U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–926 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–538

HAZARD COMMUNICATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

WORKFORCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, SAFETY, AND

TRAINING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,

LABOR, AND PENSIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINING HAZARD COMMUNICATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY WORKPLACE, FOCUSING ON STEPS THAT THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) IS TAKING TO IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION OF OSHA’S HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD

MARCH 25, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

SHARON R. SODERSTROM, Staff Director

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, SAFETY, AND TRAINING

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

ILYSE W. SCHUMAN, Staff Director

WILLIAM KAMELA, Minority Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004

Page

Hon. Enzi, Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 1

Hon. Murray, Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Henshaw, John L., Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health,

U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC ..................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Grumbles, Thomas G., President, American Industrial Hygiene Association;

Jon Hanson, Director of Safety, Wyoming Medical Center, Casper, WY;

Anne Jackson, Corporate Safety Director, Pepperidge Farm, on behalf of

the American Bakers Association; Michele R. Sullivan, Chairman of the

Board of Directors, Society for Chemical Hazard Communication; and Michael J. Wright, Director of Health, Safety and Environment, United Steelworkers of America .............................................................................................. 18

Prepared statements of:

Thomas Grumbles ..................................................................................... 20

Jon Hanson ................................................................................................ 26

Anne Jackson ............................................................................................. 42

Michele Sullivan ........................................................................................ 48

Michael Wright .......................................................................................... 54

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:

Letter to Senator Enzi from Ron Hayes ......................................................... 4

Questions of Senator Murray for OSHA ......................................................... 6

Studies submitted by Senator Murray:

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, March 2004 Oversight Report—

OSHA’s Failure to Monitor and Enforce Asbestos Regulations in

Auto Repair Shops ................................................................................. 63

Asbestos in Brakes: Exposure and Risk of Disease ................................ 72

The Asbestos Cancer Epidemic ................................................................ 81

American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) ............................................... 86

International Truck and Engine Corporation (ITEC) .................................... 91

Carolyn W. Merritt ........................................................................................... 92

Karan Singh ...................................................................................................... 95

(III)

(1)

HAZARD COMMUNICATION IN THE 21st

CENTURY WORKPLACE

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, SAFETY AND TRAINING, OF

THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND

PENSIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael B. Enzi

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Enzi and Murray.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Senator ENZI. I will go ahead and call to order this hearing before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, specifically, the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training,

for a hearing on ‘‘Hazardous Communication in the 21st Century

Workplace.’’

I want to begin by thanking the witnesses for participating in

this important hearing.

Hazardous chemicals pervade the 21st century workplace. An estimated 650,000 hazardous chemical products are now used in over

3 million workplaces across the country. Every day, more than 30

million American workers will be exposed to hazardous chemicals

on the job. Whether or not they return home safely at the end of

the day depends on their awareness of these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures.

Communication is the key to protecting the safety and health of

these 30 million workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the communication. Twenty years ago, the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, adopted the Hazard

Communication Standard. The stated purpose of the rule is to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are

evaluated and the information concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers and employees.

Material Safety Data Sheets are the cornerstone of hazard communication. OSHA’s rule provides a generic framework for hazard

communication. With over 650,000 chemicals in use and tens of

thousands of chemical manufacturers, the content and format of

the Material Safety Data Sheets varies widely.

At least three different parties are involved in hazard communication. There is the chemical manufacturer, the employer, and
2

the worker. Safety and health professionals and first responders

are also often involved. Each of these parties has a different perspective, different resources, and quite frequently usually speaks a

different language.

Within OSHA’s generic framework for hazard communication,

clarity, consistency and accuracy get lost in the translation. The

chemical manufacturer might prepare the Material Safety Data

Sheet with an eye toward the courtroom or the laboratory—usually

not the factory floor.

Workers should not need a Ph.D. in biochemistry to know how

to protect themselves against hazardous materials. The complexity

of Material Safety Data Sheets and hazard communication creates

a particular problem for small business and their workers. With

limited resources, many small businesses do not have the expertise

to develop or interpret Material Safety Data Sheets. Small businesses want to promote the safety of their workers; they just need

some assistance in doing so.

I can speak from personal experience about the problems Material Safety Data Sheets pose for small business. There are a number of reports that have also called into question the quality of the

Material Safety Data Sheets. A 1991 study commissioned by OSHA

found that only 11 percent of the Material Safety Data Sheets examined were entirely accurate. That same year, the General Accounting Office issued a report that found that a substantial number—52 percent—of employers surveyed were not in compliance

with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. More recently, the

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has investigated

and issued reports on 19 chemical accidents that killed or injured

workers since 1998. In a total of nine cases, inadequate communication of hazards to workers or contractors was found to be a root

or contributing cause of the accident.

Twenty years after the Hazard Communication Standard was

published, it is time for review. It is time to heed the call of workers and employers alike for more clarity, consistency, accuracy and

guidance.

Over the years, I have had the great fortune to work with Ron

Hayes on improving the safety and health of American workers.

Ron was not able to testify today, but he wrote me a letter that

I would like to submit for the record.

He writes that: ‘‘Other standards cover many issues for the workers, but Material Safety Data Sheet paperwork is used millions of

times each work day, and the accuracy of these sheets is of paramount importance for the complete protection of our most important resource—our great American workers.’’

Ron, of course, counsels people who have lost family members in

industrial accidents. He himself lost his son in a grain elevator accident, and he has become a dedicated worker to making sure that

people are safe on the job.

In the 20 years since the Hazard Communication Standard was

adopted, the American workplace has changed dramatically. Our

economy has become more increasingly global. The chemical industry is one of the United States’ largest exporting sectors. The manner in which other countries regulate hazardous chemicals impacts
3

and affects American manufacturers’ ability to compete in the global marketplace.

The preamble to OSHA’s 1983 Hazard Communication Standard

included a commitment by the agency to pursue international harmonization of such communication. In 2002, the United Nations

adopted the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The Globally Harmonized System is designed

to improve the quality of hazard communication by establishing

standardized requirements for hazard evaluation, safety data

sheets, and labels.

The Globally Harmonized System has the potential to address

significant concerns with current hazard communication. Whether

the United States adopts it cannot be decided by OSHA alone.

Other agencies and key stakeholders in the hazard communication

must also be involved.

As the economy becomes increasingly global, and with worker

safety at stake, this consideration cannot be delayed or made lightly. Some day, these Material Safety Data Sheets will be electronic

for faster look-up and ease of answering questions with Blackberrytype devices doing all of the calculations. The sheets will even be

updated daily and be wireless.

Of course, tomorrow is already here thanks to a Wyoming company spelled, P-E-A-C, pronounced PEAC, that we know has simplicity and uniformity. I used to work with these sheets as an accountant for an oil well servicing company, and I mentioned that

if they had more safety training, they could save money, and they

said, ‘‘Do it.’’ And I said, ‘‘I am an accountant; I do not do safety.’’

They said, ‘‘Well, you know more about it than anybody else, because nobody has recommended that.’’

So they paid me to do some safety, and the Material Safety Data

Sheets was one of the real problems. They came in a book that was

about that thick, and we used red notebooks so they were more

easily found in time of a crisis. But I showed people how to read

those and use those and really felt fortunate if I could just get

them to find the notebook at all.

It is a terrible problem, and it is extremely complicated once they

have a problem. They are always a little bit jittery and panicked,

and they need easy information quickly to be able to solve the problem. They do not need a huge range of calculations that they have

to recall or even try to follow on a sheet.

So this is one of the ways that we can save lives most easily if

we do the job right.

I would like to read another statement from Ron Hayes, who I

mentioned could not be here today—he had an operation recently.

He writes that: ‘‘Education and information is the key. Please help

me make the changes that will protect all of our workers all of the

time.’’

I could not agree more that education and information is the key

to workplace safety. Those of you who know Ron know about his

determination and commitment to the safety and health of American workers. We must rise to the challenge that he sets.

[Letter from Mr. Hayes follows:]
4

March 15, 2004.

Hon. MICHAEL B. ENZI,

United States Senate,

Washington DC.

DEAR SENATOR ENZI: Honorable Senators, staff, and witnesses, it is an honor for

me to have a small part in this most important hearing on Hazard Communication

(MSDS). I am very proud to have worked with you great statesmen over the years

to better safety and health for our great American workers. Your work today in this

hearing could be the most important advancement of OSHA’s mission ever undertaken and more importantly provide guidance, leadership and much needed closer

oversight to a slow moving, backward agency.

No other standard or regulation in OSHA’s responsibility covers or protects workers as much as the Hazard Communication standard does and especially the MSDS

section of this standard. MSDS effects every worker everyday on every job. Other

standards cover many issues for the workers but the MSDS paperwork is used millions of times each workday, and the accuracy of these sheets are of paramount importance for the complete protection of our most important resource—our great

American workers.

These men and women work and toil everyday to bring a better way of life for

us all, they deserve to go home safe and sound everyday, to have the opportunity

to live a long and happy life, free of injury and sickness. No one should die, be hurt

or made sick at work.

I can only pray that you will be so moved by God today, to make the much needed

changes to this problem and find new ways to make sure all MSDS sheets are readable, understandable, and correct. Education and information is the key, please help

make the changes that will protect all of our workers all the time.

Please forgive me for being absent today but I look forward to working with you

and this great committee in the future. I know in my heart you will do the right

thing today and am confident new changes and new protection will come from this

hearing. God bless, and thank you for your courageous stand for all American workers.

Yours,

RON HAYES.

Senator ENZI. I appreciate the witnesses being here today.

I will turn now to the ranking member.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

want to commend you for calling this hearing to make sure that

workers and employers have the most accurate and complete information on the hazards associated with the chemicals that they use

on their jobs.

I also want to thank Mike Wright from United Steelworkers of

America for making the trip down from Pittsburgh to be with us

this morning.

Mr. Chairman, under your leadership, we were able to develop

a bipartisan approach to the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. You have my commitment to work with you again

on a bipartisan basis to adopt a solution which many experts

around the world have spent years developing—a globally harmonized system for classifying and labeling chemicals.

I believe that we have a real opportunity to again forge a bipartisan consensus, and I hope that our subcommittee will move quickly

to adopt a globally harmonized approach to chemical safety. I believe such a system will benefit both employers and workers because a trained and informed work force is essential to a good safety and health program.
5

This approach will also be crucial to the ongoing economic success of any business or industry, especially small businesses, which

are becoming increasingly frustrated with confusing and misleading safety information they receive.

In the Tri-Cities in Washington State, we have an ongoing example of the critical importance of providing workers with the most

accurate information available on the dangers of the chemicals they

work with. We are still struggling with the clean-up of the Hanford

nuclear waste site, and as more work is done on the site’s tank

farms, workers are being exposed to new dangers from the vapors

in the tanks. OSHA does not have jurisdiction in that case, leaving

the Department of Energy with the responsibility for providing

adequate warnings to workers. Workers on site are currently experiencing a number of troubling medical problems. The private contractors involved in the clean-up have a set of incentives which

push them to limit the number of work days lost from exposure.

I would like to work with OSHA to see how the agency’s expertise could be helpful to the DOE and the thousands of workers who

are currently at risk in my State.

I do want to commend OSHA on the positive steps it has taken

on this issue, including forming a partnership with the Society for

Chemical Hazard Communications, and for its recent hazard communication initiative. I hope that as OSHA moves forward, the

agency will take into account the views of workers and the public,

and not just the chemical suppliers.

OSHA must also solicit the input of small businesses that often

do not have the technical expertise on site to wade through the

often complex and confusing Material Safety Data Sheets that they

receive.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I hope that OSHA will be more responsive to Members of Congress on issues of concern to their constituents. As you know, I have been leading the fight in Congress to ban

the production and importation of asbestos. OSHA has had a very

poor track record of enforcing asbestos regulations in the workplace

over the last 30 years. Auto repair workers are particularly vulnerable. Several months ago, I wrote to the EPA and OSHA on their

intent to reexamine the Gold Book Guidance for Brake Mechanics.

After a number of months, I finally received a response from

OSHA, but it is inadequate at best.

As part of this hearing record, I will be submitting several questions to OSHA on issues related to the enforcement of asbestos regulations, and I hope that the assistant secretary will provide more

timely responses to my questions and that he will work with my

office to make the enforcement of workplace asbestos regulations a

priority for OSHA.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts, and I look forward to working with you as we move forward together on this critical issue.

As you know, I have three hearings at the same time this morning, so I will not be able to stay, but I will be submitting my questions for the record, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here

this morning.

Senator ENZI. I thank you for your cooperativeness on this hearing and all others, and the way that you so diligently work on the
6

pieces of legislation so that we can come up with solutions. I appreciate your recognition that the solution is where we are trying to

go.

So thank you for being here.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared questions of Senator Murray follow:]

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY FOR OSHA

Numerous research opinions and findings by scientists, government agencies, and

international organizations have agreed that asbestos exposure from brake servicing

is a mortal hazard.

Question 1. How does OSHA weigh this considerable scientific evidence against

the published positions of General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and their expert witnesses?

Question 2. Does OSHA reaffirm its policy expressed in their current 1994 asbestos standard requirements that brake mechanics are at risk of asbestos diseases, including cancer from their exposure to asbestos?

Question 3. Does OSHA believe that dust control safeguards and worker education

programs are needed—especially given the significant imports of asbestos brake

parts into the US?

Question 4. What evidence if any does OSHA have that mechanics doing brake

work in typical service stations are taking any more precautions now than they

were 30 years ago to reduce/eliminate airborne asbestos dust from grinding, beveling, and blow-out with compressed air?

Question 5. Why doesn’t OSHA propose a ban on the use of asbestos by industry?

Question 6. What regulatory steps and or other actions is OSHA contemplating

to encourage the use of substitutes for asbestos in brakes and other uses of asbestos?

Question 7. Could OSHA please provide me with the measures of exposures for

asbestos for the years from 1990 on?

Question 8. Has OSHA contemplated a warning label survey of asbestos-containing friction products, especially from countries like Mexico, Colombia, China, Canada and Brazil where the volume of export of products that contain asbestos have

been rising into the US?

[Response to questions were not available at print time.]

Senator ENZI. Our first panelist today is Mr. John Henshaw, who

is the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health.

Assistant Secretary Henshaw will discuss OSHA’s review of hazard communication issues involving Material Safety Data Sheets.

He will also discuss OSHA’s recently announced Hazard Communication Initiative.

I want to thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of the workers across the country and look forward to your testimony.

Mr. Henshaw.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HENSHAW, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. HENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the steps that

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is taking to improve the implementation of OSHA’s Hazard Communication

Standard.

I would also like to thank the chairman for holding this hearing

to help draw attention to this important safety and health issue.

Our goal is to adapt hazard communication to the workplaces of

the 21st century, and OSHA is doing that through this new initiative that I recently announced and will describe in just a moment.
7

More than 30 million workers in this country are exposed to hazardous chemicals in their work environment. To protect these

workers, OSHA adopted the Hazard Communication Standard,

which I will refer to as the HCS, in November of 1983, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman.

The HCS covers about 650,000 hazardous chemical products in

over 3 million work establishments across this country. The standard requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate the

hazards of chemicals that they produce and distribute.

The HCS also requires information about hazards and protective

measures to be disseminated on container labels and Material Safety Data Sheets.

