The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) prepared the
following report on Hazard Communication to provide recommendations to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This report is provided on OSHA's Web Site for
informational purposes only. The ideas presented herein are not necessarily endorsed by
OSHA and do not represent a policy statement or rulemaking effort by OSHA.
 |
The report is organized as
follows: |
| Part I |
Executive Summary |
| Part II |
Recommendations of the Workgroup |
| Part III |
Background and Workgroup Membership |
| Part IV |
Summary of Public Input |
| Part V |
Discussion of Issues |
| Part VI |
Conclusions |
| Appendix A |
Workgroup Members |
| Appendix B |
The Hazard Communication Standard |
| Appendix C |
Brief History of Hazard Communication |
| Appendix D |
Summary of Presentations and Comments from the Public |
| Appendix E |
Summary of ANSI Z400.1 |
This report was accepted by NACOSH on September 12, 1996, and transmitted to
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
PART I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the promulgation of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) in 1983, there has
been considerable praise for the standard and its impact in increasing the awareness of
chemical hazards and appropriate precautionary measures by both employers and employees.
There has also been criticism, especially from small employers, that the standard is
unnecessarily burdensome. In response to some of these concerns, OSHA reopened the record
and requested comments in several subject areas which resulted in revisions to the
standard which were published in 1994. In May of 1995, the Clinton Administration, as part
of its National Performance Review, issued "The New OSHA: Reinventing Worker Safety
and Health". The report contained a number of recommendations, one of which was the
establishment of a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH)
working group on hazard communication and the "right-to-know." In a continuing
effort to improve its Hazard Communication Program and in line with recommendations
contained in the 1995 President's Report, OSHA asked NACOSH in September 1995 to convene
an expanded working group to identify ways to improve chemical hazard communication and
the "right-to-know" in the workplace.
OSHA asked the committee to provide OSHA with recommendations to simplify material
safety data sheets (MSDSs), reduce the amount of required paperwork, improve the
effectiveness of worker training, and revise enforcement policies so that they focus on
the most serious hazards.
The workgroup consisted of four members of NACOSH representing Management, Labor,
Health and Public categories of membership, supplemented by ten additional members which
included state regulators, the chemical industry, small and large business users, hazard
communication consultants, unions, and an association which represents many small
businesses. The workgroup held public hearings on October 19-20 with presentations made by
small businesses and labor organizations, and on December 11-12 with presentations made by
larger businesses, professional associations and others who requested to be heard. During
a March 20-21, 1996 meeting, the workgroup heard presentations by specialists in training,
electronic access systems, and the development of ANSI standards on MSDSs and labels.
In subsequent meetings on April 24-25, June 12-13 and July 23-24, 1996, the workgroup
drafted and finalized its report to NACOSH on OSHA's Hazard Communication Program.
During the public presentations and workgroup discussions, there was general agreement
on the following:
- There is a need for hazard communication, and employees have a right-to-know about the
hazardous chemicals in their workplace.
- The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) is a good one and the record should not be
reopened at this time. However, consistency in interpretation should be stressed and
enforcement should be more performance-oriented, emphasizing overall effectiveness.
- MSDSs can become very long and complicated because they are used for many purposes other
than to meet OSHA requirements.
- Some, mainly small businesses, would like a two-page MSDS that is easy to understand,
but not many wanted an additional document which would be necessary to accomplish this.
- A uniform format should be encouraged; most agreed that OSHA should endorse use of the
ANSI Z400.1 format.
- There should be a way that non-technical people can distinguish MSDSs covering hazardous
chemicals which fall under the HCS from those MSDSs that are produced by chemical
manufacturers that are not required under the HCS.
- Maximum use of electronic access and transmission of MSDSs should be allowed as long as
other HCS requirements are met (for example, no barriers to immediate access).
- OSHA should take action to correct misunderstanding and misinformation surrounding the
HCS especially in relation to training requirements, issue of non-required MSDSs,
electronic access and consumer products.
- Small businesses need implementation aids such as model programs and guidelines for
training, evaluation and hazard determination.
- Harmonization should be encouraged at the international, national and internal OSHA
levels.
As a result of public presentations and workgroup discussions, the workgroup determined
that two of the major problems cited--complexity of MSDSs and the large paperwork burden
involved in management of the MSDSs--were not really caused by or under the control of
OSHA.
In the first instance, it became apparent that the MSDS existed before OSHA's HCS and
is used for many purposes other than those of the HCS such as EPA's community
right-to-know requirements under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986. The MSDS is used to provide information to emergency responders and local planning
authorities and also serves as a primary data source for health professionals working with
exposed individuals. The information needs and presentation are different for all of these
groups which contributes to the length of the MSDS. Many presenters expressed their desire
for a simple one or two page sheet containing only what the employee needed to know, but
is was clear that this would require the creation of an additional document.
In the second instance related to paperwork burden, MSDSs are being prepared and
distributed by chemical manufacturers for many substances which are not covered by the
HCS. This is the primary cause of the major paperwork burden for which the HCS is blamed
but which OSHA does not require. This is also the source of most of the "horror"
stories about silly MSDSs. These non-required MSDSs are issued for a number of reasons
including requests by customers and product liability. One of the recommendations of this
report (Part II) is that OSHA urge chemical manufacturers to include a statement on the
first page of the MSDS such as "This product has been determined to be hazardous
under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard" for those hazardous chemicals covered by
the HCS so that non-technical personnel can distinguish which chemicals come under their
hazard communication program and which MSDSs need not be included. This could represent a
significant reduction in paperwork management. In addition, the hazard classification
should also be on the first page of the MSDS.
There was a clear desire expressed by most of the presenters and the workgroup for a
uniform format for the MSDS. It was noted that the reason OSHA did not specify a standard
format in the original HCS was that chemical manufacturers did not want to give up their
individual formats at that time and preferred a performance-oriented approach which
specified only the information that should be included. When users began to criticize data
sheets, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) decided it needed to convene a
committee to develop guidelines for the preparation of data sheets. These guidelines led
to the development of the ANSI Z400.1 voluntary consensus standard for the preparation of
MSDSs. In the development process, CMA convened meetings of MSDS users such as employers,
workers, health care professionals and emergency responders to assist in the determination
of an order of information and standardized headings for sections of the MSDS.
The majority of presenters expressed a clear preference for use of the ANSI format but
suggested that rather than open the record to mandate its usage, OSHA should
"endorse" its use.
There was strong support for optimizing the use of electronic access and transfer of
MSDSs. Paragraph (g)(8) of the HCS provides for electronic access by employees to
employer-maintained MSDS data bases as long as there are "no barriers to immediate
employee access." Another issue raised was the use of off-site MSDS management
services to provide MSDS electronic access. The workgroup recommends that such services be
allowed as long as the employees have ready access to the MSDSs. In addition, the
workgroup emphasized that allowing off-site management of MSDSs does not relieve the
employer of the responsibility to receive and use the information being managed to develop
and implement a site-specific hazard communication program.
In general, the workgroup's recommendations address all of these concerns and are
summarized in Part II, with a more detailed discussion of the issues in Part V. However,
there was considerable discussion about OSHA's ability to fulfill some of these
recommendations because of its currently limited resources and the uncertainty surrounding
future resources. It was suggested that in some of the areas of recommended program models
and guidelines, partnerships with industry, labor and professional associations may be
appropriate to add increased support in the future.
PART II - RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKGROUP
The following recommendations have been developed by the workgroup to address the
issues raised in the President's Report, in verbal and written comments, and in the
workgroup's deliberations. They are organized by topic. A detailed discussion of the
points raised, and the subsequent conclusions of the workgroup which led to the adoption
of each recommendation, are included in Part V - Discussion of Issues of this report.
Recommendations Related to MSDSs
1) OSHA should endorse the order and section titles as described in ANSI Z400.1-1993,
and strongly support the use of other recommendations from this voluntary standard. This
can be done through release of an OSHA memorandum, an interpretive letter, interpretive
notice and/or listing of the order and section titles as a non-mandatory appendix to the
HCS.
2) OSHA should endorse the addition of a statement by the MSDS preparer which indicates
whether the product is regulated under the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) as a
hazardous chemical. The statement should also indicate the hazard classification type as
defined in the HCS and its appendices. This information should be on the first page of the
MSDS allowing users to separate, if desired, the MSDSs falling under the HCS from other
MSDSs.
3) OSHA should actively participate in future ANSI Z400.1 revisions as part of these
endorsements. This would include providing the ANSI Z400.1 Committee the recommendations
made by this workgroup.
4) OSHA, possibly in partnership with industry, labor and professional associations,
should develop a guidance document to describe, in a step-by-step manner, how to conduct a
hazard determination. This publication should help small businesses improve the accuracy
of their MSDSs and help users determine their quality.
Recommendations Related to Labeling
5) OSHA should not unilaterally mandate the use of symbols for MSDSs and labels until
symbol validation studies are carried out. The United States should insist on validation
studies before symbols become part of an internationally-harmonized system. Should symbols
become part of a rule adopted by the US, OSHA should require employee training on the
meaning of the symbols.
6) The use of color coding systems as the sole means to communicate hazards of a
chemical should not be mandated for OSHA labels. Should color coding be a part of a rule
adopted under international harmonization efforts, OSHA should not make the color coding a
part of the US system until the validation studies are carried out and training is
required. Color coding should not be used as the sole means to communicate hazard to the
extent that a color blind person would be deprived of necessary information.
7) The workgroup supports the current hazard communication requirement for a label
attached to the container and the availability of an MSDS in the work area.
8) OSHA should endorse ANSI Z129.1-1994 as a consistent approach for precautionary
labeling.
Recommendations Related to Electronic Management of MSDSs
9) OSHA should adopt the following policy regarding electronic access to MSDSs in lieu
of paper copies kept at the worksite:
- Working electronic devices must be readily accessible in the workplace at all times.All workers must be trained in the use of these devices (including the specific
software).
- The employer must have an adequate backup plan for rapid access to MSDSs in the event of
an emergency, including an interruption in power.
10) OSHA should adopt a policy that specifies that the use of off-site MSDS management
services meets the requirements of the HCS only if MSDSs are readily available to
employees, either as hard copies in the workplace, or through electronic means as
described above (recommendation # 9). OSHA should make it clear that the use of an
off-site MSDS management service does not relieve the employer of the obligation to
receive and utilize the information from the MSDSs being managed to develop and implement
a site-specific hazard communication program under paragraph (e) of the HCS.
Recommendations Related to Employee Training
11) OSHA should develop "model" training programs, based upon the best
existing programs and the experience of educators, industry, labor, professional
organizations and others, which cover all aspects of the training required by the HCS.
Programs should include general elements directly usable by employees, guidelines to
assist employers in developing site-specific training, and techniques which are sensitive
to employees without basic language and mathematical skills. Programs should also include
evaluation criteria to assess the overall effectiveness of the training provided. These
criteria should be added to non-mandatory Appendix E of the HCS. The program evaluation
should not be used to assess or evaluate individual employee performance.
12) OSHA should better communicate to industry, trade associations and compliance
officers what portions of the training, as currently stated in Appendix E, Part C, are
meant to stay with the employee when he goes from one employer to another.
Recommendations Related to Enforcement of the HCS
13) OSHA should adopt an enforcement policy for situations where an employer has
implemented a comprehensive and effective hazard communication program, but minor
deficiencies have been found. When these deficiencies do not affect the safety and health
of employees, and are abated within 24 hours, OSHA could issue an advisory letter and put
a notation in the case file rather than issuing a citation.
14) OSHA should develop ways to address enforcement issues related to the accuracy of
MSDSs.
15) OSHA should develop a system to address inconsistencies in implementation through
outreach efforts with employers, employees, trade associations and professional societies.
16) OSHA should reemphasize the role of the Regional Hazard Communication Coordinators
to improve consistency of enforcement and interpretation of the HCS.
17) OSHA should increase internal communications about implementation and enforcement
of the HCS in regularly scheduled staff meetings and training sessions for CSHOs to
improve consistency of enforcement and interpretation.
18) OSHA should ensure that the Hazard Communication Standard is not inadvertently
changed through compliance interpretations. OSHA should review the compliance memoranda
previously issued and take any necessary steps to correct past confusion and
inconsistencies.
19) OSHA should review the guidance given to compliance officers in the area of
consumer products. When the review is finished, OSHA should distribute an information
bulletin describing the application of the HCS to consumer products (see Part V of this
report for discussion of the March, 1995 memorandum).
20) OSHA should utilize Hazard Communication as an opportunity to develop partnerships
between OSHA, industry, labor and professional associations for more effective
communication.
Recommendations Related to Harmonization of Hazard Communication Requirements
21) OSHA should continue to actively pursue domestic and international harmonization of
requirements for classification of hazards, labeling, and material safety data sheets.
- To achieve the greatest possible benefits in terms of improved protection and decreased
compliance burdens, global harmonization is the preferable approach. This would also
accomplish North American harmonization and harmonization of domestic Agencies'
requirements.
- If global agreement is not reached, the United States should work with Canada and Mexico
under NAFTA to achieve a North American system.
- If NAFTA negotiations are not successful, the United States should, as a minimum,
harmonize the existing requirements of different Federal agencies.
22) OSHA should review its substance-specific standards and other classification and
labeling requirements and take action to make sure they are consistent with the Hazard
Communication Standard. In addition, future standards should address the issue in a
consistent manner.
Recommendations Related to Misinformation about the HCS
23) OSHA should develop a system to combat the spread of "misinformation"
about the Hazard Communication Standard by instituting a systematic way of addressing both
the misconceptions and misinformation through outreach efforts with employers, employees,
trade associations and professional societies.
PART III - BACKGROUND AND WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asked the National Advisory
Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) to form a workgroup to identify ways
to improve chemical hazard communication and the right-to-know in the workplace. In the
notice that appeared in the Federal Register of September 28, 1995, OSHA asked NACOSH to
provide OSHA with recommendations to:
- Simplify material safety data sheets.
- Reduce the amount of required paper work.
- Improve the effectiveness of worker training.
- Revise enforcement policies so that they focus on the most serious hazards.
Four members of NACOSH were assigned to the hazard communication workgroup, and ten
professionals with expertise in hazard communication, representing small and large
businesses, unions, state governments, and consulting firms, were appointed as members of
the workgroup. The members of the workgroup were:
NACOSH MEMBERS
Chair, Henry B. Lick, Ph.D., Manager of Industrial Hygiene, Ford Motor Company
(Management Representative)
Andrea K. Taylor, Dr. P.H., Occupational Health Policy Consultant, Health and Safety
Department, United Auto Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC (Health Representative)
Michael J. Wright, Director of Health, Safety & Environment, United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC (Labor Representative)
Kenneth J. Zeller, Indiana Commissioner of Labor (Public Representative) ADDITIONAL WORKGROUP MEMBERS
Adria C. Casey, Ph.D., President, Catala Associates, Inc.
Patricia Dsida, President, ChemADVISOR, Inc.
Linda Hanavan, Manager TSCA and International Inventory Compliance, Cytec Industries, Inc.
Whitney Long , Manager of Health Affairs (through December 1995) and Skip Edwards,
Manager of Safety and Health (March through July 1996); National Paint and Coatings Association
Max Lum, Associate Director, Health Communications, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Adrienne Markowitz, Director of Health and Safety; Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
Ileana O'Brien, Deputy Commissioner of Labor and Industry, State of Maryland
Donald Rainville, President, Universal Dynamics, Inc.
Brad Sant, Director, Hazardous Materials Training, Firefighters Union, AFL-CIO
Michele R. Sullivan, Ph.D., Director of Product Stewardship, Hoechst Celanese Corporation OSHA PARTICIPANTS
Joanne Goodell, Policy Directorate, OSHA
Jennifer Silk, Health Standards Directorate, OSHA More information, including the business addresses and telephone numbers of the workgroup members, is contained in Appendix A.
PART IV - SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
The workgroup heard 4 days of testimony from various groups and individuals. In
addition, the workgroup invited several speakers to provide details about computer
methodology, training programs and the development of ANSI Standard Z400.1.
Opening presentation October 19 - Jennifer Silk, OSHA Health Standards Development Directorate
In the opening presentation on October 19th, Jennifer Silk reviewed a paper she had
prepared for the group. This paper is a brief history of the Hazard Communication Standard
and is provided in Appendix C. Ms. Silk's paper provided a necessary background and
framework for the ensuing discussions. Ms. Silk informed the group that Hazard
Communication represents the broadest health standard OSHA has, since it covers
approximately 35 million workers in 3.5 million establishments. It is a generic,
performance-based standard that covers 650,000 hazardous chemical products and, for many
employers, represents the first time they thought an OSHA rule applied to them. She
emphasized that the standard covers only hazardous chemical products but that material
safety data sheets (MSDSs) are being developed and transmitted to users on lots of
chemical products that are not hazardous and therefore not required by OSHA. This has a
great impact on the view of business being "bombarded" by paperwork required by OSHA.
Ms. Silk also discussed international harmonization and the efforts to set up an
international system to classify chemicals, and US (and specifically OSHA) involvement in
these activities. The U.S. is a major importer and exporter of chemicals. A unification of
regulatory definitions which are critical to conduct of international business along with
employee safety and environmental protection is more necessary than ever.
Thomas Galassi, Division Chief, OSHA Office of Health Compliance Assistance
Mr. Galassi informed the group of a draft directive in process which covers some of the
issues dealing with paperwork, the adequacy of written programs and the definitions of
"serious" versus "other" violations. He supplied copies of the draft
directive to the workgroup.
A member of the workgroup asked Mr. Galassi what OSHA does for MSDSs which may be
inaccurate or incomplete. He stated that these are handled by referral to an industrial
hygienist in a special pilot group in Salt Lake City.
Another question from the workgroup concerned how OSHA trains compliance officers to
deal with electronic methods of training being used by employers. Mr. Galassi said that in
some cases interactive training modules (such as those supplied on CD-ROM) might be
satisfactory for parts of the training, but that typically this type of training does not
have the ability to give training about the specific chemicals in a particular workplace.
Its basic shortcoming is that there is no opportunity to ask questions specific to the
workplace.
The Agency's use of computers to increase the effectiveness of their compliance
officers includes the QUIPS project which contains all letters of interpretation organized
by subject that is electronically available to all inspectors and is also on OCIS, on the
DOL Bulletin Board, and in the Office of Publications. A second system called OSCAR (OSHA
System for Compliance Assistance and Referral) includes QUIPS, regulations, preambles to
regulations, relevant case law, and other federal agency regulations for all regulatory
subjects which is available to anyone.
Mr. Galassi's statements that employee access to MSDSs can be interpreted as allowing
access within 24 hours drew strong objections from workgroup members Wright and Markowitz.
Workgroup members Zeller, Rainville and O'Brien also expressed strong disagreement with
the concept and with Mr. Galassi's definition of the current requirement being "by
the end of the workshift". The workgroup agreed that both 24 hours and 8 hours were
too long to meet the meaning of the Standard which was the have the information available
throughout the workshift.
The presentations made in the afternoon of October 19th were:
Michael J. Fagel, Corporate Safety Director of Aurora Packing Company.
He emphasized for the workgroup a vital function of the MSDSs - reducing the use of
hazardous chemicals and finding substitutes that are non or less hazardous. This company
is primarily concerned with sanitation chemicals. They have reduced the number of
hazardous chemicals they use by 30%. He said he would like a standardized MSDS format and
the use of "understandable" English. He also spoke from the standpoint of a
volunteer emergency responder about the difficulty of dealing with so much paperwork.
Dr. David Whiston (a practicing dentist) representing the American Dental
Association
Dr. Whiston requested an exemption of dental offices with 10 or fewer employees. Absent
exemption, he suggested that OSHA: (1) allow small employers to provide access to MSDSs by
electronic means or FAX in lieu of hard copy at site; (2) provide better guidance to
manufacturers on how to develop useful MSDSs; (3) approve a model MSDS format for dental
products; (4) redefine the elements of an adequate written program; and (5) exempt small
dental offices from having to keep hard copies of MSDSs on office supplies. He provided
the workgroup members with a copy of an MSDS format which the AMA considered appropriate
for their members.
Brian Bursick of AFIA and John Ojanen of Southern States both representing The
American Feed Industry Association
Mr. Ojanen discussed the difficulty their businesses have coping with the large number
of MSDSs, particularly those prepared for substances which are not "scientifically
determined" to be hazardous. He believed the chemical manufacturers issuing MSDSs for
everything they manufacture, whether or not it is hazardous, want to limit their own
liability. Unfortunately this reduces the significance of the necessary MSDSs. He said
MSDSs are hard to read and require information difficult for employees to use (like
information sources, etc.). He also felt that because feed ingredients were regulated by
FDA they should be exempted from HazCom. Ojanen also recommended that a list of hazardous
chemicals requiring MSDSs be developed using existing lists from DOT, EPA, OSHA, etc. He
urged OSHA to "reinvent" the HazCom program so that MSDSs are generated only for
chemicals that have been scientifically determined to be truly hazardous. Asked by the
workgroup if it would help if a fixed MSDS format had a statement near the top indicating
that the substance was hazardous and why, his answer was a very definite "Yes".
Linwood Gilman, Chief of Hazardous Materials Management (DOD Defense General
Supply Center in Richmond)
Mr. Gilman manages most of the hazardous materials procured by the Defense Department
and supports the DOD Hazardous Materials Information System. He suggested that the
workgroup consider the
rapidly developing electronic transmission methods and how they are changing the way
business is done in considering how businesses can respond to Hazard Communication
requirements. He suggested we consider breaking MSDSs into sections geared toward specific
user communities. He also mentioned the ability of an MSDS to address the problem of an
article which is not hazardous in the workplace but hazardous at the time of disposal
(i.e. consideration of the life cycle of an article). When asked by the workgroup about
the quality of MSDSs, he stated that there were many technically inaccurate datasheets and
he would like to see the "optional" requirements of the Standard, particularly
the need for CAS numbers, made mandatory.
Lin Smale representing The Society of American Florists
Ms. Smale suggested OSHA should consider different communication systems for small vs.
large businesses. The Society of American Florists represents growers, wholesalers,
retailers--the whole floriculture industry. She noted that the growers see overlap between
the OSHA regulations and EPA regulations. She emphasized that regulations work best if
easy to understand and administer, and she strongly encouraged more communication between
government agencies in establishing the regulations. She said her industry strongly
supports the objectives of the HazCom standard and is doing its best to comply.
Michael Sprinker, Director of Health and Safety for the International Chemical Workers Union
Mr. Sprinker stated that OSHA's HazCom standard has resulted in workers and supervisors
being better able to understand the physical and health effects of the materials they work
with and that we're far better off than before. He favors a standardized format. He also
suggested that better "incompatibility" of materials be included on MSDSs. He
also suggested we look at NIEHS hazardous waste worker training programs as these were
very well done. He emphasized that it is important to remember in using computer systems
that they go down and that in a fire emergency, the power goes off.
Michael Wright, Director, Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers of America
Mr. Wright mentioned that Steelworkers, Autoworkers and Machinists are in the process
of merging. In reviewing the history and events leading up to the promulgation of the
HazCom standard, Mike said that as recently as the late seventies, workers were refused
information on chemicals and were not permitted to see their medical/exposure records. He
said they had to fight the government and even OSHA, who wanted to set separate chemical
standards, to get a HazCom standard which they say is now very popular. He went on to say
that he felt there was a lot of room for improvement in the implementation of the standard
without modifying the actual standard which he didn't feel was necessary at this
time. The way information is collected, the way that information is analyzed can be done
in a way that makes it easier for both workers and managers, and that the challenge of
this workgroup is to find a way to do this. In any consideration of the Standard he
emphasized that we must start with the absolute right of the worker to know the names and
hazards of what one is exposed to.
Presentations made on October 20th included:
Michael O'Brien, Assistant Vice President for Labor Regulation of the National
Association of Homebuilders
Mr. O'Brien suggested the reconstruction of the Hazard Communication Standard to
include the elimination of the requirement for employers to maintain MSDSs. He recommends
that the function of the label be expanded and that health professionals be supplied with
800 numbers, FAX numbers or some combination of these which would supply them with
additional information which may be necessary. Another suggestion was to have employees
carry a card or other identification to show that they had basic training and only needed
specific on-site training. He wanted the requirements for portability of training
clarified. In answer to a question from the Chair, he confirmed that he believed in the
concept of OSHA's HazCom standard but had a problem with the delivery.
Eamonn McGeady, President of Martin G. Inbach, Inc.
Martin G, Inbach, Inc. is a medium-sized (50 employees) company doing heavy marine
construction of piles for piers. Half of his people are HAZMAT trained in OSHA courses. He
displayed a thick notebook full of MSDSs that he issued to each of his employees. He said
there is a need for common sense and suggested use of icons instead of complex chemical
descriptions. He said OSHA ought to educate, inform and advise; then enforce. He would
prefer a labeling standard with icons for use in the field backed up by a repository of
more detailed information.
