Summary

The Hazard Communication Standard requires employers to identify chemical hazards in the workplace and alert employees about them. Of the small employers (those with fewer than 20 employees) GAO surveyed, almost 70 percent reported little difficulty with either of the two material safety data sheet requirements. Almost 80 percent of these employers, however, had difficulty complying with the standard's training requirements. More than half of small employers reported some cost increases to comply with the standard's paperwork/clerical requirements, but fewer than a fifth reported "great" or "very great" cost increases. Although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) methodology for estimating small employers' costs to comply with material safety data sheet requirements is sound, the estimates derived from the cost model depend on assumptions OSHA made about the values of the variables. In one case, OSHA understated compliance costs by excluding benefit costs like health benefits from its wage rate variables. About 45 percent of employers surveyed believe that the standard has been beneficial for workers, and more than 56 percent of all employers reported a "great" or "very great" improvement in availability of hazard information in the workplace and in management's awareness of workplace hazards. About 30 percent of employers said that they had replaced hazardous chemicals in their workplace because of information they received on a material safety data sheet.

GAO found that: (1) although almost 70 percent of the small employers surveyed who appeared to be complying with HCS reported little difficulty with either of the two MSDS requirements, almost 80 percent of them reported problems in complying with HCS training requirements; (2) over half of the small employers experienced some cost increases in complying with HCS paperwork and clerical requirements, but fewer than 20 percent reported great or very great cost increases; (3) although the OSHA approach for estimating nonmanufacturing employers' compliance costs was sound, GAO could not assess the accuracy of OSHA cost calculations due to data limitations; (4) about 45 percent of all employers that appeared to be complying with HCS reported that, on balance, HCS had benefited workers, compared with about 9 percent that reported that HCS had a negative effect and 36 percent that reported that it had equally positive and negative effects or no effects at all; (5) over 56 percent of employers reported a great or very great improvement in the availability of hazard information in the work place and in management's awareness of work-place hazards; and (6) about 30 percent of employers stated that MSDS information caused them to replace hazardous chemicals used in their work places.