Government
OSHA firing attempt called scientific muffling A shift to the right in political winds not only swept Ronald Reagan into office but is propelling his plan to whittle down the federal bureaucracy and to cut back on regulations. Six months into his term, critics are charging that the Administration's zeal for regulatory reform is really a cover for replacing present programs with industry-favored schemes. Critics also are saying that this purported reform is stifling free exchange of information between government scientists and their peers outside the federal establishment. The same winds that swept Reagan into office apparently are carrying the scent of intimidation—a scent now being picked up and analyzed in the halls of Congress. Rep. Albert Gore Jr. (D.-Tenn.) began this examination by conducting hearings on the Peter F. Infante/ Occupational Safety & Health Administration affair. Infante, director of OSHA's office of carcinogen identification and classification, received a letter from his boss, Bailus Walker, late in June proposing his "removal from service." To investigate this action and to warn the Administration not to intimidate government scientists, Rep. Gore called Walker and OSHA director Thorne G. Auchter before his House Science & Technology Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight. Gore calls the move to fire Infante a "blatant effort to rid the government of scientists whose views don't agree with scientists in an industry whose profits are at stake." He says that the OSHA action requires a "prompt and vigorous rebuff, if we're
to prevent the misuse of science." Gore's Republican colleagues, particularly Robert S. Walker (R.-Pa.), disagree with this interpretation. Rep. Walker accuses Gore of conducting a "witch h u n t " and of meddling with OSHA matters. The fracas stems from a letter Infante wrote in May to John Higginson, director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyons, France. That letter, written on OSHA letterhead, disagrees with the decision of an IARC working group to put formaldehyde into the "limited evidence" category for assessing potential carcinogens. "According to IARC criteria," Infante wrote, "there appears to have been sufficient experimental evidence to regard formaldehyde as carcinogenic in animals." In recent hearings before Gore's subcommittee, several other highranking U.S. scientists, including the heads of the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, agreed that formaldehyde causes cancer in animals and thus may pose a similar risk to humans. That assessment is far from universal, however. Scientists representing the Formaldehyde Institute, an umbrella organization for makers and users of this high-volume chemical, say the data on formaldehyde's carcinogenic potential are incomplete. Also, a Formaldehyde Institute attorney, in a letter to OSHA special assistant for regulatory affairs Mark Cowan, wrote that Infante and another OSHA scientist "have become advocates for the position that formGore (far left) convened hearing to question Auchter (left) and others about issues raised by proposed dismissal of Infante ( below)
aldehyde is a carcinogen. They support their position with preliminary, irrelevant, questionable, or distorted studies." In a confidential memorandum from Cowan to Auchter, made public by Rep. Gore during his subcommittee hearings, the Formaldehyde Institute's position was deemed "significant." Enough so for Cowan to recommend that OSHA not release a Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) on formaldehyde "on the premise that release of the CIB would send a clear message . . . " that OSHA supported the view that formaldehyde is carcinogenic. This memo is undated, but its discussion of the CIB impinges on the Infante case. Infante, in his May letter to Higginson, cites the CIB as an important document assessing formaldehyde's cancer-causing potential. Infante refers to the CIB as a publication of the Department of Health & Human Services that also was about to be published in the peer-reviewed literature. Higginson, in his return letter to Infante, defends the IARC categorization of formaldehyde, saying evaluations are based only on published or "in press" studies; he ignores Infante's references to newly and soon-to-be-published studies. Higginson also writes: "Your letter, its content and style, and also its wide dissemination could be interpreted as an attempt by OSHA to influence a working party of IARC and to cast aspersions on the scientific integrity of its members." Infante had sent his letter to only four U.S. government scientists with interests in the formaldehyde issue and to another IARC official. Higginson, however, distributed his reply and Infante's original letter to all members of the IARC formaldehyde working group, some of whom are U.S. scientists. Higginson's term at IARC soon will expire and his appointment has not been renewed, according to knowledgeable sources in Washington who also add that Higginson may be seeking a job in the Administration. Two days after his letter to Infante, Higginson wrote another letter to Auchter in which the language was changed slightly: "Dr. Infante's letter not only casts aspersions on the competence and objectivity of the working group of IARC, who evaluated formaldehyde, but further, by its tone appears to be an attempt by a U.S. regulatory agency to influence the decision of the working group." Infante, through his lawyers, "categorically denies" charges that he July 27, 1981 C&EN
