144 



chemical groups. OSHA has no authority to require chemical testing so the ITC pro- 

 vides a vehicle for OSHA to obtain data which can be used to protect workers 

 through rulemaking and enforcement. 



The Committee is now reviewing the available skin absorption data on approxi- 

 mately 600 chemicals submitted by OSHA. OSHA enforces Permissible Exposure 

 Limits (PELs) to protect workers from these chemicals. The PELs are based on the 

 results of studies of inhalation of airborne dusts and vapors. In those cases where 

 skin absorption could also be harmful, the chemicals with PELs are assigned "skin 

 designations." OSHA requested that the ITC help identify chemicals which lack suf- 

 ficient data for OSHA to determine the need for "skin designations" and to use its 

 authority to recommend chemicals for priority testing consideration. To date, the 

 ITC has designated 58 chemicals for dermal absorption testing in its reports to the 

 Administrator of EPA. It is now considering the designation of additional chemicals 

 of interest to OSHA. 



Other regulatory agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

 also need data on skin absorption. The ITC helps Federal agencies coordinate their 

 data needs and eliminate duplicative and unnecessary testing for the regulated com- 

 munity. In addition, through the ITC, OSHA has access to data gathered on all 

 chemicals considered by the ITC including health effects and exposure information. 

 These data are useful in identifying 'chemicals which may be of concern in the occu- 

 pational setting. OSHA can use them to help in assessing risk and prioritizing its 

 standards-setting efforts. 



The other major responsibility for OSHA under TSCA is set forth in Section 9. 

 This section provides tiiat when the Administrator of EPA has a reasonable basis 

 to conclude that a chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

 or the environment and that the risk may be prevented or reduced by another law, 

 the Administrator shall submit a report to the other agency describing the risk. 

 EPA is to request that the agency determine if the risk can be prevented or reduced 

 under the agency's statutory authority. If OSHA or another agency decides that it 

 can prevent or reduce the risk of the hazard referred by EPA, the agency must re- 

 spond to the EPA within a time period specified by the Administrator. OSHA and 

 EPA coordinate their efforts under section 9 through a Memorandum of Under- 

 standing that was signed in February 1986. 



Since TSCA was enacted OSHA has received information from EPA on a number 

 of substances, including formal referrals on three chemicals: 1,3 Butadiene; Glycol 

 Ethers; and 4,4 Methylenedianiline (MDA). OSHA has issued Proposed Rules on 1,3 

 Butadiene and Glycol Ethers and a final standard for MDA. 



OSHA has found several problems in using TSCA. First, there is a problem in co- 

 ordinating OSHA's standards-setting priorities with EPA's priorities under section 

 9. EPA and OSHA are in the process of ^proving our coordination so that when 

 a referral is made to OSHA it will be more in line with OSHA's regulatory prior- 

 ities. We understand that EPA has additional concerns with section 9. 



Another difficulty is that described by EPA in previous testimony before this Sub- 

 committee. Last May, EPA noted that the Chemical Testing Program established 

 under TSCA has not been as productive as expected. The' number of chemicals 

 which has been tested thus far is in the hundreds. As I have noted there are more 

 than one-half million chemical products in American workplaces. OSHA could use 

 data on many more chemicals than have been tested thus far. Any improvements 

 which would speed up this process or enhance EPA's ability to gather data would 

 improve our ability to assess risk and prioritize standards. This will produce better 

 regulations. 



The OSH Act requires that OSHA regulate health hazards to the extent feasible, 

 which the courts have interpreted to mean technological as well as economic fea- 

 sibility. If section 4 of TSCA could be used to produce information on feasible meth- 

 ods of controUing workplace health hazards, it would help OSHA speed up its rule- 

 making on toxic substances and provide practical information about current meth- 

 ods used by firms to abate hazards. 



A third problem is the limited availability of "Confidential Business Information" 

 (CBI). Company claims of confidentiality on issues such as the amount of a chemical 

 used or manufactured at a facility result in EPA providing OSHA with aggregated 



