Harvard Fights Attempt To Regulate Chemicals

Harvard is resisting proposals by state legislators to develop regulations of hazardous substances, including many chemicals used in medical research here.

In the wake of a recent ruling upholding Cambridge's authority to ban nerve gas testing as a health hazard, elected representatives have begun a push for statewide procedures of licensing and inspecting.

The Special Task Force on Hazardous Substances, co-chaired by Sen. George Bachrach (D-Watertown) and Rep. Thomas M. Gallagher (D-Boston), is scheduled to have a report on possible regulations for the Joint Legislative Committee on Health Care by mid-December.

Task force members include legislators, public health officials, scientists, and representatives from several private companies and area universities, Harvard among them.

Harvard Clams Up

While the group wants to identify the few hundred most hazardous substances and the minimum amounts of them which might make specific guidelines advisable, Harvard and the other schools have been reluctant to provide information on how much of what they use and what their safety procedures are, Bachrach said yesterday.

"We've been asking what your internal procedures are, but unfortunately the response has been that there is no formal procedure, at least none that's understandable to me," he said.

He said the purpose of having university and company voices on the task force was to encourage a cooperative approach to the problem, but it hasn't been working.

"There is a notion that they can handle the risks without regulation. That's what they said before Three Mile Island, before Bhopal, and before Institute, West Virginia," Bachrach said.

Unless communication improves, "There are judgments we'll have to make [without private help] for a permit system with notice [to the state government about what substances are being used] and a review process at the local level," said Bachrach.

Now, George...

Harvard Director of State Affairs Richard J. Doherty, who serves on the panel for the University, said he was surprised by the legislators's criticism. "I don't have any great explanation of that," he said.

"The university involvement on the task force has been much more noticeable than the industry participation," said Doherty.

"I think one of the things has been frustrating for Bachrach and Gallagher was that they thought there could be a neat list of what chemicals are toxic, and that does not exist. It's a very complex area that's not going to be easily regulated."

"If the regulations aren't carefully drafted, they might make it more difficult to do the kind of research that's going on," Doherty said.

Most of the thousands of substances which are at least mildly toxic are used in very small amounts, and the state should exempt research labs from having to report what they are doing with the chemicals and get permits, Doherty said.

Such an exception was made in a 1984 "Right to Know" bill which required companies producing or handling hazardous substances to warn their employees of the dangers.

Public's Right to Know

But task force staff counsel Stephen A. Klein said any regulations will probably affect universities as well as industrial concerns. "We're just trying to make sure the public knows what the safety procedures are. If it's so safe, there's no reason why the public shouldn't know," said Klein

Although it's to be expected that universities are concerned that their research could be negatively influenced by regulation, he said. "There's always a balance. We hope it won't be too much of a headache for them."

Task force members said the Environmental Protection Authority, which bears federal responsibility for controlling toxic substances, will be coming out with a new list of the several hundred most dangerous chemicals.

Bachrach said the panel might use the list as a base for exploring possible state controls. But since the list will not include what amounts of each substance constitutes a possible hazard, the legislators will try to determine that with the help of the universities and state-employed scientists, he said.

Task force members said a principal reason for the nascent attempt at rules regulation is to provide Massachusetts's cities and towns--which by the state supreme court ruling can now ban or regulate the use of hazardous substances--with a regulatory framework in which to act if they want.

"The state level should use its degree of expertise in licensing, and the locals should have the final authority," said John J. DuBois, a legislative aide to Gallagher