A Facelift for Hazard Communication?
Global Harmonization and its Impact on the Regulated Community
BY ATANU DAS

As OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) nears its 25th anniversary, the agency is considering modifications to it by incorporating elements of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).

This system was initially adapted by the United Nations in 2002 with the goal of having as many countries as possible implement it by 2008. For the U.S. regulated community of industries where employees are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals, complying with a new version
of the HCS will be a daunting challenge.

Because different countries develop their own laws regulating what chemicals are covered, the definitions of hazards, and formats for safety data sheets, inconsistencies arise when chemical products are sold throughout the world. The GHS was created primarily to standardize the way hazardous chemicals are categorized based on their health, physical and environmental effects.

 Additionally, this information must be communicated on updated Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and labels.

The current OSHA HCS does not specify a given format for chemical hazard data provided that information for general hazard classes (e.g. health and physical hazards) is conveyed. This “performance-oriented” method of compliance opens the data up to various interpretations and may
lead to inconsistent hazard determinations.

The GHS clarifies this approach by adding specific health hazard classes such as skin corrosion, eye damage and reproductive toxicity along with detailed criteria for classifying the hazards.

Once the hazard determination method is agreed upon, the method of conveying the data to the end users of the chemical by means of MSDSs needed to be addressed.

The HCS specifies what information must be included on the MSDS, but does not specify a format or order of information. Over time, chemical producers expressed preferences for a standard format
and order leading to OSHA’s recommendation of the 16 section ANSI MSDS format.

The GHS incorporated this format and switched the order of sections two and three, while maintaining the goal of format consistency. The GHS sections for MSDSs are as follows:
• Identification;
• Hazard Identification;
• Composition/information on
ingredients;
• First aid measures;
• Firefighting measures;
• Accidental release measures;
• Handling and storage;
• Exposure controls/personal
protection;
• Physical and chemical properties;
• Stability and reactivity;
• Toxicological information;
• Ecological information;
• Disposal considerations;
• Transport information;
• Regulatory information; and
• Other information.

While OSHA does not regulate environmental, transportation and other non-workplace related matters included in the MSDS sections, the agency favors this standardized order of information because of
improved comprehensibility. In addition, the agency feels that having a standard MSDS template
allows chemical producers to comply more easily as it more closely follows the ANSI format
already in use.

Another source of inconsistency arose from the HCS requirements for labels. Again, because OSHA only outlined minimal information needed on a label, companies took it upon themselves to develop their own labeling with hazard phrases leading to potential miscommunication of the hazards to end users.

To rectify this, the GHS utilizes a standard hazard determination criteria that incorporates a harmonized hazard statement, a signal word and pictogram (see figure) associated with each hazard and hazard category.

Once the hazard categories of the chemical mixtures are classified, a label incorporating the signal
word, hazard statement and symbol or pictogram can be prepared. See figure for example.
Like the MSDS format, the label provisions allow for greater readability and improved communication
for workers who may not be functionally literate in the language written on the label. Secondly, as the core hazard statements have already been developed and translated into various languages, chemical manufacturers and importers will not be burdened with having to create and maintain these on their own.

Compliance Impact
With all of these proposed major changes to the HCS, OSHA anticipates employers will need to revamp all their training requirements associated with incorporation of GHS guidelines. This
would include training employees on authoring the MSDSs, the meaning of the symbols, hazard statements, and safety categories among others. To further assist the regulated community, OSHA has published a number of resources on its website covering the official text of the GHS
along with a side-by-side comparison of the HCS to the GHS.

In an effort to understand the monetary impact of possible adaptation of the GHS, OSHA also released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register in September,
2006 seeking comments from the regulated community.

The agency asked 20 questions ranging from how many hazardous chemicals as defined by the HCS do you produce if OSHA changes the HCS to adopt the physical hazard criteria; how will that impact other OSHA standards that use the same criteria as the HCS? The comment period ended in November with over 200 comments received from small manufacturers, consulting firms, trade industry groups and large corporations.

The general consensuses from these entities were all in favor of GHS implementation provided that OSHA considers the cost implication to convert. For example, the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
estimates that its member companies will incur costs as high as $70,000 to $80,000 per system to upgrade and modify phrases, ingredient rules and other revisions to MSDS authoring software already in use. The Council further stated that the time required to generate, review and revise documents
will increase from 2.5 to 11 hours per product depending on the time needed for reviewing and re-evaluating the toxicological, physical-chemical and environmental toxicity data, and revising the MSDS and label.

On the topic of training affected personnel, ISSA, a trade association representing the institutional and industrial cleaning industry, estimated that it would cost approximately $29 million to apprise its members of the GHS standards. The trade group also urged OSHA to extend the timing and coordinating of GHS implementation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to avoid unreasonable
burdens if all of these agencies were to require implementation all at once.

A large chemical manufacturer also agreed with the ISSA and recommended a transition time of at least 18 to 24 months to ensure that the regulated community has sufficient time to make the necessary changes to their internal systems and work processes, arguing that this is especially critical for labeling since companies may have several years’ worth of product in inventory and changing labels is quite costly in these circumstances. During the transition period, the manufacturer
asked OSHA to allow either the current HCS or an updated GHS-compli-ant HCS information requirement to be followed, but not require both sets on MS-DSs as the European Union is planning.

 Allowing the redundancy may lead to delays in full implementation and management of too many different versions of documentation. Emphasizing this need further, the ACC requested an even longer transition period of five years to ensure existing inventories of labels and product are sold through the chain of commerce publications and subjects would be of most usefulness to employers and employees, the regulated community responded by asking OSHA for electronic learning tools with modules for awareness training; classification of chemicals with an emphasis on mixture rules; training on pictograms; and a reference table comparing differing requirements around the globe. Most important to the ACC is the need for OSHA to be properly staffed and well-trained to provide the necessary guidance to the regulated community as they make the inevitable transition to GHS. More information on the GHS and OSHA guidance documents on this topic can be found on OSHA’s website: www.osha.gov. To view all submitted comments to OSHA on the proposed rulemaking click on “Dockets & E-Comments.” FSM Atanu Das is president of MSDSWriter, a company providing Material Safety Data Sheet preparation and updating, hazard communications training and labeling
services. They can be found on the web at msdswriter.com.