~afety in the edited bv

chemicd laboratory MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of ldaho

Moscow, ldaho 83843

or "Right to Know" Howard H. Fawcen Fawcen Consultations, 12920 Matey Road, Wheaton, MD 20906

At a time when deregulation is in vogue, new regulations a t the federal, state, and local levels may still have significant impli- cations for the academic community as well as for the manufacturing and related indus- tries to which they are specifically directed. The problem and a possihle solution were presented decades ago (I). The full legal scope of the new communication standard and similar laws has not been fully reviewed hv the courts. hut it aooears that the em- . . ~ ~~

phyees and personnel ot cdlrges and uni- wriitics who use, handle, and disposc of chemicals have a legally required .'need to know" concerning the hazards involved and the prudent precaution% suggcsred. As in- dustry tunrs up to meat the May 25, 19R6. drndline tor rhe OSHA standard, students and others in academia, including profes- sors, teachers, and administrators, should be alerted to the increased concern which the federal, state, and local (city and coun- ty) codes now place on full and complete disclosure of chemical hazards and to the precautions needed to handle, use, and dis- pose of chemicals safely. It has become too costly, both in human life as well as in terms of legal liability and professional responsi- hility, to continue indifference or "luke- warm lip service" to chemical health and safety.

This paper addressed the new OSHA re- quirements; readers should consult their state and local laws far specific additional requirements imposed by local codes en- acted in recent years.

If the pursuit and understanding of natu- ral forces are the main driving forces of sci- ence, the dissemination of knowledge, often obtained at high cost bath financially and in human terms, should he important as well. If the new knowledge results in profitable enterprises, the consensus is that science has benefited the national interest; if,on the other hand, essential knowledge is ignored, suppressed, or truncated, and humans or the environment are degraded, doubt is east on all scientific activities. Many question whether scientists, including chemists and

engineers, are truly advancing human well- being, and it is essential that scientists eom- munieate all data needed to assess and properly control chemicals, their interae- tions, their effects on living systems, and their ultimate disposal (2).

Over the years, the "positive" side of chemicals and their reaction products has been rightly publicized, hut far Less atten- tion has been focused on the hazard ooten- r d or many I hrm~ralx if the? are impmper- ly handled ur imprudently d~spused in spite of the critical importance (3).

Marie Curie is credited with the state- ment that "nothing in life is to be feared; i t is only to he understood". If we apply this concept to chemical health and safety, the recent standard on hazard communication h) the (IS. Occupatimal Safety and llealth Admin~tmtion should reliwr some of rhc present ~~nenkinesa cuncerning ~hrmirnls. Since lahoratory personnel are usually the first persona in any organization (academic or industrial) to work with and to have an understanding of the physical, chemical, and physiological properties of chemicals, the standard should he of special interest and concern to the "bench chemist" and other supporting staff as well as to profes- sors, administrators, and management.

The standard, published in the Federal Register, Volume 48, No. 228, November 25, 1983, pp 53280-53348 (29 CFR P a r t 1910.1200, Hazard Communication; Final Rule) is intended to make information ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

available to employees so that work prac- tices are controlled to prevent improper or excessive exposures. A secondary purpose ma\. be to neutralize iome d' the negative assessment8 abtut the "quality of life", e l - peciallv where rhemirnls and chemivallv re- lated materials are produced, handled, re- acted, and disposed of (4).

The standard requires that chemical manufacturers and importers convey haz- ard information to downstream employers by means of informative labels on contain- ers and by material safety data sheets (MSDS's). All chemical manufacturers and

importers are required to assess the hazards of chemicals they produce or import, and all employers having workplaces in the manu- facturing division, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 20 through 39, must provide information to their employ- ees concerning hazardous chemicals by means of hazard-communication programs, which include informative labels, MSDS's, training, and access to written records. In addition, distributors of hazardous chemi- cals are required to ensure that containers they distribute are properly labeled and, that a MSDS is provided to their customers. At this writing, i t is not clear what are the limits of these regulations, since a federal court has ordered OSHA to toughen these requirements, in that the standard should he extended to other workers (such as con- struction and services) and be less restric- tive on the disclosure of trade secrets (5).

