OSHA Official Calls Effort to Harmonize U.S. Rule with Global System a Priority

A

BNA, INC.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Reproduced with permission from Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, OSHR 10-7-10, 10/06/2010. Copyright 姝 2010 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com

Hazard Communication

OSHA Official Calls Effort to Harmonize U.S. Rule With Global System a ‘Priority’ ringing the U.S. standard for communicating chemical hazards closer to the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals is a priority on the fall 2010 Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulatory agenda, an OSHA official said Oct. 5. ‘‘I can’t say at this point’’ when OSHA will publish a final rule, Maureen Ruskin told the biannual meeting of the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication, but the rulemaking process to revise OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard is ‘‘moving forward and is a priority.’’ OSHA’s next regulatory agenda will be released in November.

The agency’s effort to align the hazard communication standard with the United Nations GHS was first placed on the OSHA regulatory agenda in 2005.

Ruskin is director of OSHA’s office of metal chemical hazards where she oversees the Hazard Communication Standard rulemaking. OSHA published a proposal to revise the standard in the Federal Register Sept. 30, 2009 (39 OSHR 829, 10/1/09).

B

Quality, Consistency Cited. ‘‘I hope I am speaking with people here who see this as I do,’’ said Ruskin, noting that OSHA believes revising the standard will increase the quality and consistency of information provided to workers, employers, and other chemical users.

GHS consists of internationally agreed upon classifications for physical hazards, potential health hazards, or potential ecological hazards posed by chemicals, along with standard pictographs and words to be used to label chemicals. The UN adopted GHS in 2003.

COPYRIGHT 姝 2010 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.

Proposed Rule Has Broad Support. Ruskin said the comments OSHA received show that ‘‘chemical companies, associations, smaller companies and unions’’ broadly support the proposed rule. The comment period on the proposed rule ended Dec. 29. 2009, and was followed by two public hearings in March, 2010. The docket closed June 1, 2010. ‘‘We have broad support, but that doesn’t mean no one had any problems with it either,’’ she said.

The cost and schedule of implementation generated the most comments, Ruskin said. OSHA proposed a three-year deadline for compliance, but some commenters said the time to comply is insufficient. Some suggested an implementation scheme similar to what the European Union is using: a multi-tiered approach that would implement the new rule first for substances, then for mixtures, and so on, Ruskin said.

Some commenters said OSHA underestimated the costs of implementation, which would include training, printing labels, and updating existing hazard communication programs. Some suggested that OSHA conduct a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act panel, a process that allows small businesses to meet with the agency to discuss the proposed rule’s potential economic impact on them.

Dropping TLVs Is ‘Hot Topic’. OSHA has formally proposed dropping a requirement in the current hazard communication standard that material safety data sheets use American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists exposure limits known as Threshold Limit Values or TLVs. Ruskin said that proposal was ‘‘a hot topic,’’ and OSHA is ‘‘reviewing comments.’’ However, the agency would not indicate whether the proposal is likely to remain in the final standard.

Some commenters told OSHA that it would cost too much to print GHS pictogram labels, which would con-

ISSN 0095-3237

2 sist of black symbols on white backgrounds within a red frame square. The commenters cited the cost of red ink and some suggested not using the red frame for chemicals used or transported only within the United States. ‘‘People disagreed with some of our definitions of some hazards,’’ Ruskin said. Some objected to the term ‘‘unclassified hazards’’ and preferred calling them ‘‘hazards not otherwise classified,’’ she said.

The basic framework of the hazard communication standard would remain the same, according to Ruskin.

It would still require chemical manufacturers and importers to identify chemicals and their known hazards, and it would still require every employer with chemicals in the workplace to have a hazard communication program.

Specific changes in the proposed rule include: s revising material safety data sheets to use a standard 16-section format, s requiring worker training on the new labeling system and safety data sheets within two years of finalizing the rule,

10-6-10

s providing specific criteria for classifying the health and physical hazards of chemicals and of chemical mixtures, and s requiring chemical makers or importers to label products with a harmonized word, standard pictograms, and a hazard statement for each hazard class and category.

OSHA’s current chemical hazard communication standard is codified at 29 C.F.R. 910.1200.

BY JANICE VALVERDE OSHA’s website on the United Nation’s Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals is at http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ global.html Comments on the proposed revision to the Hazard Communication Standard can be found by searching for docket number OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 at http:// www.regulations.gov.

COPYRIGHT 姝 2010 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.

OSHR

ISSN 0095-3237