Over the past 20 years, OSHA has reviewed the enforcement of

its Hazard Communication Standard and modified its practices and

guidance to the regulated community to reflect these lessons

learned over the last 20 years. In response to concerns about the

accuracy of MSDSs used in the American work force, Secretary of

Labor Elaine Chao asked me to review the current requirements

under the Hazard Communication Standard and recommend any

needed changes.

Following an extensive review of the Hazard Communication

Standard, OSHA has concluded that changes in the text of the

Hazard Communication Standard are not needed at this time to

improve the accuracy of MSDSs. Inaccuracies arise from failure to

comply with the existing requirements under the Hazard Communication Standard.

To address the inaccuracies and concerns raised about the quality of hazard information presented to employers and employees,

OSHA has announced a new Hazard Communication Initiative.

There are three components to the program—number one, compliance assistance, including additional guidance materials, a new

portal on OSHA’s website, and added outreach and education

through new alliances.

The second component is enforcement, and number three would

be consideration of adopting the Global Harmonization System for

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, or the GHS system that

you referred to, Mr. Chairman.

Now let me explain these. OSHA has developed three guidance

documents to improve the Hazard Communication Standard or

compliance with the HCS. The first is a guide on performing a hazard determination under the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard. The second document is a model training program which will provide employers with information on how to

train their employees to understand the hazards identified on the

labels as well as the MSDSs and, more important and appropriately, take appropriate cautions to prevent adverse effects.

The third document is to guide the manufacturers and importers

on how to prepare the MSDSs, and we will provide assistance on

how to write clear and complete MSDSs, using the suggested format.

To assist us in our compliance assistance and outreach efforts,

last October, OSHA signed an alliance with a group that is testifying here today, called the Society of Chemical Hazard Communication. This organization is working with us to develop a short course
8

on the preparation of MSDSs directed primarily to small businesses that prepare MSDSs, as well as a number of other joint

projects we have underway with other organizations to help us

with communication to small businesses and others around the requirements under hazard communication.

We will continue to focus our enforcement on hazard communication and ensuring that it is properly implemented in workplaces

across the country.

While violations of the Hazard Communication Standard provisions are often cited during inspections, the accuracy of information

has not been the focus of these citations most recently. Under the

new initiative, however, OSHA will notify manufacturers in writing

of critical deficiencies or inaccuracies on selected MSDSs. Manufacturers will be required to correct and update these MSDSs as a result. They will then have to respond back to OSHA and inform the

agency of the steps taken to correct and update these data sheets.

Those manufacturers who fail to respond or do not update their

MSDSs can potentially be cited under the Hazard Communication

Standard.

OSHA has a great deal of hazard communication information

available on its website. We have established a portal page now to

consolidate this information and allow access directly from OSHA’s

home page. This will make it easier for the public and especially

small businesses to find the information needed on hazard communication and find the guidance and compliance assistance material

involved in developing MSDSs and complying with the standard.

In the long-term, global harmonization of chemical information

and labeling will improve communication of chemical risk. Standardized presentation of information on labels and MSDSs through

the industrialized world can address many of the concerns about

comprehensibility of chemical hazard information.

To increase awareness of the GHS, OSHA is preparing a guide

on the classification and labeling system that was adopted by the

United Nations in December of 1992.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that problems arise from time

to time when there is such a large universe of chemicals, and there

are millions of workers exposed to these chemicals every day. I believe that the steps that we have taken in OSHA that we have outlined today will actively address the problems that you and Ron

Hayes and others have pointed out, and these will significantly

raise awareness among our employers and employees of the need

to provide information on the chemicals used in American workplaces and, more important, provide the protection that every

American worker in this country deserves.

I will be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henshaw follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HENSHAW

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to

discuss the steps that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

is taking to improve implementation of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

I would also like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing to help draw renewed attention to the need to provide accurate information to employees who work

with potentially hazardous chemicals. Our goal is to adapt hazard communication

to the workplaces of the 21st century and OSHA is doing that through a new initiative that I announced last week and will describe later in my testimony.
9

More than 30 million workers in this country are exposed to hazardous chemicals

in their work environment. To protect these workers, OSHA adopted the Hazard

Communication Standard (HCS) in November 1983. The standard requires chemical

manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of chemicals that they

produce and distribute. The HCS requires information about hazards and protective

measures to be disseminated on container labels and Material Safety Data Sheets

(MSDSs). All employers with employees exposed to regulated chemicals must provide access to the labels and the MSDSs. Employers using the manufactured chemicals must also train their employees to understand the information provided by the

MSDS and the labels and how to use the information to protect themselves.

The HCS covers all chemicals used in American workplaces. It is criteria-based,

so the standard is not limited to a list of chemicals at any given point in time. The

standard addresses trade secrets to ensure protection of legitimate claims of confidentiality at the same time that it requires disclosure of safety and health information.

The HCS covers about 650,000 hazardous-chemical products in over three million

work establishments. It has made the dissemination of hazard information about

chemical products a standard business practice in the United States. There is now

a generation of employers and employees who have continuously worked in an environment in which information about chemicals in their workplaces has been freely

available.

MSDSs are the primary means of transmitting detailed chemical-hazard information to employers that use them and to their employees. The MSDS is a technical

bulletin, which contains information such as chemical composition, health hazards,

and precautions for safe handling and use. Most safety and health professionals consider MSDSs to be a primary component of their company’s hazard communication

programs. Even prior to promulgation of the HCS, many chemical manufacturers

and importers included MSDSs with hazardous chemicals as a good business practice.

The HCS places primary responsibility for preparing and disseminating the

MSDSs with the chemical manufacturer. The HCS states clearly that manufacturers, importers, and employers preparing MSDSs shall ensure that the recorded information accurately reflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination. However, MSDSs alone cannot protect workers from chemical hazards.

The HCS also requires manufacturers to place labels on containers of hazardous

chemicals and for employers using the manufactured chemicals to train their workforce.

Due to its broad scope and significant impact, the HCS has been discussed, debated, and amended over the last 21 years. OSHA has reviewed its enforcement of

the rule and modified its practices and guidance to the regulated community to reflect lessons learned. OSHA has also been careful in considering changes to the HCS

because modifications to the labels and the MSDS would be costly and time-consuming for the private sector. In response to concerns about the accuracy of MSDSs used

in American workplaces, Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao asked me to review current requirements under the HCS and recommend any needed changes.

In response to the Secretary’s request, OSHA staff reviewed the available evidence, including scientific literature and studies; considered OSHA’s institutional

knowledge, including experience implementing the standard; and assessed the practical issues faced by employers and manufacturers in complying with the standard.

We have concluded that changes to the text of the HCS are not needed to improve

the accuracy of MSDSs. Inaccuracies arise from failure to comply with existing requirements. OSHA’s review of the HCS and MSDSs has identified many of the reasons why there are problems with MSDS accuracy and the Agency is addressing

those problems through our new initiative, announced last week and described later

in this statement.

At the time the HCS was adopted, available MSDSs followed different formats.

Chemical manufacturers that had been providing MSDSs for many years were concerned about being required to change what they had been doing voluntarily. OSHA

thus adopted a performance-oriented requirement that allowed variations in format

as long as all the necessary information appeared on the MSDS. The HCS also required more extensive information than had been previously provided, particularly

for health effects of chemicals. Thus, the two-page format common in the past is

rarely used now. Most MSDSs contain a minimum of four pages and many exceed

that length.

The value of properly completed MSDSs has been demonstrated repeatedly. However, there have been a number of limited studies and investigations indicating that

some MSDSs may contain errors. While this information indicates there are inaccurate MSDSs in circulation, there has never been a comprehensive study on this
10

topic that provides more than anecdotal evidence about a limited number of MSDSs.

This is not surprising since a study of that magnitude would be far-reaching, costly,

and time-consuming. However, lacking such a study, it is difficult to determine how

widespread the problem is today. The previously conducted studies mentioned above

are quite old in some cases. In others, the authors have made assumptions about

what they consider to be compliance with the standard that may not be consistent

with the standard’s requirements. For example, in a study regarding MSDSs on toluene diisocyanate, the authors assumed the MSDS was inaccurate if it did not explicitly refer to occupational asthma, but discussed respiratory sensitization. Since

respiratory sensitization is the health hazard defined in the HCS, either term would

be accepted as compliance for OSHA.

In addition to issues of accuracy, there have been complaints that MSDSs are not

comprehensible to workers and to small employers. The HCS was designed to address problems of comprehensibility by providing general information on labels in

conjunction with the MSDSs and other information available to employees. Training

programs are a critical component of hazard communication because they help ensure that workers understand the information they receive from labels and MSDSs.

One reason why there are concerns regarding comprehensibility is that there are

multiple audiences for MSDS information—workers, employers, and safety and

health professionals. What may be comprehensible to an experienced professional in

the field of safety and health may be difficult for an employer or an employee to

understand. In addition, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act mandates that MSDSs be made available to State emergency-response commissions, local emergency-planning committees, and fire departments to assist in

planning for emergencies. It is difficult, if not impossible, to design a document that

meets the informational needs of each of these audiences and is universally comprehensible as well.

Disparity in the qualifications of those who prepare MSDSs is another significant

reason for variability in quality. OSHA’s HCS does not address the qualifications

needed to prepare an MSDS. Those who write MSDSs come from a wide variety of

educational backgrounds, and there is little training available that is specific to this

task. Accurately depicting the health effects of chemicals requires a technical background to review relevant scientific literature. Large chemical manufacturers often

have multidisciplinary staffs of experts devoted to this task, but smaller manufacturers may not have such resources. Thus, the disparity in qualifications can lead

to differences in the quality of information included in an MSDS.

A cause of incomplete MSDS information is the lack of data on the health effects

of some chemicals. The HCS does not require testing of chemicals or protective

measures; it is based on available information. The chronic- or long-term health effects of many chemicals are not always well-known.

In addition, most chemical products on the market are mixtures unique to a single

manufacturer. The HCS provides manufacturers of mixtures a number of alternatives to determining hazards. A chemical manufacturer could choose to test a

mixture as a whole through a full range of tests, including tests to determine health

risks and physical hazards. Another accepted approach to hazard determinations is

for the manufacturer to test certain properties of a chemical and to rely on the

available research for others. If the manufacturer does not test the mixture as a

whole, the mixture is assumed to present the same hazards as its individual-component parts, and the manufacturer may rely on the upstream chemical manufacturers’ hazard determinations for those constituent substances. The MSDS for the mixture would then be comprised of the MSDSs for each component. Because of the

variations in methods used to determine hazards, employers using chemical mixtures must make some judgments about how to apply the information provided by

manufacturers to the conditions in their individual workplace.

The amount and quality of research on chemical hazards also has an impact on

the accuracy of information on the MSDS. Even the best available evidence may not

provide sufficient information about hazardous effects and protective measures.

OSHA staff has discussed these issues informally with representatives from other

nations that have MSDS requirements and they report similar problems regarding

the quality of MSDS information.

OSHA has been studying ways of improving the accuracy and comprehensibility

of MSDSs for many years. In May 1990, the Agency issued a request for information

about MSDSs in the Federal Register. From those who responded, there was general

support for consistent information on MSDSs and a standardized format. In September 1995, OSHA asked its National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and

Health for recommendations on how to improve chemical-hazard communication, including methods of simplifying MSDSs and reducing paperwork for employers and

manufacturers. After hearing from the public, including representatives of small
11

businesses and unions, the Committee reaffirmed the importance of the HCS, and

concluded that MSDSs have become long and complicated because they are used for

many purposes other than to meet OSHA requirements. OSHA has no control over

such nonOSHA purposes. A majority of the Committee supported the use of a standardized format such as that developed by the American National Standards Institute. OSHA has indicated this preference in its enforcement directives for the HCS.

To address concerns raised and to enhance the quality of hazard information presented to employers and employees, OSHA has announced a new hazard-communication initiative. There are three components of the program: (1) compliance assistance—including additional guidance materials, a new portal on OSHA’s Web

Site, and added outreach and education through new alliances; (2) an enforcement

initiative; and (3) consideration of adopting the Globally Harmonized System of

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), and preparation of a guide to raise

awareness of the GHS.

OSHA has developed three guidance documents to improve the HCS. The first is

a guide to performing a hazard determination under the requirements of the HCS.

An accurate hazard determination is the first step to an accurate MSDS and label.

The guidance provides details on how to identify the appropriate information necessary for a hazard determination, and further how to evaluate it and determine

what hazards are covered. The second document is a model training program, which

will provide employers with information on how to train their employees to understand hazards identified on labels and MSDSs and take appropriate precautions.

These two documents are currently on OSHA’s Web Site to allow public comment

for 30 days. The third document is a guide to preparing MSDSs, and will provide

assistance on how to write clear and complete MSDSs with a suggested format. The

document will list sources of information and include suggestions for the type of information to complete each section of the MSDS. This guidance will be available in

draft form on OSHA’s Web Site after the comment period for the first two documents closes.

Last October, OSHA signed an alliance with the Society for Chemical Hazard

Communication, a professional society that promotes improvements in chemical-hazard communication. This organization is working with us to develop a short course

on preparation of MSDSs, directed primarily to small businesses that prepare

MSDSs. The Society—including more than 600 members representing industry, academia, and government—has considerable expertise in hazard communication and

experience in putting together professional-development courses. The Society is also

working with OSHA on a checklist that can be used to review MSDSs for accuracy.

A number of other joint projects with this organization are being planned.

In addition to the training and other initiatives described above and the development of a review tool such as a checklist, the HCS will also continue to be a focus

of OSHA enforcement. While violations of HCS provisions are often cited during inspections, the accuracy of information is not the focus of these citations in most situations. Therefore, OSHA is developing an enforcement initiative for compliance officers to review and evaluate the adequacy of MSDSs. Under this program, the Agency will choose a certain number of chemicals, and following the requirements in the

HCS, identify some critical elements (phrases, words, etc.) that should appear on an

accurate MSDS. Compliance officers would use this information as they encounter

MSDSs for these chemicals at worksites. Where MSDSs are found that do not contain these critical elements, OSHA will notify the manufacturer in writing of the

deficiencies or inaccuracies. Manufacturers will be required to correct and update

their MSDS. They will then have to respond to OSHA and inform the Agency of the

steps taken to correct and update their data sheet. Those manufacturers that fail

to respond or do not update their MSDS can potentially be cited under the HCS.

In addition, compliance staff and the public are being made aware of the availability of International Chemical Safety Cards on OSHA’s Web Site. These cards are

similar to MSDSs in terms of the information provided. They are internationally developed and peer-reviewed, cover over 1,300 substances, and are available in fourteen languages. They are a good screening tool to be used when reviewing MSDSs

on covered substances, and are going to be modified to be consistent with the GHS

classification criteria and MSDS format.