Patrick Rowsey, Regulatory Analyst for the National Automobile Association (NADA)
Mr. Rowsey said that service, body and parts shop managers indicate that while HazCom
training is understood and accepted by their workers, the actual use of MSDSs by employees
for additional information is rare and the use of the MSDSs in training is made difficult
due to lack of uniformity in the MSDSs. NADA urges the workgroup to recommend that
hazardous information systems be standardized and that the consensus MSDS standard being
promoted by CMA be carefully reviewed. OSHA should clarify the definition of consumer
products with examples to help small businesses. The rule should be modified to require
phone numbers on chemical labels to facilitate procurement of missing MSDSs.
Benjamin Y. Cooper, Senior Vice President, Printing Industries of America
Mr. Cooper said that the one million people in the printing business work with many
chemicals with frequently changing formulations. All the chemicals used come with MSDSs.
They recommend that OSHA immediately clarify to its enforcement personnel that electronic
data is not only acceptable but in many cases preferable. The fact that Federal OSHA says
electronic records maintenance is acceptable but field personnel say it is not creates
difficulties. They also recommend that OSHA require a standardized MSDS format.
Cathy McClure, Manager of Human Resources, Health and Safety for MSI, Vicki
Worden, Legislative Assistant, representing the National
Lumber and Building Materials Dealers Association.
Cathy McClure described their major problem as the requirement to
transmit hazard warning labels downstream on treated lumber with every shipment. She
discussed the evolution of confusing interpretations related to this requirement.
Moreover, she maintained that this label goes to the wrong people and serves no purpose.
She stressed that their organization feels that the intent of the regulation is most
effectively conveyed from retailer to employees and downstream employers through
distribution of hazard warning labels on a one-time basis (and each time an update is
required). Vicki Worden said that they strongly believe an MSDS
repository would provide a solution to the burdensome paperwork requirements. She stressed
to the workgroup the types of paperwork problems they face and the need to streamline this
standard.
Loren A. Anderson, Jr., Treasurer of the American Industrial Hygiene Association
Mr. Anderson presented the following recommendations:
1. Harmonizing chemical warning requirements and the development of a global approach
to hazard communication to ensure optimum health and safety worldwide.
2. Providing all hazard information in the primary language of the intended audience
and in a format that is targeted to the audience's educational and literacy level to
increase comprehension of the information.
3. Utilizing training methods that are performance-based, creative, interactive,
job-specific, and tailored to the language and educational level of the worker.
4. Improving the accuracy, clarity, and availability of MSDSs through a standardized
format that focuses the user's attention on the key protective information.
5. Including standardized warning signs and pictograms on labels of hazardous materials
that clearly depict the types and levels of hazards in an understandable manner to ensure
that workers are adequately alerted to the hazards of the products with which they are working.
Ellen Larson, Director of Government Relations for the Air Conditioning Contractors of America
Ms. Larson said that their 3000 members, who are mostly small businesses with many
having fewer than ten employees, would like to reduce the paperwork requirements. They
would like a summary on the MSDS and clarification of labeling requirements. They also
support the use of electronic filing systems. They have a training program that was
co-developed with the National Homebuilders Association and others.
Presentations made on December 11, 1995:
Chris Bryan, Safety Manager with Martin Marietta Materials and Chair of the
National Stone Association's (NSA) Task Force on Hazard Communication.
Mr. Bryan pointed out that, although NSA's members are primarily regulated by MSHA,
they are interested in these proceedings because MSHA has a hazard communication standard
pending which could be influenced by NACOSH recommendations. NSA believes that part of the
problem lies in using listings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to precipitate inclusion of a chemical substance
under the standard. NSA considers use of IARC and NTP improper and requests that such use
be abandoned. They favor a standardized format. NSA also supports the written program
requirement but suggests OSHA provide a model program to assist small businesses. Adele
L. Abrams, Director of Governmental Affairs for NSA accompanied Mr. Bryan and
participated in the questioning.
Maurice A. Desmarais, American Supply Association (ASA) and
the New England Wholesalers Association
Mr. Desmarais informed the committee that 12 regional ASA affiliates had worked
together to develop a two-volume MSDS catalog containing over 4500 MSDSs. They have
distributed over 160,000 catalogs at a cost exceeding one million dollars. They
"question the wisdom of requiring an MSDS sheet at every job site for every product
that contains a so-called hazardous substance". They would like to have a
standardized format for the MSDS. Pat O'Connor of Kent & O'Connor's Washington
Government Affairs Office accompanied Mr. Desmarais. In answer to a question from
the workgroup, they stated that they included all MSDSs they received in the catalog,
whether or not they apply to hazardous substances covered by the regulation.
Dave Luth, President of Axxis Business Solutions, Inc.
Mr. Luth explained that he was not a hazard communications specialist but was involved
in the electronic dissemination and retrieval of MSDSs. Unfortunately, the distributors
are receiving many more MSDSs than are required and so are distributing many more than
they need to. This significantly increases the cost to implement the program. He would
like OSHA to develop an MSDS workplace classification system to aid small companies that
requires the chemical manufacturer to designate each MSDS as: (1) Required, (2)
Recommended, and (3) For Information Only. Category (1) would require downstream
dissemination; Category (2) would make it optional; and Category (3) would make it
unnecessary. Dr. Sullivan asked if a statement on the MSDS such as "this is regulated
or hazardous under 29 CFR 1910.1200" would help. Mr. Luth said it would.
George Ganak, CoChair of the Naval Supply Systems Command Process Integration Team
Mr. Ganak stressed efforts to use electronic methods to manage MSDSs. In particular he
supports a better way to tie the MSDS to the product. He would like to see the adoption
and mandatory use of the Universal Product Code (UPC) since he feels very
strongly that users need some sort of "standard license plate" tying the product
and MSDS together. They would like to encourage use of the Z-400 format for paper MSDSs
and the ANSI X-12 set 848 for electronic transactions. In response to a question from the
workgroup on how changes to a product are handled, and when a new UPC is assigned, Ganak
cited Guideline 27 put out by the Uniform Code Council that says if the
manufacturer changes the product significantly enough to require a new MSDS, they will
assign a new UPC number. The workgroup expressed concerns about the issuance of a new UPC
when the product name and other information did not change.
Director Jan S. Collins, Executive Director, Workplace
Health and Safety Council, Dr. Philip J. Wakelyn, Manager of Environmental Health and
Safety for the National Cotton Council of America.
Ms. Collins said that her members considered the HazCom Standard to be one of the most
important standards ever promulgated by OSHA. They do, however, feel that there are
administrative actions OSHA could take to improve its enforcement policy. One would be
providing a meaningful exemption for de minimus exposures. Another area of concern to the
Council is the national harmonization of regulations. Ms. Collins mentioned that DOL, DOT
and EPA all have jurisdiction over labeling, packaging and training related to hazardous
materials and that sometimes the requirements are inconsistent. Mr. Wakelyn emphasized the
need for definition of "health risk" and stated that potential exposure to a
hazard does not constitute risk. Dr. Wakelyn also urged that the MSDS format should
require an Executive Summary written in user-friendly terms. He expressed the concerns of
others he had talked with who felt that the ANSI format may have made the
MSDS more rather than less complicated.
Three people made presentations representing the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA).
1) Thomas G. Grumbles, Manager of Product Safety and Occupational Health for Vista Chemical Company.
Mr. Grumbles emphasized standardizing and simplifying MSDSs and improving cautionary
labeling. In this respect he made reference to CMA's efforts in developing a guideline for
writing MSDSs which was later issued by ANSI as Z400.1 which includes an Emergency
Overview. He also mentioned CMA's participation in the development of a logical format for
chemical precautionary industrial labeling as contained in ANSI Z129.1. In conclusion he
said that CMA requests that NACOSH recommend that OSHA specifically endorse both ANSI
Z400.1 and Z129.1 as effective vehicles for improving hazard communication.
2) Stephen E. Randall, Director of CMA's MSDS Central
Mr. Randall would like OSHA to (1) address electronic systems as a viable technology to
keep MSDSs; and (2) address electronic transmission of MSDSs as an accepted method for
delivering MSDSs to customers. He said many companies are improving MSDS management by
collecting MSDSs in a central location within their company. An electronic copy can be
made available immediately through their own central network to any of their employees at
any location. Randall feels that OSHA's endorsement of the use of electronic systems both
to store MSDSs in-house and to distribute them to customers will accelerate the use of
systems resulting in reduction of paper and improvement of the quality and timeliness of
MSDS information.
3) Amy Berg, Safety and Occupational Health Consultant to DuPont
Ms. Berg stated CMA believes that OSHA's compliance directive and enforcement practices
should be re-examined; they feel that the compliance directive (OSHA Instruction CPL
2-238C) contains additional requirements and an interpretation that is very narrow, overly
specific and too inflexible for a performance-based standard (section K.8(5). She said
they believe training should focus on the most serious hazards and the steps employees
must take to protect themselves, rather than training workers on all possible hazards. Ms.
Berg recommended that OSHA direct whatever resources are available to the development and
expansion of small business training programs. She summarized by saying that CMA believes
that "OSHA can work with industry to improve the effectiveness of worker training,
simplify its enforcement policies, and redirect its resources so that all stakeholders are
focused on the real hazards in the workplace."
Bruce Larson, Manager of Industrial Hygiene, Allen E.
Stupplebeen, Manager of Product Safety Services, Mobil Chemical Company
Mr. Larson mentioned that Mobil is active in organizations who all strongly support the
goal, structure and current content of OSHA's HazCom Standard. He said there was no need
to reopen the record on the standard. Needed changes could be made by modifying the
current enforcement directive. Both Mr. Larson and Mr. Stupplebeen encouraged OSHA to
endorse the use of modern efforts of transmitting MSDSs. He also recommended that OSHA
develop a model training program and increase its outreach programs, holding more local
and regional workshops aimed at small and medium sized companies. In response to
questions, they said they provide their distributors with a CD-ROM and have a centralized
audit system to check for compliance.
Presentations made on December 12, 1995:
Angus E. Crane, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Counsel, and Gary
E. Marchant of Kirkland & Ellis representing North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association
Mr. Crane recommended that the HazCom Program be made more effective
by: (1) ensuring that hazard warning requirements are consistent with the weight of
relevant, scientific evidence; (2) clarifying the term "positive study" used to
trigger HazCom requirements; and (3) standardizing and simplifying the format of MSDSs. He
also recommended modifying training requirements to 1)eliminate unnecessary duplicative
training; (2)use clear thresholds based on risk exposure to trigger HazCom requirements;
and (3) endorse appropriate disclaimers on MSDSs stating that "the information
provided does not necessarily indicate that the substance in a given application results
in any exposure or risk to workers or the general public." Finally, he said the
HazCom Program could be made fairer by ensuring that one product or company does not gain
an unwarranted competitive advantage by: (1) eliminating the current bias that favors
untested products; and (2) by removing unfair advantages gained by products regulated by
other agencies (such as cellulose insulation).
Frank White, Vice President, Organization Resources Counselors' (ORC)and
Carolyn Phillips, Industrial Hygiene Advisor, Shell Chemical Company and
Shell Oil Products Company.
Mr. White stated that ORC believes OSHA should encourage use of a standardized format
consistent with ANSI Z400.1 but ORC does not believe OSHA should reopen the HazCom
Standard to require use of the ANSI format. ORC urges OSHA to provide additional outreach
and assistance in the use of electronic information systems that can assist small business
in managing the burden of maintaining MSDSs more efficiently. ORC also suggests OSHA
update its "Hazard Communication Compliance Kit", which is available to the
public through the U.S. Government Printing Office. He said that several sections are out
of date. ORC believes OSHA compliance personnel should "focus on evaluation of the
overall effectiveness of an employer's hazard communication program rather than looking
for isolated infractions of the standard's requirement."
Ms. Phillips said she believes the HazCom Standard is one of the best, most useful and
comprehensive standards that OSHA has promulgated. She said OSHA could improve their
training assistance by: (1) updating their generic, overall HazCom Program guidance using
up-to-date graphics and current technology; (2) encouraging trade associations of small to
mid-size employers in to make simple HazCom Programs available to their members; and (3)
providing information on basic hazcom training including a list of training resources to
employers who need assistance. In discussing the overall program, Ms. Phillips said that
"the culprit is enforcement, not the standard."
Jason Scriven, representing International Mass Retailers Association.
Mr. Scriven, associated with 3E Company, provides hazardous materials information
services. Scriven urged the workgroup to recommend use of a centralized MSDS management
and support system. He proposed that the following be added to the HazCom Standard:
"It is acceptable to manage MSDSs from a central database or library, for the
purpose of providing MSDS to employees, distributing MSDS to downline customers or
maintaining MSDS for multiple locations, as long as no barriers to immediate employee
access in each workplace are created by such options, and so long as in-person support is
available to assist in identifying the MSDS and understanding the information contained in
the MSDS. The MSDS provided by a central source must be the most current, product specific
MSDS available from the manufacturer. It is acceptable for a wholesale distributor to
manage MSDS from a central location, provided that there are no barriers to access for
customers who previously would have received MSDS with each shipment."
Philip A. Scearcy, Occupational Safety and Health Consultant for the Minnesota
Regional Poison Center, and Robert L. Weir, Director of Risk Management
for Rhodes, Inc.
Mr. Scearcy and Mr.Weir discussed the possible Use of Regional
Poison Control Centers for the electronic
transfer of MSDSs via FAX or computer to meet the requirements of the HazCom Standard.
They emphasized that these programs were not a substitution for employee training but
rather a supplemental aspect. They would like OSHA to determine that such a program meets
the requirements of the HazCom Standard.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) was represented by Colette
Mlynarek, API Senior Regulatory Analyst, Steve Killiany, Health and Safety Advisor
with Exxon, and Frank Nitsch, Industrial Hygienist with Amoco.
Ms. Mlynarek stated that API believes that some enhancements can be
useful in improving the effectiveness of HazCom, but thinks they can be made without
additional rulemaking. They recommend: (1) a uniform format for all MSDSs, (2) a
cooperative industry and labor initiative to improve training; and (3) revision of OSHA's
enforcement policy to provide outreach and consultation services especially to smaller
businesses. API thinks limiting the length of MSDSs is impractical and encourages use of
the ANSI standardized format for MSDSs. API supports development of new guidance for OSHA
compliance personnel.
Steve Killiany reiterated the belief that imposing limitations on the
length of MSDSs would be impractical. He does, however, favor establishment of the ANSI
Z100.1 format as a standard. He also recommends that OSHA support the philosophy of
electronic data systems and the efforts of business to adopt such systems for MSDS
dissemination. OSHA should support consistency in both domestic and international hazard
communication issues, citing inconsistencies among Federal agencies with regard to
definitions and requirements.
Frank Nitsch discussed training and said focus should be on content
rather than on a stipulated number of hours, and that testing employees' understanding was
an important facet of an effective program. He said the training program provides a unique
opportunity for OSHA, industry and labor to work together to help small businesses comply
with the requirements. He added that use of a standardized MSDS format would aid the
training effort. He said API supports development of new guidance for compliance personnel
such as that suggested in the new policy directive CPL 2.111 emphasizing evaluation of
overall adequacy.
Pam Susi, Center to Protect Workers Rights on behalf
of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
She recommended: (1) standardizing the format, simplifying the language, and requiring
manufacturers to assess the accuracy of MSDS annually; (2) requiring MSDSs to be specific
to products/materials posing exposure hazards on the specific job site to reduce
unnecessary paperwork and increase usability; (3) requiring employers to designate
personnel responsible for implementing the HazCom Program; (4) upgrading labeling
requirements (large print, simple language); and (5) continuing the requirement for
site-specific, "hard copies" of MSDSs at the site. She also recommended
establishment of minimum training requirements and training grants for the construction
industry.
Laurie M. Shelby, Manager of Industrial Hygiene Programs and Regulatory
Compliance, Reynolds Metals Company.
Ms. Shelby is project manager for the company-wide initiative to develop an electronic
storage and retrieval system for MSDSs and container labels. Reynolds has over 44,000
MSDSs for products they use. They also produce 500 MSDSs for products they manufacture and
use the ANSI Z400.1 format. She recommends that OSHA adopt the ANSI format as a mandatory
appendix and the Electronic Data Interchange format for MSDSs (ANSI X12 data set 848) as a
non-mandatory approach. She recommended that OSHA strengthen guidance on hazard
determination making it less performance oriented. It should specify required references,
testing procedures and standards that should be used by manufacturers to determine hazards
and better define the parameters which make a product hazardous. She also recommended that
OSHA require a chemical tracking and inventory system, and provide a means or guide for
worker training.
The complete minutes appear as Appendix D to this document.
PART V - DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
A. The Hazard Communication Standard
The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) was first adopted as a final rule in 1983, with
provisions that covered the manufacturing sector of industry. It was later expanded in
1987 to cover all facilities where employees are potentially exposed to hazardous
chemicals while performing their jobs. The current final rule was promulgated in 1994--it
made a number of modifications to the provisions to clarify and update them based on the
implementation and enforcement experiences of the regulated community and the Agency. The
text of the standard has been included as Appendix B of this report. In addition, Appendix
C provides the history of the standard and elaborates the issues involved in its
implementation. The following is a brief summary of some of the key points regarding the
rule.
The HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the
chemicals they produce or import. Information about the hazards and associated protective
measures is to be provided to users of the chemicals through labels on containers and
material safety data sheets. Labels are to provide a quick summary of the hazard
information, while data sheets are a detailed reference source for employers and
employees. Employees are required to be trained regarding the hazards, how to protect
themselves, and how to find and access the information on labels and MSDSs. Labels, MSDSs,
and training are thus interdependent parts of the standard--no one of these information
transmittal mechanisms is believed to be effective by itself.
The HCS is different from most OSHA standards. It does not dictate specific control
measures for any chemical; rather it provides employers, employees, and employee
representatives with the information they need to create an effective chemical safety
program. As such, the standard depends on a voluntary change in behavior or practice.
Employers and employees both need good chemical information. Employers have the
responsibility for designing engineering controls, selecting appropriate personal
protective equipment, ensuring that the proper tools are used, planning for emergencies,
and training their employees. The most effective programs are ones where employees and
their representatives participate in all aspects of the program's design and
implementation. In addition, employees and their representatives need to know the
identities and hazards of workplace chemicals so they can ensure the program is effective.
None of this can be accomplished without the information provided through the HCS. One
additional benefit is the possibility of selecting less hazardous chemicals for work
operations, thus preventing rather than merely controlling hazardous exposures.
In combination, the increased knowledge of employers and employees will lead to actions
that reduce hazardous chemical exposures and therefore the potential for
chemically-related illnesses and injuries.
The HCS is a generic standard, covering all types of hazardous chemicals and all
industries. OSHA has estimated that the scope of coverage is 650,000 hazardous chemical
products, to which over 32 million workers may be potentially exposed in about 3.5 million
establishments. The provisions are largely performance-oriented, which gives employers the
flexibility to tailor their programs to the characteristics of their workplaces. It also
incorporates a downstream flow of information from chemical manufacturers and
distributors, who know the most about the product, to the using employers.
The provisions of the standard were based largely on the practices of companies that
already addressed right-to-know in their safety and health programs before the HCS was
promulgated. Similar provisions for hazard communication have been adopted by many other
countries as well, including Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, and Australia.
B. The Workgroup's Task
In May of 1995, the Clinton Administration, as part of its National Performance Review,
issued "The New OSHA: Reinventing Worker Safety and Health". The report
contained a number of recommendations, one of which was the establishment of a NACOSH
working group on hazard communication and the right-to-know.
OSHA announced the establishment of the group in a September 28, 1995 Federal Register
notice (60 FR 50218). NACOSH was asked to provide OSHA with recommendations to:
- Simplify material safety data sheets. MSDSs are the primary source of
detailed information about the hazardous chemical under the requirements of the HCS. They
provide data regarding the hazards, protective measures, and ways to handle the chemical
safely. MSDSs were common before the HCS, but at that time they were often 2-page
documents. Since they are now used to transmit a wide range of information to more
audiences, they have become much longer and often more complicated. Some chemical users
have found them to be difficult to understand and use, particularly since there is no
required standard format for them. In addition, users are sometimes concerned about the
accuracy of the information received.
- Reduce the amount of required paperwork. The workgroup was asked to
examine the paperwork required under the HCS to determine whether any changes could be
made that would reduce the paperwork burden. While MSDSs are usually the requirement for
paperwork that people are concerned about, labels and written hazard communication
programs also contribute to the paperwork burdens.
- Improve the effectiveness of worker training. Effective training is
critical to ensuring that employees understand and can use the information presented on
labels and material safety data sheets. While employers have done considerable training to
comply with the HCS requirements, it has often been ineffective. The workgroup was asked
to address the issue of improving the effectiveness of employee training provided by
employers to comply with the HCS.
- Revise enforcement policies to focus on the most serious hazards. The
HCS has been OSHA's most cited standard for many years. The workgroup was asked to examine
the enforcement policies of the Agency to determine if any changes are needed to ensure
that the enforcement activities are properly targeted. In addition, concerns have been
raised about inconsistent enforcement practices.
In addition to these four issues, the workgroup was also asked to address whether the
HCS should be reopened to modify the rule's requirements regarding employee access to
MSDSs. Specifically, the charge to the workgroup in the President's Report was:
In particular, the working group will be asked to consider the possibility of amending
the present rule to allow employers to meet their obligations under the standard to
provide employees with material safety data sheets if they can obtain and provide these
sheets within 24 hours or immediately in an emergency.
OSHA also asked the workgroup to consider comments received by the Agency regarding the
paperwork burden of the standard. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), OSHA must
assess the paperwork burden associated with its standards. During the deliberations of the
workgroup, the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public
comments on the paperwork burden assessment for the HCS, and establishing a 60-day comment
period for receipt of them. The HCS includes a number of requirements considered to be
paperwork under the PRA, such as labels, MSDSs, and written hazard communication programs.
OSHA received 13 comments in response to the notice, and provided copies of them to the
workgroup for consideration in their discussions related to reducing the paperwork burden
of the HCS.
To obtain the fullest input possible in the short time frame involved, the workgroup
heard oral presentations from the public as well as giving people the opportunity to
provide written information. Presenters and commenters included representatives of large
and small businesses, labor unions, government agencies, and professional societies. In
addition, the workgroup invited several experts in specialized fields to provide testimony
on selected topics. These experts informed the workgroup about their areas of expertise
and provided insight into various options which are available in these areas. And OSHA's
Office of Health Compliance Assistance met with the workgroup on several occasions to
discuss issues related to enforcement, and provide written information to assist in the
workgroup's deliberations.
A summary of public input has been included in Part IV of this report. In addition, a
list of the individuals who appeared during the hearings, their organizations, and a
summary of the testimony is documented in the minutes of the meetings. The minutes are
Appendix D. Written materials and transcripts of testimony are available in OSHA's Docket
Office.
C. Summary of the Workgroup's Consideration of the Issues Raised
The following is a discussion of the major issues discussed by the workgroup. It is
organized by topic, and where specific recommendations have been adopted by the workgroup,
they appear in the text with the relevant discussion material.
As noted above, the charge to the workgroup in the President's Report was to make
recommendations to simplify MSDSs. Based on the public input and the expertise of the
workgroup, it did not appear that simplification was, by itself, the real issue at hand.
OSHA's requirements for MSDSs are performance-oriented. The HCS lists the information
that needs to be included on an MSDS, but does not specify a format or order of
information to be followed. This was based on the rulemaking record for the 1983 final
rule. Chemical manufacturers testified during the rulemaking process that they often
provided MSDSs, but that their formats had evolved into company-specific approaches over
the years. Thus there was strong support for promulgating provisions that would allow
chemical manufacturers to continue using the formats they had developed prior to the
adoption of OSHA's requirements.
After the standard was promulgated, it was clear that some employers, particularly
small chemical manufacturers, wanted to have some guidance to help them comply with the
MSDS provisions. In 1985, OSHA produced a non-mandatory form called OSHA 174. This form is
a 2-page document which included blocks to be completed for each of the items included in
the MSDS requirements of the standard.
When the standard was expanded to cover non-manufacturing employers, and EPA
requirements added emergency responders and local emergency planning authorities to the
users of the MSDS, the varying formats of different manufacturers began to be seen as an
obstacle to effective use of the information. OSHA published a request for information in
1990 to ascertain what the public thought could be done to improve MSDSs and labels. The
Agency received about 600 responses, and the vast majority of them supported a standard
format for MSDSs. Knowing that the information you want always appears in the same place
on an MSDS seemed to be a primary concern. There were other issues regarding the language
used, readability, comprehensibility, etc., but the broadest area of agreement was that a
standard format was needed.
The workgroup found similar agreement in the public input they received. The desire for
a standard format for the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) was virtually unanimous among
all of the groups/individuals presenting testimony. This included the chemical
manufacturers, small businesses and groups representing labor organizations. All believed
that a standard format would aid in understanding the MSDS and provide a more valuable
tool for training employees.
