- Standard Number:
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
Mar 28 1985
Honorable Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Campbell:
This is in response to your letter of March 4, on behalf of several constituents, regarding medical screening for employees previously exposed to beta-Naphthylamine.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard for beta-Naphthylamine, 29 CFR 1910.1009, contains regulations covering medical surveillance, examinations and medical records. These requirements, however, do not apply to former employees and any medical surveillance or treatment of former employees is not regulated or required by OSHA. In addition, OSHA does not have a provision whereby employees may select a private physician to conduct the medical screening required by our standards. While OSHA regulations apply to the provision of certain medical tests by the employer in situations involving occupational health hazards, they do not govern the selection of a physician by the employer.
The State of South Carolina administers its own program of workplace safety and health standards, under the authority of section 18(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. While the regulations promulgated under such a State program must be at least as effective as Federal OSHA standards, they may differ in some respects. For information on specific workplace standards for South Carolina, you may wish to contact:
Edgar L. McGowan, Commissioner
South Carolina Department of Labor
3600 Forest Drive
P. O. Box 11329
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Telephone: (802) 758-2851
I hope this information clarifies the role of OSHA in regard to this issue. If we can be of further service to you, please feel free to contact us.
John B. Miles, Jr.
Directorate of Field Operation
March 4, 1985
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
U.W. Department of Labor
Washington, D.C. 20210
I am enclosing several letters from constituents which I believe you will find self-explanatory.
The letters are from former employees of a company in Spartanburg, South Carolina, which used the chemical Beta Naphthylamine in its operations in the late 60's and early 70's. When the substance was determined to be a possible carcinogen, the company discontinued its use immediately. Although the company currently conducts a screening program of its own, these former employees believe that the company should provide a more extensive program. I have also enclosed a newspaper clipping which explains the situation in more detail.
I would appreciate having your comments on the Federal government's role, if any, in requiring such a screening program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515