OSHA has a great deal of hazard-communication information available on its Web

Site. We have established a portal page to consolidate this information and allow

access directly from OSHA’s homepage. This will make it easier for the public to

find the HCS, and guidance and compliance-assistance materials involving the

standard. Other sources of information helpful to employers and employees will also

be accessible through the portal page. OSHA expects that almost 50 million visits

will be made to its Web Site this year.
12

In the long-term, global harmonization of chemical information and labeling will

improve communication of chemical risks. Standardized presentation of information

on labels and MSDSs throughout the industrialized world can address many of the

concerns about comprehensibility of chemical-hazard information. Consistent presentation of information would simplify the task of reviewing MSDSs for accuracy,

allowing those who prepare and review the documents to find missing elements

more easily and OSHA compliance officers to examine MSDSs more efficiently when

conducting inspections. OSHA has worked with the international community on

global harmonization since the HCS was promulgated. In addition to the benefits

associated with improved comprehensibility and communication, implementation of

the GHS around the world could also facilitate international trade in chemicals. In

the United States, there would also be a benefit of domestic harmonization if all of

the affected agencies adopt the GHS. To increase awareness of the GHS, OSHA is

preparing a guide on the classification and labeling system that was adopted by the

United Nations in December 2002. The United States is now considering adoption

of the GHS. Further information about the GHS is available on OSHA’s Web Site.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that problems arise from time to time when

there is such a large universe of chemicals and there are millions of workers exposed to these substances. I believe that the steps I have outlined today will actively

address the problems that you and others have pointed out and will significantly

raise awareness among both employers and employees of the need to provide information on chemicals used in America’s workplaces. I will be happy to answer any

questions.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much for your testimony. It has

been very helpful to have you go over the number of things that

you have been working on with this. I know that you have been

pushed a lot by Ron Hayes to do it, but you have been extremely

responsive on it and I think have some great ideas. I do have a few

questions.

I want to congratulate you for the guidance materials that you

are providing so people can do these sheets better and the model

training program that you have. I will be anxious to see how that

works and how it gets revised, because I know a first product is

never a final product, either. But I think those will make a tremendous difference.

Compliance assistance and training are keys to preventing injuries and illnesses in the workplace, and I know that small businesses particularly have very limited resources and are in most

need of assistance. You mentioned some things. If you could reiterate those and also tell me what OSHA is doing to make its compliance assistance and outreach efforts more effective for small

business, I would appreciate it.

Mr. HENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have created over

the last year and a half a new Office of Small Business, and that

office is directing a lot of our compliance assistance efforts to deal

with the issues that small businesses have to deal with in respect

to complying with our standards. And obviously a critical one is the

Hazard Communication Standard.

So we are working closely with that Office of Small Business.

And the materials that we have up on our website—we have two

draft documents that are up for review currently. One is the training materials or model training program, as well as the hazard determination guidance. Those documents are prepared to help small

business make some of these critical decisions as to what is a hazard and how to make those determinations, as well as how to properly train their employees based on the labels and MSDSs.

I would like to clear up the understanding of the intent behind

the Hazard Communication Standard and the purpose behind the
13

Material Safety Data Sheets. The Material Safety Data Sheets are

not the only tool by which an employer communicates to his employees as to hazards in the workplace. They are one of the tools

they should use.

So the model training program is a way to take the information

that the employer has, small or large, and disseminate the right information and communicate the right information to the employee

so the employee knows what the hazards are based on, the information the employer has and the employee has that is included in

the MSDS and the label.

So just purely laying down an MSDS to an employee and saying

you have been properly trained is inadequate. There is a training

process. There is a communication process. There is an understanding process that must take place.

So the model training program is geared to help the employer,

specifically the small employer, to make that communication as effective as he possibly can. What we like to do through our alliances

is to develop model training programs from this larger program

that we have up on our website now, hone it down specifically to

small business or to a small business sector so that they can communicate more effectively to their employees.

This is what we hope to do through our alliances and other partnerships that we have underway at the present time.

Senator ENZI. By honing it down—I know we talked about the

650,000 different chemicals out there, and on any one job site, they

are not going to come in contact with nearly that many—so are you

talking about making it more specific by type of job? I am not sure

I understand the concept on honing it down.

Mr. HENSHAW. Generally, if it is a construction site, you may see

various different exposures or potential exposures, depending on

the tasks being performed. And the employer’s job is, based on

those tasks that the employee will perform, to make sure the employee understands what those hazards are and takes the appropriate precautions.

So it may be a task-oriented program, or it may be this is the

job we are hiring you for, there are four different tasks that you

are going to be performing in this job, and each one of those tasks

may involve this chemical or that chemical, and here are the precautions you need to take as a result of using those chemicals. The

basis for those cautions, the basis for that communication, will be

the label and the MSDS.

Senator ENZI. That sounds like it will be a tremendous help to

small business. Going back again to when I was doing some training in that area, the important thing was to make sure the employee was safe and knew what to do in case of a problem, and I

really did not find the sheets to be all that helpful. I did find that

if they could find them, then we would not be fined by OSHA.

I appreciate your explanation on the honing down, and I do hope

everybody will look at that website. As I mentioned, I have seen

these MSDS sheets with complex terminology that I think only a

Ph.D. in biochemistry could understand, and even if it is accurate,

if the employee does not understand it, it is probably not going to

do any good.
14

I also ran into some employees who had very limited English capability, and I wondered what the OSHA plan was doing to make

these sheets more easily understood by workers, including those

with more limited English proficiency. Is there an effort that way,

too?

Mr. HENSHAW. I think that is going to be addressed to a great

extent in the model training programs. As you know, in our Hazard

Communication Standard, English is the preferred language. It

was primarily established as we received products from outside the

U.S. We wanted to make sure that at least we had a common language, an MSDS in our common language here in the U.S., so we

would not receive a Chinese MSDS and be required to translate

that here in this country.

So English is the primary language according to the Hazard

Communication Standard. I do not think it is feasible to require a

different MSDS in every conceivable language that we may have in

this country. I do not think that is a doable process. What we do

require—and this is why this is a performance-oriented standard—

is that the employer, as he takes the MSDS—and again, we need

to make sure it is accurate, because if the employer is working off

of an inaccurate MSDS is communicating inaccurate information

no matter how they are communicating to the employee—so we

have got to make sure from the very beginning that the MSDS is

accurate. Now it is the employer’s job to communicate in whatever

language, whatever technique, whatever process is appropriate so

that the employee understands the hazard and knows what precautions to take.

We have some tools that can help the employer make this translation or make this bridge if the employee does not understand

English as well as, obviously, the communicator. We have these

international chemical cards, which are also on our website, and

about 1,300 different chemicals are included in those, in 14 different languages. They are also a way that we can communicate in

different languages to employees. However, they are not part of the

MSDS, but they are a technique that the employer can use, and as

I said, they are available to any employer if they want to pull those

down.

But it is the employer’s responsibility to communicate to that

employee, and if that employee only understands Spanish, we need

to make sure that we have the communication done in the language, or in a technique—it could be pictures, it could be some

other process—that the employee understands, because the most

important part is that the employee understands what the hazards

are and how to protect himself.

Senator ENZI. Excellent. I will shift gears now, because part of

it is getting the right information on the data sheets to begin with.

Is there a mechanism by which OSHA can better detect consistent

problems in the way a manufacturer or importer prepares those

Material Safety Data Sheet? How do you go about checking the

sheets themselves?

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir. We have had a process under way, and

we are going to reenergize that and improve on it, which is part

of this initiative, on the enforcement part. We are going to do several things. One, using our partners in the alliance, we are going
15

to identify a checklist or complete a checklist on various compounds, and as the OSHA inspector visits that location, he will use

this checklist to make sure these MSDSs have the right phrases

and the right information on the MSDS. If they find there is a

problem there, that they are not using the right phrase, or it is inaccurate, we will, through our phone and fax investigation process,

communicate back to the supplier and ask the supplier to respond.

If the supplier does not respond or does not provide the right information as far as updating their MSDS and prove that they are updating their MSDS, they are subject to violation under the Hazard

Communication Standard.

The other thing we are asking is that employers, especially small

employers, if they have a question around the accuracy of their

MSDS, they ought to come to us; they ought to refer that to us and

let us contact the supplier and ask the supplier to respond appropriately in respect to the accuracy of the MSDS.

Senator ENZI. This brings me to the other area of interest, which

is how does the employer know that he has the latest sheet.

Mr. HENSHAW. That is a difficult issue. We hope through our

guidance material on our website, not only the hazard determination but also model training, as well as the future—the one that

we do not have yet, but we will be posting it after we get the comments from the other two—on how to prepare MSDSs, as well as

the international cards. I mentioned the international cards. There

are 1,300 chemicals addressed there, and the small employer can

also refer to that and see if those phrases are included in their

MSDS, and if they are not, we may have a problem in the accuracy

of that MSDS, and they should call us.

So that is another tool from our website.

Senator ENZI. I guess I am not quite clear on this, because when

we talked about how you find out if there is a consistent manufacturer or importer consistently making inaccuracies in their data

sheet, it sounds like it comes down to the field inspections where

you are checking the sheets in the field to see if there is an inconsistency there. There is not some kind of clearinghouse where they

can see if they are using the right form, and it is clear enough, before it gets out to the worker?

Mr. HENSHAW. We do not have that process. I mean, we do not

require suppliers or importers to send us copies of their MSDSs, so

we do not have that information. The only way we will know what

is out there is to go into the individual workplace and examine

those MSDSs. That is the only process we have.

Senator ENZI. If the employer downloads from these 1,300 different chemicals they have, are those sheets acceptable as opposed

to the one from the manufacturer directly?

Mr. HENSHAW. These are not MSDSs.

Senator ENZI. OK.

Mr. HENSHAW. These are not model MSDSs. These are sheets

that cover relevant phrases and hazard determinations. They

would not be considered a complete MSDS. But they are sources

of information that the employer can look at and see if—if it is supposed to say respiratory sensitization for a certain compound, like

isocyanide, they will see that on one of the 1,300 cards out there,

and if the MSDS that they have from their supplier, they know
16

there is a discrepancy. But these 1,300 cards would not be considered as an MSDS.

Senator ENZI. OK. It still sounds like quite a burden on the small

business, which is what I am trying to get around. I appreciate

that you have done the website, and I see some tremendous potential for the website, but only if it can be accessed for some of these

sheets, or if there are providers that could do that, particularly

electronically. I was not just doing a pitch for a company from Wyoming. I know that when we had the September 11th problem, they

donated a lot of their electronic devices to the first responders in

New York, and first responders particularly have a huge problem

because they are not normally working at that site and may now

know what chemicals are at that site and consequently may not

have the data to be able to handle the situation; but if they have

these electronic devices that have a whole range of things in there,

and they can just type in the name of whatever they determine to

be the chemical or the characteristics of what they are seeing, and

the computer rifles through it and suggests what it might be and

asks some additional questions to more carefully identify it, and

then, when it has been identified, asks more questions to the extent that a person can answer them, and they plug those in, and

then it gives you as much of an indication of what to do as possible,

seems to me to be really the only kind of technique that stands a

chance, because a first responder carrying a 5-pound notebook

around just is not going to happen, and then having to do the lookup process, because you do not know whether it is by the name of

the company, the name of the chemical—I am just trying to convey

a little bit how difficult this is for the employer out there and the

worker out there.

So I am hoping that through your electronic mechanisms, there

are ways that employers could download actual MSDS sheets that

would comply and answer the questions as best possible—and I do

not expect an answer to that; I am just giving a suggestion.

Mr. HENSHAW. Senator, with respect to helping small business,

another avenue we have is of course our consultation services. We

have 54 different consultation units around the country in all

States and territories, and they are there for small employers to

call if they have questions, and that is free service. So I would encourage small employers to contact our consultation services, and

we have those numbers and addresses on our website, so if they

need information or if they have a question, they should be calling

our consultation services.

Senator ENZI. Excellent. It is always nice to have somebody on

the other end of the phone line.

Now, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board investigates major chemical accidents, and according to the Chemical

Safety Board, they identified inadequate communication as a contributing cause in 9 of the 19 cases that they investigated. How do

OSHA and the Chemical Safety Board coordinate their efforts to

address this hazardous communication problem?

Mr. HENSHAW. The Chemical Safety Board has done its part. We

have an MOU with them as to how we will communicate and respond, and they have already submitted their recommendation and

highlighted the issue about inaccurate MSDSs. So that has been
17

communicated. Now our job is to take that and do something with

it, and this initiative that we are embarking on now is an effort

to address that.

What I hope is that as they continue on with their investigations—and my hope is fewer and fewer and fewer investigations—

but as they uncover other issues around MSDSs, we need to know

about it, and I am sure they will communicate to us.

So based on their recommendations that were submitted some

time ago to us, this initiative is intended to address those problems.

Senator ENZI. And of course, the Chemical Safety Board is not

the agency working on some of these things; there would also be

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of

Transportation and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—

and there are probably a whole bunch of others.

How are you working with these other agencies particularly regarding the Globally Harmonized System?

Mr. HENSHAW. In respect to the Globally Harmonized System or

the GHS, we have been active in that process, and for the last pretty close to 15 years it has been in discussion. And Jennifer Silk,

who is behind me, is world-renowned in this area of harmonizing

as well as hazard communication. She has been actively involved

in the process of getting this harmonization initiated and to reach

some sort of conclusion, and the conclusion was the recommendation from the United Nations, as you mentioned, in December 2002

to go forward with the implementation of the GHS system.

OSHA is not the only agency involved in that process. DOT,

EPA, the Consumer Product Safety, and a number of other agencies will have to be players in this as we determine how the United

States will respond to this recommendation from the United Nations.

We have been actively involved in discussions with the various

agencies, and we need to continue to pursue that. The deadline or

the target date that the United Nations has established is 2008,

and that is coming very quickly.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much for your testimony this

morning, and we will leave the record open so that others can submit questions. This is perhaps too detailed for many, but there will

be staff members who will be intricately interested in this and will

help to move the system along.

I want to congratulate you. I think that not having people here

asking you a lot of different questions says that you have been

doing a good job. So thanks to you and your staff, and keep up the

good work.

Mr. HENSHAW. Thank you, Senator.

Senator ENZI. I will ask the next panel to come forward as I introduce them.

We have with us today on our second panel Tom Grumbles, who

is president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. He is

a certified industrial hygienist and manager of product safety and

health for Sasol North America, Inc., an international chemical

manufacturer. He has been involved in the occupational safety and

health profession for nearly 30 years. He will discuss hazard com-
18

munication from the perspective of occupational safety and health

experts.

As the manager of product safety and health for an international

chemical manufacturer, Mr. Grumbles is also well-positioned to discuss the global implications of hazard communication and the Globally Harmonized System.

I will do one introduction at a time, and each of you will speak,

and then we will have questions to the panel as a whole. I would

ask that you summarize your information so we can keep it within

the 5-minute time frame, and your entire statement will be a part

of the record, though, and anything you wish to submit after you

have heard additional questions or have thought of some other

things will also be a part of the record. We will leave the record

open for a while.

Mr. Grumbles.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS G. GRUMBLES, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION; JON HANSON, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, WYOMING MEDICAL CENTER, CASPER,

WY; ANNE JACKSON, CORPORATE SAFETY DIRECTOR,

PEPPERIDGE FARM, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BAKERS

ASSOCIATION; MICHELE R. SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOCIETY FOR CHEMICAL HAZARD

COMMUNICATION; AND MICHAEL J. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF

HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator Enzi, we appreciate the opportunity to

be here representing AIHA to comment on these issues today.

The good news is that I will depart a lot from my written testimony, mostly because Mr. Henshaw has already said most of what

I wanted to say.

