US. Deparimsn?? of Labor Assists?? Emmi-3W f0:  
OocupnhonalSaknyandlieanh . 


Aug 7 1981

Dr. Peter Infants, Director

Office of Carcinogen Identification
and Classification

Room N3718 Frances Per?ins Bldg.

Washington, D. C. 20210

Dear Dr. Infants:

The purpose of this letter is to advise you of my decision concerning
the proposal that you be removed from your position in the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration and the Federal Service as Director,
Office of Carcinogen Identification and Classification. The proposal
was made by Dr. Bailus Walker, then OSHA's Director of Health Standards
Development, in a letter given to you on June 29, 1981.

The charges proposed in Dr. Walker's letter are as follows:

"Reason I: Misrepresenting the position of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.

?R?gi?ic??ign_l: In your official capacity of Office Director, Office
of Carcinogen Identification and Classification in the Directorate of
Health Standards, you wrote a letter on official letterhead to Dr. John
Higginson, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer
which had the appearance of misrepresenting the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's position on the issuance of a Current Intelligence
Bulletin (618) on formaldehyde. In a series of meetings beginning in late
March or early April you were fully informed of the Agency?s decision not
to endorse the CIB and of a lack of confidence on the part of the Agency
in the data on which the C15 was based.

Reason II: Insubordination.

Specification 1: During a meeting in late March or early April, you
were-advised of the Assistant Secretary's decision not to join NIOSB in
the issuance of a C13 on formaldehyde. At a series of meetings which you
attended with Mark Gowon and me prior to May 12, 1981, it was decided not
to endorse the 013 because of a growing body of conflict and disagreement
about the scientific evidence concerning the toxic effects of formaldehyde
and specifically its carcinogenicity. Despite the fact that as a result
of those meetings you Were fully aware of the Agency?s position on the
issuance of the CIB and lack of confidence in the information contained
therein. you wrote Dr. John Higginson on May 12, lQBl, in your official
capacity as Office Director, Office of Carcinogen Identification and

 

 

-2,

Classification endorsing the CIB and the tests on which the information

in the CIB was bassd. You provided no information in the letter that

you were preferring a personal opinion and thus represented to Dr. Higginson
and others whom you provided copies of the letter that you were transmitting
an official position of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Your action in Sending the letter to Dr. Higginson, after being advised of
the Agency's position in this matter, constitutes an act of insubordination
which cannot be tolerated in an individual holding a key management position
in the Agency and whose official reaponsihilities require that you represent
the Agency on technical matters such as this."

In arriving at my decision, I have fully reviewed the proposed reasons
and specifications, your written response thereto of July 14, 1981,

and the transcript of our July 31, 1981, meeting held in my office at
which time you and your attorneys presented oral evidence pertinent to
the charges. I have based my decision solely on the evidence presented
in these documents and have not permitted extraneous considerations to
influence my decision.

Before addressing the specification, I want to make clear that it is my
policy not only to permit but to encourage full and free debate on OSHA
issues - not only between scientists but amongst all personnel employed
by this Agency and their public and private sector connterparts. Such
debate facilitates the consideration of all available evidence pertinent
to a matter in question and assists me in arriving at reasoned and fully
informed decisions.

The corollary to this is that once a policy decision has been made and
that decision has been communicated to Agency personnel, I fully expect
that the decision will be implemented. While I support fully the right
of individual employees to express their views on the issues before us,
I expect OSHA personnel when stating personal opinions to label such
opinions as being their own and not necessarily those of this Agency or
Administration.

As to the specific allegations, I have decided as follows:
Reason 1, Specification 1:

While your letter to Dr. John Higginson Was written on OSHA letterhead,
it is unclear that you intended that letter to be a statement or
representation of Agendy policy. Your citation of the fact that the
publication in question was a Department of Health and Human Services
Document lends weight to your argument. Further, the record is in

 

 



conflict as to whether you were apprised of my policy decision not to
take immediate regulatory action on formaldehyde based on claims that
available evidence as to its carcinogenicity in humans was in conflict.
Neither memoranda directed to staff, to yen personally, or relating

to alleged conversations between you and Dr. Walker have been brought
forward. I must conclude that such documentation does not exist. The
only conclusion that can logically be drawn from the facts presented is
that your failure to mention in the letter to Dr. Higginson that your
opinions were personal in nature was an oversight rather than an inten?
tional misrepresentation of my policy.

The use of OSHA letterhead for personal purposes, While inadvisable
and to be avoided in the future, is at most a minor infraction and, in
any case, insufficient to warrant the severe action recommended.

In consideration of all the evidence presented, the charge of misrepre?
sentation of the position of the Occupational Safety and Health Admini?
stration is dismissed.

Reason II, Specification I:

The charge of insubordination, in my view, requires proof that you knew

of my policy regarding the matter in question or, in the alternative,

that the matter was so well publicized that you should have known in the
absence of specific one?on?one communication. While the specification
states you were informed of the policy under discussion, I have been unable
to find any substantiating evidence to that effect. Therefore, I am not
convinced that you were aware of or fully understood my policy regarding
the proposed CIB and my concern over the apparently conflicting evidence

as to the alleged carcinogenicity of formaldehyde exposure to human beings.
Thus, the proposed disciplinary action on the charge is hereby dismissed.

In closing I would like to express my hope that this decision will put to
rest a matter which, through neither the fault nor design of any individual,
has caused us much concern. I urge that we now turn our full attention to
the mission at hand the protection of America's working women and men

as mandated by The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Thorne G. Auchter
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health