Science

Toxic substances in the workplace

ALTHOUGH workers have been exposed to toxic substances in the workplace for centuries, the problem has recently again become a prominent political issue. Sentiment is growing that workers not only need to be protected from toxic substances, but that they also have the right to know what they are working with.

The increase in the number of chemicals is in part responsible for the increased prominence of the right-to-know issue. Over 30,000 chemicals are now in use in the workplace, and an estimated 1,000 are added each year. Not all of them are toxic, but the fact that toxic chemicals are part of such diverse items as insulation, adhesives, insecticides, paint and cleaning compounds and have the potential for causing ailments like cancer, birth defects and behavioral disorders, makes the problem serious.

Illinois has no specific laws guaranteeing workers the right to know about toxic substances in the workplace, but the issue is gaining attention here as it is in many other states.

The federal legislation dealing with toxic hazards is the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Its stated purpose is ". . .to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions. . . ."

In theory, the system should be able to meet this mandate. In practice, several factors limit the system's effectiveness. One is the sheer number of chemicals in the workplace. The present personnel and fiscal resources of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) simply are not sufficient to thoroughly test all chemicals for safety prior to usage.

A second factor is the absence of specific OSHA requirements for informing workers of the presence of hazardous substances in the workplace (except in the case of lead). Without adequate information, workers cannot participate in their own protection.

OSHA has recognized the need for some information standard at the federal level and has made repeated efforts to get agreement on a Standard on Hazard Communication. The latest proposal, which appeared in the March 19, 1982, Federal Register, would require manufacturers to assess the hazards of the chemicals they produce and to prepare detailed Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) which would be available to employees. The proposed MSDS would be standardized forms containing information such as chemical names, common names, a list of physical hazards, known chronic and acute health effects, permissible exposure limits, precautions for safe handling and use, and emergency and first aid procedures.

The proposal has come under fire from both industry and workers. On one hand some industry representatives criticize the MSDS proposal as expensive, excessive and a danger to trade secrets, while some workers' groups cite the proposal as excessively lax. A member of the Chicago Area Committee on Occupational Health and Safety (CACOSH) went so far as to liken it to a "right to conceal" regulation.

Proponents of stricter standards favor a requirement that employees be informed not only about known health hazards but also about potential health hazards. Their rationale is that workers should be allowed to decide for themselves what health risks they are willing to take when preliminary data show that there may be health hazards, but conclusive data are not available. Such uncertainty is particularly likely to exist for suspected cancer-causing agents because a long time may elapse between exposure to the agent and the appearance of cancer. Opponents of stricter standards counter that information about potential health risks would be an unnecessary burden on employers and chemical manufacturers and might arouse undue fear.

So far, eight states and a number of municipalities have chosen to fill in the regulatory gap by enacting their own right-to-know legislation. Illinois, however, has no right-to-know law and no local ordinances. During the 82nd General Assembly, both the House and Senate considered bills titled the Employee's Right to Know Act. The intent was to ". . . impose upon employers a duty to give each employee notice as to the known and suspected health hazards involved in their employment and place of employment. . . ." Neither bill made it out of its house of origin.

In March 1982, a second form of right-to-know legislation (the Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employees Act) was introduced in identical form in the House and Senate. Both bills were referred to their respective Rules Committees and neither was discharged. The proposed Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employees Act was more limited than the proposed Employees Right to Know Act; it narrowed the definition of toxic substances, did not refer to infectious agents and had fewer requirements for information to be provided by employers. Legislation similar to the Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employees bill is expected to be reintroduced this session. A major supporter of right-to-know legislation is the Illinois State AFL-CIO. Their legislative director, Richard J. Walsh, summarized his perception of the opposition by saying, "The business community always opposes new regulation no matter what it does. . . but, from the employers' perspective, opposing it is short-sighted because in essence they are asking for substantially increased occupational disease claims."

He added, "I have always relished the idea of getting before a legislative committee and asking them the simple question about whether workers should know whether they are dealing with toxic substances in the workplace. I can't imagine someone saying no."

The issue of the right to know will continue to be debated until some acceptable compromise is reached which adequately protects workers' rights and does not excessively burden industry.□

Charlene J. Denys is science intern at the Illinois Legislative Council. She has a Ph.D. in biology from DePaul University.

April 1983 | Illinois Issues | 26