opinion of the committee, the proposed change in the wording of Section 73.21^0 would only cause confusion. In the past, as -you may remember, there has -been considerable confusion between the classification of a material as corrosive because of its action on living tissue and its corrosiveness on materials used for packaging. In the opinion of the committee, the two fields of corrosive ness should be carefully distinguished. For this reason, the defini tion of corrosive (physiological) on page 7 of the current Manual L-l should be retained. This reads "Corrosive (physiological)" "an agent which In contact with living tissue would cause more or less severe destruction of tissue by chemical action." This is virtually the wording in paragraph 73,2lj.O on page 68 of Agent Campbell's Tarriff No. 10, effective June 18, 1957. In the opinion of the LAPI Committee, the classification of corrosiveness on the basis of percentage concentration of acids, or alkali, or other materials I3 fallacious when applied to human tissue. Certain compounds 3uch as hydrofluoric acid or bromine, and 3ome of the alkyl mercury salts, can be corrosive to human tissue at much lower concentrations even than one per cent. It was the opinion of the committee that corrosiveness to metals or other materials (that is to inanimate objects) should be covered by a second definition. The wording of this definition, of course, lies within the field of the packaging committee and not in that of LAPI. Yours sincerely. /s/ John H. Foulger, M.D. Director of Medical Research