OSHA Starts Update to HazCom Standard for USA (including Ohio)

How is your HazCom program progressing?  Is everyone in your Ohio facility now fully trained with their level of knowledge elevated from “Right-to-Know” to the targeted “Right-to-Understand”?  Since great efforts were expended to “harmonize” the 2012 revision of HazCom to the GHS guidelines of the rest of the world, you no longer have to create, maintain and keep current more than one version of your Safety Data Sheets.  Right? Based on comments received  at OSHA’s informal discussion about the Hazard Communication Standard on Nov. 16 in Washington, D.C., your program in not likely in “perfect harmony” as of yet.  During that nearly three-hour meeting, OSHA sought feedback from stakeholders about topics that the agency should consider as part of its next revision of the standard. As for when the next revision will occur, nobody can say for sure – particularly with a change in administration approaching. But OSHA officials want to start the conversation as they look to update the standard to align it more closely with GHS.

Your issues may not be as daunting as some expressed at this meeting but here is a glimpse of some of the feedback OSHA received and likely direction it will go as OSHA reviews the HazCom Standard for a further revision:

James Lee, a senior compliance analyst with Hach Company, held up a capsule about the size of a pharmaceutical pill to a room full of OSHA staff and safety professionals. The capsule, created by this Loveland, CO-based firm, is used by municipalities worldwide and researchers to test chlorine levels in water. It was designed to be small to minimize potential safety and health issues for workers who use these capsules.

However, a big problem exists, said Lee, with the not so small challenge of complying with the Standard. The pill has a minuscule surface, which makes it challenging to include the labeling required by OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (1910.1200) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, or GHS.

“It took a lot of time putting a small label onto this. I don’t even know if you can read it,” Lee said. “We were able to put in one pictogram. We had hundreds of employees last year sitting in a cafeteria labeling these things manually because we could not find a printer to do it automatically.

“We’re asking OSHA to consider having more flexibility. It may be that OSHA was not aware of what we were running into. We’re running into this issue because the current guidance from OSHA is not workable. As of right now, we are having an extremely hard time complying with the current HazCom [standard] and the guidance from OSHA.”

OSHA’s most recent revision to the Hazard Communication Standard occurred in 2012. The agency promoted the revision by declaring on its website: “The standard that gave workers the right to know, now gives them the right to understand.” The revision also provided “a common and coherent approach to classifying chemicals and communicating hazard information on labels and Safety Data Sheets.”

A noble goal – but problems remained, said Ben Huggett, an attorney who represents employers for Philadelphia-based Littler Mendelson PC. “The point of that revision was [to include] the Global Harmonization System proposals that they have been working on for more than a decade. The attempt in that rulemaking was to bring the United States into line with the rest of the world so employers that have chemicals that cross boundaries internationally can share the same Safety Data Sheet on the chemical and not have to create revised versions for every country that you may go into.”

Mr. Huggett went on to say, “When they finally published the final rule, unfortunately, it wasn’t quite a 100 percent matchup. The U.S. still has requirements that are different than Europe because OSHA wanted to maintain a number of things that they had that weren’t in the European versions of Safety Data Sheets. So we didn’t quite get to the whole point of doing the revisions in the first place, but it resulted in changes to the Safety Data Sheets, to labeling of hazardous chemicals and other information. Frankly, moving toward a provision that would indeed make something universal was the original goal, and a change like that would be welcome to most employers. Anybody working internationally still has to create multiple documents now. You now have to create a Safety Data Sheet that is for use in the United States, and another one that is for use in Europe, and potentially additional ones around the globe.”

Several participants voiced similar concerns, including Scott Dunsmore, vice president at Sparta, NJ-based Lion Technology Inc., who asked OSHA about furthering efforts to streamline the standard with global systems so employers could avoid producing what they perceived as redundant Safety Data Sheets and focus more energy toward protecting workers.

“The purpose of adopting GHS was for harmonization,” Dunsmore said. “As most responsible parties know, U.S. rules were not really harmonized with other countries’ GHS adoptions. Would OSHA consider making an exception, allowing GHS labels in compliance with other countries to continue to use those labels here in the United States without the need to re-label?”

Maureen Ruskin, deputy director of OSHA’s Directorate of Standards and Guidance, responded.

“At this point in time, we have indicated through interpretations that one must follow our criteria that we set forth in the Hazard Communication Standard. If you can provide us information on how we can maintain our steps while accepting other countries’ labels, this is something that we will address in our discussions of the rulemaking.”

OSHA does not plan to significantly overhaul the standard. The agency stated that it intends to modify only the provisions that need to be changed to align with GHS – the basic framework will remain the same. The key tenets continue to be:

  • Chemical manufacturers and importers are responsible for providing information about the identities and hazards of chemicals they produce or import.
  • All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces are required to establish a hazard communication program and provide information to employees about their hazards and associated protective measures.

OSHA rulemaking process

OSHA recently hosted an informal discussion on its Hazard Communication Standard. The agency may pursue an update to the standard, which was last revised in 2012. Below is an overview of OSHA’s rule making process:

Step 1: Making the decision
Step 2: Analyzing information
Step 3: Publishing the proposed rule
Step 4: Addressing comments
Step 5: Developing the final rule
Step 6: Publishing the final rule
Step 7: Following up post-promulgation of the final rule

Published by Stephen Kovatch

Senior Client Manager  Stephen J. Kovatch focuses on assisting clients in establishing corporate regulatory compliance programs in the areas of air, water, and waste management. Mr. Kovatch also provides direction to industrial facility owners who are active in the transaction of contaminated property by defining objectives, coordinating soil and water sampling protocols, risk assessment, and remedial / cleanup activities. He frequently represents clients in property sales negotiations and regulatory agency and insurance proceedings.

Notice Image

Compliance Technologies has joined the August Mack Family. We will redirect this website to the new URL in 10 seconds.