Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Newly-Revised OSHA Hazard Communication Standard Will Align Law with United Nations’ Global Harmonization System

Year after year, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited employers more often for alleged violations of its 1986 Hazard Communication Standard, 29 C.F.R. §1910.1200 (HCS), than just about any other of its safety or health standards. In FY 2011, in fact, the HCS was the most frequently-cited standard in General Industry. And last year was not the first year in which that was the case.

Since at least 2005, however, OSHA has been under intense pressure by a multitude of constituents to conform the HCS to the United Nations’ (UN’s) Global Harmonization System (GHS). The UN adopted the GHS in 2003 as an international model for chemical hazard classification, hazardous chemical labeling, and safety data sheet (SDS) formatting.  Since then, the GHS has been modified and was finally rolled out recently for worldwide implementation. Sixty-seven countries are in the process of considering it for adoption in some form or another. 

The GHS is not a wholesale substitute for the HCS. Some GHS provisions are not occupational safety and health-related. They relate, instead, to consumer products and environmental hazards outside the reach of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and OSHA. But many GHS provisions are occupational safety and health-related, and OSHA now has adopted them as amendments of the HCS. OSHA’s final rule announcing the amendments was published on March 26, 2012. 

The original HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate their chemicals for hazards, to prepare material safety data sheets (MSDSs) that include hazard and related information on those chemicals that are hazardous, and to label containers of those chemicals in order to communicate the chemicals’ hazards to downstream users. Employers who are downstream users then must implement written hazard communication programs (HCPs) that include, among other things, chemical inventory lists, copies of MSDSs received from the chemical manufacturers/importers and distributors, provision for employee training, and procedures for dealing with contractors who bring employees or chemicals of their own on the worksite.

OSHA’s stated goal in amending the HCS to conform better to the GHS is not necessarily to change what employers must do under the original HCS, but to promote better consistency of practice throughout the country and even between businesses in the United States and in other countries. OSHA estimates, though such estimates are often “best case scenarios,” if not hyperbolic, that the HCS amendments will prevent 43 work-related fatalities and 521 industrial injuries and illnesses every year through improved knowledge and better identification of chemicals and their hazards in the workplace. Time will tell.

The original HCS allows chemical manufacturers and importers a lot of flexibility in the way they communicate hazard information on MSDSs and labels. The revised HCS, by contrast, applies strict hazard classification, labeling and SDS formatting requirements to help insure uniformity.  Under the new rule, every hazardous chemical will have to be assigned to one or more of several specific physical or health hazard “classes” and, potentially, one or more hazard “categories” within the hazard class that describes the nature of the physical health hazard posed by the chemical - for example, explosive, flammable solid (or liquid), irritant, corrosive, carcinogen, and the like. 

Hazardous chemical labels will have to include standard elements: (1) a signal word, either “Danger” or “Warning”; (2) a hazard statement that describes the nature of the danger posed by the chemical; (3) one or more of eight different standardized symbols or pictograms that communicate the nature of the hazard; and (4) a description of measures that are manufacturer-recommended for the prevention or minimization of the adverse affects of exposure. All labels will have to be bordered in red to set them off and bring them to users’ attention. For example:

The revised HCS, consistent with the GHS, also prescribes a particular format for SDSs, which are called MSDSs under the original HCS. All SDSs will have to be formatted into 12 of the 16 sections prescribed by the GHS, in a particular order, first communicating the information most generally needed by a chemical user or an emergency responder and only later more specific or technical information. The order is:

  1. Identification of the substance or mixture and of the supplier
  2. Hazards identification
  3. Composition/information on ingredients Substance/Mixture
  4. First aid measures
  5. Firefighting measures
  6. Accidental release measures
  7. Handling and storage
  8. Exposure controls/personal protection.
  9. Physical and chemical properties
  10. Stability and reactivity
  11. Toxicological
  12. Ecological information (non mandatory)
  13. Disposal considerations (non mandatory)
  14. Transport information (non mandatory)
  15. Regulatory information (non mandatory)
  16. Other information including information on preparation and revision of the SDS

The primary purpose of the reformatting is standardization. But OSHA also wants to insure, as best it can, that appropriate treatment is gotten to exposed workers as promptly as possible after exposure. 