Many commenters noted that the MSDS has become a tool for different audiences in
addition to employers and employees. These audiences included emergency responders,
toxicologists, health professionals, industrial hygienists, regulatory and transportation
specialists. The commenters believed that this resulted in the MSDS containing data for
these specialists that:
- Was either not needed or not understandable to the average employer and employee.
- Complicated the intent of the MSDS.
- Caused the MSDS to be too lengthy.
- Forced the MSDS to contain very technical information not easily understood by the
average employee.
- Made the information needed by the employee more difficult to locate.
While most of the commenters recognized the need for training of employees as an
element of a hazard communication program, many expressed a desire for a standardized MSDS
to assist in that training effort. While there was agreement on the need for a standard
format, there were differing ideas about what standard format is appropriate. Most
commenters supported the ANSI Z400.1 Standard for MSDSs; others supported a standard
format that would be shorter than an ANSI MSDS.
For example, the American Dental Association (ADA) has developed a format that is two
pages in length, and they would like their suppliers to use it to provide MSDSs to dental
offices. The ADA MSDS contains most of the information that is included in the ANSI Z400.1
Standard. The sections missing are the Toxicology section (however chronic effects were
asked for in the Health Hazard Data section), the Disposal Considerations, the Spill and
Leak information. This format does not provide a place for questions related to the
environmental handling of this material, how the dentists would dispose of hazardous
materials, whether or not the material needs special handling, and there is no place for
the manufacturer to discuss more than one material (i.e. it is not designed for a
mixture).
Some of the alternative suggested formats emphasized information that was especially
critical to the nature of the industry they represented. Others went as far as suggesting
a specific type size to be used. There were suggestions that OSHA Form 174 be selected as
the standard format. Some suggested that all of the very technical portions of the MSDS be
removed from a standard MSDS and only provided on request as a separate document. Some of
these commenters suggested that OSHA recognize their MSDS model formats as meeting
compliance with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.
A number of these requests were for a version of an MSDS which emphasized immediate
information that would be most helpful to the worker in understanding the hazards and
protective measures needed to handle the material safely. This concept was expressed
several times as the need for a summary paragraph to relieve the MSDS user from having to
search the MSDS for hazard information.
Others commented on the complexity of language in portions of the MSDS as being an
obstacle to understanding the information and perhaps not being useful to employees. Much
of this testimony appeared to be referencing the toxicology information provided in the
MSDS.
The workgroup heard testimony concerning the development and the content of ANSI
Z400.1. This testimony clearly indicated that the development of this standard was by a
consensus method and had the support of all groups that are impacted by the HCS. The
groups that supported the ANSI approach include the chemical manufacturers, small business
trade associations, labor groups, emergency responders, and several federal agencies.
The ANSI standard is also becoming a worldwide standard for conveying safety, health,
and regulatory data. The ANSI format has been adopted by the European Union and the
International Labor Organization. In addition, many countries are including in their
national standards virtually the same ANSI format for an MSDS while others are stating
that this is an acceptable format for compliance with their standards.
The ANSI Standard is divided into 16 different sections by type of information and by
intended audiences. Each section is developed with the concept that the data provided in
the section is tailored to the audience that requires the data. This means that the
language level and information needs of the audience are taken into account when
developing the information to be provided in each section.
A stakeholders meeting of the different users of MSDS information was held by the ANSI
committee to gain insight into their needs. This activity led to a specific ordering of
the sections of the MSDS to serve the immediate needs of several user groups. The two
groups whose information needs were most critical were the emergency responders and the
employees who handle the material. The information which these groups required were:
- identification of the material;
- hazard information - physical and health;
- first aid in case of exposure;
- emergency procedures, especially in fire situations.
Some of these information needs are similar in nature. ANSI Z400.1 was developed to
provide the data needed for both of these user groups as the first portions of a Material
Safety Data Sheet so that this information would be more easily located when needed. ANSI
Z400.1 also requires the preparer of the MSDS to take into account the user group for
which these sections are intended and to provide the information in terms which are most
easily understood by these user groups.
The first five sections of ANSI Z400.1 contain the data most often used by both
employees and emergency responders. It has been placed first on the Material Safety Data
Sheet for ease in locating the data. ANSI Z400.1 also requires that the language needs of
these two audiences should be considered by the preparer of the MSDS.
There was discussion among the workgroup members as to whether OSHA could endorse
sections 12 (Ecological Information), 13 (Disposal Considerations), 14 (Transport
Information), 15 (Regulatory Information), and 16 (Other Information) of the ANSI Z400.1
Standard since these sections are not related directly to occupational health and safety
but concern areas under the jurisdiction of other federal regulatory agencies (e.g., DOT,
EPA).
The 16-section MSDS as described in ANSI Z400.1 has become, "de-facto," an
international standard through adoption of these sections by the European Union, ILO and
several countries. The fact that Sections 12-15 relate to information topics which are
regulated under DOT or EPA may be problematic for an OSHA endorsement of the full
Standard. This jurisdictional dilemma should be resolved between OSHA, DOT and EPA to
allow for endorsement of the full 16-section MSDS as both a US and international standard.
The question of having each agency mandate separate documents to deliver and receive the
type of information which is currently transmitted in the ANSI format of the MSDS seems to
be counterproductive to the President's mandate to reduce paperwork.
The workgroup believes it would not be practical to expect that MSDSs could be
generated in a multitude of formats to respond to different industries' specific requests.
The MSDS is a document that has a wide variety of audiences and uses it must satisfy.
While a standard format is desirable, it must be a general format that can be used for the
generation of MSDSs that will satisfy the needs of all of potential audiences and uses.
The need for a standardized format, summary paragraph, simplicity of language and
multipurpose use of the MSDS could all be served through judicious implementation of the
ANSI Z400.1 Standard. As discussed in detail above, the ANSI Z400.1 standard contains the
basic elements that could satisfy all of these needs if it is followed by the all the
preparers of Material Safety Data Sheets. An outline of an MSDS described by this Standard
is presented in Appendix D to this document.
The workgroup also noted that this issue of a standard format is sometimes confused by
misinformation about the alternatives. A recent article in the Chemical and Engineering
News, a publication of the American Chemical Society, was brought to the attention of the
workgroup because it discussed the development of "international MSDSs". In fact
the documents referred to as MSDSs were not MSDSs but were international chemical safety
cards, which do not contain all of the information that many MSDSs do. Thus the workgroup
would like to clarify that while these cards are useful in some situations, they are not
MSDSs and do not resolve many of the questions being addressed regarding simplification of
MSDSs.
Upon considering all of this information, the workgroup decided that the existing ANSI
standard approach to MSDSs represents the best compromise position. The introductory
sections satisfy the need for simple information for employees and emergency responders to
use, while the more detailed sections of data which follow can address the information
needs of occupational health professionals and others who provide services to exposed
employees. Given the multitude of uses and users that MSDSs must provide information for,
this seems to be a balanced approach to addressing concerns while maintaining the
efficiency of having one document which meets the diverse needs of the different audience
groups. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
1) OSHA should endorse the order and section titles as described in ANSI
Z400.1-1993, and strongly support the use of other recommendations from this voluntary
standard. This can be done through release of an OSHA memorandum, an interpretive letter,
interpretive notice and/or listing of the order and section titles as a non-mandatory
appendix to the HCS.
The workgroup has received many verbal and written comments, particularly from
representatives of small business, related to the proliferation of unnecessary MSDSs and
the subsequent burden this proliferation creates. Because chemical manufacturers provide
MSDSs downstream for a variety of business reasons, and because users/employers in some
cases demand an MSDS for every product they buy, MSDSs for products which are not covered
under the HCS are being developed and distributed. The level of technical expertise
available to the small business is, in many cases, very limited. These employers cannot
tell, for the most part, which MSDSs are covered under the Hazard Communication Standard.
In many cases, for reasons of liability and prudent commercial practices, MSDSs for
chemicals which are not covered under hazard communication are managed and included in the
hazard communication program.
This situation would be improved if the MSDS included a statement indicating if the
product comes under the Hazard Communication Standard because it is hazardous, and the HCS
hazard classification of the product (e.g., flammable, carcinogenic, etc.) This
information, provided on the first page of the MSDS, would give immediate guidance to
determine which MSDSs are required for compliance under the hazard communication program
and which ones are not. This will provide the employer with the opportunity for paperwork
reduction and make it easier to do what every employer must do--conduct an effective
training program for employees. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
2) OSHA should endorse the addition of a statement by the MSDS preparer which
indicates whether the product comes under the Hazard Communication Standard as a hazardous
chemical. The statement should also indicate the hazard classification type as defined in
the HCS and its appendices. This information should be on the first page of the MSDS
allowing users to separate, if desired, the MSDSs falling under the HCS from other MSDSs.
In order to aid in the implementation of the above recommendation (i.e. identification
of hazardous materials on the MSDS) it should become a part of the ANSI Standard. OSHA
will need to actively participate in future ANSI Z400.1 revisions. The workgroup believes
that OSHA should support this change at the future ANSI meetings. Therefore, the workgroup
recommends that:
3) OSHA should actively participate in future ANSI Z400.1 revisions as part of
these endorsements. This would include providing the ANSI Z400.1 Committee the
recommendations made by this workgroup.
The quality of the MSDSs, that is the accuracy and completeness of the hazard
determination and health and safety data, was mentioned often by those giving testimony.
One example of the problems involved is when an employer purchases a chemical from several
suppliers and receives MSDSs with different information. The HCS provides the basic
elements of conducting the hazard determination in the standard itself [paragraph (d)], in
Appendix A - Health Hazard Definitions (mandatory) and in Appendix B - Hazard
Determination (mandatory). To conduct a hazard determination one must consider all of
these sources. While ANSI Z400.1-1993 provides a standard format and description of data
requirements for each section, it does not cover provide guidance for hazard
determination.
The workgroup believes that some chemical manufacturers, particularly those who are
small businesses with fewer safety and health resources available to them, would benefit
from having additional guidance to conduct a hazard determination. While it is not
universally true, many of the MSDSs that have been found to be incomplete or inaccurate
are from small businesses. The performance-oriented approach to hazard determination may
not provide these types of employers with sufficient guidance to complete a hazard
determination. If OSHA were to publish such a document, it could result in better quality
MSDSs. The workgroup is also suggesting that this might be an opportunity for OSHA to
establish partnerships with professional societies in the preparation of this guidance.
Organizations such as the Society of Toxicology or the American Industrial Hygiene
Association have technical committees which could work with OSHA on such a project to help
promote a higher degree of technical competency in the area of hazard determination. The
first approach is to provide for those people who prepare MSDSs a publication (in print or
as part of an electronic product) which describes the hazard determination process in a
step-by-step manner, with reference to existing resources such as chemical fact sheets
prepared by state agencies and other groups. The resources currently available to conduct
the literature searches necessary for hazard determination are much improved in
accessibility than when the Hazard Communication Standard was first written in 1983 and
should be taken advantage of in the OSHA publication. Therefore, the workgroup recommends
that:
4) OSHA, possibly in partnership with industry, labor and professional
associations, should develop a guidance document to describe, in a step-by-step manner,
how to conduct a hazard determination. This publication should help small businesses
improve the accuracy of their MSDSs and help users determine their quality.
A number of individuals presenting testimony believed that MSDSs required under the HCS
must be maintained for 30 years. The HCS only requires MSDSs to be maintained in the
workplace while the hazardous chemical is present. We believe the confusion in this area
is between the requirements of the Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records
regulation and the HCS. Under the Access rule (29 CFR 1910.20), employers must maintain
records of employee exposure for 30 years. This is to account for long latency periods
between exposures and manifestation of diseases such as cancer. Since many employers do
not measure employee exposures, the Access rule has identified certain records such as
MSDSs that would be considered substitutes for exposure records because they document that
the chemical was present in the workplace. In this case, the MSDSs may have to be
maintained for 30 years under 29 CFR 1910.20. However, the employer has the option of
generating a record of exposure, such as a list of the chemicals present and the employees
exposed to them, in lieu of keeping the MSDSs. The workgroup does not have a
recommendation for this issue.
While the President's Report did not specifically mention labels as an issue to be
addressed by the workgroup, it was clear from the public input that there are concerns in
this area as well. Thus the workgroup would like to address several of the issues raised,
as well as to make some recommendations in certain areas.
Several commenters suggested that OSHA mandate the use of color coding or graphic
hazard symbols on labels to improve hazard communication programs. They felt that this
practice would facilitate training, make workers more easily aware of the hazards of the
product with which they are working and provide a better handle on the management of MSDS
by hazards. In addition, they feel colors and pictograms would alleviate language barriers
and reading difficulties. No recommendations were made by the presenters as to specific
hazard graphic symbols or color coding to be used. OSHA's current requirements are
performance-oriented, and thus allow the use of symbols and color coding where appropriate
but do not mandate their use.
A number of other domestic standards and international laws currently mandate the use
of graphic hazard symbols on labels. In the transportation area, the US Department of
Transportation (DOT), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) require that the United Nations symbols for
hazard labels and/or placards be placed on packages that contain hazardous materials as
one method to communicate the material's hazards for transportation purposes. The European
Union (EU) and the Canadian Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) also
require the use of pictograms on labels to represent the intrinsic hazards of the product.
The symbols/pictograms used by these standards to represent a specific hazard, e.g.,
flammability, may be somewhat similar but not identical. U.S. workers are currently being
exposed to IMO, ICAO, EU and WHMIS symbols/pictograms due to the large amount of imported
materials being used. Whether or not these symbols/pictograms are included in the
employer's training program is not known.
Only a few studies have been carried out to validate the ability of these graphic
symbols to convey the hazard they are intended to represent. Results of a symbol study
carried out by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) for the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1982 (Publication Report No. NBSIR 82-4285)
reported the unanticipated finding of the relatively poor performance of several symbols
widely in use, including some symbols required by DOT. This indicated that, under the
parameters of this study, some of the hazards were not readily identifiable from the
labels representing those hazards. A more recent study tested the validity of a set of
graphic symbols representing hazards of relevance to the chemical and related industries
(CMA Project #80-430-088, by Fairfield Consulting Associates, Inc. 1986). These hazards
were: toxicity, corrosivity, oxidation, flammability, sensitization, explosivity,
reactivity and irritation. Only four hazards were recognized by the symbols used and not
all symbols in use for the same hazard were understood.
The results of both studies indicate the need to evaluate symbol/pictogram
understanding before adoption. They also indicate that a clear training program on the
meaning of the symbols/pictograms must be an integral part of their use to communicate
product hazards if they are to be a useful tool in promoting worker's safety and health.
A small but significant segment of the population is color blind. The use of color
coding alone to represent hazards will not be detected by these individuals and thus
reliance on this type of hazard communication alone would not only be ineffective but also
potentially harmful.
Some employers currently use an in-plant labeling system originally developed by the
National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA). Members of NPCA use many chemicals to
formulate paint products, and often have various batches during a shift with different
chemicals and hazards. They believed that a unique approach to addressing this type of
workplace operation would best serve their members and protect their employees, and thus
developed the Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS®) to address their needs. This
system uses pictograms, color coding, and a numerical rating system to indicate the
relative degree of hazard.
The HMIS® was used by employers prior to adoption of the HCS in 1983. OSHA, in making
a determination on whether this system could be used to comply with the HCS, noted the
need for training to know what the symbols and the rating system means and therefore
confined its use to in-plant labeling only. The recommendations made by the workgroup
reinforce that decision and the necessity of training for the use of symbols/pictograms
and a specific numbering system.
While the workgroup does not believe that OSHA should mandate the use of symbols,
pictograms, or color coding at this time, it recognizes that such requirements may
ultimately be included in an internationally-harmonized hazard communication system. This
is likely to be the case since symbols are used in other major systems currently in place,
and there is a widespread belief that they can convey hazard information in a shorthand
form that alleviates concerns about literacy and comprehension. OSHA has informed us that
the United States position on this issue internationally has been that comprehensibility
testing be accomplished before symbols or text warnings are incorporated into the
harmonized system. The workgroup agrees with this approach. Therefore, the workgroup
recommends that:
5) OSHA should not unilaterally mandate the use of symbols for MSDSs and labels
until symbol validation studies are carried out. The United States should insist on
validation studies before symbols become part of an internationally-harmonized system.
Should symbols become part of a rule adopted by the US, OSHA should require employee
training on the meaning of the symbols.
6) The use of color coding systems as the sole means to communicate hazards of
a chemical should not be mandated for OSHA labels. Should color coding be a part of a rule
adopted under international harmonization efforts, OSHA should not make the color coding a
part of the US system until the validation studies are carried out and training is
required. Color coding should not be used as the sole means to communicate hazard to the
extent that a color blind person would be deprived of necessary information.
Some commenters suggested that MSDSs are redundant or unnecessary in some work
operations, and that employers should be allowed to rely solely on product labels to
comply with the HCS. OSHA noted that the standard already provides exceptions based on
perceived risk or practicality considerations in certain operations. For example,
businesses with multiple work sites would have labels on containers and MSDSs could be at
a central site or available on request (as per paragraph (g)(9) of the current standard).
(g)(9) Where employees must travel between workplaces during a workshift i.e. their
work is carried out at more than one geographical location, the material safety data
sheets may be kept at the primary workplace facility. In this situation, the employer
shall ensure that employees can immediately obtain the required information in an
emergency.
There is also an exception for work operations where employees only handle chemicals in
sealed containers which are not opened under normal condition of use (as per paragraph
(b)(4) of the current standard). In this situation the employer requests the material
safety data sheet for a hazardous chemical only if an employee requests one.
The workgroup considered several other situations where it may be feasible to rely on
the label without the MSDS being immediately available. However, the specifics of the
availability of the MSDSs and information needed for emergencies for the situations
discussed could not be resolved. It was decided that further experience with the exception
granted by the change in (g)(9) would need to be looked at, particularly in emergency
situations before it could be expanded to include other types of exceptions. Therefore,
the workgroup recommends that:
7) The workgroup supports the current hazard communication requirement for a
label attached to the container and the availability of an MSDS in the work area.
The workgroup also reviewed ANSI Standard Z129.1 - 1994 as an endorsable guideline for
the preparation of OSHA labels. The 1994 ANSI Standard contains guidance in preparation of
a label for immediate and delayed hazards and recommendations for the "target
organ" statements. The ANSI standard contains recommended wording for the various
parts of a label, a general example of what constitutes a label as well as examples of
various types of labels for different types of hazardous materials.
A label is designed to be a concise summary of the hazards of the chemical(s).
Presently, OSHA requires (paragraph (f)(1) of the standard) the identity of the hazardous
chemical, appropriate hazard warnings and name/address on the label of the chemical
manufacturer, importer or other responsible party. The workgroup believes that the help
provided in ANSI Z129.1-1994 for language to be used on the label and the guidance
provided in this ANSI guideline will improve the quality of labels.
The language chosen for labels is very important. The ANSI guidelines represents the
chemical industry standard for the preparation of the label and the standard is generated
by the same consensus method as that used for the MSDS standard.
Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
8) OSHA should endorse ANSI Z129.1-1994 as a consistent approach for precautionary labeling.
The workgroup also heard from representatives of the National Lumber and Building
Material Dealers' Association (NLBMDA) that sending labels with every shipment of treated
lumber is ineffective and counterproductive. The workgroup notes that OSHA considered this
issue in the 1994 revision of the HCS, and included an exemption for labeling every
shipment of solid wood. However, the Agency said that chemicals associated with the work
that present a hazard in transit, such as wood preservatives, would need to be labeled on
every shipment. This is to protect workers involved in the transport and handling of the
wood, as well as for the workers receiving it at the workplace. It is the view of the
workgroup that this exemption is appropriate as worded so no recommendation is being made.
During the hearings, several business representatives noted the difficulty of keeping
large numbers of MSDSs available at the worksite. A given work area may have hundreds of
chemical products, all requiring MSDSs. A chemical product may be used in a number of work
areas, requiring the company to copy and distribute the single MSDS received with the
shipment.
In addition, product formulations may change over time, necessitating new or revised
MSDSs. It may not be clear to a supervisor that these are replacement products, so the old
MSDSs are not removed from the file. Over time, the file becomes cluttered with MSDSs that
are outdated or for products no longer in use. This is not just a paperwork problem; it
also compromises safety in the event of an emergency, when a worker has to leaf through
scores of obsolete MSDSs to find the right one.
One answer is to utilize technology not available when the Hazard Communication
Standard was promulgated. In 1983, personal computers were just coming into use. Cellular
phones were not available. Fax transmissions were slow and of poor quality. The computer
databases that existed were accessed on large mainframes. All that has changed. Modern
information technology provides opportunities to manage MSDSs in a way that better
protects workers, while creating fewer burdens for an employer.
One possibility is to keep a single paper file of MSDSs available to any of the
employer's work areas via fax. An even more efficient system is to keep the MSDSs in an
electronic database and provide devices and printers in each work area. The paper file and
the electronic database could be managed by the company itself, or by a vendor.
Any centralized storage and access system should have the goal of improving employee
access, not just reducing the paperwork burden. The standard itself imposes important
requirements on any system for handling MSDSs, centralized or dispersed, paper or
electronic.
First, the MSDSs must be readily accessible to employees during their shifts. This does
not mean, as some have suggested, that an eight- hour delay in providing an MSDS is
acceptable. Rather that MSDSs should be accessible whenever employees are at work, no
matter what shift they happen to work on. The standard does not define "readily
accessible," but two Review Commission decisions suggest that in some cases, fifteen
minutes can be too long a delay. In short, any centralized system will have to be
available during all working hours. An emergency medical technician treating a worker at 2
am cannot afford to wait until the corporate MSDS manager arrives at the office at 9 am to
find and fax the right MSDS.
Second, the means to retrieve the MSDSs must also be readily accessible to employees.
For example, if access is provided through computer devices, a terminal must be provided
in each work area. Of course, employees must be trained to use the devices and the type of
software used to retrieve the MSDSs.
Third, the system should be reliable. Frequent computer crashes, power failures, or
phone connection problems would put the employer in violation of the standard.
Fourth, provisions must be made for emergencies. In theory, a centralized system may be
less susceptible to emergencies. For example, a fire in a particular work area could
destroy a paper file of MSDSs, but leave unscathed a centralized electronic system.
However, the employer must have a plan for retrieving the information rapidly if an
emergency, or maintenance of the system causes the shut-down of a terminal or phone line.
Finally, the use of a centralized system does not relieve the employer of the
obligation to receive and use the information from the MSDSs in the company's hazard
communication program. The point of a centralized system is to manage information more
effectively, not to ignore it. If a centralized system is used, it must be made a part of
an overall hazard communication program.
Appendix E emphasizes what the compliance officer expects to be in the written hazard
communication program. This includes identification of a person who is responsible for
obtaining and maintaining the MSDSs. This section should be modified to address issues
regarding employee access, including how the employees will be trained to use the computer
and use the specific software containing the employer's MSDSs. It also states that for
producers of products there must be procedures to update the MSDS and the label when new
and significant health information is found. Appendix E mentions that if you receive an
inadequate MSDS you should request from the producer an appropriately completed one. If
the producer fails to supply one, you should contact your local OSHA Area Office. OSHA
should also consider modifying Appendix E to discuss further the employer's
responsibilities to review the received MSDSs and integrate the information into the
hazard communication program. It should also emphasize use of the information to design
and implement appropriate protective programs.
The workgroup also discussed at length the request in the President's Report to address
whether the standard should be reopened to modify it to consider employers in compliance
if they give an employee access to an MSDS within 24 hours of a request, or immediately in
an emergency. While some workgroup members thought there were some situations where this
might be sufficient, i.e., where chemicals are less hazardous, or where the employer's
complete program is particularly effective, they did not agree that it would be
appropriate in all situations. Therefore, the workgroup did not include a recommendation
for OSHA to reopen the rule to address this suggestion.
As a practical matter, however, we believe that implementation of the recommendations
on electronic access through off-site MSDS management services accomplishes the same
purpose, i.e., eliminating the need to maintain volumes of hard-copy MSDSs in the
workplace. Given the current state of the art with electronic means for distribution and
management of MSDSs, for most work operations immediate access to MSDSs kept at a remote
site is both feasible and practical. Thus the developments in electronic access mechanisms
should allow employers a number of options for the maintenance of MSDSs, and for employee
access within a short period of time. It appears that the changes in technology bolster
the current provisions for immediate ready access, rather than suggesting that a change in
the standard is warranted to allow longer time periods for access.
While it was determined from discussions with OSHA staff that the current standard
clearly allows electronic access, there were comments made that some compliance officers
have decided that computer access is not sufficient because, in the event of a power
outage, MSDSs would not be accessible. OSHA needs to ensure that the enforcement policy
regarding electronic access is clarified for enforcement personnel. If OSHA adopts the
recommendation of this workgroup regarding electronic access which follows below, the
issue of access to information during a power outage will be required to be addressed in
each workplace where such a system is used.
