We estimate it will take approximately 9 man-months to meet the law’s mandates for each plant. Considering that E. F. Houghton has six plants in the United States, it would consume 4 _ man-years to meet S.51’s proposed paperwork burden.
To expect well over half a million small businesses to adhere to these extensive requirements would be regulatory overkill.
We have 1,000 products. If every state has different reporting requirements, we’d have to produce 50,000 different [Material Safety Data Sheets].
We cannot go on adding regulations on the backs of industries in this state.
I can imagine the mounds of paperwork with little to do with providing information about hazards. We can see very little if any benefits to the worker….very marginal costs often make the difference between whether you get the business or not.
[The proposed OSHA standard would force employers to follow] overly simplistic procedures...which differ markedly from well-established hazard warning practices….[creating] in favor of potentially confusing over-labeling [and] “excessively detailed hazard evaluation procedures.
Harassment and [a] nightmarish mountain of paperwork…would be caused by enactment of the bill in City Council.
Then without regard for exposure concentration in the air, City Council is being asked to make it against the law to ‘receive, store, use manufacture or transport’ any substance on that list without first burdening the citizen and the City Administration with more red tape.
[W]e all probably use salt, sodium chloride, on our food….Salt has been included in the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (published by NIOSH). The toxic dose of salt needed to kill half the test animals is about 1/8 ounce of salt for each 2.2 pounds of weight of the animal. Does this mean that the City of Philadelphia should regulate table salt?
I am sure that there is no one here who would wish to increase the margin of safety in our dust standards so far beyond the point at which employee health is adequately protected that, as a consequence, we deprive of their means of livelihood the very persons whom we are trying to benefit. This would be an action foolish as it is absurd.