Interestingly, the GHS does not address the issue of employee (or other) training. OSHA has included as part of the new rule; however, a mandate that employees be trained on the revised HCS as a part of the employer’s implementation of its revised HCP.

The deadlines for implementation of the revised HCS’s requirements are stepped. Full compliance will not be required of employers until June 1, 2016. But the following interim and ultimate deadlines apply both to chemical manufacturers and importers and to employers:

  • All employee training on new labeling requirements and SDS formats must be conducted no later than December 1, 2013.
  • New and compliant labels and SDSs must be in use no later than June 1, 2015, though distributors (versus manufacturers or importers) of hazardous chemicals have six more months, until December 1, 2015, to comply.
  • Updated HCPs and signs must be in place in every workplace no later than June 1, 2016.

The revised HCS impacts chemical manufacturers and importers more heavily than it does employers subject to the original HCS. Manufacturers and importers will be required to reevaluate chemicals under the HCS’s new criteria, classify them appropriately, categorize them appropriately (if appropriate), amend their MSDSs to comply with the SDS format requirements, and label the chemicals’ containers consistent with the revised HCS’s provisions. Employers then will have to deal with those SDSs and labels as under the original HCS.

Employers should press their chemical suppliers now and ongoing to supply new SDSs as soon as possible, and employers should either get from their suppliers or produce for themselves compliant labels as soon as possible. Those employers also need to gear up so that they are able to complete employee training on the new SDS and labeling format no later than December 1, 2013. Employers will have until June 1, 2016, to update their HCPs and workplace signs. Written HCPs will need to be modified only to the extent they address label and SDS formats, warnings, pictograms, and the like and require updated chemical inventory lists.

Employers would be wise not to delay getting up to speed on the revised HCS and putting in place a plan for timely compliance. One thing about enforcement of the revised HCS we know will not change is that OSHA compliance officers will continue to seek out violations as an important part of their workplace inspections. In addition, of course, new standards always rise to the top of compliance officers’ awareness. So we are highly unlikely to see the HCS, old or new, drop from OSHA’s “top 10” anytime soon. Forewarned is forearmed. 

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Eric E. Hobbs, parnter, labor and employment law, Michael Best Law Firm
Partner

Eric Hobbs is a partner whose practice focuses on labor and employment, with an emphasis on employment counseling and policy development, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation, wage and hour matters, clergy abuse and employment discrimination litigation. He also has experience in wage-hour, employment discrimination and multi-district class action cases.

Mr. Hobbs represents employers of all sizes in a variety of industries from service to heavy manufacturing. He has litigated before state and federal agencies and courts throughout the United States...

414-225-4991

About the Author

Charles B. Palmer Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Partner

Chuck Palmer is Office Managing partner in Michael Best’s Waukesha Office. He also is a member of the Employment Relations Practice Group and Co-Chair of the Construction Group. He focuses his practice in labor negotiations, employment and safety related litigation, Equal Employment Opportunity law, Pipeline and Construction Safety laws, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws and regulations, restrictive covenants, independent contractor and employment contracts, and workers compensation. 

262-956-6518

Contributors

Kelly R. Rourke Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Associate

Kelly Rourke is a member of the Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group in the Milwaukee office. Her practice focuses on administrative law matters, namely employment-based immigration and occupational safety and health.

414-347-4741

About the Author

Denise Greathous, member, Michael best law firm, labor and employment  law
Member

Denise Greathouse is an attorney practicing in our Wisconsin offices. As a member of the Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group, Ms. Greathouse represents management exclusively in a full range of labor and employment matters. Her practice encompasses all aspects of employment law, including labor arbitration, employment tort and breach of contract lawsuits, police and fire commission matters, employee separation/ termination matters, unemployment compensation matters, and Social Security Disability matters. 

She also has experience investigating and consulting clients...

262.956.6534

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Boa