The workgroup believes the Agency should continue to monitor developments in technology
and to encourage employers to take advantage of various means of electronic access to
comply with the standard.
Several small, medium, and large companies testified relative to the paper work burden
created by the Hazard Communication Standard. While electronic access may not alleviate
the absolute paper work burden as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, the
movement and storage of MSDSs in a paper format can be improved by electronic handling.
The use of faxes and electronic data bases should be encouraged. It should be remembered
that the MSDS is only one tool in protecting workers from hazards; the ultimate goal is
the training and assimilation of the information relating to the hazard so that the worker
can take proper precautions for himself.
The workgroup learned that there are many types of formats for MSDS data transfer,
including but not limited to:
- X12.848 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) format
- CMA COLD Tape format
- CMA Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) format
- CCITT Group 3 (Facsimile) and Group 4 Raster Image format
There are also many internal schemes used by the information system data bases that
store MSDS information for retrieval.
Furthermore, there are several technologies available to store and make available MSDS
data for retrieval by information systems, including but not limited to:
- Local Media, including fixed media (magnetic disks hard drives) or removable media (floppy disks, CD-ROMs, etc.).
- Local Area Network (LAN) Single-Site Storage, including proprietary network and intranet (TCP/IP) storage.
- Wide Area Network (WAN) Multiple-Site Storage, including proprietary network and intranet (TCP/IP) storage.
- Internet Storage (World Wide Web), including both privately and publicly URL accessible storage.
We are also certain that the mix of technologies proposed for access to MSDS data will change over time.
The workgroup wants to encourage these efforts within the requirements of the HCS. This
will mean that the employer must specifically assure in the written hazard communication
program that employee access by electronic means will have no barriers from lack of
training in use of the computer and its software. The employer must also give specific
details of their plans to provide hard copy of the MSDS and what steps will be taken to
provide the employee and any emergency personnel information when the computer is not available.
Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
9) OSHA should adopt the following policy regarding electronic access to MSDSs
in lieu of paper copies kept at the worksite:
- Working electronic devices must be readily accessible in the workplace at all times.
- All workers must be trained in the use of these devices (including the specific software).
- The employer must have an adequate backup plan for rapid access to MSDSs in the event of
emergency, including an interruption in power.
10) OSHA should adopt a policy that specifies that the use of off-site MSDS
management services, meets the requirements of the HCS only if MSDSs are readily available
to employees, either as hard copies in the workplace, or through electronic means as
described above (recommendation # 9). OSHA should make it clear that the use of an
off-site MSDS management service does not relieve the employer of the obligation to
receive and utilize the information from the MSDSs being managed to develop and implement
a site-specific hazard communication program under paragraph (e) of the HCS.
The workgroup discussed the suggestion, made by several commenters, for the creation of
a "national repository" which could contain all the MSDSs developed by industry
(chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, etc.) for chemical products used in the
United States. From this repository any MSDS could be obtained by the employer. OSHA
provided the workgroup information regarding a feasibility assessment prepared for the
Agency by Meridian Research, Inc.
The Meridian report stated that they found "no question that such a repository is
technologically feasible". The electronic methods to collect, store, and disseminate
MSDSs are now available. The problems arise with the question of whether or not the use of
the database will be supplemental, that is as an addition to the current system of
manufacturers sending paper or electronic copies, or if it will be mandatory, that is
required for every manufacturer to participate in its usage.
The utility of a national repository depends on the completeness of the collection of
MSDSs and the ease of access. The more complete the repository, the greater its benefits.
This could make a mandatory repository of great usefulness. However, this places a greater
burden on the small employer who, at a minimum, must have a computer and a
telecommunications linkup to obtain access to the system. A repository, even of the
replacement type, would shift much of the burden of hazard communication from the
producers, distributors, and importers of chemicals to employers and users of these
chemicals.
The workgroup's decision to have OSHA endorse a standardized format is a step in the
direction of helping to achieve a repository (a uniform required format for MSDS is
necessary to keep costs at a minimum), but there are more basic questions which would have
to be answered before a national repository could be accomplished. The basic questions
include:
- Whether submission of MSDSs to the repository would be mandatory or voluntary.
- Whether unique product identifiers (codes) should be required.
- Whether the repository should supplement or replace the current hard copy MSDS distribution system.
- Who would organize and sponsor the national repository.
Until these questions can be answered, the usefulness of a national repository remains
undefined. There are some commercial companies who have available some fraction of the
MSDSs necessary, but participation in these databases is voluntary and costs are
established by each vendor.
There are also a number of other problems associated with the idea of a national
repository. One involves liability for the accuracy of the information being transmitted.
This might be a particularly significant problem for OSHA if they were to establish a
repository because the implication could be that the Agency reviewed the MSDSs and agreed
that they are correct. OSHA would never have the resources necessary to review what may be
as many as 70 million MSDSs in a repository. If employers were to rely solely on this type
of national repository, there would also be a concern as to what would happen in an
emergency if the information could not be obtained in a timely fashion.
Another technical problem is the form in which the information will be transmitted.
Many of the issues regarding comprehensibility and readability of MSDSs are dealt with in
formatting, selecting appropriate sized type, judicious use of white spaces, and other
elements of document design. If a repository simply transmits the information in ASCII
text, for example, all of the document design adjustments for comprehensibility and
readability are lost.
The workgroup does not believe that the development of a national respository is a
viable suggestion for OSHA at this point, and does not recommend that the Agency pursue
such an activity.
Through testimony heard by the workgroup it appears that employers are having trouble
instituting effective training because of the lack of understanding of what kind of
training is required by the standard, and how to conduct effective training. Some
employers and employer representatives alike believe they have to train all employees on
every MSDS they receive, and that employees must memorize all the chemicals that are in
the facility, rather than understand the hazards of the chemical he/she is working with
and what precautions must be taken. Labor organizations have testified that the training
actually being done is in many cases insufficient, and this in part results from the
performance nature of the training language. Other problems include training that is not
geared to the education and skill level of the employees involved, and questions regarding
literacy and the primary language spoken by the employees.
In order to meet the requirements of the hazard communication standard, the employer
should train employees in some basic health and chemical principles by subject areas. With
an understanding of the basic principles, an employee will be better able to protect
themselves from chemical hazards. It should be noted that the following list of subjects
represents a minimum. Each of the subjects has several categories which will need to be
addressed. The employer will still be expected to communicate the essential information in
order that employees can safely perform their jobs. Just telling an employee that
flammable means a liquid having a flash point less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit is wholly
inadequate. Within the subject area of "flammable", for instance, it may be
necessary to discuss flash point, vapor pressure, lower explosive limit, upper explosive
limit, bonding and grounding, etc. Employees will need to be educated in the process they
are expected to perform. While this does not require that all employees be trained as
chemical engineers, it does mean that employees are expected to have a strong command of
these general subject areas and the specific hazards of their jobs.
General subjects should include:
Health Information
- Routes of entry - inhalation, absorption, ingestion
- Chronic effect
- Acute effect
- Target organs - carcinogen, irritants, sensitizer, corrosive, reproductive toxins
- Dose response
- Control measures - engineering controls, personal protective equipment
Chemical Information
- Flammable
- Combustible
- Corrosive
- Toxic
- Reactive
- Threshold limit values (TLV)/permissible exposure limit (PEL)
- Handling requirements/storage requirements
Site-Specific Training
In addition, the hazard communication standard requires that all employees be trained
in the following requirements which are site-specific:
- The location of the employer's written hazard communication program.
- The location of the material safety data sheets (MSDS).
- The in-house labeling system that the employer will utilize.
- Essential to the process of site-specific training of employees is the need to follow
good principles of training that include:
- A needs analysis which investigates what chemicals are in the workplace, how they are
used, and with what controls. A needs analysis must also determine the unique conditions
such as language, literacy levels, training equipment and facilities available, production
scheduling restraints, and potential training delivery methods and resources.
- Training development using content experts and employee participation.
- Piloting of training programs and evaluation of the pilot.
- An evaluation of the information retained by the employees upon completion of training
and long term retention.
Essential to the process of training employees is an evaluation of the information
retained by the employees once training is completed to determine that the workers know
what they are working with, what are the hazards, and how to protect themselves through
all aspects of their job requirements. The goal is to have an "effective"
training program. Training evaluation can include short tests, worker observations and
analyses of incidents involving employee chemical exposures, spills, fires, reactions,
etc.
Discovering if the training has been effective and the employees are retaining the
information given in the training, can also be accomplished by a brief quiz and performing
the actual steps required to provide adequate protection. The quiz must be viewed as a way
to assess the training not the employee. The following are some suggestions of topics that
should be included in the evaluation.
- Where is the written hazard communication program kept?
- Where are the material safety data sheets kept?
- Definition, purpose and use of an MSDS?
- What information can be found on an MSDS sheet?
- When is this chemical hazardous?
- When you spill this chemical, what should you do?
The training should be performance-based, creative, interactive, job-specific, and
tailored to the language and education level of the worker. Training must involve seeing,
hearing, and performing the actual steps required to provide adequate protection. The
workgroup believes that the standardization of the MSDS will make it easier for employers,
especially small businesses, to provide this training.
One of the most persistent misconceptions about the requirements of the HCS involves
how the training is to be conducted. The Hazard Communication Standard has never required
employers to provide specific training for each chemical in the workplace or on each MSDS
received. While this may be a preferable approach when there are only a few chemicals
present, it is not likely to be feasible in facilities where there are large numbers of
chemicals or where the chemicals change frequently.
It is unclear why so many people interpret the standard as requiring training on each
chemical. In paragraph (h)(1), the standard states that:
(h)(1) Information and training may be designed to cover categories of hazards
(e.g. flammability, carcinogenicity, etc.) or specific chemicals. Chemical-specific
information must always be available through labels and material safety data sheets.
Similar statements have been made by the Agency over the years in compliance directives
and preambles. It appears to the workgroup that this language is clear, and that OSHA's
intent is to allow employers to choose whether they train on each chemical or devise a
system based on categories of hazards to address larger numbers of chemicals.
Any training program must recognize the diversity of the workforce. Some workers are
deficient in basic skills, such as the ability to read or perform mathematical
calculations. Other workers may not be fluent in English. These workers have the same need
for, and the right to, good chemical safety and health training. OSHA did not include in
the HCS a requirement for labels and MSDSs in languages other than English. But the
performance-oriented aspect of the training provision would require training in languages
other than English, and special attention to the needs of workers without basic skills,
when that is necessary to ensure the training can be understood.
At the same time, the employer's evaluation of his or her training program should not
be used to assess or evaluate individual employees. The evaluation may depend on some sort
of test, but the purpose should be to determine whether the training was generally
comprehensible. Employees may not cooperate with the training if they believe it will be
used in a potentially discriminatory manner.
A number of comments were also received about what was referred to as the
"portability" of training, that is, what portions of the training program can be
reasonably addressed through generic training performed by someone other than the
employer. While the HCS itself does not address this issue, OSHA has included a discussion
of it in Appendix E:
An employer can provide employees information and training through whatever means
are found appropriate and protective. Although there would always have to be some training
on site (such as informing employees of the location and availability of the written
program and MSDSs), employee training may be satisfied in part by general training about
the requirements of the HCS and about chemical hazards on the job which is provided by,
for example, trade associations, unions, colleges and professional schools. In addition,
previous education and experience of a worker may relieve the employer of some of the
burdens of informing and training that worker. Regardless of the method relied upon,
however, the employer is always ultimately responsible for ensuring that employees are
adequately trained. If the compliance officer finds that the training is deficient, the
employer will be cited for the deficiency regardless of who actually provided the training
on behalf of the employer.
The workgroup believes that OSHA needs to address more specifically what portions of
the training it will allow to be performed off-site and by someone other than the
employer. For example, perhaps training about the types of hazards covered by the HCS
could be performed on a generic basis. Some members expressed concern about the extent of
training permitted to be met in this way, and wanted to emphasize the employer's continued
responsibility for ensuring employees are properly trained. The workgroup believes that
the discussions indicated there is confusion about this issue, and that OSHA should
address it in more detail to alleviate this confusion.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of training depends on the employer's design and
implementation of the training program. The workgroup has included two recommendations
that when implemented should help ensure better training under the HCS, and thus improve
the effectiveness. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
11) OSHA should develop "model training" programs, based upon the
best existing programs and the experience of educators, industry, labor, professional
organizations and others, which cover all aspects of the training required by the HCS.
Programs should include general elements directly usable by employees, guidelines to
assist employers in developing site-specific training and techniques which are sensitive
to employees without basic language and mathematical skills. Programs should also include
evaluation criteria to assess the overall effectiveness of the training provided. These
criteria should be added to non- mandatory Appendix E of the HCS. The program evaluation
should not be used to assess or evaluate individual employee performance.
12) OSHA should better communicate to industry, labor, professional
associations and CSHOs what portions of the training, as currently stated in Appendix E,
Part C, are meant to stay with the employee when he goes from one employer to another.
The Hazard Communication Standard has long been one of OSHA's most cited rules. This is
due in large part to the broad coverage of the standard. While most of OSHA's health
standards cover a small number of industries and facilities, the HCS applies to some 3.5
million establishments. This includes large and small businesses, as well as every
industrial sector.
Thus the number of citations is likely to be much larger than those for other standards
simply because of the breadth of coverage. On the other hand, however, there are a number
of stories about citations being issued for products that are seemingly innocuous, such as
dishwashing liquid. An additional concern expressed by small business representatives is
that citations of this type provide a disincentive for compliance. If an employer has made
a good faith effort to comply, and has a good hazard communication program, a citation may
still be
issued for a relatively minor deficiency, such as one missing label. Employers may
believe it is useless to expend the effort to comply if they will be penalized for small
oversights in an overall program. Thus the workgroup received input from a number of
public representatives that while the HCS itself did not need to be changed, OSHA's
enforcement practices should be reevaluated.
Based on presentations and information from OSHA's Office of Health Compliance
Assistance (HCA), the workgroup learned that some changes have already been implemented in
OSHA's approach to enforcing the standard. For example, OSHA may find that an employer has
implemented all of the requirements for labels, MSDSs and training, but has not completed
a written program. The Agency has issued directions to compliance officers that such
employers should not be cited for the missing written program. Other changes in the
approach to enforcement are being applied in the overall reinvention of OSHA and the
Agency's approach to compliance with any standards or regulations.
While the workgroup recognizes the activities of the Agency to address these
enforcement issues, it would like to make some recommendations that reinforce the
direction OSHA is already taking to change the way compliance is assessed.
An "overall" approach to enforcement and consistency
Because the HCS is a performance-oriented standard, both the employer and the
compliance officer must exercise professional judgment in applying its provisions to a
particular workplace. OSHA recognized the difficulty of applying the standard uniformly
when it was first being implemented. To help ensure consistency, the Agency assigned a
person in each Regional Office to be the Hazard Communication Coordinator. Presentation
materials were also developed and disseminated to the Regional and Area Offices.
Interpretations were made available in a central location, and a detailed compliance
directive was developed and periodically updated. The directive was also made publicly
available so employers would know how the standard was going to be applied.
While these efforts were significant, there have been a number of instances where the
standard has not been applied as intended when promulgated. It appears that these are
isolated cases, but they have been publicized to the detriment of the standard and the
Agency, and have caused misunderstanding in industry. Issuing citations for dishwashing
liquid and "white-out" has resulted in public campaigns to trivialize the
standard and its requirements, and to make the Agency appear to be pushing provisions that
bear little relationship to occupational safety and health.
The workgroup believes that the overall effectiveness of the hazard communication
program is what the compliance officer should be evaluating in the workplace. If the
compliance officer finds that a program is comprehensive and effective, then minor
deficiencies that can be quickly abated may not require the issuance of citations.
Assessing effectiveness must be an activity that goes beyond simply ascertaining
whether required pieces of paper are present in the workplace. The key is to determine
whether workers are familiar with the hazards in their workplaces, and know where and how
to obtain any additional information they may need to protect themselves. Interviews with,
and observations of, workers should be a measure in determining effectiveness. This is
already suggested in OSHA's instructions to compliance officers assessing the training
component of the hazard communication program.
If the employer demonstrates that employees are knowledgeable about the hazards, and
are following appropriate protective measures, the compliance officer may be able to
forego issuing a citation if the minor deficiency found does not affect the employees'
safety and health and is quickly abated. The workgroup anticipates that this might be a
situation such as a missing label or MSDS for a chemical posing little risk to exposed
employees. In such a situation, if the employer can obtain the missing label or MSDS
within 24 hours, OSHA could simply issue an advisory letter and put a notation in the case
file instead of citing the employer. This helps to ensure that employers do not need to
worry about a minor deficiency in an otherwise exemplary program, and thus provides
greater incentive to implement a comprehensive and effective program. Therefore, the
workgroup recommends that:
13) OSHA should adopt an enforcement policy for situations where an employer
has implemented a comprehensive and effective hazard communication program, but minor
deficiencies have been found. When these deficiencies do not affect the safety and health
of employees, and are abated within 24 hours, OSHA could issue an advisory letter and put
a notation in the case file rather than issuing a citation.
Poor quality of MSDSs, conflicting information on MSDSs from various suppliers, and
inaccuracies on MSDSs do occur. There was agreement among workgroup members that this was
their own experience as well. Certainly MSDS receivers have a right to expect accurate and
legible information on the MSDS. This information is necessary to protect their employees
from the hazards of the material and the information on which their hazard communication
program is built.
The testimony heard was supported by two studies conducted in 1991 examining the
accuracy and comprehensibility of Material Safety Data Sheets. The studies were conducted
by a contractor in conjunction with the National Center for Hazard Communication at the
University of Maryland University College.
The studies looked at the accuracy and completeness of information on 150 MSDSs in five
areas that may be crucial to the health of workers in contact with the hazardous
substances: 1) chemical identification of the hazardous ingredients; 2) reported health
effects of these ingredients; 3) recommended first aid procedures; 4) personal protective
equipment use; 5) exposure level standards and guidelines.
Of the 134 MSDSs with identifiable components (99 mixtures and 35 single chemical
substances), 49 (37 percent) were judged to present accurate health effects information,
22 (16 percent) presented partially accurate health effects information, and the remaining
MSDSs (63 or 47 percent) were judged to present inaccurate information. The health effects
information was the least accurate of the five information areas evaluated in the study.
Overall the study results showed that only 11 percent of the MSDSs were accurate in all
four information areas. The study did show that the more recently prepared MSDSs (1988 to
1990) showed a higher level of accuracy than those prepared earlier (1986 to 1987). This
study should probably be repeated with current MSDSs including those prepared in
accordance with ANSI Z400.1-1993.
The second study on comprehensibility of the MSDS was much more limited. A strong
influence in this study was the "substantial variability in the format of
MSDSs". It was found not to be possible "in any systematic way to control or
account for this factor". The workgroup finds this supportive of its recommendation
for a standard format. The results from this limited study and a literature search
conducted as part of the study indicated that, on average, about two thirds of the crucial
health and safety information presented on MSDSs is comprehended by workers. The
readability of MSDSs as well as worker literacy and reading grade levels appear to be
important factors in the comprehension of MSDSs by workers.
Some workgroup members believe the "forces of the market place" should be the
control for the quality of MSDSs. However, it can be inferred from those testifying that
MSDSs can vary dramatically in quality. OSHA can be instrumental in this issue by
recognizing the ANSI Standard for MSDSs and the ANSI Standard for labels as solving at
least part of the problems with quality and comprehensibility. The workgroup's
recommendation that OSHA continue to work with ANSI in adding information to the ANSI
standard on the specifics of the conduct of a hazard determination should help improve the
quality and completeness of MSDSs. CSHOs could then receive training on these ANSI
Standards and have available the publication (or software) prepared by OSHA for conduct of
the hazard determination in making their judgment of the quality of an MSDS.
The workgroup believes that the problems with small compounders and formulators will be
helped by the publication recommended to be put out by OSHA (see recommendation # 4).
Professional associations could offer outreach efforts to the small compounder and
formulator and make the OSHA publication readily available.
A periodic, random audit of the quality of MSDSs and questionnaires to users may be of
some assistance in determining an overall "state of the quality of MSDSs." The
biggest assist in improving the quality of MSDSs will come from the adoption of a standard
format such as ANSI and a harmonization of definitions between government agencies and
countries.
Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
14) OSHA should develop ways to address enforcement issues related to the
accuracy of MSDSs.
While it is clear that OSHA has expended a considerable effort to ensure consistent and
appropriate enforcement, many of these activities happened a number of years ago. It
appears to the workgroup that the Agency needs to revisit the issue of consistent
enforcement of hazard communication to ensure that its enforcement staff is approaching it
in the same manner. Thus the workgroup is recommending that OSHA repeat or continue a
number of the activities it has undertaken in the past to help address the perceived
shortcomings in its approach to enforcement.
These recommendations address several avenues of communication available to OSHA. The
first involves external outreach to ensure that the standard is being properly interpreted
and applied in the regulated community. The Agency needs to develop further outreach
efforts to ensure that misinformation and misinterpretations of the requirements do not
persist. This can be done through speeches, dissemination of written materials, or
development of audiovisual materials. For example, OSHA made available to the workgroup a
copy of the compliance kit it developed some years ago to assist small businesses in
complying with the HCS. The kit was sold through the Government Printing Office, and
thousands of copies were purchased. Perhaps the Agency could update and expand the kit,
and make a new version available. It might also be possible to have a software version
developed and made available to the public, including a fill-in-the-blank written program.
Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
15) OSHA should develop a system to address inconsistencies in implementation
through outreach efforts with employers, employees, trade associations and professional
societies.
OSHA also needs to address internal communication with the enforcement staff to ensure
that everyone has the most up-to-date information about the HCS and its application. For
example, the workgroup has recommended that OSHA endorse the ANSI standards for
preparation of labels and MSDSs. If the Agency implements those recommendations, it would
be appropriate to disseminate information to its enforcement staff about these standards
and how they interface with the requirements of the HCS. Therefore, the workgroup
recommends that:
16) OSHA should reemphasize the role of the Regional Hazard Communication
Coordinators to improve consistency of enforcement and interpretation of the HCS.
17) OSHA should increase internal communication via regularly scheduled staff
meetings and training sessions for CSHOs to improve consistency of enforcement and
interpretation of the HCS.
OSHA must make every effort to ensure that the standard is not inadvertently changed
through compliance interpretations, and that such interpretations give consistent
guidance. One example of the problem is the Memorandum issued March 21, 1995, by the
Directorate of Compliance Programs on "Documentation of Citations Related to the
Exposure to Hazardous Substances and Consumer Products", which seems to indicate
mistakenly that compliance officers must find actual evidence of injury or disease before
a citation can be issued for a consumer product. OSHA should ensure that its review
process will find any inconsistencies before compliance interpretations are issued.
One of the greatest areas of confusion is the extent to which the standard applies to
consumer products. The HCS currently exempts a consumer product from the requirements
under the following conditions:
(b)(6)(ix)Any consumer product or hazardous substance, as those terms are defined
in the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.) respectively, where the
employer can show that it is used in the workplace for the purpose intended by the
chemical manufacturer or importer of the product, and the use results in a duration and
frequency of exposure which is not greater than the range of exposure that could
reasonably be experienced by consumers when used for the purpose intended.
However, a number of individuals presenting testimony complained of having to keep
scores of MSDSs for ordinary household items. While the standard does not, in fact,
require MSDSs for most of these products under most conditions of use, many distributors
send MSDSs for all products, and employers often find it safer and easier to keep all
MSDSs. The workgroup does not think it wrong for employers to have on hand MSDSs for all
materials in the workplace, including consumer products. However, employers should know
which are required by the standard and which are not, and OSHA should not issue citations
for consumer products unless OSHA can document conditions of use meeting the definitions
of the standard.
OSHA has sometimes been criticized for doing just that. Sometimes the criticism is
unfair or misinformed. In some cases a consumer product like dishwashing liquid was mixed
with a variety of hazardous chemicals, and the citation was issued for the mixture. In
other cases, the product was used in a manner, or in an amount that went far beyond
ordinary household use and the citation was genuine. However, in some instances, the
citations were issued when there was no documentation about the exposure or about the
particular hazards of the chemical. Most of these citations were later withdrawn, but they
should never have been issued at all. OSHA could remedy this situation by issuing clear
guidance to the field, which was the objective of the March 21, 1995 memorandum described
above. OSHA should distribute an information bulletin to employers and employees with
plain-language guidance on consumer products.
Any interpretations that are made should not change the basic requirements of the
standard. It would be both technically and procedurally inappropriate to do so. Since
compliance interpretations do not appear to involve a formalized participatory or
deliberative process where all involved parties can express their views, the Agency should
not be able to change, through interpretations, the requirements developed through the
rulemaking process. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
18) OSHA should ensure that the Hazard Communication Standard is not
inadvertently changed through compliance interpretations. OSHA should review the
compliance memoranda previously issued and take any necessary steps to correct past
confusion and inconsistencies.
