Lapas attēli

Potential effects of exposure: Byssinosis; chronic bronchitis; and mill fever.
Status : Proposal under development.
Received: July 24, 1974.
Number of workers affected: 200,000.


Potential efforts of exposure: Burns; irritation of mucous membranes; pulmonary edema; pulmonary fibrosis; bronchitis; and emphysema.

Status: Proposal under development.


Received: July 15, 1974.
Number of workers affected : 500,000.

Occupations with potential harmful ammonia exposure include: Laboratory employees; fertilizer makers; and diazo-type reproduction facility operators.

Potential effects of exposure: Irritation of eyes, nose, throat; acute congestion; chest pain; bronchospasm; and bronchitis.

Status : Proposed November 25, 1975; hearing pending.

Received: September 11, 1975.
Number of workers affected : 80,000.

Occupations with potential harmful benezene exposure include: petroleum and petrochemical workers; rubber workers; printing; painting; and filling station attendants.

Potential effects of exposure; Anemia and related blood dyscrosias; central nervous system depressant; and suspected leukemogen.

Stalus: Proposal under development.


Received: November 11, 1974.
Number of workers affected : 764,000 (nonmining).

Occupations (other than mining) with potential crystalline silicia exposure include: Stone, clay, and glass product workers; iron, steel, and nonferrous foundry workers.

Possible effects of exposure: Silicosis ; fibrosis.
Status : Proposed under development.


Number of workers with possible exposures : All workers exposed to hazardous materials.

Occupations affected : All occupations where workers may be exposed to hazardous materials.

Status: Reviewing results of advisory committee deliberations on hazardous materials.


Received: May 30, 1975.
Number of workers affected : 140,000.

Occupations with potential harmful xylene exposure include: Printing industry workers; painters and paint manufacturers; and chemical workers.

Potential effects of exposure: Liver damage; kidney damage; and central nervous system depressant.

Status: Development of proposal to be initiated as priorities permit.


Received : June 30, 1975.
Number of workers with possible exposures : 350,000.

Occupations with potential harmful fluoride exposure include: Chemical workers; steelworkers; aluminum workers; welders; and foundry workers.

Potential harmful effects of exposure: Sytematic intoxication; corrosion of mucous membranes and skin; and osteoschleorsis.

Status : Proposal to be developed as priorities permit.

67-529 0 - 76 - 37

Received: October 9, 1975.
Number of workers with possible exposures : 150,000.

Occupations with potential harmful sodium hydroxide exposure include: Bleachers; detergent makers; glassmakers; laboratory workers; laundry workers; pulp makers; and petroleum refinery workers.

Potential harmful effects of exposure: Skin and eye irritation; and burns of eye and skin.

Status: Proposal to be developed as priorities permit.


Received: October 10, 1975.
Number of workers with possible exposures : 50,000.

Occupations with potential harmful zinc oxide exposure include: Welders; foundry workers; metal sprayers ; paint makers; and zinc smelter workers.

Potential harmful effects of exposure: Zinc fume fever.
Status: Proposal to be developed as priorities permit.


Received : December 3, 1975.
Number of workers with possible exposure: 175,000.

Occupations with potential harmful hexavalent chromium exposure include: Chromate pigment producers; paint sprayers (chromate pigments); and chromium plates.

Potential harmful effects of exposure: Perforation of nasal septum; dermititis; and cancer (certain compounds).

Status: Proposal under development with chromic acid.

Received: January 23, 1976.
Number of workers with possible exposures : 160,000.

Occupations with potential harmful carbon tetrachloride exposure include:
Drycleaners (clothing); equipment cleaners; and polyfluorocarbon makers.

Potential harmful effects of exposure: Perforation o fnasal septum; dermi. titis ; and cancer (certain compounds).

Status. Proposal to be developed as priorities permit.


Mr. Obey. Let me ask you a question on trichloroethylene. As I understand, it is used, for instance, in cleaning this carpet. Do you have a copy of NIOSH's criteria document which they prepared in 1973 ?

