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 (HMISŪ) to address their needs. This
system uses pictograms, color coding, and a numerical rating system to indicate the
relative degree of hazard.
The HMISŪ 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. Regard |