19) OSHA should review the guidance given to compliance officers in the area of
consumer products. When the review is finished, OSHA should distribute an information
bulletin describing the application of the HCS to consumer products.
While the workgroup believes that OSHA needs to increase its external and internal
outreach as indicated above, it also thinks that implementation of the standard would be
benefited by the establishment of partnerships with employer and employee organizations.
There are a number of employer groups in certain industries who believe they have specific
implementation problems that need to be addressed. OSHA could establish partnerships with
these groups to work together with them to resolve the implementation problems and
encourage better compliance in those industries. The workgroup is aware that OSHA has done
this on an informal basis with many groups in the past, but believes that formally
recognized partnerships may be more beneficial for the Agency and the standard in the
long-term. Identification of employers in these industries who have been able to comply
effectively, and dissemination through trade association publications of ways to adapt the
standard to particular industry work operations, may be a useful type of partnership
activity.
The ideal compliance situation is where OSHA, industry, and labor work together to
achieve the implementation of well-designed hazard communication programs. This can't
really happen if OSHA, industry, and labor do not communicate. We are hopeful that
increased partnerships between OSHA and employers and employees, which may be achieved
through work with their trade associations or various professional associations or
employee associations, will help to achieve the goal of a well-designed hazard
communication program in every workplace. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
20) OSHA should utilize hazard communication as another opportunity to develop
partnerships between OSHA, industry, labor and professional associations for more
effective communication.
OSHA has estimated that there are as many as 650,000 hazardous chemical products in
distribution in the United States. In order to protect workers handling the chemicals at
various stages in the distribution chain, and members of the public who are potentially
exposed to the chemicals during transportation and use, a number of US Federal laws,
standards, and regulations have been implemented. In addition to OSHA's HCS, EPA, DOT,
CPSC, and FDA all have requirements related to hazard classification and labeling.
A number of other countries have developed information-based regulatory schemes to
protect workers and the public from hazardous chemicals. While all of these laws are
similar in intent (i.e., they are designed to protect people from experiencing adverse
effects), there are significant differences in the specific provisions.
The result is a patchwork of conflicting and diverse national and international
requirements. Because of the variations in classification criteria, the same chemical may
be classified as having different degrees of hazard, and require different warning
statements, depending on the classification system being applied in a given situation. The
differences multiply when the warning statements themselves are considered. Symbols and
terminology vary from system to system. Therefore, in order to market or ship a product,
companies must grapple with these different systems and attempt to develop labels and
material safety data sheets to satisfy the varying requirements. Currently, that generally
means having multiple labels for domestic shipments, and three or more sets of labels and
data sheets for products that are marketed in the US, Canada and Europe. This is a
difficult compliance burden which small companies in particular are not well-equipped to
handle due to the complexities and costs involved.
In addition to concerns about trade, the proper protection of workers and other users
of chemicals is a primary consideration. Consistency in approach, and provision of
complete information, will eliminate much of the confusion that users now experience as a
result of dealing with conflicting or incomplete warnings. This confusion can ultimately
jeopardize safety.
The workgroup has been informed by OSHA of a number of activities the Agency
participates in that are related to international harmonization. For example, OSHA is an
active member of an interagency committee convened by the State Department to coordinate
US government positions on harmonization in various international fora. The State
Department committee includes representatives of all of the Federal agencies with hazard
classification and labeling requirements. The workgroup believes that this committee
should be made a permanent one, and that OSHA should continue to actively participate. In
addition, OSHA should continue its work in the international agencies to support
international harmonization and achieve an internationally harmonized system of hazard
classification and labeling.
While the internationally harmonized system is the ultimate goal, the workgroup
believes that any degree of harmonization would improve the current situation. Thus if the
international process should be postponed or halted, the workgroup believes that OSHA and
the US government should work to achieve a North American System. And if for some reason
this cannot be accomplished, the US government should, at a minimum, achieve harmony of
domestic agency requirements.
Thus a tiered approach is most appropriate to accomplishing harmonization. Therefore,
the workgroup recommends that:
21) OSHA should continue to actively pursue domestic and international
harmonization of requirements for classification of hazards, labeling, and material safety
data sheets.
- To achieve the greatest possible benefits in terms of improved protection and
decreased compliance burdens, global harmonization is the preferable approach. This would
also accomplish North American harmonization and harmonization of domestic Agencies' requirements.
- If global agreement is not reached, the United States should work with Canada
and Mexico under NAFTA to achieve a North American system.
- If NAFTA negotiations are not successful, the United States should, as a
minimum, harmonize the existing requirements of different Federal agencies.
Harmonization of OSHA Requirements
In addition to the lack of harmony between international and domestic agency
requirements, there appears to be confusion related to the substance-specific occupational
health standards which were developed prior to the HCS. These standards may have different
types of labeling and training requirements, and no requirement for an MSDS. OSHA
addressed this issue in the HCS by indicating that the requirements of these
substance-specific standards must be followed for labeling. In terms of MSDSs and
training, the requirements of the HCS would supplement the requirements of the
substance-specific standards.
Standards which have been promulgated since the HCS have generally referred to the
hazard communication requirements and reiterated that they apply to the substance being
regulated. This has been done in different ways, however, and there appear to be some
inconsistencies.
The differing approaches to hazard communication in the substance-specific standards
have led to some confusion among employers about which standard takes precedence, and
whether the requirements really are different or are simply stated differently.
Other standards under the jurisdiction of OSHA may also contain some inconsistencies
with hazard communication. One of these is related to the storage requirements of
"flammable material". This standard contains an inconsistency in the definition
of flammable and combustible. This type of inconsistency also needs to be addressed by
OSHA for clarification and consistency in training programs. Therefore, the workgroup
recommends that:
22) OSHA should review its substance-specific standards and other
classification and labeling requirements and take action to make sure they are consistent
with the Hazard Communication Standard. In addition, we recommend that future standards
address the issue in a consistent manner.
The workgroup found that a number of comments made by interested parties were based on
misinformation or misconceptions about the requirements of the Hazard Communication
Standard (HCS). Some of these have already been highlighted in the discussion of issues
above. This has been a longstanding problem for the Agency, and OSHA at one point
distributed fact sheets to counter some of the more frequent misstatements about the
standard's requirements. The genesis of these incorrect interpretations varies. In some
cases, it may be a genuine misunderstanding of the regulatory text. In others, however, it
appears that incorrect statements have been made deliberately to skew perceptions of the
standard's requirements and to make it appear unreasonable or unnecessary.
For example, a statement regarding the HCS was included in the Congressional Record
several years ago which noted that the standard required employers to train their
employees not to stick their heads in buckets of water because they might drown. This was
clearly a colorful statement that drew people's attention, but it is completely untrue.
Some of the other examples given in various contexts have indicated a lack of information
about the hazards of the chemicals involved. A further note in the Congressional Record
questioned the coverage of oxygen by the HCS, because everyone has to breathe oxygen and
it therefore is not hazardous. But oxygen is covered because it is in compressed gas
cylinders, and as such it presents hazards associated with compression. In particular,
when there is a fire involving such cylinders there are serious hazards involved.
The workgroup believes that OSHA needs to address these types of interpretations
directly to counter the dissemination of misleading and incorrect information about the
standard. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that:
23) OSHA should develop a system to combat the spread of
"misinformation" about the Hazard Communication Standard by instituting a
systematic way of addressing both the misconceptions and misinformation through outreach
efforts with industry, labor and professional associations.
Small Businesses
Various small businesses and their related trade associations had a common theme to
their testimony (both written and oral) to this workgroup for relief from some of the
requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard. They based their request on the
following factors which they perceive to be unique for small businesses:
- Smaller size makes cost of compliance a greater percentage of overall profit.
- Exposures to hazardous chemicals are lower than at large industrial sites.
- Quantities of chemicals handled are smaller.
- Variety of chemicals handled are less.
- Automated systems to handle data/documents are too costly for small business.
A number of the small businesses suggested that partial exceptions could be made for
their special circumstances based on one or more of the factors cited above.
The workgroup was mindful of these issues and concerns as they discussed the
recommendations. Of equal concern was the level of protection afforded employees exposed
to hazardous chemicals regardless of where they work. We believe that a number of the
recommendations address some of the concerns raised, although they may not be the same
remedy that the small business representatives suggested to address them.
These recommendations include additional OSHA outreach programs, development of model
training programs (including OSHA hazard type), identification of OSHA hazard type on the
MSDS, clarification of electronic access to MSDS, and enforcement practices which allow
for assessment of overall program effectiveness with no penalty for minor deficiencies.
These recommendations should ease the burden of compliance on small businesses, and they
are discussed in detail in other sections of this report.
Small Quantity Exemptions
One of the issues raised by both small business representatives and OSHA's Office of
Health Compliance Assistance was the possibility of a small quantity exemption. OSHA noted
that this is not a new issue for consideration. The Agency included questions about small
quantity exemptions in the request for information it published in 1990. Interestingly,
while about 600 comments were received in total, only half of the respondents addressed
the questions dealing with small quantity exemptions. And half of those objected to such
an exemption. Thus only about one out of four respondents supported such an approach. And
OSHA did not find any suggestions that it considered viable to implement such an approach
in the supportive comments.
There are some valid points on both sides of this issue. For example, handling only
small quantities can lessen the risk of overexposure to harmful levels of a chemical. An
obvious exception to this concept would be if the chemical is extremely hazardous at very
low exposure levels. Thus, to provide a small quantity exception both factors of quantity
handled versus the level of hazard presented by a chemical would have to be considered.
Another factor complicating the possibility of finding a appropriate solution in this area
would be the type of use or length of exposure in the related industry.
As one of the workgroup members noted, allowing a small quantity exemption based on
risk and determination of exposure over time would create more work for small businesses
rather than less. It would be easier to keep the MSDS for the product rather than
attempting to quantify amounts and exposures, and determining whether the chemical posed
one of the more serious hazards covered under the rule. Ultimately, the workgroup decided
that a small quantity exemption that could be uniformly applied in all workplaces could
not be identified. In addition, workgroup members agreed that all workers deserve equal
protection, and they could not quantify any small quantity exception at this time that
would balance the above factors appropriately. Therefore, the workgroup does not agree
that an across-the-board small quantity exemption should be developed, and further
believes that such an exemption could actually increase the compliance burdens associated
with the standard.
Issues Related to OSHA's Federal Register Notice on Paperwork Burden
OSHA published a Request for Comments Notice in the Federal Register of March 13, 1996,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, regarding the continuing collection of
information for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Since the workgroup was asked to
make recommendations related to reducing the paperwork burden of the HCS, OSHA provided
the 13 comments that were received in response to the notice to the workgroup for
consideration during its deliberations.
The workgroup noted that issues related to assessing the paperwork burden of the rule
under the Paperwork Reduction Act were quite different than addressing the perceived
paperwork burden of employers complying with the HCS. For example, the workgroup believes
that the recommendations it has made with regard to electronic access will address the
perceived paperwork burden for maintenance of MSDSs by employers. However, for purposes of
assessing paperwork burden, an electronic record is still counted the same as a paper copy
and thus electronic access provisions do not decrease OSHA's assessed burden hours. This
seemed to be an important distinction in our discussions, and it appeared to be more
appropriate to address the issues of concern to employers rather than the accounting
mechanism employed for assessing burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Thus as has
already been noted in the discussions above, a number of the workgroup's recommendations
address such issues.
A number of the issues raised by the 13 respondents to the notice were similar to those
that the workgroup already heard during the public meetings or in written comments
provided previously. However, several comments were received that urged OSHA to reduce the
paperwork burden seemingly created by the MSDS downstream requirements of the HCS by
undertaking a rulemaking that would have as its model the DOT Emergency Response
Information (ERI). This is a requirement under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;
49 CFR 172.600).
The workgroup was requested to comment, and if appropriate to make recommendations
regarding this suggestion.
The purposes of the HMR and the HCS are different. The requirements of the two agencies
safeguard people from hazardous chemicals at different times during the life cycle of the
chemical. Through the HMR, DOT is required to protect the public from materials posing an
unreasonable risk to life and property when they are transported in commerce. During
transport, hazardous materials are to be contained in sealed containers. That is not the
case in the workplace. OSHA's HCS was implemented to prevent employee's injuries and
illnesses by providing them with information about the hazardous chemicals they are
exposed to while working.
The ERI required by the HMR is information that can be used in the mitigation of a
hazardous material emergency and must contain, as a minimum, the following information:
- Basic description (as prescribed by the HMR) and technical name of the hazardous
material;
- Immediate hazard to health;
- Risk of fire or explosion;
- Immediate precautions to be taken in case of an accident or incident;
- Immediate methods for handling fires;
- Immediate methods for handling spills or leaks in the absence of fires; and
- Preliminary first aid measures.
This information must be immediately available during any phase of transportation.
The emergency information required by DOT, except for the basic description of the
hazardous material, is largely required in MSDSs. In fact, DOT allows the use of the MSDS
for emergency information purposes if all the required information is contained therein.
In practice, the most used document is the North America Emergency Response Guidebook
(NAERG)(1996). The NAERG is an emergency response guidance document, developed by DOT,
that contains the required emergency information. Its entries are cross-referenced with
two elements of the DOT hazardous material basic description (proper shipping name and
identification number) which is required information on the material's shipping papers. In
many cases, the NAERG responses are not chemical specific, but are generic by hazard
class. The NAERG is to be used by first responders at the accident scene. It should be
noted that DOT and OSHA do not regulate necessarily the same hazards. Nor is the
definition of the same hazard identical between the two standards. DOT regulates
immediate/acute and environmental hazards as well as hazards resulting from adverse
effects by chemicals on the materials of construction of containers (e.g., corrosion).
These hazards would be the ones of concern when a contained hazardous material is involved
in a transportation accident. The information provided on the MSDS covers acute and
chronic hazards, exposure limits, physical and chemical properties of a hazardous
chemical, and other information associated with the need of workers to protect themselves
from exposure to hazardous chemicals in the workplace. A chemical regulated by OSHA is not
one necessarily regulated by DOT (e.g., a skin irritant).
Because of the different situations they are designed to address, the MSDS and NAERG
cannot replace each other.
A 24-hour emergency response telephone number is required by DOT to be entered on the
shipping papers of a hazardous material as part of the ERI. The phone must be answered by
a person with knowledge or immediate access to a person with knowledge about the hazardous
material and who has comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation information
of an organization capable of accepting responsibility for providing the information
required. Many shippers have chosen to use the Chemical Manufacturers Association's
CHEMTREC® as the 24-hour emergency phone number. These shippers supply their MSDSs and
phone numbers for one or more 24-hour contacts to that organization as a resource for the
first line of product-specific information after a transportation incident. The shipper is
immediately contacted by CHEMTREC® for providing further in-depth information to the
emergency personnel at the accident site. CHEMTREC® can provide information from other
resources such as Micromedex's TOMES PLUS® by FAX and make contacts with other experts
such as the Bay Area Regional Poison Control Center in San Francisco by means of
teleconference 24 hours every day.
The DOT Emergency Response system is very efficient for emergency situations. However,
it would not be appropriate for a program such as the HCS mandated to provide information
to workers about the hazardous chemicals in their workplace. In another section of this
Report, the issue of employee access in the workplace to the information provided by the
MSDS (whether in hard copy or by electronic means) is discussed. The MSDS contains
information that serves as reference to exposed workers and assists employers in
developing appropriate training programs and health and safety practices for their
employees in emergency and non-emergency situations. The viability of a national, central
repository of MSDSs is also discussed elsewhere in this Report. The workgroup does not
feel that the DOT Emergency Response Information system can be used to comply with the
purpose of the HCS, and does not recommend that OSHA follow the suggestions made in the
comments received to proceed with rulemaking based on the DOT system.
A comment was also received that mentioned the advantage of the DOT system in that each
product/package must bear a WARNING label with instructions for safe usage and safe
disposal in non-technical language. The label required by DOT is a diamond on point with a
colored background and a pictogram representing the hazard of the hazardous material. A
number representing the hazard class or division of the primary hazard must be placed in
the lower corner. The name of the hazard class is permissible but not required. No
instructions for usage or disposal are required by DOT.
In the final analysis, both the OSHA and DOT systems are useful in their respective
spheres. While they could be further harmonized in accordance with recommendation 21,
neither system could replace the other at this time.
PART VI - CONCLUSION
The workgroup believes that these recommendations respond fully to the tasks outlined
in the President's Report, and the September 28, 1995, Federal Register notice.
Development of these recommendations in the short time allotted has been a challenge,
particularly since the issues regarding the HCS are complex and complicated, and the
rule's current provisions are based on a long and involved rulemaking process. The
workgroup members believe that the HCS has had a significant positive impact on worker
safety and health by providing information to employers to design protective measures, and
by giving workers the right-to-know the hazards and identities of the chemicals in their
workplaces. We have focused on improving implementation of hazard communication and worker
right-to-know in the workplace, and have tried to balance concerns raised about regulatory
burdens with the need to maintain the levels of worker protection.
In particular, recommendations 1-4, 9, 10, and 21 are aimed at simplifying the
preparation and use of MSDSs by endorsing an effective and uniform format, providing
guidance in the hazard determination that is key to an accurate MSDS, stimulating the use
of modern information technology, and moving toward an internationally-harmonized hazard
communication system.
Recommendations 2, 9, 19 and 23, should help reduce unnecessary paperwork by better
designating which MSDSs are required to be kept under the standard, allowing electronic
access, giving better guidance to employers on consumer products, and combating general
misinformation about the standard. Recommendation 2 on designation of type of hazard which
can be directly related to "generic" training should also improve training
effectiveness.
Recommendations 11 and 12 are designed to improve the effectiveness of training through
model training programs, and a clarification of what parts of the training are generic and
what parts are specific to the individual workplace.
Enforcement issues are addressed by recommendations 13-20, which discuss common sense
enforcement, the accuracy of MSDSs, consistency in compliance directives and enforcement
generally, and the need for reliable guidance for the regulated community.
Recommendations 5-8 generally pertain to labels. This subject was not specifically
mentioned in OSHA's charge to the workgroup. However, effective labels are essential to
hazard communication, and labeling was discussed by many participants in the public
hearing phase of our deliberations.
The workgroup also discussed the request in the President's Report to consider whether the standard should be reopened to modify it to allow employers 24
hours to give an employee a material safety data sheet upon request (or immediately in an
emergency), and decided it was not appropriate to recommend that the rule be reopened for
that purpose.
In addition to these areas in the President's Report, OSHA gave the workgroup copies of
the comments received in response to its notice on the paperwork burden of the standard
under requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. As discussed above, the workgroup does
not agree with the suggestions of a number of those commenters that the standard should be
modeled on requirements under DOT.
Most of the workgroup's recommendations can be adopted administratively. None of them
requires a costly and time-consuming rulemaking. Thus, they can be implemented relatively
quickly. In fact, the workgroup believes that a new rulemaking at this time would be
unwise given OSHA's limited resources. A large number of countries and international
organizations are currently working toward the international harmonization of chemical
classification and labeling. It is likely that the HCS will have to be modified eventually
to conform to a globally harmonized system. OSHA can gain more by participating fully in
this work than by making regulatory changes that might well be obsolete within a few
years.
OSHA is in a position where through policy and leadership it can affect
major changes in the quality of hazard communication programs. The concepts, ideas, and
recommendations discussed in this report can assist OSHA in exercising its leadership
role. Technology, the composition and content of work, and work organization, are changing
in the American workplace. OSHA must consider all of these factors as it moves forward
with implementation of the Hazard Communication Standard in the future.
Chair, Henry B. Lick,
Ph.D.
Manager of Industrial Hygiene
Ford Motor Co.
15000 Century Drive
Room 104
Dearborn, MI 48120-1220
Phone: (313) 594-6961
Fax: (313) 390-4237 |
Andrea K. Taylor,
Dr.P.H.
Occupational Health Policy Consultant
Health and Safety Department
United Autoworkers
8000 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48214
Phone: (313) 926-5566
Fax: (313) 824-4473 |
Michael J. Wright
Director of Health, Safety & Environment
United Steelworkers of America
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 562-2580
Fax: (412) 562-2584 |
Kenneth J. Zeller
Indiana Commissioner of Labor
402 W. Washington Street
Room W195
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 232-2378
Fax: (317) 233-3790 |
Dr. Adria C. Casey,
President
Catala Associates, Inc.
144 Dogwood Lane
Moneta, VA 24121
Phone: (540) 721-1532
Fax is same, but may experience difficulty |
Pat Dsida,
President
ChemADVISOR, Inc.
750 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238-1333
Phone: (412) 826-3750
Fax: (412) 826-3753 |
Linda Hanavan,
Manager
TSCA and International Inventory
compliance
Cytec Industries, Inc.
Five Garret Mountain Plaza
West Paterson, NJ 07424
Phone: (201) 357-3373
Fax: (201) 357-3057 |
Whitney Long,
Manager
Health Affairs
Replaced by Skip Edwards, Manager
Safety and Health starting March '96
National Paint and Coatings Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 462-6272
Fax: (202) 328-0587 |
Max Lum,
Associate Director
Health Communications, NIOSH
200 Indiana Avenue, SW, RM 317B
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: (202) 401-0721
Fax: (202) 260-1898 |
Adrienne Markowitz,
Director of Health and Safety
Retail, Wholesale
and Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
30 E. 29th Street
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 684-5300
Fax: (212) 779-2809 |
Ileana O'Brien
Deputy Commissioner of Labor
State of Maryland
501 St. Paul Place, 4th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 333-4193
Fax: (410) 333-1771 |
Donald Rainville,
President
Universal Dynamics, Inc.
P.O. Box Drawer X
Woodbridge, VA 22194-0396
Phone: (703) 491-2191
Fax: (703) 490-7001 |
Brad Sant, Director
Hazardous Materials Training
Firefighters Union, AFL-CIO
1750 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 737-8484
Fax: (202) 637-0839 |
Dr. Michele R. Sullivan
Director of Product Stewardship
Hoechst Celanese Corporation
P.O. Box 2500
Somerville, NJ 08878-1258
Phone: (908) 231-4480
Fax: (908) 231-2409 |
Margaret Samways
RMS Systems, Inc.
640 Pennridge Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15211
Phone: (412) 431-5518 |
A. Thayre Talcott
Talcott Associates
3816 Jefferson Avenue
Midland, MI 48640
Phone: (517) 835-9635
Fax: (517) 835-9635 |
R. Greg Watson
Supervisor of Product Safety and Risk Assessment
AlliedSignal, Inc.
101 Columbia Road
Morristown, NJ 07972
Phone: (201) 455-4860
Fax: (201) 455-3345 |
|
Joanne Goodell
Directorate of Policy
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Room N3641
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: (202) 219-8021
Fax: (202) 219-4383 |
Jennifer Silk
Directorate of Health Standards
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Room N3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: (202) 219-7174
Fax: (202) 219-7125 |
Background
The Hazard Communication
Standard (HCS) occupies a unique position in OSHA's health standards' rulemaking
history.
- It covers more workers than any other single health standard--about 35 million of them
exposed to hazardous chemicals in over 3.5 million establishments.
- It covers all industries, and all sizes of facilities. For many employers, it was the
first time they thought an OSHA rule applied to them.
- It is a performance-based standard, establishing goals for compliance but providing
minimal specifications for how employers are to reach those goals. This requires employers
to use professional judgment to comply, and OSHA CSHOs to use the same type of judgment to
enforce the rule.
- It is a generic standard, covering approximately 650,000 hazardous chemical products.
Hazards are defined, not listed by product, so the scope increases as new products that
meet the definitions of hazard are developed.
- It includes a downstream flow of information, i.e., chemical manufacturers are required
to prepare and provide information about their products to employers using them.
- It involved discussion of some controversial and unique issues, such as preemption of
state laws in non-state plan states and trade secret protection.
- Its "success" in any given workplace depends on people modifying their
behavior when they receive information. Employers must use the information to provide
better employee protection. Employees must use the information to participate in the
protective programs. Together, these actions will result in a decrease of
chemically-related illnesses and injuries.
- Congress used the HCS to define the scope of EPA's community right-to-know requirements
under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. This greatly
expanded the target audience for the information to emergency responders and local
planning authorities.
- The HCS is Thus a Big Target
- The standard is "big" in every way. It covers a lot of employers and a lot of
workers. It covers many hazardous chemicals. It's OSHA's most cited standard.
- OSHA has spent 12 years in rulemaking, from the proposal in March 1982, to the third
final rule in 1994. In the intervening years, the rule was objected to, scrutinized, and
criticized in every available forum, both legal (up to and including the Supreme Court),
and administrative/political (OMB Executive Order review, paperwork hearings,
congressional oversight, GAO studies). The Courts have endorsed the reasonableness of the
Agency's interpretations of the standard.