Mr. Corn. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBEY. They recommended a threshold limit value of 100 parts per million. That is exactly the same as the one previously in existence, isn't it?

Mr. Corn. Yes, sir, that is right.

Mr. Obey. Well, since that criteria document was transmitted, you found out that vinyl chloride—I am no chemist, but I am told it is chemically related to TCE-and you found out that vinyl chloride is a very serious problem. You have had animal tests at the National Cancer Institute indicating that there was a very high level of cancer among animals tested with TCE. General Foods had been using it in Sanka, for instance/they said, “No more." And yet you have the same standards. Some scientists have been in contact with my office and believe it to be a carcinogen. They are very concerned about it. How do you get a standard which is not different than the previous standard, when you have a problem like that? What is the situation there?

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. CORN. The situation with respect to trichloroethylene in terms of the validity of its carcinogenic properties is one that is in flux.

The opinion that trichloroethylene is a carcinogen is not shared by all members of the scientific community. And I think the alteration of our standard, which is a noncarcinogen, to one of a carcinogen, will have to be defended, if that action is taken.

The question of what kind of data you need when you take action for a substance as a carcinogen is one OSHA addressed in a 2-day meeting here in Washington, where I personally stood up three times to get leading experts in cancer in the United States to answer the question, what type of animal data must we have as a regulatory agency to declare it a carcinogen in man. And I couldn't get that answer.

So I would say we are aware of the information with respect to trichloroethylene, but we are not prepared to act on that basis. We raised commentary, we flagged it, we are looking to evaluate it.

Mr. WRENN. No. In October of last year, we published a proposed regulation for trichloroethylene. It is true we currently have a permissible exposure limit, but on the basis of the criteriă document and other information which we had received, including the data from the National Cancer Institute, we published a proposal for a complete standard for trichloroethylene. And while that proposal does retain the recommended exposure limit of the NIOSH criteria document, it also recognizes the receipt of the preliminary findings of the NCI study, which were the subject of a preliminary report.

It also states relatively unequivocal fashion that OSHA is prepared to regulate trichloroethylene in the final rule as a carcinogen, if in the course of the rulemaking proceeding there develops sufficient evidence to warrant such a regulatory approach, that we would regulate it to the lowest level feasible, and require the other provisions that have been associated with our regulations for carcinogens.

Mr. OBEY. Are you satisfied with the information you have gotten from NIOSH, or NCI, in this particular case, or are you not?

Mr. WRENN. In terms of the performance of those agencies, yes; satisfied with the completeness of the information or knowledge about the substance, no.

The data which NCI provided us, for example, was the result of a screening method for testing the potential carcinogenicity of substances—results in the feeding by the oral route of massive levels of trichloroethylene. As a matter of fact, so many of the rats died prematurely from the large dosage of trichloroethylene that it was not possible to conclude whether or not they would develop cancer in the rats. And that was one of the confounding aspects of that study. They are proceeding toward further evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of trichloroethylene.

Mr. OBEY. I have three other questions to put in the record at this point on this question and then move to something else.


In the November 1975, issue of the New Yorker, there is an article on occupational exposure to anesthetic gases. That article states a study was begun in 1972 under NIOSH, on the effect of the anes

thetic gases on the health of operating room personnel. That survey found that female anesthesiologists were incurring up to twice as great a risk of spontaneous abortions as women not exposed to anesthetic gases.

It was found that birth defects were twice as likely to occur in the children of nurses who worked in the operating room during their pregnancies as in the children of those who did not. The study indicated also a 25-percent increase in the risk of birth defects among children born to the wives of male anesthesiologists.

In addition, I understand up to twice as much liver disease was found to occur in the females exposed to inhalation of anesthetics. A similar increase was observed in the males.

As for the incidence of cancer, although it was difficult to evaluate, in a survey directed only to living persons, I guess, females were found to be nearly twice as likely to develop malignancies as female physicians who did not work in operating rooms.