I think the fact is this is an issue where there are a lot of common ideas and common beliefs as to what the issues are and what

can be fixed.

It has been over 20 years since OSHA adopted the Hazard Communication Standard. There is absolutely no doubt in my work

every day and I think in most people’s minds that it has improved

the availability and the understanding of information on hazardous

materials in the workplace. But there is also no doubt that as the

pressures have grown on what the MSDS as meant to do—and it

should be stated again that it was never meant to be a stand-alone

document to create all the hazard information in the workplace,

that it was meant to be used with education and labeling along

with it—but the pressures have grown on what the MSDS has

meant to do and what it has asked to do. It has been said time and

time again that the intended audiences for the MSDS have expanded over time, in some cases explicitly by regulation, and in

other cases simply based on the business demands that are put on

chemical manufacturers like my company to provide information to

our customers.

Can the MSDSs be better regulated? In our minds and at AIHA,

it is not clear that additional regulation will necessarily improve all

the issues associated with MSDSs. Existing problems with MSDSs

should first be considered in light of noncompliance with existing
19

regulations, not the need for new regulations. If the conclusion is

drawn that additional regulatory action is needed, full consideration must be given to the Globally Harmonized System to avoid

possible concerns with international commerce.

This truly is an international issue. We are in a global economy—nobody can argue with that. And as an international chemical company, I see the problems we have every day trying to communicate in different regions of the world with MSDSs for in essence the same product or the same chemical produced in different

regions of the world.

It truly is an international problem, and we need to work on it

together with the rest of the industrialized countries of the world

to solve it. So I think our first point would be please, if additional

regulation is anticipated, it should be done with full recognition of

the Globally Harmonized System.

On the issue of competency of MSDS writers, hazard communication does not address that issue. There is nothing in there about

qualifications needed to prepare MSDSs. Clearly, we believe the

quality, accuracy, and usefulness of MSDSs can be improved by increasing the competency of MSDS authors through development of

appropriate and practical guidelines on the preparation and aggressive outreach on those guidelines.

Nobody who does what I do went to school to get a degree on

writing an MSDS. There are few programs you can go to to learn

how to do that. It really does come from experience and using

whatever scientific background you have to learn how to do that.

So we are faced with a situation, and I do believe that the impact

on small business is disproportionate in terms of the technical resources needed and available to write the MSDSs.

I think that working with the many OSHA alliances, not just

SCHC, but with all the alliances together, we can probably create

a greater market force, in essence, for the quality of MSDSs. Providing information to people who must use them to help them understand and evaluate the quality of the information they receive,

and encouraging them to go back to their suppliers to ask for good

MSDSs, I believe could in essence create a market force that will

help to improve the quality of the MSDSs.

The impact on small business must be considered, and certainly

the outreach that we have heard about already this morning and

working further through the alliances that OSHA has developed

throughout the last 2 years can perhaps provide that aggressive

outreach to small businesses, and perhaps through the combined

efforts of experts in the field, the alliances and the small baseness

development centers, we could create that outreach network to improve the understanding of, the quality of the MSDSs, as well as

improve the competency and the work of the people who must write

those and provide them to the consumers of chemicals.

The Globally Harmonized System clearly addresses a number of

the issues raised regarding the current Hazard Communication

Standard requirements. The major goal of the GHS is to improve

the quality and consistency of chemical hazard information; creating a more consistent format so that people know, regardless of

where they are, what region they are in, what page on the MSDS

would have the most important information; creating a system that
20

provides more consistent hazard communication phrasing, so that,

to be honest, we can get rid of some of the adjectives and modifiers

and other things that go into most MSDS statements that leave

you generally with the conclusion in many cases that we are not

sure if this is hazardous or not, but we are providing you all this

wonderful information; providing a more consistent methodology to

do that, down to the point of actually consistent pictograms so that

you can begin to deal with the language issue. Those things that

are embodied in the GHS we believe certainly can move toward improving the quality, the consistency, and the information that is in

the MSDS for the ultimate user of that information.

That still does not necessarily deal with the competency of the

MSDS writers, and once again, we certainly applaud the efforts of

OSHA on the outreach and believe that OSHA can work even more

aggressively with all the alliances they have to get this information

out, and particularly to assist small business.

OSHA had stated that the original approach to hazard communication, training, labels, and MSDSs was based in part on information regarding communication theory. AIHA would suggest that

there probably is a need for a review of the most current science

of communication and perhaps new scientific studies to determine

the comprehensibility of model language for each of the target audiences that we know the MSDS must now reach.

So AIHA certainly stands ready to assist you, Congress or OSHA

and others, in every possible way. We also have an alliance with

OSHA, and we will be happy to work with them through that alliance as well as work with the other alliances to try to assist in

this, what we believe to be an essential outreach effort that is

needed.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. GRUMBLES

My name is Tom Grumbles and I am President of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). I am a certified industrial hygienist and have been involved in the occupational health and safety profession for nearly 30 years. I am

also the Manager of Product Safety and Occupational Health for Sasol North America, Inc., an international corporation involved with chemical manufacturing. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this hearing of the Senate Subcommittee

on Employment, Safety and Training and provide testimony on the issue of Material

Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and hazard communication. I would ask that my entire

written testimony be inserted into the record.

Before I begin Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you

on behalf of both employees and employers who desire a healthy and safe workplace

for your past and present involvement in occupational health and safety. Your leadership is crucial if we are to improve this country’s record of workplace-related injury and illness that affects workers and their families and impacts our communities. I applaud your efforts.

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) appreciates the opportunity

to provide input and offer recommendations in support of the overall goal of this

Senate hearing to address improving the accuracy, quality, and maintenance of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). Founded in 1939, AIHA is a nonprofit international organization comprised of 12,000 members and more than 75 local sections.

AIHA’s more than 30 technical committees deal with the health and safety challenges facing occupational health experts and workers everywhere. AIHA’s Stewardship and Sustainability Committee is an active participant in the development of

the revised ANSI Standard on MSDS Preparation Z400.1.
21

AIHA shares the concerns that inaccurate, incomplete and outdated MSDSs can

increase risks of illnesses and injuries and environmental consequences arising from

the handling, storage, transportation and use of hazardous chemicals. Industrial hygiene, safety, emergency response and environmental health professionals rely on

MSDSs as a source of information to assist employers and employees properly manage hazardous chemicals.

It has been almost 20 years since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted the Hazard Communication Standard with its provisions for

development and distribution of MSDSs for hazardous chemicals. As originally intended, a MSDS was not meant to be a stand-alone document. It was part of an

overall hazard communication program designed to include labeling and, perhaps

most importantly, training in the hazards and use of labels and MSDSs. The target

audience for MSDSs at that time was employers, employees, industrial hygiene and

safety professionals and occupational physicians and nurses. We believe there is little doubt that the implementation of this standard by chemical producers and employers has improved the availability and understanding of information on hazardous chemicals in the workplace. In fact, the provision of MSDSs and labels is a

standard business practice today, even resulting in many employers having MSDS

requirements for everything they purchase, including products that are not hazardous as defined by the hazard communication standard.

Today, audiences for MSDSs continue to expand beyond the workers handling

chemicals, IHs, and others. Target audiences now include emergency response personnel, environmental professionals, R&D chemists, process engineers and product

stewards. The content of MSDSs attempting to meet these needs varies and the

value to target audiences needs to be improved.

In addition, we are now in a truly ‘‘global economy’’ where international cooperation and harmonization is required. If MSDSs are to remain a valuable tool in the

protection of workers and others, all industrialized countries must work together to

see that they contain the most reliable and accurate data available. The quality and

accuracy of MSDSs is an international one and we should work on international solutions.

Last October it was reported that in the ECLIPS (European Classification and Labelling Inspections of Preparations) project participating countries evaluated the

data of about 900 inspected preparations in about 200 companies. The goal of the

project was to inspect companies and their handling and labelling of preparations

containing dangerous substances. The emerging results of the ECLIPS project show

that only 38 percent of the labelling and 25 percent of the safety data sheets were

fully correct. There have been similar studies in the US with similar results.

To address the problem we are discussing today, questions need to be asked:

Can MSDSs Be Better Regulated?

It is in no way clear that additional regulation will improve the accuracy and

quality of MSDSs. Events cited as highlighting the problems with MSDSs should

first be considered in light of noncompliance with the existing regulations, not the

need for new regulations. If the conclusion is drawn that additional regulatory action is needed, full consideration must be given to the Globally Harmonized System

(GHS) to avoid possible concerns with international commerce.

Is the Existing Hazard Communication Standard too Generic?

AIHA does not believe the hazard communication standard is too generic, but

there are areas where it can be improved. AIHA supports the overall goals of both

the ANSI Standard on MSDS Preparation Z400.1 and the GHS in that they improve

the quality of the MSDS by establishing a structure and providing meaningful recommendations on content. However, caution is warranted because following ANSI

guidelines or GHS will still not ensure that information is accurate or reliable.

Can the Competency of MSDS Writers Be Regulated?

The Hazard Communication Standard does not address what qualifications are

needed to prepare MSDSs. The disparity in the qualifications of MSDS preparers

is one significant reason for the disparity in the quality of MSDSs. There are no

degrees in this type of product stewardship work, so experts in label and MSDS requirements usually come from backgrounds such as chemistry and industrial hygiene and receive on-the-job training. There are few recognized courses available for

those newly tasked with writing MSDSs.

AIHA believes that the quality, accuracy and usefulness of MSDSs can be improved by increasing the competency of MSDS authors and the development of appropriate and practical guidelines on the preparation and maintenance of MSDSs.

It is essential that MSDS authors have both the necessary technical skills to write
22

MSDSs and the tools necessary to ensure that MSDS information is accurate and

written in clear and understandable language.

AIHA recommends consideration of a nonmandatory appendix to the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) that addresses training guidelines for

MSDS authors. This action, coupled with an aggressive outreach effort by OSHA to

develop and provide resources to accomplish such training, seems essential at this

point. OSHA recognizes the need for this Compliance Assistance outreach in its recent document titled ‘‘Hazard Communication in the 21st Century’’. In that document OSHA speaks of the alliance with the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication. AIHA believes that work with this alliance is not enough. OSHA should

work through its alliances with AIHA, the American Society of Safety Engineers,

and many others to create a wide recognition of the issues and needs, and the outreach materials that are part of the solution.

Working with the many OSHA alliances with groups representing companies that

are a recipient of MSDSs, and who rely on this information, could create a greater

‘‘market force’’ for quality MSDSs. Alliances and partnerships between regulators,

professional organizations, universities, educators, and the regulated community to

develop best practices and metrics would serve to improve the current situation.

Considering the 10 years it took to finalize the first hazard communication standard

these types of efforts should be much more efficient than new regulation in improving the situation with MSDSs.

This issue also has a significant impact on small business where technical resources may be limited. To address this problem, AIHA believes that outreach assistance on MSDS and hazard communication should be provided to small business.

This assistance could be accomplished through combined efforts of experts in the

field, perhaps utilizing the existing Small Business Development Centers.

Should There Be Different MSDSs for Employers and Employees?

The AIHA fully supports one MSDS format for all target audiences. The AIHA

encourages the use of international standards/guidelines (including recommended

phrases and symbols) that allow MSDS preparers to communicate hazards in an understandable way to each of the various MSDS users. The AIHA recognizes that providing information on an MSDS, beyond that required by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, is necessary to fulfill needs of the variety of target audiences

(e.g., transportation, global inventory status, waste disposal information). Specific

formatting and content guidelines or regulations can facilitate this need. One must

remember that the MSDS is a reference document meant to be used with education

and labeling to communicate hazards. It is not meant to be a stand-alone document.

How Does the Existing MSDS System in the United States Interact With the United

Nations Global Harmonization Standard (GHS)?

Since the US is both a major importer and exporter of chemicals, the manner in

which other countries choose to regulate has an impact on the protection of workers

in the US as well as on possible barriers to international trade in chemicals, and

vice versa. The GHS clearly addresses a number of the issues raised regarding the

current Hazard Communication Standard requirements.

The GHS is intended to accomplish a number of objectives. A major goal is to improve the quality and consistency of chemical hazard information. It is also anticipated that the GHS, if implemented, will facilitate international trade in chemicals

and provide a recognized framework for those countries without an existing hazard

communication system.

A standardized 16-section format is established for safety data sheets to provide

a consistent sequence for presentation of information. With the exception of the

order of two headings being reversed, the harmonized data sheets are the same as

the ANSI standard. Items of common interest to workers are presented at the front

of the document, while more technical information is presented later. Headings for

the sections (e.g., First Aid Measures, Handling and Storage) are standardized to

facilitate locating information of interest. Thus, with the exception of differences in

language, only one label and one data sheet would be necessary for national and

international commerce for any given product.

The GHS establishes standardized criteria for determining the health, environmental, and physical hazards associated with chemicals. GHS establishes standardized and more detailed requirements for labels and safety data sheets, including

consistent use of pictograms (e.g., skull and crossbones), signal words (e.g., Danger),

and harmonized hazard statements (e.g., Fatal if Swallowed). Under this approach,

employers would know exactly how to convey the hazards of the chemical once they

complete the hazard classification. The harmonized label elements are provided for

each hazard category and class within that category.
23

The details of the elements of the GHS are still being worked out, but the AIHA

supports the overall goals of the GHS. However, if the GHS is to be adopted in the

United States, it would undoubtedly require Federal rulemaking. This Federal rulemaking would also likely have to include more than one Federal agency. And last,

prior consideration must be given to the stakeholders involved in the issue. Such

a list of stakeholders is extensive (i.e., MSDS preparers, employers, employees, occupational health and safety professionals, emergency response personnel, process engineers, R&D chemists) and should be discussed prior to any movement toward rulemaking.

What About the Science of Hazard Communication?

OSHA has stated that the original comprehensive approach to hazard communication, training, labels and MSDSs together was based in part on information about

communication theory that was identified during the rulemaking. For example, the

more information that appears on a label, the less likely it is that someone will read

it and use it.

The AIHA suggests that there is a need for a review of the most current science

of communication and perhaps new scientific studies that determine the comprehensibility of model language for each target audience. Scientific studies

that demonstrate efficacy of language to the target audiences could greatly improve MSDS effectiveness.

Mr. Chairman, when these questions are addressed, I believe the US will have

taken the correct path to ensure that valuable information and guidance is provided

to IH professionals and others that utilize MSDSs to anticipate, recognize, evaluate

and control workplace exposures and for those that prepare MSDSs.

AIHA believes that industrial hygiene professionals have a key role in improving

the quality and value of information available on a MSDS. We intend to educate

our members and others about the current activities related to the preparation and

use of MSDSs, including efforts to increase their quality and utility, implementation

of a globally

harmonized approach to their presentation, and updating the existing voluntary

consensus standard that provides guidance for development.

In closing, AIHA stands ready to assist you, Congress, and others in every possible way. Together we can move MSDSs into the 21st century workplace.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and provide some of my

experience and knowledge. At this time I would be more than happy to answer any

questions you may have. Thank you.

Senator ENZI. The next person to testify is Jon Hanson, who is

director of safety at the Wyoming Medical Center in Casper, WY.

Mr. Hanson will discuss the issues he has faced in protecting hospital workers from chemical hazards.