- The source of the criticisms and the substance of them changed over time. Initially,
worker representatives objected to the scope being limited to manufacturing. After the
1987 expansion, non-manufacturing employers, particularly in small businesses, objected to
being covered. The arguments are:
...MSDSs are too technical; look different; vary in content.
...There's too much paperwork.
...OSHA covers too many substances; no risk to employees for many. Validity of the Criticisms
- The Agency and the regulated community have learned a lot about hazard communication
since the rule was first promulgated. There is always room for improvement.
- The approach that seemed most appropriate in the initial rule for
manufacturers--performance-oriented requirements that would not disturb existing label and
MSDS practices--did not prove to be the best for users. A more standardized approach to
labels and MSDSs would improve the information provided on hazardous chemical products.
- Many of the problems recited are related to enforcement rather than to the requirements
of the rule. While these cases are seemingly isolated, some citations have been issued for
products that are not or should not be covered, or for other minor aspects of an otherwise
effective hazard communication program.
- The perception of those not familiar with the HCS is that OSHA is covering products that
do not pose a harm to any worker, and employers thus have to maintain extensive paperwork
that is useless.
...MSDSs are often provided for products that are not hazardous under the standard.
Manufacturers do this for a number of reasons, including product liability concerns. Some
of the critics assume that any data sheet is required under the rule--they don't realize
that the mere existence of a data sheet is not an indication that the product is
hazardous. Employers may believe that they are required to maintain this additional
paperwork under the HCS requirements when that is not true.
Other Factors
- Hazard communication is intended to be a dynamic process, not a one-time shot in the
workplace. Awareness of the hazards of chemicals in the workplace, and of appropriate
precautionary measures, should be a way of business for all employers.
- The standard should be similarly dynamic. Its performance orientation allows employers
and the Agency to develop new and more effective ways of complying with or interpreting
the rule. As new technology or information related to the rule develops, so should
employers' programs.
- OSHA should continue or initiate activities to respond to legitimate criticisms and do
what is necessary to ensure the HCS is up-to-date and effective. In addition, OSHA should
try to address the other criticisms to correct the misconceptions regarding the rule.
...Establishment of the NACOSH work group on hazard communication is a key component of
the Agency's plans to address the issues raised in the Presidents' Report, as well as
brought up by other individuals or organizations. The work group will have the opportunity
to hear and to question individuals and organizations with suggestions regarding effective
hazard communication, and to prepare a report with recommendations for Agency actions to
address these issues. After review and clearance by the full NACOSH committee, the report
will be submitted to OSHA. The President's Report
- The President's Report raises four issues for consideration by the NACOSH work group to
address. It should be noted that while these issues need to be covered, the work group may
also consider any other areas of concern that are raised or discussed. These issues are
not intended to be limiting in terms of the charge to the work group.
- Simplify material safety data sheets. As mentioned above, material
safety data sheets have been a primary source of comment and criticism from employers
using chemicals, as well as employees. They are often found to be too long, too detailed,
and too difficult to read and understand. In part, this is because the sheets have
multiple audiences, i.e., must provide employees information but must also serve as a
primary data source for health professionals working with exposed employees. Their
information needs are different, and the presentation of the information is thus of
necessity different as well. But beyond these differences in audiences, there are
legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy of the information, as well as the
comprehensibility. Some of these have been addressed in the ANSI standard on material
safety data sheets. The work group will need to determine what OSHA could do to improve
the presentation of information on material safety data sheets.
- Reduce the amount of required paperwork. This issue is related
primarily to material safety data sheets. As mentioned previously, many material safety
data sheets in circulation are for products that are not covered by the HCS. These are
often the ones that are used as examples of coverage that is too broad, or paperwork
requirements that are excessive. For example, data sheets are available for many articles
such as floor mats, light bulbs, and electrical equipment. These products are not covered
by the HCS since there is no potential for employee exposure. But the existence of data
sheets gives the perception of coverage. The work group needs to determine if there are
ways to reduce the amount of required paperwork, or to address the issue of paperwork that
is provided but not required.
- Improve the effectiveness of worker training. Effective training is
critical to ensuring that employees understand and can use the information presented on
labels and material safety data sheets. While many employers have devoted much time and
effort to training employees, there has been relatively little effort expended to assess
whether this training has been effective. The work group needs to address this issue by
providing recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the hazard communication
training provided by employers.
- Revise enforcement policies to focus on the most serious hazards. This
issue is also related to the perception that the HCS covers chemicals that are not
hazardous or pose minimal hazards in the workplace. While there are legitimate concerns
about focusing on products that do not pose a hazard, the lack of information about the
hazards of a chemical presents problems for using employers as well. It is difficult to
make decisions about the appropriate handling of a chemical when the hazards are not
known. Some of the concerns raised are related to the coverage of consumer products which
OSHA has addressed in guidance to the field (described below). The work group should
determine whether there are other products where additional guidance is needed regarding
enforcement policies, or other ways to address this issue through enforcement policies.
Related Activities
International Harmonization of Hazard Communication Requirements
When OSHA adopted the first final rule in 1983, it included in the preamble a
commitment for the Agency to reopen the rule if the opportunity arose for international
harmonization of hazard communication requirements. This was done at the behest of the US
Trade Representative, and since that time, OSHA has actively participated in US government
efforts to pursue harmonization.
- Under current laws, there are a number of US agencies that are involved in hazard
communication from some perspective. While OSHA has the most comprehensive standard--and
one of the biggest target audiences--CPSC covers consumer products; DOT covers chemicals
in transport; FDA covers foods, drugs, and cosmetics; and EPA covers pesticides, as well
as having as yet unused authority for labeling under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
These regulations are all done under different statutory mandates, and they frequently
have different results. A chemical may be considered flammable for purposes of
transportation, for example, but not for workplace or consumer products because of
differences in hazard classifications. This is a major compliance burden for chemical
manufacturers, distributors, and transporters.
- There are many countries that have laws similar to the HCS in that they require labels
or other written information. Canada, Australia, and the members of the European
Communities are among the prime regulators in this area. While they are similar, the
differences are great enough to require different labels and data sheets to comply.
- Thus if a chemical manufacturer wants to market a product in more than one country, a
multitude of labels and data sheets may have to be prepared. This is a barrier to trade
for many companies, particularly small ones.
- Since our rule is performance-oriented, shippers in other countries often simply use
their required labels to ship to the US. Since US users are often not familiar with the
various international laws, they don't know whether the information meets US requirements
or not. Plus, there may be unfamiliar symbols and other information that is not useful
without training on that particular system.
- An internationally-harmonized approach would include: use of the same definitions to
classify a material as hazardous--thus if a chemical is flammable it would be flammable
regardless of the country of origin or the intended use. In addition, standardized labels
and data sheets would be required. So, except for differences in language, one label and
one data sheet would suffice regardless of the destination of the chemical.
- Comprehensibility will be addressed in the development of the harmonized approach. The
latest information regarding comprehension of symbols, appropriate phraseology, etc. will
be incorporated into the system.
- All US agencies would have to adopt the same system, thus eliminating the current
domestic differences in classification.
- The result for OSHA will be a change to the standard to adopt the
internationally-harmonized system. This will address the concerns regarding comprehension
to the extent possible, will standardize the presentation of the information, and will
facilitate compliance by removing some of the performance requirements that require
employer interpretation. Yet the system will still be flexible. So it would benefit both
workers and employers, as well as the Agency. OSHA is an active participant in the
international harmonization process.
The ANSI Standard for the Preparation of MSDSs
- Under the HCS, MSDSs are actually prepared by chemical manufacturers. They evaluate the
hazards, decide which of their products meet the definition of hazardous, and prepare
appropriate data sheets.
- The chemical manufacturers were largely responsible for the performance-oriented
approach used in the rule regarding preparation of data sheets, i.e., specify the
information that's required, but do not specify a format or order of information.
- When users began to criticize data sheets, CMA decided it needed to be responsible for
finding ways to improve them. Thus they convened a committee to develop guidelines for the
preparation of data sheets, and ultimately had the guidelines adopted as an ANSI voluntary
consensus industry standard, ANSI Z400.1.
- The ANSI standard is a departure from CMA's previous position on performance
orientation. In preparing the guidelines, CMA convened meetings of stakeholders--users
such as workers, employers, health care professionals, and emergency responders. As a
result, they decided to include an order of information and standardized headings in the
standard.
- Through the work of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), the order
of information and standardized headings are now permitted to be used in Canada, required
to be used in Europe, and recommended for use by the ILO. They are thus becoming, de
facto, an internationally-harmonized approach to the order of information and the
headings.
- In addition to this part of the standard, CMA considered issues related to
comprehensibility. Thus the ANSI standard includes some guidelines for document design and
preparation that will enhance the communication aspects. And the order of information is
also designed to address these concerns--the information of most concern to workers and
non-technical users is at the beginning of the data sheet, including an emergency overview
in simple language. Other more technical information, such as toxicological data, appears
later in the document.
- Many of the larger companies have already changed to use the ANSI approach. Thus data
sheets are becoming more standardized. However, there are many companies that are not
aware of the standard--or the type of guidance it provides--and are not changing. Some are
still using the old OSHA Form 20, which hasn't even been reprinted in over 10 years.
- Ultimately, when an internationally-harmonized system is completed, OSHA will probably
adopt this order of information. In the meantime, however, it is certainly in compliance
with the rule.
New Guidance for CSHOs re: Consumer Products
- Many of the current "horror" stories circulating regarding the HCS involve
application of the standard to consumer products. The standard already includes an
exemption for consumer products when they are used in the same way a consumer uses them
(e.g., window cleaner is used to clean windows), and in the same range of exposures a
consumer would be expected to have (occasional window cleaning is not a concern). This was
discussed at length in the preamble to the 1994 final rule. Consumer products are a
legitimate concern under the HCS. Anything that is sold in a retail store is by definition
a consumer product. For some industries--particularly construction--this makes all of
their products consumer products because they purchase them from local building supply
stores, etc. A complete exemption would severely restrict the standard's coverage for
these employers. Thus products such as lead solder, muriatic acid, and various solvents
would only have consumer product labels for information. Since these labels focus on
hazards of occasional use and effects on children from accidental exposures, and were
never intended to provide the kind of information regular and extensive users of the
materials need to protect themselves, they must be supplemented by data sheets.
- The problems encountered appear to be enforcement-related. Citations have in some rare
instances been issued for consumer products with limited hazard potential or which may not
have been used in a manner resulting in significantly greater exposures than a normal
consumer would experience.
- The standard balances the concerns of worker information with a common sense approach to
the extent of exposure.
- Guidance has been issued to the field to address these issues. It indicates the
information the CSHO must include in the case file to document a citation for a consumer
product, including listing the hazardous chemical(s) involved, and documenting the degree
of exposure. This should help to ensure that the standard is properly applied.
Other Possible Issues
- Comments continue to circulate regarding the possibility of electronic access to MSDSs.
The standard specifically permits employers to use electronic access to comply with the
rule. There is a big difference in the availability of equipment to access the sheets
between the larger companies--which typically have greater numbers of data sheets and thus
more extensive management problems--and smaller companies--which may or may not have the
computer and modem equipment needed to access the sheets electronically. It should be
noted that for most small businesses, the average number of chemicals is around 10. This
small number certainly does not require electronic management. OSHA contracted a study
regarding the feasibility of establishing a repository several years ago, and decided not
to pursue this option as a result of the findings.
Some electronic options detract from document design elements that improve
comprehensibility. Transmission in ASCII text, for example, would eliminate white space,
bolding, etc. that make the documents more readable. This is a major concern given the
interest in making the information more accessible and understandable. There are also
concerns about liability for the accuracy of the information--anyone who managed such a
repository could potentially be liable for the accuracy as well as for the availability in
an emergency situation. In addition, in order for the HCS to work, employers must review
the MSDS information to determine appropriate controls, etc. Some of those supporting the
repository approach view it as an alternative to ever dealing with MSDS information. For
example, it has been suggested that employees simply be given a toll-free number if they
wish to see a data sheet and thus remove the employer from the process.
Issues related to electronic transmission and maintenance of MSDSs may be an
appropriate area for discussion by the work group.
It should be noted that OSHA has developed CD ROMs to electronically distribute
information to the public related to compliance issues, and other possible means to
electronically convey information to the regulated community are being explored. As
outreach regarding the requirements of the HCS continues to be raised as an issue, the
work group may want to consider these and other means of disseminating information to the
public regarding hazard communication.
Conclusion
The HCS has been a successful endeavor for OSHA. Awareness of chemical hazards and
appropriate precautionary measures has greatly increased among both employers and
employees. Now, however, the Agency must ensure that its activities support continued
improvement of the interpretation and implementation of the rule, and the level of
protection the rule provides. The NACOSH work group can assist the Agency in reaching this
goal.
The first meeting of the HazCom Workgroup of the National Advisory
Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) was called to order by Chair Henry
Lick at 9:00 am on October 19. The following members were present (for all or part of the
meeting):
| Henry B. Lick, Chair * |
Mgr., Industrial Hygiene
Ford Motor Company |
| Michael J. Wright * |
Dir., Health, Safety & Environment
United Steelworkers of America |
| Andrea K. Taylor * |
Occ. Health Policy Consultant
United Autoworkers |
| Kenneth J. Zeller * |
Indiana Commissioner of Labor |
| Ileana O'Brien |
Dep. Commissioner of Labor
Maryland |
| Michele R. Sullivan |
Dir., Product Stewardship
Hoechst Celanese Corporation |
| Linda Hanavan |
Mgr., TSCA and Intl. Inventory Compl.
Cytec Industries |
| Whitney Long |
Mgr., Health Affairs
Natl. Paint & Coatings Association |
| Adria C. Casey |
President, Catala Associates |
| Pat Dsida |
President, ChemADVISOR |
| Brad Sant |
Dir., Safety & Health; Building &
Construction Trades, AFL-CIO |
| Adrienne Markowitz |
Dir., Health & Safety; Retail,
Whse. & Dept. Store Union |
| Donald Rainville |
President, Universal Dynamics, Inc. |
| Max Lum |
Assoc. Dir. of Health Communications
NIOSH |
* Members of NACOSH
Approximately 40 members of the public were present. Members introduced themselves and
described their backgrounds. A listing of names, addresses and short biographical sketches
on all members was provided to the public. The committee approved the dates proposed in
the Workplan for future meetings and decided that meetings would run from 10:00 am until
5:00 pm on the first day and from 8:00 am to 3:30-4:00 pm if there is a second day.
In the opening presentation, Jennifer Silk of OSHA's Health Standards Development
Directorate, reviewed a paper she had prepared for the group, which had been mailed to the
group previously. The paper discusses the major issues and establishes a framework for
discussion. In briefly describing the standard, she stated that Hazard Communication
represents the broadest health standard OSHA has, since it covers approximately 35 million
workers in 5 million establishments. It is a generic, performance-based standard that
covers 650,000 hazardous chemical products and, for many employers, represents the first
time they thought an OSHA rule applied to them. She emphasized that the standard covers
only hazardous chemical products but that material safety data sheets (MSDSs) are being
developed and transmitted to users on lots of chemical products that are not hazardous and
therefore not required by OSHA. Ms. Silk also discussed international harmonization and
the efforts to set up an international system to classify chemicals, and US (and
specifically OSHA) involvement in these activities.
She briefly mentioned the two related ANSI standards: one for preparation of material
safety data sheets, and one for precautionary labeling. She said the first one established
a standardized approach to MSDS format and that the workgroup would be having a
presentation at the January 10-11 meeting by the person who chaired the ANSI committees
for both data sheets and labels.
Following Ms. Silk's presentation, the workgroup discussed the Workplan and how they
would undertake the assigned task, and the need to question presenters and engage in
"lively" discussion.
Enforcement issues were then discussed by Tom Galassi, Division Chief of OSHA's Office
of Health Compliance Assistance. He reviewed Directive CPL-2.238C which directs compliance
officers to conduct hazard communication inspections as a part of every inspection. He
mentioned that the directive provides guidance to inspectors related to deficiencies in
the written program and in MSDSs together with definitions of "serious" vs.
"other" violations. He mentioned a draft directive in process with implications
for HazCom which covered paperwork and written programs. In discussions, Mr. Galassi
agreed to give the workgroup copies of the current directive, plus the draft directive (if
authorized).
In response to a question from the workgroup about how OSHA's training of
compliance officers deals with electronic methods of training and/or distribution of
MSDSs, Galassi said that in some cases interactive training modules might be satisfactory
for parts of the training, but that typically they would not have the ability to give
training about the specific chemicals in a particular workplace and that they would not
have the opportunity for give-and-take questions and answers. With regard to a company
that distributes their MSDSs by computer system, the inspector is required to check
accessibility and any barriers to access. Galassi mentioned a March 1995 document which
addressed and defined consumer products and articles. This will be provided to the
workgroup. He mentioned another recent memorandum related to a requirement to update
labels within three months (which will also be provided to the workgroup). Galassi
mentioned the QUIP project which contains all letters of interpretation organized by
subject that is electronically available to all inspectors and is also on OCIS, on the DOL
Bulletin Board, and in the Office of Publications. A second system called OSCAR (OSHA
System for Compliance Assistance and Referral) includes QUIPS, regulations, preambles to
regulations, relevant case law, and other federal agency regulations for all regulatory
subjects which is available to anyone. Galassi mentioned the availability of three
CD-Roms: one for HazCom, one for HAZWOPER and one for Bloodborne. CD-Roms are also being
developed for /process safety management, confined spaces, and lockout/tagout.
Galassi brought up another enforcement issue he said OSHA was looking into with regard
to the availability of MSDSs which he said are currently required to be at the worksite
during the workshift, and that is whether or not OSHA should consider availability within
24 hours, or via FAX acceptable. Workgroup members Wright and Markowitz expressed strong
objections to such a change.
Another issue Galassi said was under study was "incidental Use" (very small
quantity) of chemicals, especially in relation to dental products. He said they were also
studying the current requirement that FDA package inserts were considered to be not a
substitute for MSDSs and that perhaps package inserts could be modified to include the
required MSDS information and thus made into a single insert. Workgroup member Dsida
questioned the practicality or likelihood of this happening.
A discussion then ensued in relation to a workgroup member's question about the 1990
Federal Register Request for Information about MSDSs. Ms. Silk responded that there were
600 comments and that the general sense was that people wanted a standardized format. She
also mentioned limited studies done on the accuracy and comprehensibility of data sheets.
At this point, discussion returned to Galassi's comment that OSHA was considering
extending time of supplying MSDSs to 24 hours. Workgroup members Rainville, Zeller and
O'Brien expressed strong disagreement with such a change. There was also discussion and
disagreement with Galassi's definition that the change was from current availability
requirement of "by end of workshift" which they felt was erroneous and in
reality should have been "on site" when work was required. This discussion was
tabled temporarily as the group broke for lunch.
The afternoon was devoted to presentations by representatives of small businesses and
labor organizations. First was Michael J. Fagel, Corporate Safety Director of
Aurora Packing Company. He stressed the importance of a good safety program
reducing the use of hazardous chemicals and finding substitutes that are non or less
hazardous. He said they are primarily concerned with sanitation chemicals. They have
reduced the number of hazardous chemicals they use by 30%. He commented on the difficulty
of reading MSDSs for even trained professionals and said that in their company they also
have language barrier problems. They have used multi-lingual one-on-one training to try to
overcome this problem. They have attempted to address the problem of substances taken out
of one container and placed in an unlabeled one by making employees use color coded
containers. They also number products and tie that number into a number on the MSDS sheet
and label. As a safeguard, workers authorized to use chemicals have different color
uniforms. He emphasized that his system was simple but it had to be for a 150-employee
plant. In response to a question from the Chair as to whether he viewed OSHA's HazCom
standard as being successful in accomplishing its objective, he said "Yes" even
though he acknowledged that the standard was difficult to apply at times. He said he would
like a standardized MSDS format and the use of "understandable" English. He also
spoke from the standpoint of a volunteer emergency responder about the difficulty of
dealing with so much paperwork.
The next speaker was Dr. David Whiston of the American Dental Association
and a practicing dentist in Virginia. He emphasized that dental offices were very small
(3.9 employees average) and very safe. He said he was not aware of any formal reports of
chemical injuries. His major recommendation was for exemption of dental offices with 10 or
fewer employees for four reasons: quantities of chemicals used are small; there are no
reports of injuries; workers are prepared by education and training to handle chemicals;
and costs outweigh benefits. Absent exemption, he suggested that OSHA: (1) allow small
employers to provide access to MSDSs by electronic means or FAX in lieu of hard copy at
site; (2) provide better guidance to manufacturers on how to develop useful MSDSs; (3)
approve a model MSDS format for dental
products; (4) redefine the elements of an adequate written program; and (5) exempt
small dental offices from having to keep hard copies of MSDSs on office supplies. In
response to the Chair's question of how he viewed the success of the HazCom standard in
reaching its goals, he said it certainly had heightened awareness but had caused a lot of
frustration.
The American Feed Industry Association (Brian Bursick/AIFA and John Ojanen of
Southern States) began by responding to the Chair's question of the previous
presenters about the HazCom standard's effectiveness. Ojanen said he
firmly believes in the program and considers it very necessary but would like it to be
streamlined and made more user friendly. He said a big part of their problem of excess
paperwork was caused by chemical manufacturers issuing MSDSs for everything they
manufacture, whether or not it is hazardous, to limit their own liability which reduces
the significance of the necessary MSDSs. He said that they should limit MSDSs to hazardous
chemicals. He also said it was difficult to keep employee exposure records for 30 years
(and he thought it was 40 years in Maryland). He said MSDSs are hard to read and require
information difficult for employees to use (like information sources, etc.). He felt that
the most important information was: health hazard, flammability, symptoms of overexposure,
first aid procedures, personal protective equipment requirements, and spill cleanup and
disposal. A major point made was that because feed ingredients were regulated by FDA they
should be exempted from HazCom. Ojanen also recommended that a list of hazardous chemicals
requiring MSDSs be developed using existing lists from DOT, EPA, OSHA, etc. In his
presentation, Bursiek again strongly urged exemption from HazCom of feed
ingredients regulated by FDA and said something must be done to soften the paperwork
burden brought on by the mass generation of MSDSs. He reiterated the problem caused by
MSDSs being generated by suppliers on substances that are not hazardous. He urged OSHA to
"reinvent" the HazCom program so that MSDSs are generated only for chemicals
that have been scientifically determined to be truly hazardous. Asked by the workgroup if
it would help if a fixed MSDS format had a statement near the top indicating that the
substance was hazardous and why, his answer was a very definite "Yes".
Linwood Gilman, Chief of Hazardous Materials Management (DOD Defense General
Supply Center in Richmond) manages most of the hazardous materials procured by
the Defense Department and manages the DOD Hazardous Materials Information System. He
mentioned benefits that have occurred as a result of the HazCom standard including
improvement of MSDSs and use of the MSDS as a basic element of EPA's environmental
regulations. He acknowledged the resistance of companies to a standardized MSDS format in
the beginning but recognized that companies had changed their opinion and recognized the
benefits as evidenced by their support for the development by ANSI of a standard format.
He recommended that the group consider the impact on business and regulations of the rapid
development in the electronic transmission industry in recommending any approach to
revising requirements for MSDSs. He suggested we consider breaking MSDSs into sections
geared toward specific user communities. He also mentioned the problem of an article which
is not hazardous in the workplace but hazardous at the time of disposal.
The Society of American Florists, represented by Lin L.
Schmale, said they would prefer a label-based standard and suggested OSHA should
consider different communication systems for small vs. large business. Her organization
has prepared HazCom implementation guides for their members who include growers,
wholesalers, retailers--the whole floriculture industry. Additional confusion is caused by
the coverage of growers by EPA regulations, which appear to have considerable overlap with
OSHA regulations. She emphasized that regulations work best if easy to understand and
administer, and she strongly encouraged more communication between government agencies.
She said her industry strongly supports the objectives of the HazCom standard and is doing
its best to comply.
Michael Sprinker, Director of Health and Safety for the International Chemical
Workers Union, said that OSHA's HazCom standard has resulted in workers and
supervisors being better able to understand the physical and health standards of the
materials they work with and that we're far better off than before. He favors a
standardized format, inclusion of incompatibility information on MSDSs, suggested we look
at NIEHS hazardous waste worker training programs, and said it would be helpful if new
MSDSs indicated what has been changed. He emphasized that it is important to remember in
using computer systems that they go down and that in a fire emergency, the power goes off.
Michael Wright addressed the group as a representative of United
Steelworkers of America, but mentioned that Steelworkers, Autoworkers and
Machinists are in the process of merging. In reviewing the history and events leading up
to the promulgation of the HazCom standard, Mike said that as recently as the late
seventies, workers were refused information on chemicals and were not permitted to see
their medical/exposure records. He said they had to fight the government and even OSHA,
who wanted to set separate chemical standards, to get a HazCom standard which they say is
now very popular. He then cited a number of cases in which the standard had been vital in
protecting lives. He went on to say that he felt there was a lot of room for improvement
in the implementation of the standard without modifying the actual standard and
that the way we get information to workers, the way we collect information and the way we
analyze materials could be done in a way that makes it easier for both workers and
managers, and that the challenge of this workgroup is to find a way to do this. He
emphasized that we must start with the absolute right of the worker to know the names and
hazards of what one is exposed to. In discussing the problem caused by too many data
sheets, he suggested putting the most important data sheets (those covering the most
dangerous substances and those used in greatest quantity) in the front of the book.
