ORS 654.196¹
Rules on contents of piping systems
  • posting notice on right to be informed of hazardous substances
  • withholding of information under certain circumstances

(1) The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services may by rule require employers to provide information to employees relating to the contents of piping systems. The rules shall include, but need not be limited to requirements for:

(a) Labeling piping systems to provide notice about hazardous chemicals contained in the system; and

(b) Labeling a piping system that uses asbestos as a pipe insulation material.

(2) Every employer shall post a sign in the location where notices to employees are normally posted to inform employees that they have a right under this section and ORS 453.317 (Hazardous substance survey) (6) to information from the employer regarding hazardous substances found in the place of employment.

(3) The sign required under subsection (2) of this section shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information and shall be substantially in the following form:


You have a right under state law to information about hazardous substances found in your place of employment. For this information, contact your employer.


(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or ORS 192.311 (Definitions for ORS 192.311 to 192.478) to 192.478 (Exemption for Judicial Department), an employer may withhold the precise chemical name of a chemical only if the employer can substantiate that:

(a) The chemical name is a trade secret with commercial value that can be protected only by limiting disclosure; and

(b) The commercial value of the product cannot be preserved by withholding the processes, mixture percentages or other aspects of the production of the product instead of its chemical constituents.

(5) A trade secret designation claimed under subsection (4) of this section may be subject to yearly review.

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or ORS 192.311 (Definitions for ORS 192.311 to 192.478) to 192.478 (Exemption for Judicial Department), if a treating physician or health professional concludes that the chemical identity of a hazardous chemical used in an employer’s place of employment is necessary to prescribe necessary treatment for a patient, the employer may not require the physician or health professional to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition to the release of the information by the employer, manufacturer or importer. [1985 c.683 §§3,4,5; 1999 c.232 §2; 2005 c.825 §18]


Notes of Decisions

Safety codes under Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act apply to all work places and not only to work places covered by Employer Liability Law. Miller v. Ga.-Pacific, 294 Or 750, 662 P2d 718 (1983)

Viola­tion of Workers’ Compensa­tion Depart­ment rule resulting in injury to nonemploye is not negligence per se, but it does not follow that rule is irrelevant to determina­tion of due care in case grounded in common law negligence. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985)

Where right of ac­tion for injuries exists resulting from viola­tion of Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act, right belongs only to employee whom Act directly protects not “indirect” employee. Flores v. Metro Machinery Rigging, Inc., 99 Or App 636, 783 P2d 1024 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Referee did not err in finding employer in viola­tion of rule requiring workers to be “properly...supervised” where employee killed in accident was skilled and experienced supervisor working with two other supervisors during strike, but none of the three was in charge. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Roseburg Forest Prod., 106 Or App 69, 806 P2d 172 (1991)

Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting viola­tion is subject to disclosure under Oregon public records law ([former] ORS 192.410 et seq.) depends on complainant’s good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupa­tional Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)

Chapter 654

Notes of Decisions

An administrative regula­tion requires Accident Preven­tion Division to prove reasonableness of civil penalty imposed for viola­tion of Oregon State Employ­ment Act. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Sunrise Seed, 26 Or App 879, 554 P2d 550 (1976)

Accident Preven­tion Division rule allowing cita­tion for “repeat viola­tion” of division’s safety standards while prior cita­tion is contested and not yet upheld by final order is within agency’s authority to promulgate rules consistent with purpose of Act to assure as far as possible safe and healthful working condi­tions. Accident Preven­tion Div. v. Hoffman Construc­tion, 64 Or App 73, 667 P2d 543 (1983)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Inap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty of occupa­tional safety and health laws to inmates in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 654—Occupational Safety and Health, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors654.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 654, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano654.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information