Mr. Hanson.

Mr. HANSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify this morning.

I am the director of safety at the Wyoming Medical Center in

Casper. It is my honor to appear before you today and help you better understand the issues that I confront on the front lines daily

in hospital risk management.

Before I discuss recommendations that I have for improving the

Federal Hazard Communication Standard, I would like to share

some personal stories of why I believe these improvements are necessary in the first place.

At our facility, we inventory over 2,500 chemicals representing

more than 20,000 pages of MSDSs. They are manually archived

into 26 4-inch binders. These sheets are developed to inform me

and my fellow employees to include physicians, nurses, cooks, and

even environmental service workers of the potential physical and

environmental risks, hazards and threats for each chemical.

You can just imagine the chaos that ensued when two gallons of

a chemical, xylene, was spilled in my lab. By the time the hospital

employee had noticed that the spill had happened, the HVAC system had picked it up and sucked it into the ventilation. Not know-
24

ing that xylene was heavier than air, she decided, by the time she

realized it was there, she was going to call engineering and just

clean it up with solid waste rags.

During this time frame, it had suspended in the ceiling tile over

our radiology department and sent 12 people to the emergency

room for exposure. So in essence, she took solid waste rags known

for spontaneous combustion, not knowing as well that xylene had

a flash point of 75 degrees fahrenheit, cleaned up this chemical and

put it into a plastic bag full of air and walked it to our incinerator

room.

During this process and what led her to do this is she became

frantic and started trying to thumb through the MSDS book in her

area, unable to find xylene, and when she did find xylene, there

were eight different types of xylene based off the percentages.

All I can say is she was very frantic. She kept stating that she

could not find the MSDS, she could not find the MSDS, and when

she found it, she could not understand it.

Mr. Chairman, this story is not unique. Every workplace that

houses chemicals has potential victims. What happened to my employees can happen to anybody. And ironically, the system which

was designed to promote chemical safety in the workplace, the

MSDS, is actually contributing to the fear that hospital employees

endure on a daily basis.

With this as a backdrop, I urge the subcommittee to consider my

recommendations. One, plain and simple, the regulations governing

HAZMAT communications in the workplace are too lengthy, much

too vague, and way too confusing to effectively empower me to do

my job. I recommend that Congress work with OSHA to provide

workplaces with the clear and specific means of complying with the

standard.

My job is to ensure the safety of the entire facility, all the staff

and anyone who enters, including patients. I should be spending

my time on those critical responsibilities, not trying to interpret

the technical language in the Federal regulations.

I have seen MSDSs ranging in length from a single page all the

way up to 65 pages. Manufacturers use their own formats to detail

the information required by the Federal law. They are written defensively and in a language too technical for an audience that

needs to rely on the ability to act quickly in case of an incident.

There is no doubt we are dealing with a multilingual and somewhat illiterate society. We have to be able to educate these people,

and they have outlined the educational requirements, saying here

is what you need to educate. However, OSHA has no vertical as far

as competencies or documentation of education. There is no safeguard to put in place where the employer says, okay, I have to document and retain these records of education for a duration of

time—now, if you are exposed, yes, there are mandates—but there

is nothing that says the employer has to document that he has educated and that the employee has a level of competency for understanding. So this again puts it back on the employee to be able to

decipher what is going on.

The new format should be a single page for each chemical. Potential hazardous chemicals, safety precautions, emergency response
25

and first aid could be easily documented on a single page or sheet,

written in sixth-grade language.

An appendix to my testimony includes a six-page MSDS for a

chemical, glutaraldehyde. It includes a much more sufficient version of an MSDS that was developed by a chemical categorization

company in Arizona. My hospital has used this version for the past

2 years, and it has created a magnitude of efficiencies.

I think that instead of looking at how are we going to train on

the work process, we need to train on the chemical categorization.

For emergency response people, it is the same thing—they need to

know if it is flammable, combustible, oxidizer, and if not, they refer

to their ERG for clean-up instead of trying to figure out what is

what off the MSDS.

In my hospital lab, all the employees are required to be trained

on the safety and potential risk for each of the chemicals in the facility. In our lab, we house 800 chemicals and we have 40 FTEs,

and again in the lab, we have MSDSs that go all the way up to

65 pages, in the event that a chemical changes, or additions or subsequent training is required.

For improved efficiency, I recommend that Congress work with

OSHA to develop a standardized training program based on chemical categorization. It cannot be disputed that the 650,000-some

chemicals used today fall into much smaller categories. Under the

category-based training program, less time would be necessary to

train staff on these risks and interventions, without compromising

the safety and training of the people who use them, the end-users.

Education is only the first step. Labeling comes into it as well.

When you take a chemical from its original container and put it

into a secondary container, it has to be labeled with all the same

requirements. What happens—if you picture a plastic glass or a

plastic cup here, you put masking tape on it and write with a

marker on it what it is, and if you can interpret the handwriting,

that is one thing. The person sets it down and walks away. His

right-to-know has been established. If that chemical spills, and the

people who are coming to respond to the spill do not know what

it is, so they either have to wait for that user to come back and

identify what it is, or they have to expose themselves by picking

up the container and trying to read this now blurred marker on

this masking tape. So what is establishing their right-to-know?

Mr. Chairman, I applaud OSHA’s work to start promoting workplace safety. However, 20 years have passed since the regulations

were published, and it is now time to harness the power of technology to finish the job. The current MSDSs are antiquated, archaic, and they simply do not work. Plus, when you talk about the

cost to comply with them in a health care setting, it is more of a

burden than a necessity.

Information included in these documents is written in a language

that can even stretch an engineer’s capability to interpret it.

Given these liabilities, I strongly urge you to remove the complexity of the Hazardous Communication Standard by developing a

national framework for hazard determination, employee training,

with competencies, and preparation of chemical-related documentation.
26

For example, I recently reviewed two cleaning chemicals at our

facility for approval for use. Each, although from different manufacturers, had exactly the same chemical information, the same ingredients, make-up, percentages of ingredients used. However, one

chemical was listed as having a health hazard of one, while the

other had a health hazard of three.

So it is obvious that things need to be done, and I think we need

to take a more specific approach to things instead of having 50

fires burning in one basket. We need to get back to the basics. This

is what we need to focus on.

I thank you for inviting me to testify, and I would be happy to

answer any questions.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much, particularly for the examples.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON HANSON

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Enzi, Senator Murray, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you

for inviting me to testify this morning. My name is Jon Hanson, and I am the Director of Safety at Wyoming Medical Center in Casper, Wyoming. The issue under the

subcommittee’s consideration this morning will have a significant impact on the future of workplace safety, and it is my honor to appear before you today to help you

better understand the issues that I confront daily on the frontlines of hospital risk

management.

Before I detail the specific recommendations I have for improving the Federal

Hazard Communication Standard, I would like to share some personal stories about

why I believe these improvements are necessary in the first place. These two stories,

together with the expert testimony you will have received by the end of this historic

hearing, should provide the evidence necessary for the subcommittee to begin exploring mechanisms for reform.

MSDS: A RECIPE FOR DISASTER PART 1

As the safety director at Wyoming Medical Center, I am responsible for managing

the inventory, use, and safety applications for approximately 2,500 chemicals. As

you know, current law requires me to maintain an archive of material safety data

sheets, or MSDSs, for each chemical in my hospital. These sheets were developed

to inform me and my fellow hospital employees (including physicians, nurses,

cooks—even environmental service workers) of the potential physical and environmental risks, hazards, and threats of each chemical.

These MSDSs vary significantly in length. I have one chemical in my hospital

which has an accompanying MSDS from the manufacturer that is one page long.

In the other extreme, I have another chemical with an MSDS from the manufacturer that is 65 pages long. All of the 2,500 MSDSs in my hospital fall somewhere

between these two in length. This represents more than 20,000 pages of MSDSs,

which I had manually archived in 26, four-inch binders.

Now, fast forward to July of 2000 when two gallons of the chemical Xylene spilled

in the lab of my hospital. By the time an employee had noticed the spill, the ventilation had already sucked most of the vapors into the HVCA. This, in turn, became

suspended in the ceiling tile over our radiology department. Twelve employees were

sent to the emergency room. To make the matter worse, the lab employee was frantically searching through the MSDS binder in her area for the Xylene MSDS. Once

she found it, she had difficulty locating the spill response section. After notifying

our engineering department, she began to clean up the spill with solid waste rags,

known for spontaneous combustion, and placing the rags into a clear plastic bag for

disposal. She did not know that Xylene has a flash point of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

She then walked the bag down to our incinerator room and left it there, basically

creating a live bomb. Twelve people were treated from this exposure. The lab employee was very upset and concerned about the safety of the affected employees and

visitors, and hysterically kept stating that she could not find the necessary spill response information.
27

MSDS: A RECIPE FOR DISASTER PART 2

The next story is equally as frightening. An industry colleague of mine recently

shared his experience with me in conducting HAZMAT and MSDS training on an

excavation site for a pipeline company in Colorado. He had no more finished the

training when a project engineer noticed several five-gallon buckets placed in the

dirt all along the site. The gentleman read the labels on the buckets as he was

trained. It read ‘‘de-greaser, clear, colorless, odorless standard PH.’’ He then placed

his foot on top of the bucket to give him an extra boost to call his supervisor over

to this find. His foot went directly into the top of the bucket, and the substance inside came splashing out. The blue-green substance smelled of ammonia and gelled

when it hit the ground. The chemical was indeed a de-greaser, but not the one on

the label. It was Monster de-greaser. The facility had extra buckets left over, and

used them to store other chemicals to be used on the pipeline at a later time. Because of the inaccuracies in labeling, the employee ended up losing his leg from the

knee down.

Mr. Chairman, Wyoming Medical Center is not unique here. Every hospital,

healthcare facility, manufacturing plant, and other workplaces that house chemicals

has potential victims. What happened to these employees can happen to anybody.

And, ironically, the system which was designed to promote chemical safety in the

workplace—the MSDS—is actually contributing to the fear that hospital employees

endure on a daily basis.

I was asked to come this morning to offer specific recommendations for changing

the Federal Hazard Communication Standard. With my personal stories as a backdrop, please consider the following recommendations.

REGULATORY TREATMENT OF TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 1910.1200—Subpart Z was written

to provide me with clarity on how to do an effective job of managing hazardous material communications. The problem is the section is much too lengthy. Many different sections offer multiple ways to comply with the Federal standard. It is a challenge, though not insurmountable, to effectively translate the information in these

regulations to ensure my hospital’s compliance with Federal law. Couple this with

the 64 Federal and State agencies that have each promulgated regulations governing my department, and you have a bureaucratic maze that is seemingly impossible

to navigate. In short, the section is too vague and leaves significant margin for error

in interpretation.

I recommend that Congress work with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to provide workplaces with a clear and specific means for complying with the standard. My job is to ensure the safety of the physical plant and

that of the hospital’s staff and patients. I should be spending my time on that critical responsibility and not on trying to interpret the technical language in Federal

regulations.

THE MSDS FORMAT

As I reported, I have seen MSDSs ranging in length from a single page to 65

pages. Every chemical manufacturer uses different formats to detail the information

required by Federal law. They are written defensively, with an eye toward litigation,

in a language that is too technical for an audience who needs to rely on the ability

to act quickly in the case of an incident. I have numerous certifications and accreditations in engineering, safety, and risk management, and even I have a difficult

time in interpreting these technical documents. I ask you to consider the outcome

of a chemical spill when the hospital’s night environmental service crew, with only

basic English language skills, happened upon the incident.

I recommend this morning that Congress and OSHA, in concert with industry,

work to produce a standardized format for the MSDS in the HAZCOM arena. The

new format should be a single page for each chemical. The following could easily

be documented on a single sheet in language a 6th grade student could easily understand:

1. Potential hazards (fire or explosion, health)

2. Safety precautions

3. Emergency response (fire, spill)

4. First aid

As an example, an appendix to my testimony includes a six-page MSDS for the

chemical Glutaraldehyde. It also includes a much more succinct version of the

MSDS that was developed by a chemical categorization company in Arizona. My

hospital has used this version for the past 2 years, which has created a multitude
28

of efficiencies. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that these be included as part of the hearing

record.

TRAINING ON CHEMICAL SAFETY

In my hospital, our laboratory alone houses more than 800 chemicals and employs

more than 40 full time employees. Each of these employees is required to be trained

on the safety and potential risks of each of the 800 chemicals before they commence

working. In the event there are chemical changes or additions, subsequent training

is required. Couple this training requirement with thousands of pages of MSDSs,

and chaos ensues.

I recommend that Congress work with OSHA to develop a standardized training

program based on chemical categorization. Many toxicologists and chemists agree

that each of the more than 2 million chemicals in use today can undoubtedly fall

into a much smaller number of specific categories, based on their potential hazards,

safety precautions, and emergency responses. Under a category-based training program, less time would be necessary to train staff on these risks and interventions,

without compromising the safety that the training is designed to advance. This

would enable staff to spend more time doing the jobs they were hired to do, and

less time on overly burdensome administration.

As an example, an appendix to my testimony details the chemical categorization

program in use at Wyoming Medical Center. We have 2,500 chemicals at my hospital that can fall into every category. Rather than spend time training staff on each

of the chemicals, we provide training on the identified categories. We have found

this to result in significant cost savings. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that these be included

as part of the hearing record as well.

IMPACT OF HCS REFORM ON GLOBAL HARMONIZATION SYSTEM

The hearing this morning also provides an opportunity to comment on the Global

Harmonization System. As you know, international trade in chemical products

brings differences in hazard determination, criteria for defining cutoffs, classifications, as well as language and cultural sensitivities. In 1992, an international effort

to develop a globally harmonized system for hazard classification and labeling was

adopted at a United Nations conference on Environment and Development. Part of

the mandate was a globally harmonized classification and compatible labeling system, including MSDSs and easily understandable symbols, which was to be made

available by the year 2000. The United States is a member of the development

team, but has not yet committed to the Globally Harmonized System involving

OSHA, EPA, Department of Transportation, and many other regulatory agencies.

MSDSs in the United States, as it stands, is no small issue. The original, twopage MSDS has grown to a dozen or more pages. This suggests that substantial proportions of MSDSs today have serious deficiencies.

For example, I recently reviewed two cleaning chemicals at our facility for approval of use. Each chemical, although from different manufacturers, had the exact

same chemical ingredients and make up, with the exact same percentages of ingredients used. However, one chemical was listed as having a health hazard of three

while the other a health hazard of one. This inadequacy and inefficiency is among

the current public health problems Congress should work to address.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the Federal effort to strengthen the standards for workplace safety

more than two decades ago should be applauded. The pioneering work of OSHA in

this regard should be recognized. But 20 years have passed since these regulations

were published, and it is now time to harness the power of technology to advance

workplace safety once and for all. The current paper-based system has run its

course, and desperately needs to be updated. The current MSDS model is antiquated

and archaic. We are suffocating under the countless reams of paper that are causing

more problems than solutions. A majority of the MSDSs in use today are inaccurate,

and there is no standard for how the embedded information is relayed from the

manufacturers to the workplace. Information included in these documents is written

in a language that would stretch even an engineer’s capacity to interpret them.

Given these liabilities, I strongly urge you to remove the complexity from the Hazard Communication System by developing a national framework for hazard determination, employee training, and the preparation of chemical-related documents.

Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
29

APPENDIX A
30
31
32
33
34
35

APPENDIX B
36
37
38

APPENDIX C

Senator ENZI. Our next presenter is Anne Jackson, who is the

corporate safety director for Pepperidge Farm. Ms. Jackson is testifying on behalf of the American Bakers Association. She oversees

the health, safety and workers’ compensation programs for

Pepperidge Farm’s eight manufacturing plants and its thrift stores

and sales distribution centers.

Ms. Jackson will discuss the challenges for effective hazard communication in her facilities.

Ms. Jackson.

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Good morning.

As you said, my name is Anne Jackson. I am the corporate safety

director for Pepperidge Farm, and I am based in Denver, PA. I am

pleased to testify this morning on behalf of the American Bakers

Association.
39

We thank the subcommittee and Chairman Mike Enzi for holding this important hearing on OSHA’s Hazard Communication

Standard and the utility of MSDSs in protecting employees.

ABA is the trade association that represents the Nation’s wholesale baking industry and has devoted substantial efforts to enhance

workplace safety. Pepperidge Farm is based in Norwalk, CT. As

you said, we have 5,000 employees at eight bakery facilities across

the United States, including a brand new, $72 million state-of-theart bakery in Bloomfield, CT. We make a variety of high-quality

bakery goods, including bread, rolls, cookies, and crackers.

My responsibilities at Pepperidge Farm include the management

of all company health and safety programs and initiatives, including safety training programs. In this role, I am an advocate for our

employees and their families in maintaining a safe workplace.

Safety is an integral part of our company’s value system. This commitment to safety has helped us maintain a superior safety record.

Protection from hazardous substances is of paramount importance to Pepperidge Farm and the baking industry as a whole. Material Safety Data Sheets are the cornerstone of fulfilling employees’ right to know about chemicals in the workplace. MSDSs must

clearly provide the necessary information to employees, supervisors, and in the worst case scenario, to first responders. Sadly,

MSDSs seem designed for liability protection rather than employee

protection.

We are extremely excited to hear about OSHA’s decision to review MSDSs in the workplace. If done properly, this is an excellent

opportunity to improve the quality of information available to employees, as well as streamline the administrative burdens on safety

professionals. However, OSHA must open its process to those who

work with MSDSs every day, employees and employers. Failure to

do so will result in guidance that provides no increase in safety for

employees and no assistance to safety professionals.

To give you some perspective, we receive thousands of MSDSs

into our system. Every manufacturer sends us MSDSs, including

our own parent company, Campbell Soup. We receive them for

cleaners, solvents and maintenance supplies. We receive them for

the printing materials that we use on packaging and, despite exemptions under the Hazard Communication Standard for food

products, we also receive MSDSs for ingredients.

At Pepperidge Farm, we include any and all substances that employees may come in contact with, including food ingredients. One

never knows if an employee may have a sensitivity to a particular

ingredient.

Managing the sheer volume of incoming MSDSs is an enormous

administrative challenge. This is one binder. This is just the maintenance department—and I brought the MSDS binder—just for the

maintenance department at one facility. Even minor changes in the

composition of substances requires an update to our files. In addition, we must follow up with our suppliers to receive missing or

new MSDSs.

Our industry buys many of the substances in use in our facilities

in bulk quantities. As you have talked about, after receiving these

products, they are redistributed into smaller containers. Unfortu-
40

nately, they arrive with a single MSDS and no labels for the smaller containers.

The most important thing is to quickly and accurately communicate to employees about workplace substances. Unfortunately,

this is where the current MSDSs fail miserably. The shortcomings

start with a lack of focus by OSHA and by suppliers on their true

purpose—protecting employees.

The MSDSs that I work with fall into two categories—those written by attorneys for attorneys, and those written by chemical engineers for chemical engineers. Most of our safety professionals and

our production employees are neither. The most important improvement that OSHA could make would be to standardize the

MSDS format.

I just brought several—I did not even choose them for any particular reason other than that they were the first few in the binder—and each one has a different format. I have a one-page, I have

a 3-page, I have a 6-page here with different sections included.

Some MSDSs have the information up front, as I said. Some are

one or two pages of overly brought descriptions and no useful exposure information. Many are multipage chemical abstracts or legal

treatises. Some MSDSs are identified by chemical names, brand

names, or some other proprietary label.

One challenge—and this was mentioned before—facing our industry is the growing work force diversity. Some bakers have 30

countries and a dozen separate languages represented. In our bakery in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country, you would not

think we would have this issue. In fact, we have Ukrainian, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Laotian, and many other dialects.

The diverse population includes wide-ranging education and literacy levels as well, even for native English-speakers. Many entrylevel employees require assistance in reading and basic math training to meet their duties.

With the sheets barely comprehensible in English, attempting to

train someone from another country or with limited literacy skills

is very daunting. I am concerned about whether we are reaching

employees so that they understand what substances they need to

be careful around and how to respond in the case of potential exposure.

As I said, we are pleased to see that OSHA is addressing the

shortcomings of the MSDSs. OSHA should actively reach out to all

stakeholders in this process. If OSHA attempts to make unilateral

decisions about MSDSs, then it risks wasting a tremendous opportunity to improve employee protection. We would like to make the

following recommendations to the subcommittee and to OSHA.

First, clarify the requirements of when and where to provide

MSDSs. The first step toward making MSDSs less confusing is to

definitively State when and where MSDSs are to be provided.

OSHA needs to clearly delineate between those common products

that pose no risk to employees and those that have the potential

to cause serious harm.

Second would be to develop uniform standard MSDS formats.

ABA strongly recommends that OSHA develop uniform standard

formats for MSDSs. This month’s ‘‘Facility Safety Management

Magazine,’’ which I brought a copy of here, notes that many manu-
41

facturers include—and this is a quote—‘‘so many health hazards

that the average worker would need a doctorate in toxicology just

to decipher the information, defeating the purpose of the standard

in the first place.’’

OSHA needs to lay out a standard format that includes all of the

information necessary to identify and educate employees on the potential hazards of the substance and what to do in emergency situations—on the front page. They should include brief information on

hazards, exposure limits, reactivity, flammability. The MSDSs then

can contain brief descriptions and information for first responders.

OSHA should also decide how MSDSs should be catalogued, either by chemical name or by manufacturer or brand name. It

makes no sense to sort through MSDSs in our binder here that can

be kept in any number of ways. OSHA needs to look at the ANSI

Z400.1-1993 consensus standard for guidance. This standard recommends a voluntary 16-section format for MSDSs.

Currently, MSDSs suggest that personal protective equipment be

used but do not answer the important question of what type of protective equipment to use and at what levels. Many bakers struggle

with this vital question, especially when trying to conduct employee

training.

OSHA should also set guidance on how often MSDSs need to be

updated by the manufacturer. Many manufacturers are still using

generic MSDSs developed when the Hazard Communication Standard was first issued. The MSDS could also contain an expiration

date for when it needs to be replaced—if you will allow me a baking analogy.

The proposed Globally Harmonized System may present a good

opportunity for OSHA to implement MSDS standards. Even in the

baking industry, we face a global marketplace. Pepperidge Farm’s

parent company, for example, Campbell Soup, might benefit from

a more uniform MSDS standard, and that would obviously impact

us as well.

One caveat we would add, however, is to examine the impact of

such a standard on ABA’s smaller members. Adding another layer

of hazard communication bureaucracy should be avoided.

The third recommendation is to promote the use of electronic

MSDS systems. These systems can be very effective in collecting,

storing, updating MSDSs on literally millions of substances. The

benefit is obvious during potential exposures, situations when we

can receive immediate treatment, exposure, and first aid information on any substance.

While we fully comply with the paper requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard, we rely on electronic MSDS service

for actual safety issues. Our provider keeps an up-to-date repository of all the substances in our facilities. They do provide a fax

copy within minutes if we have a situation that requires it. This

immediate access is far more preferable to thumbing through binders with thousands of MSDSs.

I can honestly say that employees have only asked on a couple

of occasions to see the paper MSDSs, but I can personally attest

to the strength of the system we do use. We put it through extensive testing before agreeing to bring it into our facilities.
42

OSHA needs to do more to encourage companies to utilize emerging technologies. If doctors and surgeons can rely on wireless and

handheld technology to effectively diagnose patients from a distance, employers should be able to use the same technology to protect and train employees.

The fourth and final recommendation would be to use labels

more effectively in employee communication. OSHA could incorporate into HAZCOM and MSDSs the use of labels for immediate

response. Requiring a label that includes some universally-recognized symbols, such as the National Fire Protection Association

coding or the Hazardous Materials Identification system, would be

far easier to explain and understand in a diverse workforce like

ours. Training on these labels would be far more effective than the

complex and confusing MSDSs we currently use.

In conclusion, thank you again for the opportunity to share the

wholesale baking industry’s thoughts on OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard and the role of MSDSs in informing, educating,

and protecting employees. We offer these suggestions on how to improve the quality of MSDSs, but clearly, OSHA must be willing to

open this process. This opportunity to improve hazard communication, to everyone’s benefit should not be missed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Senator ENZI. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE JACKSON

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The American Bakers Association (ABA) thanks the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, and especially Chairman Mike Enzi, for holding this

important hearing on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)

Hazard Communication Standard, particularly the role and utility of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) in informing and protecting employees.

By way of background, ABA is the trade association that represents the Nation’s

wholesale baking industry. Its membership consists of more than 200 wholesale

bakery and allied services firms. These firms comprise companies of all sizes, ranging from family-owned enterprises to companies affiliated with Fortune 500 corporations. Together, these companies produce approximately 80 percent of the Nation’s

baked goods. The members of the ABA collectively employ tens of thousands of employees nationwide in their production, sales and distribution operations. The ABA,

therefore, serves as the principal voice of the American wholesale bakery industry.

My name is Anne Jackson and I am the Corporate Safety Director for Pepperidge

Farm and am based in Denver, Pennsylvania. I am pleased to be testifying this

morning on behalf of the American Bakers Association. Pepperidge Farm is a moderately sized wholesale baking company based in Norwalk, Connecticut with 8 bakery facilities spread across the United States, including a new $72 million state-ofthe-art bakery in Bloomfield, Connecticut. In total, the company employs around

5,000 employees. Our facilities make a variety of high quality bakery goods including breads, rolls, cookies and crackers with which I am sure you are familiar. Our

delicious and healthy products are available nationwide and in 40 countries around

the world.

My responsibilities at Pepperidge Farm include the management of all company

safety and health programs and initiatives, including regulatory accountability and

workers compensation. Employed by Pepperidge Farm since 1998, I have held the

position of Corporate Safety Director for the past 3 12 years. Prior to my current

position, I was Employee Relations Manager at Pepperidge Farm’s Denver, PA

plant, where safety was one of my principle responsibilities. I currently oversee the

health, safety, and workers’ compensation programs for Pepperidge Farm’s eight

manufacturing plants and its thrift stores, and sales distribution centers. In addition, I develop and deliver 2-day safety training programs to all levels of employees
43

at our plant locations. Prior to joining Pepperidge Farm, I had 15 years of human

resources experience for several other companies.

In my role as Corporate Safety Director, I work very closely with both facility

leadership and production employees to help ensure our company is a safe place to

work for all. I consider myself an advocate for our employees and their families in

the ongoing business of maintaining a safe work environment. Pepperidge Farm is

strongly committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace to our highly trained

and valued employees. Our objective is to provide all Pepperidge Farm employees

with a work experience so special it changes their lives. We seek to create an environment where inspired people set and achieve high standards in everything they

do. We try to achieve these goals by hiring, engaging and retaining passionate

individuals... and by living the values of our founder, Margaret Rudkin,

throughout the company every day:

• Passion for our products, our community, our dreams and our combined power

to achieve them

• Uncompromising commitment to Quality

• Genuine Caring about people as individuals, ensuring that everyone’s role is

valuable and valued

• Teamwork as a strategy for success

• A continuous drive for Innovation in everything we do—including safety.

Safety is an integral part of our company’s value system. This front line commitment to Safety at all levels of our organization has helped us maintain superior performance when it comes to preventing the occurrence of significant injuries and illnesses in our facilities. Our OSHA Recordable Injury and Illness Rate has been

lower than the baking industry average for the past 4 years according to the Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

The ABA and its member companies long have devoted substantial efforts to enhance workplace safety and health programs in the industry, and to share expertise

for the benefit of injury and illness prevention activities at individual facilities. Towards these ends, ABA’s Safety Committee—comprised of corporate safety directors

at ABA-member companies of various sizes—has routinely focused on the impact of

OSHA compliance obligations on company operations, as well as other pro-active

measures that reduce illnesses and injuries in bakery production and distribution

activities. As a result, wholesale baking operations have substantially improved

their safety and health performance in recent years. For a number of industry facilities, these improvements have been reflected in the rates of injuries and illnesses

that are recorded on OSHA logs, as well as their workers compensation cost experience, which reflect both the frequency and severity of compensable work-related injuries and illnesses.

The ABA, through the active participation of its Safety Committee, also develops

numerous strategies and training programs to address specific workplace safety and

health issues including hazard communication. The comments that follow largely

are based on the observations and experience of the corporate safety directors, from

large and small wholesale baking companies, who are active members of the ABA’s

Safety Committee.

The identification and protection from hazardous substances in the workplace, is

of paramount importance to Pepperidge Farm and the wholesale baking industry.

Towards that end we spend a tremendous amount of time and resources implementing hazard communication plans as spelled out by our own company policies and

by OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)

are the cornerstone of fulfilling employees’ right to know about chemicals in the

workplace requirements as embodied in the Hazard Communication Standard. It is

critically important that those MSDSs be clear, concise and provide the necessary

information to employees, supervisors and in the worst case scenario—first responders. Sadly, the proliferation of MSDSs designed solely for liability protection rather

than employee protection has led to widespread confusion and can be particularly

intimidating for employees.

Therefore, we are extremely excited to learn about OSHA’s decision to review the

role and composition of MSDSs in the workplace. If done properly, this is an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of information available to employees as well

as streamline the administrative burdens on safety professionals. However, in order

to achieve these needed results, OSHA must be willing to open its process to the

ones who work with MSDSs every day—employees and employers. Failure to do so

will result in a rule that provides no increase in safety for employees and no assistance to safety professionals such as myself. Here is an opportunity to improve hazard communication to everyone’s benefit that should not be missed or diverted due

to inertia. To assist the Subcommittee and OSHA in this effort, I would like to share
44

with you my perspective as a safety professional who works on these issues with

employees every day.

OVERVIEW OF MSDSs

Let me take a few moments to describe for the subcommittee how MSDSs are

handled in our company and for most baking companies. To put this in perspective

you need to understand that we literally get thousands of MSDSs coming into our

system. Every manufacturer that we receive materials from sends us MSDSs, including our own parent company Campbell Soup. We receive them for all types of

cleaners, solvents and maintenance supplies. We also receive them for the printing

materials that we use on packaging. And despite broad exemptions under the Hazard Communication Standard for food products we also receive MSDSs for ingredients. At Pepperidge Farm, our policy is to include any and all substances that employees may come in contact with, including food ingredients. One never knows if

an employee may have a particular sensitivity to an ingredient and we like to have

that information available.