At the conclusion of the presentations on October 19, copies of the ANSI MSDS standard
were distributed to workgroup members.
The meeting resumed at 8:30 am on October 20 with a workgroup discussion of the
previous day's presentations and the task facing the workgroup. In summary, the workgroup
acknowledged that the major problem presented was caused by chemical manufacturers
preparing data sheets for everything instead of just for hazardous chemicals, and that
there was a desire for a standardized format and a simplification of language for MSDSs.
With regard to training, Ms. Silk emphasized that the standard did not require training on
each standard but only on categories of hazards, and that there seemed to be some
confusion on that point.
The first presenter, Michael O'Brien, Assistant Vice President for Labor
Regulation of the National Association of Homebuilders, said that relying on
MSDSs as the primary focus of a HazCom program does not work, especially on construction
sites where they work out of pickup trucks and the employers rely on labels. Noting that
technology has changed, O'Brien said OSHA needs to review its HazCom program to see if
there are other systems we could use. He said their biggest complaint is the paperwork
burden. NAHB recommends the elimination of the requirement for employers to maintain MSDSs
and believes that labeling requirements should be changed so that managers must include on
product labels whatever vital information is necessary to help workers in case of
emergency. They believe OSHA should make any additional information which cannot be put on
labels available to health professionals in cases of emergencies through either an on-line
system, 800 numbers or some other combination. NAHB also recommends allowing portability
of training under HazCom so that employees can carry a card which shows employers that
they have received basic training and only need information on specific hazards on that
employer's jobsite. They recommend changing the requirement that employers must be trained
on hazards to which they may be exposed by other contractors to a requirement that
employers provide general awareness training to their employees on how to spot the hazards
created by other contractors. They feel that all HazCom violations in residential
construction should be considered de minimis and carry no monetary penalty for first
instance citations. In answer to a question from the Chair, he confirmed that he believed
in the concept of OSHA's HazCom standard but had a problem with the delivery.
Next presenter, Eamonn McGeady is President of Martin G.
Inbach, Inc., a medium-sized (50 employees) company doing heavy marine
construction of piles for piers. Half of his people are HAZMAT trained in OSHA courses. He
displayed a thick notebook full of MSDSs that he issued to each of his employees. He said
there is a need for common sense and suggested use of icons instead of complex chemical
descriptions. He said OSHA ought to educate, inform and advise; then enforce. He would
prefer a labeling standard with icons for use in the field backed up by a repository of
more detailed information.
Next, Patrick Rowsey, Regulatory Analyst for the National Automobile
Association (NADA), said that service, body and parts shop managers indicate that
while HazCom training is understood and accepted by their workers, the actual use of MSDSs
by employees for additional information is rare and the use of the MSDSs in training is
made difficult due to lack of uniformity in the MSDSs. NADA urges the workgroup to
recommend that hazardous information systems be standardized and that the consensus MSDS
standard being promoted by CMA be carefully reviewed. OSHA should clarify the definition
of consumer products with examples to help small businesses. The rule should be modified
to require phone numbers on chemical labels to facilitate procurement of missing MSDSs. A
non-mandatory HazCom written program should be published as an Appendix to the rule to
reduce burden on small business. OSHA should delete the requirement that employers provide
a written program and worker training to occasional "foreign" or
"visitor" workers.
Printing Industries of America was represented by Senior Vice
President Benjamin Y. Cooper, who characterized the printing industry as the
biggest small business with nearly one million employees. Because they are small they
don't have industrial hygienists or safety people, but they work with many chemicals with
frequently changing formulations. While relatively few chemicals are toxic or hazardous, all
come with MSDSs. They recommend that OSHA:1. Immediately clarify to its enforcement personnel that electronic data is not only
acceptable but in many cases preferable. The fact that Federal OSHA says electronic
records maintenance is acceptable but field personnel say it is not creates difficulties.
2. Reconsider historical records maintenance requirements. Ability to use electronic
systems will improve the compliance rate for records retention.
3. Work with companies, rather than citing them, to ensure they understand the
information needs of the law.
4. Move ahead in requiring a standardized MSDS format. Cooper provided the workgroup with a list of printing and publishing citations for FY
92-94.
In answer to a question from the Chair, Ms. Silk clarified that, under the HazCom
standard, the requirement to keep MSDSs was only as long as the chemical is in the
workplace.
Cathy McClure, Manager of Human Resources, Health and Safety for MSI,
and Vicki Worden, Legislative Assistant represented the National
Lumber and Building Materials Dealers Association. McClure
described their major problem as the requirement to transmit hazard warning labels
downstream on treated lumber with every shipment. She discussed the evolution of confusing
interpretations related to this requirement. Moreover, she maintained that this label goes
to the wrong people and serves no purpose. She stressed that their organization feels that
the intent of the regulation is most effectively conveyed from retailer to employees and
downstream employers through distribution of hazard warning labels on a one-time basis
(and each time an update is required) and through the thorough training requirements
already in place for the downstream employer and any contracted employees retained by
either side.
Vicki Worden said that they strongly believe an MSDS repository would
provide a common sense solution to the burdensome paperwork requirements. She said her
dealers asked her to stress to the workgroup the types of paperwork problems they face and
the extreme need to streamline this broad standard to allow more flexibility and common
sense in the workplace.
Loren A. Anderson, Jr., Treasurer of the American Industrial Hygiene
Association's Coatings and Resins Division, as well as an employee of PPG,
said that AIHA suggests:
1. Harmonizing chemical warning requirements and the development of a global approach
to hazard communication to ensure optimum health and safety worldwide.
2. Providing all hazard information in the primary language of the intended audience
and in a format that is targeted to the audience's educational and literacy level to
increase comprehension of the information.
3. Utilizing training methods that are performance-based, creative, interactive,
job-specific, and tailored to the language and educational level of the worker.
4. Improving the accuracy, clarity, and availability of MSDSs through a standardized
format that focuses the user's attention on the key protective information.
5. Including standardized warning signs and pictograms on labels of hazardous materials
that clearly depict the types and levels of hazards in an understandable manner to ensure
that workers are adequately alerted to the hazards of the products with which they are
working. Ellen Larson, Director of Government Relations for the Air Conditioning
Contractors of America, said that their 3000 members, who are mostly small
businesses with many having fewer than ten employees, would like to reduce the paperwork
requirements. They would like a summary on the MSDS and clarification of labeling
requirements. They also support the use of electronic filing systems. They have a training
program that was co-developed with the National Homebuilders Association and others.
Following this last presentation, the workgroup discussed issues raised by the
presenters. The Chair mentioned some of the misunderstandings that had surfaced, like the
erroneous belief that MSDSs had to be retained for 30 years. Ms. Silk mentioned the
misconception that employers have to train on each chemical, and that they have to retrain
a worker on each new job at a construction site. She also discussed the use of electronic
access and the requirement that a company first obtain the data sheet and review it before
using the chemical. The workgroup discussed the presenters' objections to the time
required and training needed to do this effectively, especially in relation to small
companies. They acknowledged that it appeared that most small companies simply collect the
MSDSs and put them in a book that no one uses. Don Rainville asked that the workgroup hear
more about portability of training.
Mike Wright mentioned what he considered to be another misunderstanding--the notion
that the MSDS is the primary means for communicating hazards to employees. He said it was
the tertiary means and that the first was the label and the second was training, or vice
versa. The committee further discussed the fact that MSDSs are not being read and
acknowledged that they found this very disappointing. They also talked more about
electronic systems and repositories. Ms Silk promised to furnish the committee copies of a
feasibility study OSHA had commissioned on the idea of a central repository for MSDSs.
Mike Wright mentioned, in summary, that during the two days of presentations there
wasn't a single witness who said that HazCom was not a good idea, that people shouldn't
have a right to know, and that the standard hasn't had enormous benefits. He felt that was
significant--that people were asking only for fine tuning.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 pm.
The second meeting of the HazCom Workgroup of the National Advisory
Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) was called to order by Chair Henry
Lick at 1:00 pm on December 11. The following members were present:
| Henry B. Lick, Chair * |
Mgr., Industrial Hygiene
Ford Motor Company |
| Michael J. Wright * |
Dir., Health, Safety & Environment
United Steelworkers of America |
| Andrea K. Taylor * |
Occ. Health Policy Consultant
United Autoworkers |
| Kenneth J. Zeller * |
Indiana Commissioner of Labor |
| Ileana O'Brien |
Deputy Commissioner of Labor
Maryland |
| Michele R. Sullivan |
Dir., Product Stewardship
Hoechst Celanese Corporation |
| Linda Hanavan |
Mgr., TSCA and Intl. Inventory Compl.
Cytec Industries |
| Whitney Long |
Mgr., Health Affairs
Natl. Paint & Coatings Association |
| Pat Dsida |
President, ChemADVISOR |
* Members of NACOSH
Approximately 40 public attendees were present. Members introduced themselves and
described their backgrounds. A listing of names, addresses and short biographical sketches
on all members was provided to the public. In opening comments, Mr. Lick called members
attention to the contents of their folders including minutes of the October 19-20 meeting
which were approved without change on the following morning (October 20).
The first presentation was by Chris Bryan, Safety Manager with Martin Marietta
Materials and Chair of the National Stone Association's (NSA) Task Force on Hazard
Communication. He pointed out that, although NSA's members are primarily
regulated by MSHA, they are interested in these proceedings because MSHA has a hazard
communication standard pending which could be influenced by NACOSH recommendations. He
criticized OSHA's overly broad application (expanded to include sand, limestone and
granite) and said it diluted its effectiveness. NSA believes that part of the problem lies
in using listings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the
National Toxicology Program (NTP) to precipitate inclusion of a chemical substance under
the standard. NSA considers use of IARC and NTP improper and requests that such use be
abandoned. They said that other problems exist but do not lie with how the standard is
written but how it is interpreted. They favor a standardized format. NSA also supports the
written program requirement but suggests OSHA provide a model program to assist small
businesses. Adele L. Abrams, Director of Governmental Affairs for NSA
accompanied Mr. Bryan and participated in the questioning.
Representing the American Supply Association (ASA) and the New England
Wholesalers Association, Maurice A. Desmarais informed the committee that 12
regional ASA affiliates had worked together to develop a two-volume MSDS catalog for their
members to distribute to their customers. Currently the catalog contains 2300 pages with
over 4500 MSDSs compiled by product and manufacturer. They have distributed over 160,000
catalogs at a cost exceeding one million dollars. They "question the wisdom of
requiring an MSDS sheet at every job site for every product that contains a so-called
hazardous substance" and complained that manufacturers made the paperwork problem
much worse by issuing MSDSs on virtually every product in their line, whether or not it is
hazardous. They have considered putting the catalog on a CD Rom, but the idea has not been
popular with small supplier members. They would like to have a standardized format for the
MSDS. Pat O'Connor of Kent & O'Connor's Washington Government Affairs Office
accompanied Mr. Desmarais. In answer to a question from the workgroup, they stated that
they included all MSDSs they received in the catalog, whether or not they apply to
hazardous substances covered by the regulation.
The next presenter was Dave Luth, President of Axxis Business Solutions, Inc.,
who explained that he was not a hazard communications specialist but was involved in the
electronic dissemination and retrieval of MSDSs. He works with many small distributors who
lack technical expertise but rely on the expertise of the chemical manufacturer.
Unfortunately, the distributors are receiving many more MSDSs than are required and so are
distributing many more than they need to. This increases the cost to implement the program
significantly and reduces its effectiveness due to the unnecessarily large volume of
information. He would like OSHA to develop an MSDS workplace classification system to aid
small companies that requires the chemical manufacturer to designate each MSDS as: (1)
Required, (2) Recommended, and (3) For Information Only. Category (1) would require
downstream dissemination; Category (2) would make it optional; and Category (3) would make
it unnecessary. Dr. Sullivan asked if a statement on the MSDS such as "this is
regulated or hazardous under 29 CFR 1910.1200" would help and Mr. Luth said it would.
George Ganak, CoChair of the Naval Supply Systems Command Process Integration
Team, focused his presentation on the need to move into the "electronic
age" and stressed their efforts to find better ways to link MSDSs to products. They
favor a standardized format and think the ANSI Z400 standard provides a good format. He
said the government currently assigns a national stock number but that a number of
different brands fall under the same stock number making it difficult to find the right
MSDS for a particular product. He would like to see the adoption and mandatory use of the Universal
Product Code (UPC) since he feels very strongly that users need some sort of
"standard license plate" tying the product and MSDS together in order to take
full advantage of the benefits of electronic systems. They would then like to encourage
use of the Z-400 format for paper MSDSs and the X-12.848 for electronic transactions. In
response to a question from the workgroup on how changes to a product are handled, and
when a new UPC is assigned, Ganak cited Guideline 27 put out by the Uniform Code
Council that says if the manufacturer changes the product significantly enough to
require a new MSDS, they will assign a new UPC number. The workgroup expressed concerns
about what sort of changes would result in the issuance of a new UPC.
Representing the Workplace Health and Safety Council, Executive Director Jan S.
Collins said that her members considered the HazCom Standard to be one of the
most important ever promulgated by OSHA and therefore support its fundamental goal. They
do, however, feel that there are administrative actions OSHA could take to improve its
enforcement policy. One would be providing a meaningful exemption for de minimus
exposures. The Council recommends that OSHA issue a compliance directive stating that
citations alleging serious violations should be reserved for those cases where a HazCom
program element has failed to address a hazardous substance to which employees are exposed
at or above an established PEL. Another area of concern to the Council is the national
harmonization of regulations. Ms. Collins mentioned that DOL, DOT and EPA all have
jurisdiction over labeling, packaging and training related to hazardous materials and that
sometimes the requirements are inconsistent. She then introduced Dr. Philip J.
Wakelyn who is Manager of Environmental Health and Safety for the National Cotton Council
of America. He emphasized the need for definition of "health risk" and
stated that potential exposure to a hazard does not constitute risk. In this respect he
stated that there needs to be clarification on the nuisance dust issue, and said it was
his understanding that as long as the PEL is not exceeded there is no MSDS required. Dr.
Wakelyn also urged that the MSDS format should require an Executive Summary written in
user-friendly terms. He expressed the concerns of others he had talked with who felt that
the ANSI format may have made the MSDS more rather than less
complicated. He promised to supply additional information on this subject.
Three people made presentations representing the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA). First was Thomas G. Grumbles, Manager of Product
Safety and Occupational Health for Vista Chemical Company. He said that CMA
members strongly support the goals of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and its
approach that emphasizes labeling, employee training and use of material safety data
sheets. He recognized that Superfund Amendments had extended the original scope to include
fire departments, emergency responders, state and local emergency planning groups, and
community organizations. He added that commercial pressures and liability concerns had
caused manufacturers to create MSDSs for non-hazardous chemicals, thus adding to the
paperwork burden for which OSHA has been blamed. His recommendations centered on
standardizing and simplifying MSDSs and improving cautionary labeling. In this respect he
made reference to CMA's efforts in developing a guideline for writing MSDSs which was
later issued by ANSI as Z400.1 which includes an Emergency Overview. He also mentioned
CMA's participation in the development of a logical format for chemical precautionary
industrial labeling as contained in ANSI Z129.1 which has widespread acceptance and use in
industry and is helping to improve consistency in labeling. In conclusion he said that CMA
requests that NACOSH recommend that OSHA specifically endorse both ANSI Z400.1 and Z129.1
as effective vehicles for improving hazard communication.
Stephen E. Randall, Director of CMA's MSDS Central, said that CMA
would like OSHA to (1) address electronic systems as a viable technology to house MSDSs;
and (2) address electronic transmission of MSDSs as an accepted method for delivering
MSDSs to customers. He said many companies are improving MSDS management by collecting
MSDSs in a central location within their company and keeping an electronic copy up-to-date
that can be made available immediately through their own central network to any of their
locations/employees. A side benefit is that electronic commerce forces a reasonable range
of data standardization. Randall feels that OSHA's endorsement of the use of electronic
systems both to store MSDSs in-house and to distribute them to customers will accelerate
the use of systems resulting in reduction of paper and improvement of the quality and
timeliness of MSDS information.
Amy Berg, Safety and Occupational Health Consultant to DuPont, said
that CMA supports the Hazard Communication Standard as currently written. They consider
regulatory amendments unnecessary but feel that OSHA's compliance directive and
enforcement practices should be re-examined; they feel that the compliance directive (OSHA
Instruction CPL 2-238C) contains additional requirements and an interpretation that is
very narrow, overly specific and too inflexible for a performance-based standard (section
K.8(5). She also said their feeling was that training programs were too often judged on
quantity rather than quality by OSHA inspectors. She said they believe training should
focus on the most serious hazards and the steps employees must take to protect themselves,
rather than training workers on all possible hazards. Ms. Berg recommended that OSHA
direct whatever resources are available to the development and expansion of small business
training programs. She summarized by saying that CMA believes that "OSHA can work
with industry to improve the effectiveness of worker training, simplify its enforcement
policies, and redirect its resources so that all stakeholders are focused on the real
hazards in the workplace."
Mobil Chemical Company was represented by Bruce Larson,
Manager of Industrial Hygiene and Allen E. Stupplebeen, Manager of
Product Safety Services. Larson mentioned that Mobil is active in CMA, the
American Petroleum Institute (API) and Organization Resources Counselors (ORC) who all
strongly support the goal, structure and current content of OSHA's HazCom Standard. He
said there was no need to reopen the standard and that needed changes could be made by
modifying the current enforcement directive. They said they thought that the directive
should recommend the ANSI format for MSDSs as a good practice but that the rule should not
be reopened to require that useage at this time. They would, however, encourage OSHA to
endorse the use of modern efforts of transmitting MSDSs. He also recommended that OSHA
develop a model training program for certain industries and increase its outreach
programs, holding more local and regional workshops aimed at small and medium sized
companies. In response to questions, they said they provide their distributors with a CD
Rom and have a centralized audit system to check for compliance. They will make an effort
to supply us information on this.
The first hour of the agenda on Tuesday, December 12, was devoted to committee
discussion. Important points from the previous day's presentations were summarized as
being: (1) companies want an easy way to identify which MSDSs cover hazardous substances
and thus come under 1910.1200; and (2) they want MSDSs that are easy to read and
comprehend, with a standardized format. The Chair mentioned that MSDSs had existed before
OSHA codified them and that they had always served more purposes than those under OSHA's
scope. He went on to say that even OSHA's compliance directive was written in legal
language and was hard to comprehend. Jennifer Silk mentioned a recurring misunderstanding
of several presenters with regard to training requirements. She clarified the requirement
by stating that you don't have to train on each chemical but can cover categories. She
read the language of the regulation which everyone agreed was clear. The workgroup
further discussed how many other misunderstandings there were related to the standard and agreed
that an important part of the workgroup report should be a summary of misundertood
provisions and clarification of them. The committee requested that it be
furnished: (1) a summary of what OSHA has been citing; (2) compliance documentation; and
(3) a copy of the Compliance Kit.
Presentations continued with the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association represented by Angus E. Crane, Director of Regulatory Affairs
and Counsel, and Gary E. Marchant of Kirkland & Ellis. Crane
recommended that the HazCom Program be made more effective by: (1)
ensuring that hazard warning requirements are consistent with the weight of relevant,
scientific evidence; (2) clarifying the term "positive study" used to trigger
hazcom requirements; and (3) standardizing and simplifying the format of MSDSs. He further
said the program could be made less burdensome by modifying training
requirements to eliminate unnecessary duplicative training; (2) using clear thresholds
based on risk exposure to trigger hazcom requirements; and (3) endorsing appropriate
disclaimers on MSDSs stating that "the information provided does not necessarily
indicate that the substance in a given application results in any exposure or risk to
workers or the general public." Finally, he said the HazCom Program could be made fairer
by ensuring that one product or company does not gain an unwarranted competitive advantage
by: (1) eliminating the current bias that favors untested products; and (2) by removing
unfair advantages gained by products regulated by other agencies (such as cellulose
insulation).
Organization Resources Counselors' (ORC) Vice President Frank White
said that OSHA's HazCom Standard has brought about significant improvements in the quality
and accessibility of chemical hazard information resulting in employers and employees
becoming more aware of the hazards of chemicals used in the workplace. He said that ORC is
convinced that the current structure and language of the HazCom Standard are sound and
should be maintained. He said that MSDSs have not proven to be "user-friendly",
but that training and labels have emerged as the principal hazard communication elements.
However, this does not negate the need for MSDSs. ORC believes OSHA should encourage use
of a standardized format consistent with ANSI Z400.1 but ORC does not believe OSHA should
reopen the HazCom Standard to require use of the ANSI format. ORC urges OSHA to provide
additional outreach and assistance in the use of electronic information systems that can
assist small business in managing the burden of maintaining MSDSs more efficiently. ORC
also suggests OSHA update its "Hazard Communication Compliance Kit", which is
available to the public through the U.S. Government Printing Office. He said that several
sections are out of date. ORC believes OSHA compliance personnel should "focus on
evaluation of the overall effectiveness of an employer's hazard communication program
rather than looking for isolated infractions of the standard's requirement." OSHA
should rethink its entire approach to HazCom enforcement, put CPL 2.238C aside, and start
over using a "holistic", performance-oriented approach to compliance.
Also representing ORC was Carolyn Phillips, Industrial Hygiene
Advisor for both Shell Chemical Company and Shell Oil Products Company.
She said she believes the HazCom Standard is one of the best, most useful and
comprehensive standards that OSHA has promulgated. Shell has standardized their MSDS
format to match that recommended by ANSI. She said many of their customers request MSDSs
by electronic transmission and in the ANSI format. She supports OSHA encouraging the use
of the ANSI format by all MSDS producers and does not think OSHA should develop a two-page
MSDS format or mandate any specific format, although Shell favors use of the ANSI MSDS
format and also the ANSI label format. Ms. Phillips said that OSHA should clarify that
addressing classes of hazards meets requirements and is a good approach for training
workers. She brought copies of Shell's MSDS Users' Guide and their HazCom Video
Instructors Manual. She said OSHA could improve their training assistance by: (1) updating
their generic, overall HazCom Program guidance using up-to-date graphics and current
technology; (2) encouraging trade associations of small to mid-size employers in a
particular industry to make simple HazCom Programs available to their members; and (3)
providing information on basic hazcom training including a list of training resources to
employers who need assistance. In discussing the overall program, Ms. Phillips said that
"the culprit is enforcement, not the standard." She said the HazCom Standard is
written as a performance standard and should be enforced as such. She said she saw no need
to re-open the HazCom Standard and said that any significant changes in the
standard could likely result in much more burden for those employers with programs in
place while not solving the issue of those not in compliance with the core concepts of the
HazCom Standard. In discussion about Shell audits of training effectiveness, the
workgroup asked if she could supply any written protocols.
Jason Scriven of 3E Company appeared in conjunction
with the International Mass Retailers Association. 3E Company provides
hazardous materials information services to more than 50,000 locations worldwide. Scriven
urged the workgroup to recommend use of a centralized MSDS management and support system
where "100% of the American workforce can pick up the phone and obtain an MSDS easily
and quickly." He proposed that the following be added to the HazCom Standard as
1910.1200(g):
"It is acceptable to manage MSDS from a central database or library, for the
purpose of providing MSDS to employees, distributing MSDS to downline customers or
maintaining MSDS for multiple locations, as long as no barriers to immediate employee
access in each workplace are created by such options, and so long as in-person support is
available to assist in identifying the MSDS and understanding the information contained in
the MSDS. The MSDS provided by a central source must be the most current, product specific
MSDS available from the manufacturer. It is acceptable for a wholesale distributor to
manage MSDS from a central location, provided that there are no barriers to access for
customers who previously would have received MSDS with each shipment."
Philip A. Scearcy, Occupational Safety and Health Consultant for the Minnesota
Regional Poison Center, and Robert L. Weir, Director of Risk Management
for Rhodes, Inc., discussed the possible Use of Regional Poison Control
Centers for the electronic transfer of MSDSs via FAX or computer to meet the
requirements of the HazCom Standard. They emphasized that these programs were not a
substitution for employee training but rather a supplemental aspect. They would like OSHA
to determine that such a program meets the requirements of the HazCom Standard.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) was represented by Colette
Mlynarek, API Senior Regulatory Analyst, Steve Killiany, Health and Safety Advisor
with Exxon, and Frank Nitsch, Industrial Hygienist with Amoco.