OSHA's primary intent in promulgating the final hazard communication standard was to ensure that employees will receive as much information as needed concerning the hazards in their work area, and that this information will he presented to them in useable, readily accessible form. The see- ondary intent was to write the standard in such a way that companies or Laboratories that have voluntarily instituted effective programs of hazard communication for their employees may continue to use these pro- grams without substantial modifications.

Laboratories were given special consider- ation during the preparation of the hazard communication standard, and the text (pp 53287-53289) contains interesting com- ments on the control of chemicals in aea- demic and industrial laboratories. OSHA gave limited coverage of the standard to lab- oratories, including provisions that the em- olover ensure that labels on incamine con- . , lainera are not r emord <,r defaced nnd rhnr unv lnhelcdcuntainrr entering thelabmatw ry dhwld bearuumpanied by a MSDS main. tained in the work area, he updated when

(Continued on page A72)

A70 Journal of Chemlcal Education

required, and be accessible to workers. The employer will be required to implement fully the training provisions of the standard for laboratory employees (and by implica- r i m , ru s n d e n t s ~ . Employepa may be [mined with regard togeneral clnssesolhaz- ards, ruch as flammnhrlity c,r rpactivity, na long as the substance-specific information is available to employees in written form. This tvoe of trainine should be easilv accom- . . plishrd and ).el will pruvide protection fur Iaburatury wwkeru and increase their awareness of hazards in their work areas. Training of this type is particularly impor- tant in laboratories, where personnel are typically exposed to large numbers of chem- icals in relatively small quantities. In addi- tion. since the final standard allows emolov- . , rrs tv keep the required iniormation in srme form other than a \ISIX, thrat empluyers ran more readily meet the iniurtnatiun re- quirements for their personnel.

The labeling requirements of the stan- dard do not apply to

1) pesticides (labeled in accord withEPA requirements);

21 foods, food additives, color additives, drugs, and cosmetics (regulated by the Federal Food and Drug Administra-

3) distilled spirits, beverage alcohols, wines, and malt beverages intended for nonindustrial use (subject to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire- arms); and

4) consumer products and hazardous substances (subject to consumer safe- ty standards or label requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Com- mission).

Four categories of substances are exclud- ed from the standard: hazardous wastes (regulated by EPA), tobacco and tobacco products, wood and wood products, and ar- ticles or completed objects.

The MSDS. the Drimarv reference readilv wailable 10 emplo).rri and other5, is a kr; element in the ~randard. Kwh MSDS must be in English. Since a rigniiicdut numher of employees may not read or understand En- glish, this may pose a serious prohlem, as it did in the recent Illinois case where three company executives were found guilty of murder in the death of a Polish immigrant who apparently was not informed by label- ingor other warning of the potential hazards of a cyanide solution used in the recovery of silver from X-ray films (6).

Information in the MSDS should contain physical and chemical characteristics of the chemical; the CAS number; the known or suspected acute andlor chronic health ef- fects and related information; safe exposure limits (such as the OSHA Permissible Expo- sure Limit (PEL1 or the ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) or Short-Time Emer- gency Limit (STEL)); whether or not the chemical is considered a carcinogen, muta-

tential (including flammable limits, flash point, and auto-ignition temperature); and hazardous reactions with other chemicals. Precautionary measures, emergency and first-aid procedures, and the identification of the organization responsible for prepar- ing the sheet, as well as literature references, should also he included.

(?<,pier of the MSDS for chrmicals in a uvrn work area must he readily nrcessiblr to employees in that area. As a source of detailed information on hazards, the sheets must be Located close to personnel and readily available during each shift.