Managing the sheer volume of MSDSs we receive is an enormous administrative

challenge. Even minor changes in the composition of substances we use require an

update to our files. In addition, we need to follow up with our suppliers when we

do not receive MSDSs with shipments or to determine if we need to receive updated

MSDSs for substances already in the facility.

Another important issue is that of items purchased in large bulk quantities.

Pepperidge Farm and most wholesale bakers now buy many of the substances in

use in our facilities in large bulk quantities in order to save on expenses. After receiving the products in bulk form they are commonly redistributed into smaller containers for use within our operations. Unfortunately, when these products are delivered in bulk they come with a single MSDS and no labels for the smaller containers.

COMPOSITION OF MSDSs CRITICALLY IMPORTANT

The most important aspect of the Hazard Communication Standard is the ability

to quickly and concisely communicate to employees the information they need to

know about the substances with which they work. Unfortunately, this is where the

current MSDSs fail miserably. The shortcomings of today’s MSDSs are numerous,

but it all starts with a lack of focus by OSHA and by suppliers on what their true

purpose is—protecting employees.

The MSDSs that I have to work with at Pepperidge Farm usually fall into one

of two categories—those written by attorneys for attorneys and those written by

chemical engineers for chemical engineers. Most of our safety professionals and certainly our production employees are neither. The most important improvement

OSHA could make would be to have a standard format that is developed by all of

the people that have to use MSDSs—specifically employees and company safety professionals.

What is particularly troubling with MSDSs is it seems that every substance has

a different type of MSDS. Some have critically important information up front

where it can be quickly referenced. Some are one or two pages of overly broad descriptions of the substance and no useful information on what to do in cases of exposure. On the opposite extreme, many are multipaged with lengthy chemical abstracts or extensive legalese. Some MSDSs are identified by complex chemical

names while others include the manufacturers’ brand name or other proprietary

label.

Additionally, many of the MSDSs don’t truly match the substance with which

they arrive. On many occasions, very dated MSDSs will arrive with similar but different types of products. Worse are the MSDSs that arrive with commonly available

products, such as cleaners, but are identifying full strength substances when in reality the product contains very small percentages of the substance. This provides

employees with misleading information or a false sense of concern. For employers

it gives little useful information to assist in potential exposure situations.

EMPLOYEE DIVERSITY PRESENTS CHALLENGES

A particular challenge facing the wholesale baking industry, and I would suggest

probably many other industries, is the growing diversity of our workforce. Some

bakers in major metropolitan areas have upwards of 30 countries and a dozen separate languages represented on their workforces. This situation is not limited to just

metropolitan areas. In our Denver, Pennsylvania bakery located in the heart of

Pennsylvania Dutch country we have several different languages spoken including

Ukrainian, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Laotian and several other southeastern

Asian dialects.
45

The baking industry’s diverse population also includes wide ranging education

and literacy levels as well. More and more entry level employees require some assistance in reading and basic math training in order to fully participate in the workforce and meet the duties of their employment.

Whether it is ethnic, cultural or educational diversity, there are enormous challenges in training on MSDSs. With the sheets barely comprehendible in English, attempting to train someone from another country or with limited literacy skills is

daunting to say the least. As a safety professional, I am concerned about whether

we are reaching employees so that they understand what substances they need to

be careful around and how to respond in the case of a potential exposure.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As I said at the outset, we are particularly pleased to see that OSHA is trying

to address some of the shortcomings of the MSDSs. The key to success is for OSHA

to recognize that the MSDSs are designed to inform employees and their employers—both large and small—on hazardous substances in the workplace, how to handle them and what to do in an emergency situation. OSHA should be actively reaching out to include all interested stakeholders in this important process. If OSHA attempts to make unilateral decisions about MSDSs then it risks wasting a tremendous opportunity to improve employee protection as well as allow safety professionals and employers to maximize their safety and health resources.

Specifically, we would like to make the following recommendations to the subcommittee and to OSHA:

1. CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS OF WHEN AND WHERE TO PROVIDE MSDSs

The first step to making MSDSs less confusing and more effective is to definitively State when and where MSDSs are to be provided. You have no doubt heard

ad nauseam about the confusion of whether common retail products, food items and

ingredients must be accompanied by an MSDS from the manufacturer. OSHA needs

to clearly delineate between those common products that pose no risk to employees

from those that have the potential of causing serious harm to employees.

One area OSHA could easily address is the arbitrary and ambiguous reliance

upon outside nonconsensus organizations standards that are based on conjecture

and perception rather than peer-reviewed scientific and medical evidence. Some

groups issue their own standards without regard for transparency, public input or

scientific fact—the biggest violator being the American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). OSHA should never rely upon ACGIH standards unless it can independently verify, with proper public participation, the validity of

science underpinning ACGIH’s arbitrary standards.

2. DEVELOP UNIFORM, STANDARD FORMATS

ABA strongly recommends that OSHA meet with all interested stakeholders to

develop uniform, standard formats for MSDSs. As mentioned earlier, there are almost as many formats as there are MSDSs. The important information—that most

needed to protect employees—can be located just about anywhere on the MSDS. In

addition, there is way too much non essential information on the sheets. In fact, this

month’s Facility Safety Management magazine notes ‘‘many manufacturers include

so many health hazards that the average workers would need a doctorate in toxicology just to decipher the information—defeating the purpose of the standard in

the first place’’.

OSHA needs to lay out a standard format that includes all of the information necessary to identify and educate employees on the potential hazards of the substance

and what to do in emergency situations—on the front page. They should be as brief

as possible without losing the important information of hazards, exposure limits, reactivity and flammability. The MSDSs then can contain brief descriptions and information for first responders. It also is important to note that OSHA could do safety

professionals a big favor by deciding how MSDSs should be catalogued—either by

chemical name or by manufacturer brand name. It makes no sense if the purpose

is safety to have to sort through MSDSs that can be kept in any number of ways.

At the very least, OSHA needs to look at the ANSI Z400.1-1993 consensus standard.

This standard which recommends a voluntary 16-section standard format was enacted to combat quality problems with MSDSs.

All too often an MSDS will suggest that personal protective equipment be used

with a particular substance. Unfortunately the MSDS will not answer the important

question of what type of protective equipment and at what protection level it should

be used. Many bakers struggle with this vital question especially when trying to

conduct proper employee training. OSHA also could go a long way toward providing
46

meaningful safety information if it required MSDSs to specifically what type and

level of protection is required to protect employees.

OSHA should also set standards on how often MSDSs need to be updated by the

manufacturer. Many substance manufacturers are still using overly generic MSDSs

developed when the Hazard Communication Standard was first issued—despite the

fact that there have been formula changes that have made the MSDS obsolete. The

MSDS also could contain an easily identifiable code or id that indicates when it ‘‘expires’’ and needs to be replaced—expiration date if you will allow me a baking analogy.

Finally, it seems like the proposed globally harmonized system is a good opportunity for OSHA to implement these recommended MSDS standards. While most of

my comments today have been focused on U.S. operations, even in the baking industry we are facing a more global marketplace. Pepperidge Farm’s parent company,

Campbell Soup, sets many safety and health policies for the entire company. As a

global company, Campbell Soup might benefit from a more uniform MSDS standard

and that would obviously impact Pepperidge Farm as well.

One caveat we would add, is that the impact of such a globally harmonized standard might have on ABA’s small members. It is difficult enough to manage the

MSDSs and conduct appropriate safety training with limited resources that adding

another layer of hazard communication could be particularly burdensome. Before

OSHA moves the U.S. toward this new global standard it may need to determine

if it is just for those involved in the global marketplace or can the standard be used

to bring OSHA’s standards in line and alleviate many of the burdens of the current

Hazard Communication Standard on small businesses.

3. PROMOTE USE OF ELECTRONIC MSDS SYSTEMS

One area that OSHA seems extremely reluctant to embrace is the use of electronic

MSDS systems. These systems can be tremendously effective in collecting, storing,

updating MSDSs on literally million of substances. The benefit of such systems really comes through during potential exposure situations when we can receive immediate treatment, exposure and first aid assistance on any substance.

While Pepperidge Farm is in full compliance with all of the paper requirements

of the Hazard Communication Standard, we rely on an electronic MSDS service for

actual safety related issues. Our third-party provider keeps an up-to-date listing of

all of the substances in our facilities. They provide a copy of the appropriate MSDS

if we have a situation that requires us to identify potential hazards and appropriate

safety measures. We have access via fax to the precise safety information in a matter of a couple of minutes. We also have poison control access through this same

system at all of our locations.

This immediate access is far more preferable to thumbing through binders with

thousands of MSDSs. (Refer to binders again.) The binders literally sit on shelves

in various parts of our facilities gathering dust. I can honestly say that employees

have only asked on a couple of occasions to see the paper MSDSs.

We can appreciate OSHA’s concerns about having immediate access to electronic

MSDSs via fax or the Internet, however, I can personally attest to the strength of

the system we use. I put it through extensive testing before agreeing to bring it into

our facilities and I still randomly test the system to make sure our third-party vendor is keeping up to date.

As the technology continues to advance at breakneck speed, OSHA needs to do

more to encourage companies to utilize the technology. If doctors and surgeons can

rely on wireless and handheld technology to effectively diagnose patients from a distance, then employers should be able to use the same technology to protect and

train employees about hazardous substances in the workplace. It isn’t hard to imagine a wireless handheld where a safety manager or first responder scans a substance package or even the substance itself and gets an immediate response about

the identity, concentration and abatement measures for that substance.

4. USE LABELS MORE EFFECTIVELY IN EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION

One aspect of the globally harmonized system for hazardous substances that

OSHA could incorporate into updating the Hazard Communication Standard and

MSDSs is the reliance upon proper labeling for immediate situation response. Requiring substance manufacturers to include a label on their substances that includes

some universally recognized symbols such as the National Fire Protection Association coding or the Hazardous Materials Identification System would provide employees with important information that would be far easier to explain and understand

than the current MSDSs. Similar labels to be attached to small volume containers

also would be very helpful.
47

I mentioned earlier the diversity of our workforce and the simplest way to communicate the proper use and protection of hazardous substances is through universally

recognized labels. Training on these labels would be far more effective than on the

overly complex and confusing MSDSs we currently rely upon.

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to share the wholesale baking industry’s

thoughts on OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, particularly the role and

utility of MSDSs in informing and protecting employees. We are extremely excited

about the opportunity to improve the quality of information available to employees

as well as help safety professionals effectively protect employees on hazardous substances. We offer these suggestions on how to achieve these results but clearly,

OSHA must be willing to open its process to the ones who work with MSDSs every

day—employees and employers. This opportunity to improve hazard communication

to everyone’s benefit should not be missed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I would be happy

to take any questions you have.

Senator ENZI. Our next presenter is Dr. Michele Sullivan, who is

a hazard communication consultant. Dr. Sullivan is chairman of

the board of directors of the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication, which has entered into an alliance with OSHA to provide

training and information on hazard communication.

As an internationally recognized hazard communication specialist, Dr. Sullivan participated in the development of the Globally

Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals.

Dr. Sullivan.

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee

as it considers hazard communication.

The Society for Chemical Hazard Communication, known as

SCHC, is a professional society of individuals who are engaged in

the business of hazard communication. The Society’s purpose is to

educate and provide information on hazard communication.

The Society offers over 25 professional development courses, and

these courses mainly focus on the information and guidance needed

to prepare the global 16-section MSDSs. The courses are open to

members and nonmembers, and as has been mentioned several

times earlier, there are no degrees currently in MSDS and labelwriting.

Recently, SCHC and OSHA have signed an alliance to provide information and training on hazard communication MSDSs and the

GHS. Through the alliance, SCHC and OSHA will work collaboratively to promote effective hazard communication.

As Mr. Henshaw mentioned, alliance activities currently under

discussion include the development of MSDS training for OSHA

staff and also for small businesses. We are also working on the development of MSDS checklists to be used by OSHA, and we will be

working on ways to promote awareness of the Globally Harmonized

System.

The Globally Harmonized System could be viewed as the next

step in the hazard communication journey of continuous improvement. Representatives from government, industry, workers, and

international organizations all participated in developing the GHS.

These representatives were all experts in areas of hazard communication, and they worked not only to create a Globally Harmonized

System but to incorporate enhancements based on their knowledge,

experience, and past learning.
48

Adopting the GHS would harmonize hazard communication requirements among U.S. regulatory agencies, as mentioned earlier,

agencies like EPA, OSHA, CPSC, and DOT, as well as globally.

The GHS would promote consistency and improve the quality of

MSDSs. The GHS requires the defined sequence for the MSDS section, it specifies minimal information requirements for each section, and it prioritizes the placement of different types of information.

Adopting the GHS would standardize hazard definitions, both domestically and globally; standardize hazard warnings and hazard

symbols on labels, both domestically and globally; and standardize

MSDS format and information, domestically and globally.

The GHS can improve hazard communication by allowing information to be more easily compared by utilizing symbols and by utilizing standard phrases to improve awareness and understanding.

Consistent information would be communicated on labels and

MSDSs, and therefore, workers should have improved comprehensibility. By providing detailed and standardized physical and

health hazard definitions, the GHS can lead to better-quality information. Facilitation of international trade in chemicals is also expected to be a GHS benefit.

However, implementation of the GHS offers challenges for industry, probably particularly for small businesses, and government.

The hazard definitions for all chemical products would have to be

reviewed and their MSDSs and labels potentially revised, and as

was mentioned earlier, it is estimated that there are over 650,000

chemical products.

The interests of workers, users of chemicals, the public, regulators, and the chemical industry could be served by adopting the

GHS. A major benefit would be improved safety for workers

through consistent and simplified communication on chemical hazards and practices to follow for safe handling and use.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide you these comments, Mr.

Chairman, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much, Dr. Sullivan.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELE R. SULLIVAN

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Michele Sullivan. I am

a hazard communication professional with over 20 years experience in industry,

trade associations and consulting for companies, government agencies, and international organizations. I was a member of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety & Health (NACOSH) Hazard Communication Work Group (1995–

96). I participated on the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development

(OECD), the International Labor Organization (ILO) and international groups that

developed the new Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. I have been a member of the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC) for over 20 years and I’m the Chairman of the SCHC Board of

Directors.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Employment,

Safety, and Training this morning as it considers hazard communication.

SCHC

SCHC is a professional society of individuals who are engaged in the business of

hazard communication. The members’ jobs are diverse. Many prepare labels and

material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for their employers’ products. Others train

users of hazardous chemicals, act as expert witnesses or implement government reg-
49

ulations. They work in industry, government and academia. SCHC membership has

grown from 40 people in 1979 to approximately 700 today.

SCHC’s purpose is to promote effective communication about chemical hazards.

The Society is committed to sharing knowledge and resources and educating its

members and the public about communicating chemical hazards on product labels,

MSDS and other literature.

SCHC strives to keep its members aware of the latest developments concerning

hazard communication. The Society holds meetings to provide up-to-date information on current developments and education and networking opportunities for its

members. Recently the development, content and implementation of the new Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals have

been covered. Training workers about hazard communication is frequently a topic

at meetings.

