Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination
ASTM Selected Technical Papers
Hazard Communication: Issues and Implementation
By
JE Brower
JE Brower
1
Manager
, Center for Assessment of Chemical and Physical Hazards, Safety and Environmental Protection Division,
Brookhaven National Laboratory
,
Uptown, NY 11973
;
Symposium chairman and editor
.
Search for other works by this author on:
ISBN-10:
0-8031-0933-4
ISBN:
978-0-8031-0933-9
No. of Pages:
241
Publisher:
ASTM International
Publication date:
1986

The history of “Need to Know,” which became “right to know,” began at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1973. The immensity of the task of maintaining and tracking the constantly changing health effects and toxicity data required for material safety data sheets (MSDS) and labels changed the regulators' planned methodology. The emergence in recent years of the courtroom principle of strict liability changed the views of the large chemical manufacturers. The right-to-know standard became a vehicle to downshift some liability away from the suppliers to the supplied parties. The courts took a contentious stand against the restrictive policy of OSHA, which covers only those workers in manufacturing, and ordered a widening to cover all workers falling under federal authority. The courts have been breaking down the ability of a manufacturer or formulator to withhold trade secrets from the MSDS data, and in Nov. 1985 OSHA published a new revised policy.

The communities, which include police, firemen, and in some states the public at large, are claiming rights to the information. Some 35 states have already passed right-to-know legislation in one form or another with a high probability that other states will follow suit.

The technical staff requirements for in-house maintenance and the creation of MSDS information is beyond the reach of many chemical manufacturers and formulators in terms of personnel requirements and the need for an extensive chemical, biological library. Many corporate users have not digested the import of multiple suppliers with drastically different MSDSs on commodity chemicals which they purchase from many manufacturers. The liability will be assessed by the courts in terms of the weakest MSDS whether such MSDS was provided to the worker or not. Such weak MSDSs will be obtained for possible entry as evidence through the discovery process.

1.
Federal Register
, Comments on proposed new rule making,
1973
, date unknown,
U.S. Department of Labor
,
Washington, DC
.
2.
Toxic Substances Control Act
, Section 8(e),
Public Law
 94-469,
1976
.
3.
Consumer Products Safety Commission
,
Public Law
 92-573,
14
05
1973
, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 15, Part 1000.3,
Government Printing Office
,
Washington, DC
.
4.
Code of Federal Regulations
, Section 29, 1910.1200, Fiscal Year
1985
,
Government Printing Office
,
Washington, DC
.
5.
Maryland v. U.S. Department of Labor
,
Marshall
,
Eastern District Court of Maryland
,
1977
.
6.
Manufacturers Association of Tri-County (MATCO) et al. v. James W. Knepper Jr. et al.
, No. 85-1027,
U.S. District Court For The Middle District of Pennsylvania
.
7.
N.J. State Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Robert E. Hughey et al. and Fragrance Materials Association, et al. v. William Van Note et al.
, Nos. 85-5087, 85-508, 85-5095,
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
.
8.
U.S. Steelworkers of America v. Auchter
,
12
OSCH 1337, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, May, 1985.
9.
Hazard Communication
,”
Federal Register
,
27
11
1985
,
U.S. Department of Labor
,
Washington, DC
, pp. 48750-48753.
10.
Hazard Communication
,”
Federal Register
, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
27
11
1985
,
U.S. Department of Labor
,
Washington, DC
, pp. 48794-48796.
11.
Occupational Safety and Health Reporter
,
03
04
1986
,
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
,
Washington, DC
, p. 1108.
12.
Business Insurance
, Vol.
20
, No.
14
,
07
04
1986
, Chicago, IL, p. 1.
13.
Section 29,
Code of Federal Regulations
, Part 1910.1200, Chapter XVII; (2);
Government Printing Office
,
Washington, DC.
14.
Estate of Rose Cipollone et al. v. Ligget Group Inc. et al.
, No. 85-5073, 85-5074, Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia,
09
04
1986
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal