The 33-year old law that was supposed to ensure that Americans know what chemicals are in use around them, and what health and safety hazards they might pose, has produced a regulatory black hole, a place where information goes in – but much never comes out. The reason is that under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the chemical industry has been allowed to stamp a “trade secret” claim on the identity of two-thirds of all chemicals introduced to the market in the last 27 years, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These include substances used in numerous consumer and children’s products.

EWG’s analysis also showed that:
• The public has no access to any information about approximately 17,000 of
the more than 83,000 chemicals on the master inventory compiled by the
EPA.
• Industry has placed “confidential business information” (CBI) claims on the
identity of 13,596 new chemicals produced since 1976 – nearly two-thirds of
the 20,403 chemicals added to the list in the past 33 years.

• Secrecy claims directly threaten human health. Under section 8(e) of TSCA,
companies must turn over all data showing that a chemical presents “a
substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” By definition
compounds with 8(e) filings are the chemicals of the greatest health concern.
In the first eight months of 2009 industry concealed the identity of the
chemicals in more than half the studies submitted under 8(e).
• From 1990 to 2005, the number of confidential chemicals more than
quadrupled – from 261 to 1,105 — on the sub-inventory of substances
produced or imported in significant amounts (more than 25,000 pounds a
year in at least one facility). In July 2009 the EPA released the identity of
530 of these chemicals, lowering the number of these moderate- and highproduction
volume secret chemicals to 575.
• At least 10 of the 151 high volume confidential chemicals produced or
imported in amounts greater than 300,000 pounds a year are used in
products specifically intended for use by children age 14 or younger.

This Notice (Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062) proposes to modify OSHA’s current Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the system for classification, labeling and safety data sheets proposed by the United Nations. The Globally Harmonized System, found in the UN’s Purple Book, is an attempt to standardize hazard communication for workplace and consumer products on a worldwide basis. This will both improve enhance trade by removing significant variations in international standards, as well as improve hazard communication in parts of the world where few regulations currently exist.

OSHA plans, using this docket, to significantly amend its system of identifying hazardous workplace materials found in 29 CFR 1910.1200. The new system will include:

* Revised classification criteria for determining hazards,

* A new labeling system, that will include standardized signal words, pictograms to depict hazards, and prescribed hazard and precautionary statements,

* A revised and more specific format for material safety data sheets (to be called simply safety data sheets in the new system), and

* Modification of other safety standards, such as those for specific substances, to ensure consistency with the GHS standard.

Revising such a large document as the HCS will take a lot of work on the behalf of industry as well as government. OSHA is currently allowing ninety days for public comment from concerned parties, before starting the process leading to an eventual Final Rulemaking that will create the new system. Companies affected by the HCS need to provide as much input as possible, since there will likely be considerable fine-tuning required to make this system successful.

Comments may be made to Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 at

http://www.regulations.gov

How will this affect Canada and Mexico? Of course, as the US is the largest part of the North American trading zone, there will be considerable pressure on those governments to change their own hazard communication standards accordingly. Health Canada is currently looking at amending the WHMIS system and the Hazardous Products Act to conform to GHS, although there has been no date set yet for when these amendments will be seen. Mexico is currently also developing a GHS modification to their own chemical hazard communication laws.

To download a copy of these proposed amendments from the Federal Register, go to

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-22483.pdf

In theory, MSDSs provide users with information regarding hazardous substances and recommended safety precautions. While the concept behind these documents is good, my experience suggests that the information often is too vague or limited, making MSDSs amount to nothing more than a tragic hoax.

I have had the opportunity to examine hundreds of safety data sheets. Except for the lists of ingredients, I have found much of the information utterly useless. For example, many recommend using simply “chemical-resistant” gloves to prevent a substance from coming into contact with the skin. Without specific information about appropriate glove types, however, the user remains in the dark. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to specify the glove material required to protect against the particular chemical – for example, recommending gloves made of nitrile or polyvinyl alcohol? This way, the user understands exactly which gloves he or she needs, and can avoid the potentially dangerous scenario of reaching for a pair of rubber or latex gloves, which might dissolve on contact with the chemical.

Vague advice without direct, clear instruction for particular situations seems to be a common problem for MSDSs. For example, one of my favorite MSDS suggestions for disposal is to dispose of “in accordance with all local, state and federal regulations.” Recommendations don’t get more useless than that.

Another common MSDS tactic is to simply recommend that users wear proper respiratory protection. Respirators, however, should only be worn if exposure to air contaminants cannot be eliminated by engineering controls such as ventilation. If a respirator is required, the necessary type is dictated by the contaminant concentration. As a certified industrial hygienist, I am able to use the list of ingredients to select appropriate chemical-resistant clothing and identify appropriate air sampling methods to quantify exposure, but many other users can’t. Instead, they rely on the MSDS to tell them what to do – and too often, the advice they get is useless.

In my opinion, one of the most glaring (yet easily correctable) faults of MSDSs is the failure to warn of the explosion hazard posed by combustible dusts. In a report issued last November concerning dust explosions throughout the country, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board pointed out that MSDSs for combustible materials such as plastics, chemicals and other dust-producing products did not contain a warning that suspensions and accumulations of combustible dusts could lead to catastrophic explosions. Now, wouldn’t that be something good to know?

Based on OSHA’s reluctance to issue a comprehensive combustible dust standard in the wake of the CSB’S recommendation to do so, I don’t think we can rely on regulatory agencies like OSHA to force preparers of MSDSs to develop a more user-friendly product. Instead, I think we need a grassroots effort from the professional safety community to demand more useful MSDSs that will put an end to the ongoing hoax.

Oh no! We have a serious problem. The plant office manager ran into my office with a frantic look of panic on her face. The company safety inspectors are here and they want to see an MSDS on the Wite-Out. What will we do?

This scenario, while fictitious, is played out a thousand times every year in facilities all across our nation. We all have learned the OSHA rules of hazard communication, 29CFR1910.1200. The purpose and design of the program is excellent: that any chemicals produced or imported are evaluated for hazards and those hazards are then communicated to the employees and employers who might come in contact with them.

As a result of this policy, we have built binders of MSDSs that now are a familiar site in the workplace. New technology has allowed some employers to digitalize their MSDSs and make them available online, but the principle remains the same. Drilled into us from day one as safety professionals was that we MUST have an MSDS on any chemical in the facility.

As a basic rule it was good, and we learned to conduct regular audits of our MSDSs to keep them updated. We audit our facilities for new chemicals or chemicals that may have been missed and for chemicals that may have been eliminated and thus no longer need to be included. We got really good at this hazardous communication thing.

But then we let our absolutes get in the way of common sense. We started asking questions about chemicals that for some reason were not included. Why didn’t we have MSDSs on these things? A can of diet soda might contain citric acid, sodium benzoate and brominated vegetable oil. I don’t have an MSDS on brominated vegetable oil. I don’t even know what brominated vegetable oil is. How much is in every can? Is there a cutoff or a minimum threshold level? If I only have one am I OK? What if I have a case? How many cans are there in a soda machine?

Panic begins to set in! What about our first aid kit? It is full of medications and ointments. I don’t have MSDSs on them either. Oh no! What am I to do?

My suggestion? Relax! While it may fly in the face of what we teach and have been taught, we do not have to have an MSDS on every chemical in our facilities. As with all other workplace rules, we will find the truth if we return to the regulations. Once we know the truth, the truth will set us free.

So When Do I Not Need an MSDS?
OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.1200 actually is very specific about exceptions to its application and scope. MSDSs only are one tool of our hazardous communication standard. In its statement of purpose – 29 CFR 1910.1200 (a) (1) – the regulation clearly states that, “This transmittal of information is to be accomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs, which are to include container labeling and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets and employee training.” So, MSDSs are just one form of communication. Other things, like container labels, are important too, and many items that are regulated by other government agencies do not require separate MSDSs.

29 CFR 1910.1200 (b) goes into detail about what kinds of chemicals are exempt from this rule. For example, 1200 (b) (4) applies to facilities where employees handle chemicals in sealed containers but do not open them under normal conditions (such as in warehouses or even retail sales). These facilities must keep copies of MSDSs they receive with hazardous shipments and must obtain an MSDS for any hazardous chemicals received without one if an employee requests it. But if no MSDS is received and no employee requests it, facilities are not required to have one on file.

Section 1200 (b) (5) (i) says that pesticides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides do not require labeling under 29 CFR 1910.1200. These labels are regulated by EPA instead of OSHA.

1200 (b) (5) (ii) says that chemicals and chemical mixtures defined in the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601 et seq.) are exempt. Like the pesticides, they are regulated by EPA.

1200 (b) (5) (iii) says that foods, food additives, color additives, drugs, cosmetics, medical and veterinary devices and their ingredients are exempt. These items are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, rather than OSHA.

1200 (b) (5) (iv) says that beverage alcohols including wine and malt beverages are exempt. These items are regulated under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

1200 (b) (5) (v) states that any consumer product or hazardous consumer substance is exempt. These items are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

1200 (b) (5) (vi) says that agricultural and vegetable seeds are exempt. These are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In addition, 29 CFR 1910.1200 (b) (6) offers 12 categories of hazardous chemicals to which the regulation does not apply:

Hazardous waste (regulated by EPA)
Hazardous substance (EPA again)
Tobacco or tobacco products
Wood or wood products
Articles not of a fluid or particle nature
Food or alcoholic beverages intended for personal consumption
Drugs
Cosmetics packaged for sale to consumers or intended for personal use
Any consumer product
Nuisance particles that do not pose physical or health hazards
Ionizing and non ionizing radiation
Biological hazards

So, while the hazardous communication standard is widespread in its application, it is not all-inclusive. The next time someone in your workplace comes to you in a panic because the big yellow book does not contain an MSDS for Suzy’s lip gloss, Gary’s energy drink, the antibiotic cream in the first aid kit or the window cleaner in the janitor’s cart, don’t panic. Read the regulations and check paragraphs (b) (5) and (b) (6) before you try to find an MSDS on these items. They well may be exempt.

Whether you know you’re dealing with a substance covered under 29CFR1910.1200 or have questions about a substance, check the regulations! While some chemicals may not require MSDSs, they might have separate labeling, storage and use requirements.

Supplier relationships, compliance issues take center stage when buying chemicals online.
By Rich Weissman — Purchasing, 4/10/2008

While e-sourcing has found its way into nearly every spend area imaginable today, buying chemicals online requires significantly more attention than most spend areas. A buyer’s need for detailed product specifications and regulatory compliance information often outpaces the need for speed in sourcing chemicals, and further emphasizes the need for strong supplier relationships.

Larry Giunipero, the ISM Professor of Purchasing and Supply Management at Florida State University in Tallahassee sees compliance as the major bottleneck in easily purchasing chemicals online. “There is an element of control in the chemical purchase that may not be so prevalent in other online purchases,” says Giunipero. “Buyers have to be concerned with material safety data sheets (MSDS), hazmat issues, and even DOT regulations for the transportation and storage of chemicals.”

As a result, the direct buyer-supplier relationship is even more important when e-sourcing chemicals. “You need to be sure you’re dealing with credible, safe, suppliers that offer end-to-end process controls and that is why I advocate a direct relationship with chemical suppliers,” says Giunipero. “Third parties, or direct purchases from supplier websites, may not offer the control that you need to meet compliance issues.”

That said, Giunipero sees a steady increase in e-sourcing overall, especially from the younger generation of procurement professionals, which will undoubtedly find its way to the chemicals market. “While more and more buyers are gaining comfort in buying online, I see younger buyers really embracing online applications and that trend will continue to grow,” says Giunipero, pointing out that there may be issues around smaller companies buying online as they tend to depend on supplier sites, third parties, and procurement cards rather than applications such as ERP and spend-management tools. “Smaller companies may be at a disadvantage in online procurement and that would especially translate into their online chemical purchases.”

The distributor’s role
Chemical distributors are continuing to carve out their own niche in the e-sourcing universe. “The business relationship with the customer is the most important part of the sale,” says Chris Jahn, the president of the Arlington, Va.-based National Association of Chemical Distributors. “Chemical distribution is complex, and while we see an increase in online transactions, the process is not as simple as buying a book, office supplies or CD online.”

And it’s that complexity that can give distributors an increased role in e-sourcing, Jahn says, noting that online transactions are a good way to strengthen a business relationship with a chemical distributor. “Chemical distributors play a significant role in supporting the customer in both a technical and business level, and especially with online transactions.”

Jahn sees the value in the chemical distribution process as one of managing compliance, regulation, and risk. He notes that chemicals are coming from around the world and it is important to have a strong relationship with the company supplying the product. “Are you really buying what you think you are buying?” asks Jahn.

Buyers’ view
Buyers have their own view of e-sourcing of chemicals and it’s a cautious one. “I have found that procuring most chemicals is a very volatile operation due to the huge amount of liability put on both supplier and buyer,” says Karl Harward, a purchasing and contracts manager for the City of Salt Lake City. “I would not recommend procuring chemicals online unless the buyer has a long-term contract and relationship in place.”

Harward recommends establishing long-term contracts with chemical suppliers that would allow for negotiated items such as product quality, price, freight and delivery costs, specialized insurance and any other related product requirements. Harward sees a competitive landscape of chemical suppliers willing to negotiate if responding to a formal bid or contract proposal, but less so in responding to spot purchases online.

“The chemical buy is very complex, which really impacts the online sourcing process,” says Harward.

Scott Egdahl, a strategic sourcing buyer with Boston University warns chemical buyers about an occasional lack of accuracy and process controls buying chemicals online can bring. “Purchasing chemicals online is an important part of our procurement process and greatly adds to efficiency, but we often have issues with the accuracy of transactional information [when buying online],” says Egdahl. “I realize that there are a lot of line items to manage that often need to reflect accurate and up-to-date information, but I find I spend a lot of time reconciling contract issues.”

Egdahl sees the quality and accuracy of online technical information, as excellent on Boston University’s dedicated supplier sites, but pricing often leaves something to be desired. “Our requisitioners often don’t know when there is a price variance but I do,” notes Egdahl. “The mistakes are often in the supplier’s favor and that can be very frustrating. “I still need to police the contracts.”

Aloke Bhandia, senior director of product management for Ketera Technologies, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based e-procurement provider, sees online applications mutually exclusive to the buyer-supplier relationship. “You can still have solid supplier relationships and still improve the procurement process with e-commerce tools,” says Bhandia, who emphasizes there is no substitute for a strong supplier relationship. “E-procurement should supplement the relationship, not replace it.”

“Chemicals can be extraordinarily complex and the Internet has significantly allowed the rapid sharing of information in everything from compounds to molecular structure to images of the chemicals themselves,” says Eric Zoetmulder, the director of supplier network services for Cary, N.C.-based e-procurement firm SciQuest, which supports the scientific community. “Some scientists build their own chemicals.” Zoetmulder says that one chemical may have 25 related styles and companies need to be able to support information on everything from proper routing to certificates of compliance.

According to Zoetmulder, purchasing chemicals online is much more than just the actual transaction. “Advanced search tools on online supplier catalogs have enabled chemical users almost instant access to the information that they need, eliminating a manual and time consuming process.” Zoetmulder also sees the automation of workflow as one of the important parts of online procurement, especially when it comes to a company’s regulatory compliance.

“The relationship with our chemical suppliers is the most important part of the purchasing process,” says Milan, Italy-based Luca Guzzabocca, director of procurement for GlaxoSmithKline’s European operations and a SciQuest user. “We need to make sure there is alignment within the chemical purchase, and that includes R&D, as well as with the buyer and the supplier.” Supplier compliance, says Guzzabocca, needs to include GSK’s requirements as well. “We depend on our suppliers to support our compliance and regulatory requirements. The actual online transactions are not that big of a deal.”

Days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed a petition made by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and other industry groups claiming that OSHA amended its Hazard Communication (hazcom) standard without notice or comment, OSHA and the petitioners reached a settlement.
As per the settlement, OSHA will issue a letter of interpretation addressing specific questions NAM and the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA) presented to OSHA regarding the agency’s new hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) standard for general industry. The letter will be issued by OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs.

In addition, NAM and SSINA have agreed to file a motion with the court to withdraw their petition for review of the Cr(VI) standard on or before May 24.

OSHA and the two other industry groups involved in the settlement – Public Citizen Health Group (HRG) and the United Steelworkers – have agreed not to oppose any motion NAM and/or SSINA may file to intervene in support of the Cr(VI) standard in the remaining cases.

Appeals Court: Petition Was 2 Decades Late

The coalition of industry trade groups in March 2006 filed a suit against OSHA challenging the hazcom standard provision on how chemicals are deemed hazardous, which the court of appeals dismissed, calling the petition “untimely.”

According to the petition, several changes were made to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLV ) list in January 2006, when five new substances – three kinds of calcium sulfate, coumaphos, and monochloroacetic acid – were added to the list of “hazardous substances” covered under the standard. In addition, the list established a TLV for propylene and lowered pre-existing TLVs for nine other substances.

As a result of the changes, the groups claimed that OSHA amended the hazcom standard without notice or chance for stakeholder comment, which violates requirements in the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and the Administrative Procedure Act.

According to the plaintiffs, when the 2006 list was published, “OSHA … effectuated a new standard that imposes both new and modified compliance obligations on employers … and subjects them to the threat of enforcement actions and sanctions for failure to comply with those obligations. Because OSHA imposed these new obligations without notice and comment, NAM claims that the agency has violated Section 655.”

But the court ultimately found OSHA’s argument to be the more persuasive one. Given that petitions for review of the standards are to be brought within 60 days of promulgation and the final rule was issued in 1983, the agency claimed that NAM “missed the statutory deadline by two decades.”

OSHA also argued that the OSH Act defines a standard as one that “requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,operations or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment,” which means that employers, manufacturers and importers are required to treat a substance listed in the latest edition of the ACGIH TLV list as hazardous. According to the agency, the conditions of regulated parties did not change in 2006.

The court concluded that because “the 2006 amendments to ACGIH’s TLV list did not modify the [hazcom standard] and because the [hazcom standard] has remained unchanged in relevant respects for approximately 20 years, NAM’s petition for review is untimely.”

The challenge today for organizations is to effectively manage their entire chemical inventory so they can stay in compliance and avoid the dangers, fines and fees associated with not doing so.
In the hazmat world today, most large organizations follow a time-honored process for identifying critical compliance needs and spend the money necessary to make it work. It is a process that tilts the compliance board in advantage of the bigger players.

It starts with a sophisticated purchasing or procurement system, usually with a module that enables environmental health and safety (EHS) staff to review and approve all incoming hazardous items. Nothing arrives into a big company unnoticed. Next, the chemical or product is tracked through some type of bar code or RFID-tagged inventory management system, and data on its location and specific usage is recorded.

Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) are obtained and tracked, using a sophisticated document and data management system that is tied into procurement and chemical tracking. At the end of all this, compliance reports required by EPA and local agencies are generated and submitted, usually electronically. At this point, management plans are made or modified, staff are trained or retrained and the company moves forward safely until the next monthly review period.

This utopian view of compliance management has been practiced for so long in so many high-profile companies that it has become the de facto process for managing compliance. In the world most EHS managers live in, however, the tools and resources just described do not exist. Companies today are forced to manage hazardous materials with limited budgets, staff, tools and systems.

Today, organizations need to create a new framework that takes into account the whole picture of hazmat compliance and its effect on the organization. Companies need to set their sights and marshal resources in one key area – an accurate hazmat inventory.

The picture begins with an accurate, up-to-date inventory of the pure chemicals, mixtures and products within the organization. The inventory becomes the foundation upon which the company manages other critical data and turns that data into knowledge on the hazards present in each of its facilities. This knowledge, when applied on a geographical, functional and hierarchal level within an organization, helps EHS staff make better business decisions.

This increases the value of the organization by reducing risk, cost and liability. A good hazmat inventory improves the bottom line and the basics are easy to understand and implement.

The Inventory
How Often? The frequency with which an inventory should be reviewed will depend on the size of the business and number of locations/departments that contain hazardous materials, the sophistication of purchasing and approval processes and the expected turnover of chemicals and other hazardous materials.

In an ideal world, a master inventory should be taken at least annually by the person responsible for the inventory in a specific location/department. Each new purchase or disposal should be tracked and the inventory modified throughout the year. EHS supervisors at each facility should have pre-purchase review and approval rights for any new product or chemical. Inventories from separate locations within an organization should be rolled up into a corporate-level inventory for analysis and to ensure consistency in process and purchasing.

What Data to Record? At a minimum, the location of each product or chemical should be recorded as well as the container size and quantity on hand of the material, the name of the product or chemical, the name of the company that made the product or chemical and any part number or description assigned by the manufacturer. This basic data will enable EHS staff to match the item to an MSDS, which can provide all the critical data needed for reporting and exposures.

Problems: The staff conducting the inventory may come across unlabeled, illegible and secondary labeled containers. Record these items in a separate discrepancy document, with their specific location and description, then physically flag the item itself, with stickers, labels or string that is easily visible. Review the discrepancy document at the completion of the inventory process to determine appropriate actions such as re-identifying products with appropriate labels and/or removing products from the facility.

Completing the Picture
Once an accurate inventory is obtained, it is possible to begin to add value to each record by associating other data, documents or records with each inventory item and supporting this information with on-site EHS staff or outside resources to assist employees in use and interpretation. This is an important step in seeing the “whole picture.”

MSDSs: Associate each item in the inventory with a manufacturer-specific MSDS and keep the inventory list and MSDS available for easy access by employees. The MSDS provides vital information for exposures and the specific characteristics of the chemicals in a product or mixture. Many companies keep the inventory list and corresponding MSDS in a file – hard copy or electronic – forever to meet OSHA’s exposure record keeping requirements. A process for obtaining new or updated MSDSs will be required as products change, or MSDSs go out of date.

Classification: Assign each item in the inventory a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) rating and classify the item for common modes of transport. NFPA has a system for identifying the hazards of a chemical that was developed with the needs of fire protection agencies in mind. The local fire department may require this information be provided along with the chemical inventory.

The HMIS rating is a labeling system developed by the National Paint and Coatings Association to quickly identify the hazards associated with a certain material. Inventory items should also receive a classification based on how the item is shipped, whether by ground, air or vessel. Each mode requires a different classification based on the size and quantity of the chemicals being transported.

Further instructions also will be needed on how to properly package different types of hazardous materials, what marking and labels go on the package, which placards go on the vehicle, how to complete the required shipping documentation and who to call in a transport emergency.

Why is the inventory so important? Because with so many companies doing it so poorly, a company that does it right gains a significant strategic advantage. When analyzed, the size and diversity of hazardous products within an organization is almost always a surprise. EHS staff and managers have not seen the “whole picture” and the result is misguided programs, misleading reporting, insufficient training and poor decision-making.

The accuracy of the inventory has cascading affects within an organization, from specific EHS responsibilities to employee well-being, management decision-making and corporate responsibility. If even 10 percent of your inventory is inaccurate, the following issues may arise:

MSDS Compliance – MSDSs will not always be available when needed, or when reviewed may contain outdated information. Staff may be spending valuable time and resources acquiring and maintaining MSDS for products that are not used or stored on site. At the same time, if a company uses its MSDS files as its 30-year exposure record, it could include chemicals and products that were not actually used, thus increasing the company’s potential liability.

Chemical Exposures – On-site data may not be available for the chemicals to which an employee is exposed. If the data is provided, it may refer to a previous or generic version of the product, increasing the likelihood of mistreatment.

Disposal of Hazardous Waste – The designated budget for disposal costs may be inadequate if there are items being used and disposed/recycled that the company is unaware of. Contingency planning for emergency response will be incomplete.

Regulatory Reporting – Sensitive chemicals (such as those that appear on SARA 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances List) may be excluded from required reporting. Items listed on the inventory but not actually used or stored on site could trigger higher reporting thresholds and unnecessarily lead to higher fees related to the amount reported.

Training and Preparedness – An incomplete inventory can hamper employee awareness of the chemicals in their workplace. This significantly increases the risk of exposure or injury and the related cost of treatment. Lack of related inventory data, such as MSDS and storage quantities, also can mean that all hazards are not properly evaluated.

Similarly, if a company assumes that the inventories at all sites or departments within its organization are the same, the following issues may arise:

MSDS Compliance – Site-specific MSDSs are not immediately available, in another building or office, or are completely unavailable. In a true emergency, such as ingestion, inhalation or exposure, treatment information contained on the MSDS will not be accessible by responding personnel. The company is then out of compliance with the Hazard Communication standard, which requires access to MSDSs for employees, with no barriers. This exposes the organization to the most commonly cited OSHA violations.

Chemical Exposures – If a company is unaware of the specific hazards at a given site or within a department, it may not be prepared to respond to employee exposure or injury. In addition, it may not have proper personal protective equipment, eyewash stations or containment tools in place for the specific chemicals used or stored at a site.

Disposal of Hazardous Waste – Established processes for handling specific waste streams may not be adequate. This could lead to waste on site, and the related risk and cost, longer than necessary. Uncertainty about what exactly is in a company’s waste stream may result in using waste contractors that do not have proper training, certification, tools and insurance to properly handle its needs. This applies to its staff as well, who may not have the training and tools to manage the waste they are generating.

Regulatory Reporting – Using a “master” report based on one location as representative of all locations may cause some chemicals to be reported unnecessarily. This could also trigger additional local or state reporting and their associated cost. The reverse also is true: A “master” report could leave some chemicals unreported, increasing risk and opening the company up to potential fines for not reporting the true on-site chemicals.

Training and Preparedness – Without an understanding of the exact nature of the hazards at a specific location, proper training will not be possible. Locations where the amounts of hazards have been underestimated will not have enough training. This is amplified in situations where substances that require unique handling procedures, such as lead and mercury, are found on site. Overtraining also can occur, which unnecessarily increases training cost.

Simply starting with an accurate inventory can result in more wins under your belt. By focusing efforts on gathering and analyzing the right information, EHS personnel can impact the cost for their organization to acquire, track, store, ship and dispose of hazardous materials and improve the understanding of hazardous materials among the employees throughout the organization.

EHS departments are winning every day because they are looking at the right data and making good decisions. Strive to become one of them.

OSHA’s latest semiannual regulatory agenda, published in the April 30 Federal Register, includes predictable delays for long-awaited standards such as crystalline silica and occupational exposure to beryllium, to name a few.

Crystalline silica – a compound that workers in construction, maritime and general industry are routinely exposed to – has been cited as the cause of silicosis, which is a disabling, if not fatal, disease. The standard has been on OSHA’s regulatory agenda for years, but it has not moved past the pre-rule stage. Previously slated for April, OSHA’s latest agenda indicates that a complete peer review of health effects and risk assessment will be done by September.

Occupational exposure to beryllium also has been on OSHA’s plate for some time now. Since 2001, OSHA has been in the process of gathering data through an official request for information in order to determine an appropriate course of action for addressing work-related hazards to beryllium. The agency, in its previous regulatory agenda, had indicated that the a SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act) panel would complete its report by March. The standard has been postponed to September.

OSHA Promised to Churn Out PPE Standard by November

Another hot topic on the agenda has been the employer-payment-for-PPE standard. The agenda notes that an interim final rule had been scheduled for April. However, in response to a lawsuit filed in January by AFL-CIO and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the Department of Labor promised that OSHA by November will issue a final rule on the standard. (For more read Chao: “OSHA Will Issue PPE Rule by November.”)

Ever since the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) in 2003, several nations as well as the European Union have been preparing proposals for adoption of GHS. OSHA admits that “U.S. manufacturers, employers and employees will be at a disadvantage in the event that our system of hazard communication is not compliant with the GHS.” The agency has indicated that it will submit a complete peer review of economic analysis by August.

In 1993, OSHA issued a rule to protect workers from the hazards associated with working in confined spaces (storage tanks, sewers, silos, etc.) but the rule did not cover construction workers. As part of a settlement agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, OSHA agreed to propose a rule to protect workers employed on construction sites. According to the agency’s latest agenda, an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for confined spaces on construction sites has been scheduled for August – as opposed to February, as it was noted in the previous agenda.

Other items on the regulatory agenda, which are slated for final action, include:

Updating OSHA standards based on national consensus standards – direct final rule, June.

Vertical tandem lifts for longshoring and marine terminals – December.

Electric power transmission and distribution; electrical protective equipment – June 2008

Revision and update of Subpart S – electrical standards – final action, effective August.

Implementing a globally harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS) would be the next best step in improving hazard communications systems, according to a web poll sponsored by the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).
A March 22 technical audio conference revealed that 98 percent of web poll participants – comprised mostly of safety and health professionals – voted “yes”when asked whether they see hazardous communication systems improving as a result of GHS implementation. In addition, 72 percent of poll voters said that their companies are in the process of preparing for GHS and 88 percent said they thought that GHS would help their companies streamline their hazard communication (HAZCOM) issues.

Among other poll results:

72 percent said that their companies have a HAZCOM program with international issues.

52 percent said that their companies dedicate significant resources to international issues.

61 percent said that they have international safety, health and environmental responsibilities.
According to ASSE, the poll results are indicative of the impact GHS is going to have in the safety and health community.

“Hundreds of safety, health and environmental professionals participated in the GHS call,” said Christopher Gates, assistant administrator of the ASSE Management Practice Specialty. “This clearly illustrates that GHS will be a critical issue for the profession in the near future and has the potential to make a significant impact on workplace safety and health when the system is fully implemented.”

Jennifer Silk, OSHA’s former deputy director of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, and Mary Frances Lowe of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs were on the call and discussed how GHS would impact hazard communication for manufacturers, importers, distributors and end users in all industries.

They also discussed how GHS would change material safety data sheets (MSDSs) and company HAZCOM programs and the impact GHS will have on EHS professionals.

According to ASSE, GHS – adopted by the United Nations in 2003 with the goal of implementing it internationally by 2008 – is intended to provide a comprehensive approach to:

Defining health, physical and environmental hazards of chemicals.

Creating classification processes that use available data on chemicals for comparison with the defined hazard criteria.

Communicating hazard information, as well as protective measures, on labels and MSDSs.
Proponents of GHS have been appealing to OSHA to adopt the standard as soon as possible. This would mean that the agency would have to make changes to the HAZCOM standard as well as its MSDS requirements.

It started in the eighties, when Multinational companies with the manufacturing base in India started demanding MSDSs from the Indian raw material suppliers. Without knowledge of the fundamentals of MSDS compliance, manufacturers provided only technical literature and information on the storage and handling of the raw material supplied. In the nineties, exports became more important as well as the need for more detailed MSDSs for employee safety in the importer’s workplace. Now, with all importers being concerned about the Environment and Safety, even more emphasis is placed on material safety data. Implementation of REACH by the EU makes MSDSs an important and useful source document for Environment, Occupational Health and Safety.

MSDS is an essential requirement for regulatory compliance laid down by OSHA, in the US, or similar compliance by its counterparts in other countries. So, basically MSDS must satisfy the requirement laid down by the respective authorities. The Indian material supplier then has to satisfy the customer’s demands with respect to MSDS, which will enable importers to observe the rules and regulation in the importer’s country. While MSDS must fulfill the basic purpose of Hazard communication, the importance of MSDS does not end there. MSDS is important for getting the business. It is certainly a marketing tool.

Indian industry acknowledges the importance of MSDS for their business. Environment and Occupational Health and Safety objectives are certainly there. But, frankly the threat of losing the business, if one cannot provide the proper MSDS, is certainly at the top of the mind. There are stringent rules and regulations to be observed for Environment and Health and Safety of the workers and other interested parties. Efforts are made in this direction. Proper implementation is however decided by the fact: How rigorous is the damage for violating the compliance rules? Rules which cannot be implemented, just remain a rule, and at worst becomes good ground for corruption. A large number of trained personnel are required for vigilance. In the absence of this a proper implementation of E&; OHS regulations, is in question.

In short as the ‘health’ of the business demands, MSDS required by the buyer must be provided. It is essential to the customer that MSDS compliance be maintained. As the demand from the buyer for proper MSDS gets more and more stringent, the quality of MSDS will also improve. Multinational and many large business groups already have proper MSDS. It is the smaller and medium size exporting businesses however, that run into problems.

Indian industry can be better equipped to cater to overseas buyers with help from international players in authoring MSDS. Software for writing MSDS or revising already existing MSDS are also jobs to be done. In house authoring MSDS is possible. However it certainly makes a better business sense to give the job to experts in the field. It certainly justifies the potential damage to business, if the MSDS is inaccurate. Sensing the opportunity organizations that can provide the services related to MSDS are already in touch with Indian industry.

REACH related service is another opportunity for the service providers. EU or US based service providers can benefit from testing services offered in India which are more economical compared to US or EU countries.