Ms. Mlynarek emphasized that API believes that the HazCom Standard is an
effective performance oriented standard. API believes that some enhancements could be
useful in improving its effectiveness, but thinks they can be made without additional
rulemaking. They recommend: (1) a uniform format for all MSDSs, (2) a cooperative industry
and labor initiative to improve training; and (3) revision of OSHA's enforcement policy to
provide outreach and consultation services especially to smaller businesses rather than
the current punitive approach for violations that are often for non-hazardous and
paperwork compliance issues. Ms. Mlynarek stated that MSDSs were never meant to stand
alone but are part of a three-part system including training, MSDSs and labels. API thinks
limiting the length of MSDSs is impractical and encourages use of the ANSI standardized
format for MSDSs. They feel many of the problems attributed to the HazCom Standard stem
from OSHA's enforcement policies, rather than the actual requirements of the rule. API
supports development of new guidance for OSHA compliance personnel. API questions OSHA's
logic in trying to reduce the paperwork burden and says that recognition needs to be given
to the benefit of MSDSs. API is concerned that by focusing on the MSDS burden hours, OSHA
has lost sight of other areas where more fruitful reductions could be achieved.
Steve Killiany reiterated the belief that imposing limitations on the
length of MSDSs would be impractical because the comprehensive audience served with
different information needs requires a comprehensive information sheet. He does, however,
favor establishment of the ANSI Z100.1 format as a standard. He does not think OSHA needs
to reopen the rule to do this because the marketplace is driving and supporting the use of
the ANSI format both domestically and internationally. He did, however, recommend that
OSHA replace the old OSHA Form 20 with a non-mandatory example of the ANSI format. He also
recommends that OSHA support the philosophy of electronic data systems and the efforts of
business to adopt such systems for MSDS dissemination. He also asks OSHA to support
consistency in both domestic and international hazard communication issues, citing
inconsistencies among Federal agencies with regard to definitions and requirements.
Frank Nitsch discussed training and said focus should be on content
rather than on a stipulated number of hours, and that testing employees' understanding was
an important facet of an effective program. He said the training program provides a unique
opportunity for OSHA, industry and labor to work together to help small businesses comply
with the requirements. He added that use of a standardized MSDS format would aid the
training effort. He said API supports development of new guidance for compliance personnel
such as that suggested in the new policy directive CPL 2.111 emphasizing evaluation of
overall adequacy. In summary, he said that "the standard is working efficiently and
effectively and that it is not a likely source for reducing paperwork burden."
Pam Susi represented the Center to Protect Workers Rights
on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
She stated that they consider the HazCom Standard to be one of the most important rules
enforced by OSHA. But she said that we have not yet seen the intent of the standard fully
realized in their industry because workers are still unaware of the hazardous nature of
the materials they work with. She recommended: (1) standardizing the format, simplifying
the language, and requiring manufacturers to assess the accuracy of MSDS annually; (2)
requiring MSDSs to be specific to products/materials posing exposure hazards on the
specific job site to reduce unnecessary paperwork and increase useability; (3) requiring
employers to designate personnel responsible for implementing the HazCom Program; (4)
upgrading labeling requirements (large print, simple language); and (5) continuing the
requirement for site-specific, "hard copies" of MSDSs at the site. She also
recommended establishment of minimum training requirements and training grants for the
construction industry.
The final presenter was Laurie M. Shelby, Manager of Industrial Hygiene
Programs and Regulatory Compliance for Reynolds Metals Company.
Ms. Shelby is project manager for the company-wide initiative to develop an electronic
storage and retrieval system for MSDSs and container labels. Reynolds has over 44,000
MSDSs for products they use. They also produce 500 MSDSs for products they manufacture and
use the ANSI Z400.1 format. She recommends that OSHA adopt the ANSI format as a mandatory
appendix and the Electronic Data Interchange format for MSDSs (ANSI 848) as a
non-mandatory approach. She mentioned that many of their customers demand MSDSs on
products that have been determined to be non-hazardous. She recommended that OSHA strengthen
guidance on hazard determination making it less performance oriented. It should specify
required references, testing procedures and standards that should be used by
manufacturers to determine hazards and better define the parameters which make a
product hazardous. She cited the Canadian Workplace Hazardous Materials
Information System as a good example to follow. She also recommended that as part of the
hazard determination, manufacturers classify their products into a hazard clas system
defined in the HazCom Standard and said this would be helpful in worker training and
labeling. She also recommended that OSHA require a chemical tracking and inventory system,
and provide a means or guide for worker training.
Contained in Workgroup members' folders were comments submitted by the American
Trucking Association and the National Funeral Directors Association.
The workgroup then discussed the agenda for the January 10-11 meeting (this
meeting as well as the February 7-8 meeting was later cancelled) and the need to
start devising an outline for the final report. The Chair asked members to bring
outlines of the issues to the next meeting. Further discussion indicated that it
would be helpful if members outlined what all of the issues were, which ones the workgroup
could make recommendations on, and what those recommendations might be. The schedule for
completion of the report was reviewed and clarified.
Pat Dsida agreed to FAX all members a list of the issues for comment and suggested
additions before the January meeting.
In summing up the presentations, Chairman Lick said that presenters were in agreement
that the standard was good and that the rule should not be reopened, but that improvements
were needed in the compliance program. All favored a standardized format but did not think
the rule should be reopened to mandate one. He said there was a need to dispel the belief
that the OSHA HazCom Standard had caused problems and that the public should recognize
that problems had been caused by increased use of MSDSs for many other purposes than those
specified in OSHA's HazCom Standard. Mike Wright emphasized that the enforcement issue
would be troublesome and said that the enforcement history could be helpful and was needed
before the January meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 pm.
1. FAX dated 10/11/95 from Ernest Isenberg, Western Extralite
Company, with 4/12/95 Recommendations attached. Comments favor a central
repository of MSDSs, warning labels containing safe usage, disposal and first aid
information, a product identification code, and an MSDS Hot Line number. Given to
Workgroup 10/19/95 in meeting folder.
2. Letter dated 9/29/95 from Scott C. Morrison. He recommends adoption
of the ANSI standard for MSDSs to improve overall quality. Given to Workgroup 10/19/95 in
meeting folder.
3. Letter dated 10/16/95 from Roy E. Martin, Vice President of Science and
Tecnology, National Fisheries Institute. He lends his support to the comments
submitted by the American Feed Industry Association. Given to Workgroup
10/19/95 in meeting folder.
4. Position Paper dated April 8, 1993, (faxed to OSHA 10/18/95) from William R.
Steinmetz, Jr., Safety/Loss Control Manager, Midland Engineering. He recommends a
standardized format produced through a cooperative effort; generic training by hazard
class by certified third party trainers; the publication of a list of chemicals that
require an MSDS; the development of a list of generic products and generic MSDSs for use
by construction companies; requirement of label only at construction sites. Given to
Workgroup 10/19/95 in meeting folder.
5. Letter dated 11/3/95 from Dr. John S. Zapp, Executive Director, American
Dental Association. He reported that members of a group of dentists studying the
ANSI MSDS format concluded that it was not well suited to use by dental offices (related
to 10/19/95 presentation). Mailed to Workgroup 11/9/95.
6. Letter dated 10.23/95 from George S. Kennedy, Director of Safety, National
Utility Contractors Association. He suggested: the addition of an Appendix to the
standard with a sample HazCom program outline and sample written program; improvements in
labeling and accuracy of MSDSs; a standardized one or two page MSDS summary that is simple
to understand; and modification of training requirements. Mailed to Workgroup 12/1/95.
7. Letter dated 12/5/95 from Edward M. Ranier (of Lord & Whip,
Attorneys at Law) representing the National Funeral Directors Association.
The Association urged the Workgroup to simplify the language of MSDSs and revise the
HazCom Standard, and related standards covering specific chemical hazard such as
formaldehyde, to clarify their meaning and reduce the paperwork required for compliance.
Given to Workgroup 12/11/95 in meeting folder.
8. Letter dated 12/8/95 from Stuart Flatow submitting comments from The
American Trucking Associations. Their comments concerned the scope of employer
coverage, training and employee participation. They favored a uniform format for MSDSs and
labels, mentioning the HMIS and NFPA systems as possibilities. They emphasized the need
for any changes to the HCS, MSDSs and labels to be consistent with the needs of emergency
responders which they outlined in their recommendations. They recommended that OSHA use
ISO symbols and perhaps standard visual icons which immediately alert the user to a
specific hazard. They proposed a specific reordering of the information on the MSDS, but
also suggested that perhaps a two-part MSDS with one short portion for employees in
understandable English and a second portion for employers and specialists with more
detailed physical-chemical information would be more effective. Given to Workgroup
12/11/95 in meeting folder.
9. Letter dated 12/16/95 from Jaye Showalter, Kaiser Permanente,
inviting Workgroup members to try their recorded tape messages on safety, especially the
one on MSDSs. Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
10. Letter dated 12/19/95 from Representative Duncan Hunter supporting
centralized management of MSDSs and calling attention to the recommendations of 3E.
Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
11. Letter dated 1/15/96 from C. W. Hayes, Occupational Health Manager, Georgia
Power. He recommends a standardized MSDS format to make it easier for
employees/employers to find needed data, to facilitate training, and to simplify
electronic transfer of data. Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
12. Letter dated 1/9/96 from Deborah W. Oppenheim, Sr. Industrial Hygienist,
Alabama Power. Same comments as Georgia Power. Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
13. Letter dated 1/9/96 from Kenneth L. Roberts, Manager of Safety and Health
(West), Southern Company Services. Same comments as Georgia Power. Mailed to
Workgroup 2/29/96.
14. Letter dated 1/19/96 from Jesse L. McDaniel, Manager of Safety/Health &
Regulatory Services, Countrymark Cooperative, Inc. The comments stated that
"while there are challenges in presenting highly technical information to a diverse
workforce, wholesale changes to Hazard Communication elements would increase confusion and
present significant cost issues to employers...". They said that a standardized list
of hazardous chemicals would be helpful which they felt might lead to a standardized
format which they consider important. They recommended the mandatory use of "NFPA
Diamond" information on each MSDS, standardized easy to understand PPE information,
and simplification of language in general with technical data contained in an Addendum.
Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
15. News Release dated 9/1/95 from the Uniform Code Council, Inc. The
news release states that "minor formulation changes which will replace an existing
product and do not involve a MSDS change do not require a change in the U.P.C.
number." This is related to the presentation made to the Workgroup. Mailed to
Workgroup 2/29/96.
16. Letter and Recommendations dated 1/4/96 from David C. Ailor, Director of
Regulatory Affairs, National Oilseed Processors Association. Their
recommendations were: (1) simplify MSDSs; (2) modify enforcement policy so that only truly
serious hazards trigger "serious" citations; and (3) infractions related to
non-hazardous substances, such as most food and feed ingredients, should be treated as
"de minimis". Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
17. Letter and Recommendations dated 12/7/95 from Albert J. Ignatowski, HazCom
Consulting. He recommends changes in the definitions of "chemical name"
and "common name". Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
18. Letter dated 12/8/95 from John H. Burger. He states that as a
result of authoring over 8,000 MSDSs and teaching MSDS interpretation, he feels that
current MSDS formats are too long and complex to be effective. He recommends a one page
summary sheet for use by employees and a separate ANSI type format MSDS for technical
specialists and employees who want more detailed information. He feels that training
should be focused on the summary sheet. Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
19. Letter dated 12/8/95 from Charles Dickhut, Chairman, Association of Waste
Hazardous Materials Transporters. Concerns are expressed related to duplicative
and overlapping training and hazard communication requirements of OSHA and DOT. They
support the use of the ANSI format as a standard format. They also recommend that OSHA
require manufacturers to identify, in some uniform fashion, when the MSDS is used for
non-regulated materials. Mailed to Workgroup 2/29/96.
20. Letter dated 3/20/96 from Craig Brightup, Director of Government Relations,
National Roofing Contractors Association, transmitting comments from William
R. Steinmetz, Midland Engineering (see Comment No. 4) who is also a Vice
President of the National Roofing Contractors Association. He says that improved labeling
and reduced MSDS requirements would provide better results in worker access to information
and ease the regulatory burden on small construction employers. Given to Workgroup 3/20/96
in meeting folder.
21. Letter dated 3/14/96 from Nancy Dehmlow, Vice President of Health, Safety
& Environment, GLS Corporation. She recommends a national depository system
for MSDSs on the Internet instead of the present system of each individual company being
responsible for passing MSDSs downstream. Given to Workgroup 3/20/96 in meeting folder.
22. Letter faxed 3/18/96 from Robert Murray, Coors Ceramics Company.
He recommends a uniform format for MSDSs with necessary information for workers on the
first page. He also recommends use of the HMIS Hazard index and/or the NFPA Hazard rating
right after the name of the chemical, with the PPE needed listed right under the ratings.
Given to Workgroup 3/20/96 in meeting folder.
23. Additional comments dated 3/5/96 from Colette M. Mlynarek, Senior
Regulatory Analyst, Health and Environmental Affairs, American Petroleum Institute
(see December 12, 1995, presentation). Suggestions are included for an OSHA inspector's
compliance audit guideline which checks the adequacy of an employer's performance oriented
HazCom program. Examples of frivolous or low hazard priority citations are also included.
Given to Workgroup 3/20/96 in meeting folder.
24. Comments dated 3/11/96 from H. Patrick Toner, Vice President of Technical
Affairs, The Society of the Plastics Industry. The Society recommends
standardization and simplification of MSDSs through OSHA endorsement of the ANSI MSDS
standard; OSHA recognition of the ANSI Precautionary Labeling standard to enhance the
communication of essential hazard information; and clarification by OSHA of its policy
related to residual monomers to indicate that polymeric products containing residual
monomers should be treated as mixtures. They stressed that none of the issues they raised
would require OSHA to enter into formal rulemaking, and that interpretations of the
existing regulation would suffice. Given to Workgroup 3/20/96 in meeting folder.
25. Letter dated 4/9/96 from Rob Craig, Logistics Management Institute
with copy of the ASC X12 848 Material Safety Data Sheet for electronic data interchange
(EDI) together with "implementation conventions" and a brief explanation of
their usage. (See George Ganak presentation on December 11, 1995). Mailed to Workgroup
4/17/96.
26. Letter dated 4/22/96 from Stephen M. Azia, Associate Director, Government
Relations, Health Industry Distributors Association. Because of the proliferation
of MSDSs covering non-hazardous substances, HIDA recommends that OSHA establish clear
specific guidelines which will clarify which products should be exempt from the
"hazardous chemical" requirement. They also recommend that OSHA develop and
require a national uniform MSDS
format and allow for electronic delivery of the MSDS. Given to Workgroup 4/24/96 in
meeting folder.
27. Letter and Memorandum dated 4/22/96 from Richard I. Bergman, President,
Savant Associates, Inc. The Memorandum describes research undertaken by this
group which resulted in new grammar and format which should make MSDS users' information
processing tasks easier, and be equally applicable for designing a computer-adaptive
multi-media system for hazard communication. Given to Workgroup 4/24/96 in meeting folder.
28. Letter dated 4/22/96 from Dr. William S. Ten Pas, President, American
Dental Association. This references the association's 10/19/95 presentation and
acknowledges merit in suggestions being considered by the workgroup. However, he states
that for dental offices the best solution remains an exemption from the standard. Given to
Workgroup 4/24/96 in meeting folder.
The American National Standard for Hazardous Industrial Chemicals - Material Safety
Data Sheets - Preparation (ANSI Z400.1 - 1993) recommends a Material Safety Data Sheet
which contains sixteen sections. This Standard recommends specific titles for each section
and in some cases has additional recommendations for sub-sections with specific titles. It
also describes, in detail, the audience, the language requirements and the content for
each section and sub-section. The outline that follows this introduction is a brief
summary of the detailed recommendations for a Material Safety Data Sheet is ANSI Z400.1 -
1993.
Material Safety Data Sheet Outline of Sections, Sub-Sections, Audience and Content
- Section 1: CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
- Audience: All MSDS Users
- Content: -Material identity.
- -Manufacturer or responsible company.
- -Alternative names/synonyms/company codes.
- -Optional MSDS number or code.
- -Name/address of manufacturer.
- -(Phone # for additional information.)
- -Emergency phone number.
- Section 2: COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
- Audience: All MSDS Users
- Content: -All ingredients that contribute to the hazard.
- -(Chemical and common names).
- -Other options:
- -Trade secret in lieu of chemical identity.
- -List other significant ingredients (state or other federal regulations.)
- -Full disclosure of composition.
- -Percentages, CAS #'s.
- -OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, company limits.
- -Other regulatory lists (SARA, IARC, etc.).
- Section 3: HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
- EMERGENCY OVERVIEW:
- Audience: Emergency Response Personnel.
- Content: -Appearance, physical state, odor (if applicable).
- -Health, physical, and environmental hazards that require immediate attention in an emergency.
- -Options include paragraph format or label statements.
- POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS:
- Audience: -All Individuals from Community and Employees to Health and Medical Professionals.
- Content: -Information on potential adverse health effects and symptoms associated with exposure.
- -Include references to chronic health effects (IARC, NTP, OSHA, carcinogen classifications.
- -Present information in easily understood language.
- -Mixtures may include data for comments here or in Section 11.
- -Elements of this section include the following:
- -Route of exposure; lengths of exposure; severity of effect; target
organ(s); type of effect; signs & symptoms of exposure; medical
conditions aggravated by exposure.
- Section 4: FIRST AID MEASURES
- FIRST AID PROCEDURES:
- Audience: Individuals Untrained in Medical Treatment.
- Content: -Provide instructions by route of exposure (e.g., inhalation, skin, eye, etc.).
- -Include simple remedial measures.
- -Information on first aid associated with specific handling methods may be appropriate.
- -Include antidotes that can be administered by lay persons.
- -Indicate if immediate attention is required and if delayed effects could be expected.
- NOTE TO PHYSICIANS:
- Audience: Medical Professionals
- Content: -Provide additional information on specific treatment if available.
- -Additional symptoms detectable only by testing.
- -Specific treatment procedures.
- -For mixtures the symptoms/treatments of components of health concern could be
described.
- -Aggravated medical conditions.
- Section 5: FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
- Audience: Employees, Emergency Responders, and Occupational Health & Safety
Professionals
- Content: -Flammable Properties Section:
- Flash point and method;
- Upper and lower flammable limits;
- Autoignition temperature;
- Flammability classification (29CFR 1910.1200);
- Flame propagation or burn rate;
- Hazardous products of combustion;
- Unique properties that initiate or contribute to fire intensity.
- -Optional Additions:
- Dust explosion;
- Release of flammable gas/vapor;
- Other unusual condition that contribute to fire hazards.
- -Extinguishing Media Section:
- List proper media to extinguish fire.
- -Fire Fighting Instructions Section:
- Instructions for protecting lives in the fire area noting unusual impact on the
environment and property loss.
- Section 6: ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
- Audience: Emergency Responders and Environmental Professionals
- Content: -Containment techniques, clean-up procedures related to spills and releases.
- -Distinguish between large and small spills.
- -Personal protective equipment is specified in Section 8.
- -Other Emergency Advice:
- Evacuation procedures;
- Advice to protect the responders as well as the environment.
- -Specific reporting requirements can be placed here or in Section 15 (Regulatory
Information).
- Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE
- HANDLING:
- Audience: Employees, Occupational Health & Safety Professional, and Employers
(customers)
- Content: -Precautions for unique properties of material.
- -Note any specific federal regulatory requirements for safe handling.
- -List handling practices that:
- -Minimize contact; minimize fire risk; minimize release to environmental.
- -Include general warnings on practices to avoid (ANSI Z129.1) precautionary text may be
applicable).
- -Include practices to prevent vapor release, use of non-sparking tools, explosion proof
equipment, inert blanketing, precautions for handling molten or hot materials, etc.
- STORAGE:
- Audience: Employees Involved in Storage or Transport
- Content: -Information for appropriate storage practices.
- -Note any unusual condition that could injure workers or damage the product/its
container or storage area.
- -Note any specific storage condition to avoid a hazard or damage to the integrity of the
material.
- Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS, PERSONAL PROTECTION
- ENGINEERING CONTROLS:
- Audience: Employers and Occupational Health & Safety Professionals
- Content: -Generally applicable control measures.
- -Engineering controls.
- -Ventilation needs.
- -Special process conditions.
- PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE):
- Audience: Employees, Occupational Health & Safety Professionals, and Emergency
Responders
- Content: -Recommend PPE for each route of exposure to minimize or prevent contract or
exposure.
- -Note specific regulatory requirements for PPE.
- -Subdivide into section sub-headings:
- Eye/face protection;
- Skin protection;
- Respiratory protection;
- General (optional for additional information).
- EXPOSURE GUIDELINES:
- Audience: Occupational Health & Safety Professionals and Employees
- Content: -Identify established exposure guidelines for the product, its components or
both.
- -List OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, and any other appropriate exposure guidelines.
- -Describe both the concentration and the time frame (e.g., 100 ppm 15 min.).
- -Include "skin notation" qualifier where applicable.
- -List mandatory guidelines first followed by any optional guidelines.
- -Overall option to list exposure guidelines in Section 2 (Composition, Information on
Ingredients).
- Section 9: PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
- Audience: All MSDS Users
- Content: -The following characteristics should appear:
- Odor; Physical State; pH; Vapor Pressure; Vapor Density; Boiling Point; Freezing/Melting
Point; Solubility in Water; Specific Gravity or Density.
- -The following characteristics may only apply to specific materials: Heat Value;Particle
Size; OC Content; Softening Point; Evaporation Rate; Viscosity; Bulk Density; Percent
Volatile; Molecular Weight; Molecular Formula; Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient;
Saturated Vapor Concentration
- -Identify units of measurement and/or reference conditions.
- Section 10: STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
- Audience: Employees and Occupational Health & Safety Professional. May be useful for
Emergency Responders.
- Content: -The following elements should be addressed:
- -Chemical stability: Indicate stability under normal storage/handling conditions.
- -Conditions to avoid: List conditions that may result in a hazardous situation (i.e.,
heat, pressure, shock, etc.).
- -Incompatibility with other materials: List chemicals or other materials that the
product could react with to produce a hazardous situation.
- -Hazardous decomposition products: List known and reasonably anticipated hazardous
materials produced as a result of oxidation heating or reaction with another material.
- -Hazardous polymerization: State if the material will polymerize releasing excess
pressure, heat, or other hazardous conditions. State the conditions that could make this
occur.
- Section 11: TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
- Audience: Medical and Occupational Health and Safety Professionals, Toxicologists
- Content: -Supporting data for health hazard determination presented in Section 3.
- -Acute tox data (LD50, LC50);
- -Chronic/sub-chronic studies;
- -Special studies (e.g., epidemiology, carcinogenicity, reproductive tox, etc.);
- -Present data either by route of exposure or end-point of test.
- Section 12: ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
- Audience: Environmental Professionals, Other Involved with Use, Disposal or Spill
Control
- Content: -Ecotoxicity data (fish, avian, plants).
- -Environmental fate (persistence, degradation, bioaccumulation).
- -Certain physical/chemical characteristics (hydrolytic and photolytic stability, water
solubility, vapor pressure).
- -Data results must indicate species, media, units, test duration, and conditions.
- -Include statements of relevance to the data.
- Section 13: DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
- Audience: Environmental Professionals, Others Responsible for Waste Management Activities
- Content: -Information relevant to determining the proper waste management options for a given material and/or container.
- -May include:
- -Classification under RCRA (40CFR261).
- -US EPA Hazardous Waste No. description.
- -Physical/chemical properties related to disposal options (e.g., BTU value for incineration, bioconcentration factor for landfilling.).
- -Specific disposal recommendations or limitations.
- -Advice that information pertains only to unused, uncontaminated material.
- -Advice that specific state or local regulations may impact available disposal options.
- -Providing obvious information only does not add value to the MSDS.
- Section 14: TRANSPORT INFORMATION
- Audience: Anyone Preparing a Material for Shipment, Emergency Responders
- Content: -Basic DOT description including:
- -Proper shipping name;
- -Hazard class;
- -UN/NA Identification No.
- -A statement indicating non-regulation by DOT of if classification changes based on
package size or mode of shipment.
- -International transportation classification (e.g., IMO, ICAO, Transport Canada).
- Section 15: REGULATORY INFORMATION
-
Audience: Regulatory Compliance Professionals, Anyone Interested in Compliance Issues
- Content: -Information on the regulatory status of materials (including individual
components).
- -May include:
- -US Federal Regulations (OSHA, TSCA, FIFRA, FDA< CERCLA, SARA Title III, etc.).
- -International Regulations (WHMIS, CEPA, EC, etc.).
- -US State Regulations (State R-T-K Requirements, State-Listed Materials, etc.).
- Section 16: OTHER INFORMATION
- Audience: All MSDS Users
- Content: -Additional information specifically unrelated to the other 15 sections.
- -May include:
- -Label text;
- -Hazard ratings (e.g., NFPA, HMIS);
- -Preparation/revision indicator.
|
