ACS Position Statement

Statement on the Labeling of Chemicals

ACS Statement on the Labeling of Chemicals

Summary

The ACS Statement on the Labeling of Chemicals comments on the OSHA proposal for global harmonization of hazard communication.

ACS Position

On September 7, 2006, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Regulation (ANPR) seeking public comment on the implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The GHS includes criteria for classifying substances and mixtures according to their health, environmental and physical hazards; standardized label elements (pictograms, signal words hazard and precautionary statements for each hazard class and category) and standardized format and contents for safety data sheets (MSDSs). Adoption of the GHS by OSHA will require OSHA to propose changes to the Agency's Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). In addition, adoption of GHS could lead to changes in other OSHA standards. The American Chemical Society (ACS) strongly supports the adoption of the GHS for hazard communication in general and specifically as outlined in the ANPR.

Answers to some of the specific questions raised by OSHA are included as Appendix 1, however, in general ACS anticipates that OSHA implementation of GHS in the U.S. will enhance protection of human health and the environment through warnings and precautionary language that are consistent across different products and materials as well as across all workplaces. Currently, depending on where the materials are used, manufactured or transported, each may need to be classified by over 15 different agencies and systems to comply with applicable regulations. This variety of classification schemes frequently requires manufacturers and distributors to provide redundant or duplicative labeling and requires workers to interpret and evaluate a confusing variety of terms such as “Toxic”, “Highly Toxic”, “Very Toxic”, “Extremely Toxic” as well as terms such as “D2A” or “Packing Group 2”. Clearly, replacing these classification systems with a single, globally harmonized system would reduce the burden on manufacturers and distributors and providing consistent terminology will greatly aid the worker in understanding the real significance of the hazard associated with a particular chemical. The ACS believes that regulations proposed by OSHA are a significant step in that direction.

In addition, the current OSHA requirement for hazard communication in the workplace, the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, is a “performance standard”. This allows the preparers of warnings, labels, MSDSs, and other hazard communication documents a great deal of flexibility. Compared to conditions that prevailed prior to adoption of the HCS, this approach has proven effective and the situation is greatly improved. Label language is better and more descriptive, warnings are more consistent and nearly all workers can access an MSDS to try to learn more about the hazards of the materials they work with. However anyone who has critically reviewed MSDSs can also see the shortcomings of the current system. MSDSs for similar materials can vary greatly in content, warnings and even hazard classification. MSDS can vary greatly in length and even those that are relatively short can be difficult to interpret for many workers. In addition, concerns over liability drive many MSDSs to be extremely conservative in their warnings, protective equipment recommendations and other guidance. These problems with MSDSs, such as the soap MSDS that warned users to wash with soap and water if any got on their skin, rob MSDS of much of their utility.

Replacing this current system with one that provides specific guidance for the classification of materials and mixtures and then provides specific guidance for appropriate warnings and appropriate SDS content will remove much of the variability. The promise of the GHS is that a given material, whoever the manufacturer or distributor, will have a similar classification, similar label language and similar precautions and work procedures outlined in the SDS. These documents will be easier to prepare and easier to understand.

That is not to say that there will not be significant hurdles to overcome in order to implement this new system. If adopted, there will be significant work for chemical producers and distributors to produce compliant warnings and significant training required for all chemical handlers to familiarize them with the new system and associated warnings, pictograms, etc. Also, it is important to note that the OSHA proposed regulations only apply to U.S. workplaces. Classification and labeling of materials for transport in the U.S. are already largely harmonized with international regulations. Other areas, most significantly the harmonization of consumer product classification in the U.S., are not nearly as advanced. Therefore, adoption by OSHA of GHS may only be one step in a long process towards global harmonization of chemical hazard communication regulations, but it is a very important step.

Conclusion

Adoption of the GHS, as proposed by OSHA, promises improved protection of human health and the environment through warnings and precautionary language that are consistent across different products and materials as well as across all workplaces. The proposed approach will address weaknesses or limitations in the current systems and will result in more effective warnings. Although implementation will require significant effort on the part of OSHA and employers, the American Chemical Society (ACS) strongly supports the adoption of the GHS for hazard communication in general and specifically as outlined in the ANPR.

Thank you for asking for comments, and for taking the time to consider the ACS perspective in advance of proposing a rule. If you would like to speak with an expert from the ACS Committee on Chemical Safety or Division of Chemical Health and Safety, please contact Dr. Robert Rich at 202-872-6261.

Appendix 1 - Response to Specific OSHA Questions

In the ANPR, OSHA asked a series of questions. ACS responses to selected questions are below:

Due to the difficulty in updating PELs, it is appropriate and protective of workers to include additional occupational exposure levels (OELs), including the ACGIH TLVs on SDSs. Other recognized OELs (i.e. German, UK OELs) could also be included as that information is available.

13. In addition to references to hazardous chemicals with OSHA Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs), should OSHA propose to include any other listing of hazardous chemicals when aligning the hazard determination provisions of the HCS to the GHS? Should OSHA propose that the mixture provisions only reference exceeding the OSHA PEL when revised to adopt the GHS? Should OSHA propose deleting the requirement that the ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) be included on the SDS when the requirements are changed to be consistent with the GHS? Should other recommended exposure limits be included on the SDS?

14. Within the health hazard criteria, are there any categories of hazard that should not be adopted in the HCS? For example, should OSHA adopt all of the categories addressed in the acute toxicity criteria? If not, what categories would be appropriate to address anticipated workplace exposures?

There are several categories of health hazard identified in the GHS for which information is not widely available for many if not most materials. It is relatively straightforward to identify acute toxicity information or skin or eye corrosivity and information on dermal or respiratory sensitization is often available, however information on germ cell mutagenicity or impact on lactation is not widely available. Without a reliable source of information on theses specialized toxicological parameters, chemical manufacturers ad distributors will have to use a large amount of “professional judgment” when classifying materials, raising the potential for inconsistent warnings.

15. 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? Does OSHA need to change those criteria at the same time the HCS is changed? Storage and handling requirements for flammable liquids are one example that has been identified as a potential problem if different definitions apply, and information on a safety data sheet is linked to the definition in the HCS but not consistent with other definitions.

We feel it would be best to identify all affected OSHA standards and update them all at once. The benefits of a single classification system are lost if OSHA itself maintains multiple classification systems.

Compliance Assistance and Outreach. OSHA is interested in getting input on the types of materials or products that would assist employers in understanding whatever modifications OSHA makes to the HCS to adopt the GHS, and to help them achieve compliance. To this end, we would like to get input now on the types of outreach that would be most helpful. As has been noted, there are some explanatory documents that are already available on OSHA's Web site.

17. What products would be most useful to employers? Employees? Do you prefer paper publications? Electronic tools?

A central location for classification data that is accessible to the chemical manufacturers and distributors would be very useful. The European Union has made its chemical classifications and Canadian hazardous materials classification available on-line. A similar system for GHS Classifications (or the OSHA version as adopted) would be useful. In addition, web-based tools for using mixture classifications would be helpful and would ensure consistency.

18. What subjects would be of most interest? Classification criteria and procedures for substances and mixtures? Labels? Safety data sheets?

The straightforward, descriptive process for generating warnings, label language and SDSs once materials have been classified should allow creation of a wide variety of electronic “tools” to facilitate the creation of these documents.