29
Government
MEMO To : The President From : The Proj ect Manager Our DTA Analysis shows that we can operate safely with this material at 100° C. The DTA trace is shown "below:
DTA: implied material was thermally stable below 220° C. ARC: revealed thermal instability at 70° C. In this example the DTA measured exothermic decomposition, beginning at 220°C. The analyst might conclude that the chemical decomposes at 220°C and would be thermally safe at some temperature below 220°C. In contrast the ARC™ (Accelerating Rate Calorimeter) measured thermal instability to as low as 70°C. The chemical is decomposing and initiating a thermal runaway reaction. ARC™ ANALYSIS
50
100 150 200 TIME (MINUTES)
250
This exothermic reaction can be described by the time-temperature relationships of kinetics. Most chemicals decompose over a large temperature range and the heat release rates and rate of decomposition are a function of its temperature. In that regard DTA analysis of a well-defined exothermic decomposition temperature is inadequate in properly assessing the exothermic runaway hazard of any chemical system. Problems in the past* led to search for new technology. Much can be learned from past experiences involving thermal runaway reactions that have occurred in the past few years; a partial list is shown below: • Ethylene Oxide • Organic Peroxides • Thiophosphate Pesticides
• • • • • •
Nitrated Aromatics Low density Polyethylene Sodium Chlorate Peracetic Acid Inorganic Persulphates Isocyanurates
The ARC™ represents a totally new technology* for the analysis of the potential hazards of thermal runaway reactions. The CSI ARC™ Mini-Course is now being offered. The ARC™ (Columbia Scientific Industries Accelerating Rate Calorimeter) is a fully developed and tested product and technology which significantly advances the state of the art in thermal hazards analysis. CSI is offering an ARC™ workshop to explain and demonstrate this new technology. Workshop participants will learn how the ARC™ capabilities may solve their thermal runaway problems. During the four-day minicourse in Austin, the complete technology and process of analysis will be disclosed and fully discussed. LET US HELP: WRITE OR CALL TODAY. Ask for David Smith, Ph.D., ARC™ Product Manager.
\m
m COLUMBIA SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
P.O. Box 9908-Austin, Texas 78766 Call 800-531-5003 In Texas Call AC 512-258-5191 TWX 910-874-1364 *Send for a case history documenting ARC'S™ role in an actual hazards analysis of a chemical explosion.
CIRCLE 66 ON READER SERVICE CARD 30
C & E N J u l y 2 7 , 1981
"misrepresented" OSHA's position. His lawyers argue that writing such letters "constitutes an integral part of his responsibilities with the agency" where his job description calls for "technical liaison with national and international agencies." Shortly after Higginson's and the Formaldehyde Institute's letters were received at OSHA, Bailus Walker was advised to follow "formal" procedures in dealing with Infante. Under sworn testimony before Gore's subcommittee, neither Walker nor Auchter admits to making the decision to seek Infante's dismissal. Auchter attributes that decision to Walker, who denies having made it, although he signed the letter proposing dismissal Walker now says that he, personally, believes that formaldehyde is a "potential occupational carcinogen." Meanwhile, he is leaving OSHA at the end of July to accept the position of head of Michigan's Department of Public Health. In an interview Walker says: "I know that your next question is going to be 'If I knew that I was going to take that position, would I have signed the letter?' And I am not going· to even comment on that." Walker says Infante's mistake was to "give the impression" that OSHA supported the formaldehyde CIB. And OSHA director Auchter notes that he made the policy decision not to endorse that document, saying: "I lack confidence in the [formaldehyde] data for regulatory purposes." But he also admits that he has not studied that data. "It would be a waste of time," he says. "I wouldn't understand it." Auchter says that agency scientists may express their scientific opinions "provided they're not in conflict with agency policy. Everybody follows a policy," Auchter told Gore's subcommittee. Infante says he "didn't know there was an agency evaluation that formaldehyde was not carcinogenic. I would never state something in my official capacity that was contrary to an agency policy." According to Gore, "When scientists express confidence in scientific data, that's not policy, that's science." He compares Auchter's attempt to muffle scientific discussion to the thinking in the Soviet Union that led to Lysenkoism. "In this country, we respect the right of scientists, even when they work for the federal government, to express their opinions." Lois Ember and Jeffrey Fox, Washington