I have two questions.

First of all, what work is OSHA doing toward a standard on operating room anesthetics?

Mr. Corn. We are awaiting receipt of a criteria document from NIOSH on this subject, which I am told is on the schedule for this year. We will receive it this

year. Mr. OBEY. As of right now, you are doing no work on it; is that right?

Mr. Corn. No; we are not regulating that. Mr. OBEY. And OSHA has not received any communication from NIOSH or CDC or HEW on that study?

Mr. CORN. Let me check the other agencies. Not from NIOSH. They have taken it as a project.

Mr. OBEY. What about from CDC?

Mr. WRENN. To my knowledge, we are aware of the reference that you cite. We are generally aware of the findings. I do not recall that we have received any formal transmittal from those agencies.

Mr. OBEY. That study was begun in 1972. Do you know when the study was reported to CDC or HEW?

Mr. WRENN. I do not recall. My awareness of that I think was only several months ago through the scientific

Mr. OBEY. It was a fair amount of time.
Mr. WRENN. That the results of the study began to be available.
Mr. Obey. Not to you. But that the results were reported to HEW.
Mr. WRENN. I don't know what that date was.


Mr. Obey. Let me ask one last question that is on Kepone.

It is my understanding that section 20 of the OSHA Act says that if the Secretary of HEW determines any subject is toxic, and I am getting directly now, "at concentrations in which it is used or found in a place of employment,” he must report that to the Secretary of Labor.

On July 11, CDC received blood samples from workers at the Kepone plant in Virginia. On July 18, CDC contacted the Virginia Department of Public Health. On July 19, CDC reported high levels of-I am quoting here—“high levels of the insecticide Kepone has been found in the blood of a man with weight loss and tremors, who had been employed in the manufacture of Kepone, in a Hopewell, Va. chemical factory."

My question is, were you contacted immediately after that was found—were you contacted by CDC? Mr. Corn. No, we were not. Mr. OBEY. Thank you. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flood. Mr. Roybal.


Mr. RoYBAL. Mr. Chairman, I think all the questions have been asked up to this point. But I am concerned about the image that OSHA has in the small business community. May I say it is not very good. Now, what is being done to improve that image?

Mr. Corn. The concern for the small business community is one that the Department of Labor has given very high priority. Under Secretary Aders is spearheading a total look at our regulatory efforts with respect to the small business community. We ourselves are looking at what we can do to try to better understand and better provide what I think is a service. I really think we provide a service. If you ask me what the role of OSHA is, it is a service to get a workplace up to the level at which we think people should work safely.

We have many suggestions at this time. We are screening through them. And I will come up with a program for the small business community. This was a commitment I made at my confirmation hearing to Senator Javits, and I owe him a reply with a complete program which we are now developing.

Mr. RoYBAL. How long will it take for that program to be presented and fully developed !

Mr. Corn. I had promised it to him this month, and I have asked for an extension beyond this month, because it is not yet in shape.

Mr. RoYBAL. Will additional funds be required to implement that program?

Mr. Corn. At this point in time, our approach is to try to integrate it into our current efforts. It could require additional funds.

Mr. RoYBAL. My understanding is that simple courtesy would be a good place to start. And that doesn't take any money, does it?

Mr. Corn. When I made the courtesy visits prior to my appointment, I heard numerous stories about OSHA's interactions with the small businessman, all of which worked their way back to you through your correspondence. A lot of those seem to me like just simple poor judgments in how to conduct oneself on the site while doing a job. I think that is why we are suggesting the course we are suggesting, to teach our people better human relations. I think that will take care of a lot of it. Now, there are still some very substantive problems of our regulations being enforced, the cost of our regulations to meet compliance, and comportment is not going to make them go away. But it is my feeling that it will make a lot of the static out there go away.

Mr. ROYBAL. I don't know what is happening, but I have communications that tell me that the local health inspector is much nicer, and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »