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