The standard requires employers to es- tablish a training and information program for employees exposed to hazardous chemi- cals in their work area a t the time of initial assignment and whenever a new hazard (or new knowledge or data) is introduced. All such training should be completed before the deadline established by OSHA for May 25, 1986. All of the above must be docu- mented in a written program.

Trade secrets are recoenized in the stan- .. dard, and l m m d d i s ~ l ~ s u r r is ordr~r id to health prof~ssimnls who are furnishin6 medical or other occupational safety and health services to exposed employees, under specified conditions of need and confidenti- ality. For example, if a medical emergency should arise involving chemicals or mix- tures. the treatine Dhvsician or occuoational henlth nurse hasihe &imate rrsp&sibility fur determining and declaring an rrnrrgem ry. The prot'emicmal judgment u i thr physi- cianor nurse must form the basis for trigger- ing the immediate disclosure requirement. The manufacturer, importer, or employer

tion). gen, or teratogen; the fire and explosion po- can demanda writtenstatement ofneedand

A72 Journal of Chemical Education

a confidentiality agreement completed after the emergency is under control, so any fur- ther disclosure of the trade secret is legally prevented (7.8).

I.'nless thr hazard communication is con- ducted with a positiveand constructiveatti- rude, i t is probablr that c<midrrable misun- derstanding may result between the affect- ed personnel and management. As an example, there are now studies indicating that exmsure to indoor air ~ollution (even .~ ~ .~~ in hc,mt-sl may br nr highrr lrvrls than prr- v r c m l y were cunsiderrd pusaiblr, and allrr- gie reactions may result; these reactions are not completely understood from a medical viewpoint, but employers may hear respon- sibility, even if the data are incomplete (9).

Another area fur which linal data art. nut yet availalde is the question i,f occupancy of a huilding f d 1 1 ~ i n g a fire that depusits de- composition or pyrolysis products in work- ing spaces. The fire in the State Office BuildinginBinghamton, New York,onFeh- ruarv 5. 1981. deoosited dioxins and other , . . . toxic materials throughout the IR-stury rtrtrcnm. It hnd n8,t heencompletelyd~con- tamrnated ar of .July 1986 in spite crf inten- sive cleanup efforts and the expenditure of millions of dollars (10). It is relevant that in July 1985 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a regulation that all PCB transformers must be removed from build- inm hy 18'10 herausroithr potpntial hn~nrd f n m the toxic products in electric~l fires < I l l .

Se\,eral universities have already rum- plied with state right-tu-know laws, which ~nrnllrl thr OSHArtandsrd. At the ilniwr- sity of Massachusetts a t Amherst, a compre- hensive program has been in operation for over a year. At Cornell University, as a re- sult of a complaint by employees who worked in research laboratories where hun- dreds of chemicals may be encountered dai- ly, a program was developed that includes a slide-tape presentation of the principles of toxicology, a discussion of the most com- monly used groups of laboratory chemicals that pose specific hazards, an examination of MSDS's for commonly used chemicals, a presentation of general laboratory hazard information and emergency procedures, guidance in the use of protective equipment, and instruction in the use and availability of comnrehensive safetv reference materials. ~~ ~~

~ddjt iunal inlormation o n the Cornrll pro- gram may be ohtained h , m Robin A. Cood- loe, Training Coordinator, Cornell Universi- ty. 118 Maple Avenue, Ithaca, NY 14850.

As with all laws and regulations; the new rules will be effectiveonly to the degree that they are properly implemented and under- stood. Concern for chemicals health and safety must be instilled in all persons, re- gardless of aeademic training, whether they approach the problems from a day-to-day contact or only in emergency response, such as fire and security personnel who are often called upon in the middle of the night (12). The rules require that helpful information he on band where i t will be available promptly in emergency and exposure con- trol (13). If safer experimentation (14), more effective emergency control, and more en- lightened disposal methods evolve ( 1 9 , the new hazard communication standards will more than have justified their existence and nominal costs.

Literature Cited

Volume 63 Number 3 March 1986 A73