The Society’s purpose has always been to educate and provide information on hazard communication. Today the society offerings have grown to over 25 professional

development courses. These courses mainly focus on information and guidance needed to prepare a global 16-section MSDS. The students in these courses are generally

people involved in writing or developing MSDSs. The courses range from introductory MSDS workshops, to courses on first aid statements and advanced courses on

assessing and communicating toxicological results. SCHC also offers several courses

on the diverse hazard communication labeling requirements for the USA and other

countries. SCHC students have a broad range of occupations—for example chemistry, industrial hygiene, and toxicology. There are no degrees in MSDS and label

writing.

SCHC is one of the organizations canvassed for the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) Z129.1 Labeling Standard and the ANSI Z400.1 MSDS Standard.

The society compiles comments on the draft standards from its members and provides the comments to the ANSI committees for consideration.

Outreach/Alliance

The Society has a history of collaboration and outreach. Shortly after the OSHA

Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, (HCS) was published, SCHC

and OSHA collaborated to educate stakeholders by jointly sponsoring seminars on

a regional basis with both OSHA and SCHC participating.

Recently, SCHC and OSHA have signed an Alliance to provide information and

training on hazard communication, MSDSs and the new Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Through the Alliance, SCHC

and OSHA will work collaboratively to promote effective hazard communication.

Some Alliance activities that SCHC is pursuing include: Creating an Alliance

page on the SCHC website that highlights hazard communication and GHS resources and links; Having OSHA speakers participate at SCHC meetings; and Serving on the editorial board for OSHA’s Hazard Communication Safety and Health

Topics page.

Promoting awareness of the GHS by: Participating in the MSDS Round Table at

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) 2004 spring conference; Sponsoring GHS sessions at the 2004 National Safety Council’s Annual Congress and 2005

World Safety Congress; and Including GHS topics on SCHC programs.

Alliance activities under discussion include the development of MSDS training

and checklists to be used by OSHA, and more GHS forums.

GHS

As an internationally recognized hazard communication expert, I had the opportunity to participate in developing the GHS. Representatives from governments, industry, workers and international organizations all participated. These representatives were all experts in areas of hazard communication. These specialists worked

not only to create a globally harmonized hazard communication system but to incorporate enhancements based on their knowledge, experience, and past learnings. The

GHS could be viewed as the next step on the hazard communication journey of continuous improvement.

Traditionally, hazard communication has had a three-prong approach: labels,

MSDSs and training for workers. These hazard communication elements are all

interrelated. While recognizing the importance of training, the GHS focuses mainly

on hazard definition, labels and MSDSs.

It is instructive to examine the hazard communication elements and how the GHS

could enhance them.
50

Hazard Definitions

The starting point for all hazard communication is the definition of what is hazardous. This forms the foundation for understanding a product’s characteristics and

how to safely handle and use the product. It triggers label warnings, hazard and

precautionary information on MSDSs, and packaging, transport and storage requirements.

The definition of what constitutes a hazardous chemical product varies today

among USA government agencies that regulate consumer products, pesticides,

transport, workplace, etc. Generally, the same is true for most other industrialized

countries that have a mature chemical industry. What this means is that the same

chemical product can be hazardous and nonhazardous for different end uses in the

USA, requiring different labels. In the workplace workers can see labels with different warnings for the same product and different MSDSs.

The GHS has criteria-based hazard definitions. The GHS would harmonize hazard

definitions among domestic regulatory agencies as well as globally. Since hazard

definitions are the starting point for hazard communication, global adoption of the

GHS elements could promote consistency and comprehensibility.

MSDSs

In 1983 the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard’s performance oriented approach for MSDS seemed appropriate. Twenty years later, the benefits of a standardized MSDS format have been recognized.

The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) developed the first 16-section MSDS (ANSI Z400.1). The

format was not selected randomly. Information needed in an emergency appears

first and useful nonemergency information on what regulations apply and toxicological/ecological data, etc., appear later in the MSDS. The 16-section MSDS sequence is based on 4 questions:

1. What is the material & what do I need to know in an emergency?

2. What should I do if a hazardous situation occurs?

3. How can I prevent hazardous situations from occurring?

4. Is there any other useful information about this material?

This MSDS format prioritizes the placement of different types of information.

The International Standards Organization (ISO), the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the European Union all adopted similar 16-section MSDS formats

during the 1990’s. The 16-section MSDS format is common today for companies

doing international business.

The audience for MSDSs has expanded from health and safety professionals,

workers, employers and customers to include fire departments, emergency responders, State and local emergency planning groups and members of the community. In

recognizing that MSDS are complex technical documents, the ANSI Z400 MSDS

Standard currently lists target audiences for each MSDS section so that the MSDS

writer can determine the appropriate language level. It recommends using nontechnical lay language for the worker MSDS sections. Such an approach to writing

MSDSs could help readability.

Near the beginning of the MSDS, the ANSI MSDS format includes an emergency

overview that provides health, physical and environmental hazards in straightforward language. This corresponds in the new GHS MSDS to requiring hazard and

label information in MSDS section 2. Providing hazard information on MSDSs in

an way that can be easily identified and understood by nontechnical people is in

agreement with the NACOSH Hazard Communication Work Group (1995–96) recommendations.

The GHS requires a defined sequence for the 16 MSDS sections. It specifies minimum information requirements for each section. Adoption of the GHS would promote consistency and the quality of MSDS.

Labels

Guidance for labeling industrial chemicals has existed for many years. Initially

there was a Labels and Precautionary Information (LAPI) Manual (1945–75) developed by CMA. This evolved to the ANSI Z129.1 Labeling Standard which is a voluntary industry standard often used to decide what is an appropriate hazard warning for performance-oriented regulations. However, not all companies use the ANSI

hazard statements on labels and workers see different statements for the same hazards.

In other countries many workplace hazard communications systems require hazard symbols or pictograms as well as hazard statements. USA workers currently see

these different symbols on imported products. The GHS will standardize hazard
51

statements and hazard symbols. To reinforce understanding, the GHS conveys information in more than one way—using symbols with colored frames, signal words and

hazard statements. Under the GHS, words used in hazard statements would have

a precise meaning that would not change from company to company. Although training would be necessary, particularly on the use of symbols, this standardization

should help with worker comprehensibility.

The GHS also includes an option for ‘‘supplemental information’’. This is label information that is not standardized. Considering the liability situation and the duty

to warn requirement in the USA, ‘‘Supplemental Information’’ could be a key GHS

label element for companies.

SUPPORT/GUIDANCE/ASSISTANCE

Hazard communication and MSDSs are complex technical topics. It requires expertise in many different areas to develop a quality MSDS. It requires resources

that are scarce in major corporations and often lacking in small businesses. The necessary tools/assistance/guidance should be available for small businesses to enable

them to handle this complex subject in-house, if so desired.

There is more information available today than ever before. However, this can

make the task more difficult. It is helpful for small and medium enterprises to know

what are good sources of information for hazard communication. Information is

needed on chemical hazards. But information on related topics is also needed: personal protective equipment, controls, decomposition products, process hazards, first

aid, fire-fighting measures, spill and leak control, disposal, etc.

Some excellent information is available on the Internet. OSHA has recently updated its hazard communication page so that it is easier to access and has new

links. Some organizations (e.g., NIOSH) have published CDs with hazard related information and made them available for free or at nominal costs. Many types of guidance and assistance could be valuable in promoting effective hazard communication:

e-tools, local training, distance learning, mentoring, etc. Guidance and assistance

would be particularly helpful in relation to the GHS.

Assistance with obtaining quality information and how to use that information in

hazard communication is an area that could be looked into. There are opportunities

for government agencies, trade associations, professional associations, alliances/consortiums and companies to contribute. There could be value in exploring partnerships to promote effective hazard communication.

It is hard to imagine that any company would intentionally develop poor quality

MSDSs. With that in mind, one approach would be that whenever inadequate or

poor quality MSDSs are found, assistance could be offered the company to improve

its hazard communication program.

SUMMARY

The GHS would: standardize hazard definitions; standardize hazard warnings and

hazard symbols on labels; standardize MSDS format and information.

The GHS can improve hazard communication by allowing information to be more

easily compared and by utilizing symbols & standard phrasing to improve awareness and understanding. Consistent information will be communicated on labels and

MSDSs. Therefore, workers should have improved comprehensibility. By providing

detailed and standardized physical and health hazard criteria, the GHS can lead to

better quality information. By providing an infrastructure for the establishment of

national chemical safety programs, the GHS can promote the sound management

of chemicals globally. Facilitation of international trade in chemicals is also expected to be a GHS benefit.

Implementation of the GHS offers challenges for both industry and government.

The hazard definitions for all chemical products would have to be reviewed and

their MSDSs and labels potentially revised. OSHA has estimated that there are

over 650,000 chemical products.

The USA has some unique issues that affect hazard communication. Liability and

the duty to provide an adequate warning have always been considered in developing

USA labels. These considerations are now also being applied to MSDSs. In considering the GHS as a means to improve hazard communication, these issues should be

kept in mind.

The GHS does NOT require hazard or other testing of chemical products. Some

of the differences in hazard communication, particularly for topics like personal protective equipment, controls, decomposition products, process hazards, first aid, firefighting measures, etc., can be related to lack of knowledge, testing and standardization in these areas. The GHS does not address these issues.
52

Implementation of effective hazard communication provides benefits for governments, companies, workers, and members of the public. The interests of workers,

users of chemicals, the public, regulators and the chemical industry could be well

served by pursuing the GHS. A major benefit would be improved safety for workers

through consistent and simplified communications on chemical hazards and practices to follow for safe handling and use.

If the USA adopts the GHS, there will be some discretion in implementation.

However, modifications could cause loss of global harmonization.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and to provide input on

the issue of hazard communication, MSDSs and the GHS. Mr. Chairman, I would

be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Senator ENZI. The next presenter is Michael Wright, who is director of health, safety and environment for the United Steelworkers of America. Mr. Wright is a former member of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health and

is a current member of EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee

and NIOSH’s Mine Health Research Advisory Committee. He also

served on the international coordinating group overseeing the development of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and

Labeling of Chemicals.

Mr. Wright.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Chairman Enzi, and thank you also for

your great leadership on this issue. If we get to a Globally Harmonized System in this country, it will be largely through your efforts.

My written comments include a history of the continuing effort

to achieve effective hazard communication in the U.S. and worldwide. I will not repeat that here, because it is in the written comments, but I do want to restate the two conclusions that can be

drawn from it.

First, workers’ unions and the public health community work so

hard for good hazard communication not just because it is a good

idea for improving safety, although it is, but because we believe

that right to know—in this case, the right to know the names and

hazards of the chemicals you are exposed to—is a fundamental

right that should be enjoyed by all workers.

Second, right to know is an international issue, one that can only

be addressed internationally, and as the other participants have

said, we now have a magnificent new tool for addressing it, and

that, of course, is the Globally Harmonized System. What remains

is for countries of the world, including the United States, to adopt

it.

Currently, there are three major systems in place in the U.S.,

Canada, and the European Union. A dozen or so other countries

have systems of their own, usually based on one of those three.

Those systems all work pretty well within their own countries, but

internationally, they conflict with each other, which creates major

problems for global public health and for global trade.

In my office, I have a bag that is designed to hold a particular

toxic chemical. If you count the front and the back and the bottom

and the sides, it has about 12 square feet of surface area on that

bag. Every square inch contains a label or a hazard warning required by one of those systems—every square inch. There must be

14 different labels on that bag, because the different systems require different labels. I thought to bring it as a visual aid this

morning, and then I realized if I tried to get that through Senate
53

security, both I and the bag would be in a holding cell someplace—

but it makes a statement.

In addition, and I think more seriously, most workers in developing countries and countries in transition still lack the right to know

the names and hazards of the chemicals they use on the job. The

International Labor Organization estimates that 2 million people

die worldwide each year from workplace injuries and disease, most

of them from disease. Many of those deaths could be prevented if

workers and their employers had good chemical information in

their own language.

However, countries without effective systems rarely have the resources to develop one of their own. And whose system should they

model it after? Existing systems are after all incompatible.

The GHS would solve both of these problems by establishing a

single unified system in and between countries that adopt it. And

since the technical work of developing the criteria and designing

the information system has already been done, countries without a

system could adopt the GHS relatively easily.

Earlier I said that most systems work pretty well in their own

countries. But there are in fact two problems with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. The first—and you have heard about

this extensively—is the low quality of the Material Safety Data

Sheets, and the second is the lack of an effective training requirement. I will leave training to my written statement. I do want to

talk a little about the quality of Material Safety Data Sheets.

Many manufacturers produce clear, readable, and informative labels and Material Safety Data Sheets. However, we have seen

many that seemed designed to hide information rather than communicate it. Some are internally inconsistent, and some are just

plain wrong. Let me give just two examples.

Several years ago, one of our local unions sent me two safety

data sheets for a type of refractory fiber from two different manufacturers. They wanted to know which was safer. In fact, the two

products were identical. But the hazard warning on one data sheet

stated, and this is a quote: ‘‘Warning: Similar material has been

shown to cause malignant and nonmalignant neoplasms in experimental animals exposed via interperitoneal installation. As this

route of exposure does not mimic the human experience, the significance of this finding is uncertain.’’

The other safety data sheet said: ‘‘Warning: Causes cancer.’’ Both

warnings are accurate and both are legal under the OSHA Hazard

Communication Standard.

A second example can be found in almost every plant that I or

members of our staff visit. We almost always look at the safety

data sheets for the chemicals used in the plant, and we can usually

find one that says at the top ‘‘This product contains no hazardous

ingredients.’’ At the bottom, it says: ‘‘Use with adequate ventilation. Do not breathe vapors. Avoid skin contact. Use approved respiratory protection and protective closing’’—for a product that contains no hazardous ingredients.

The GHS would solve this problem. Safety data sheets prepared

under the GHS contain specific elements in a specified order. Hazard and warning phrases would be standardized and comprehen-
54

sible. In addition, there would be pictograms for workers with low

literacy.

I want to commend OSHA for its partnership with the Society for

Chemical Hazard Communication and for its recent Hazard Communication Initiative. The initiative will be more effective if it is

informed by the views of chemical workers and small business, and

not just chemical suppliers and experts.

In addition, Congress should provide an adequate budget for the

initiative without detracting from OSHA enforcement or other

OSHA programs.

But OSHA’s voluntary initiative can only go so far. The problem

with voluntary initiatives is that not everybody volunteers. There

is a role for the U.S. Congress, and that role is legislative. In the

last few years, we have seen lots of ideas for tinkering with safety

data sheets or establishing yet another group to study the issue.

Those ideas are well-intentioned, but most of them would have little impact.

One thing, however, would make a dramatic difference. Mr.

Chairman, we would urge the Congress, beginning with your subcommittee, to begin the work of adopting the GHS. In fact, the only

effective way for the United States to adopt the GHS is through

legislation. The ordinary OSHA rulemaking process is too cumbersome and too constricted for ordinary standards, much less one

derived from a decade of international negotiations that will have

to be adopted as is to be effective with respect to international

trade. There will have to be OSHA rulemaking to decide how the

elements of the GHS best fit into existing U.S. law and regulation.

But Congress can set the stage by requiring the adoption of those

elements.

Mr. Chairman, in a period of intense partisanship, this is not a

partisan issue. Today you heard widespread agreement on the

value of workplace hazard communication, on the right of workers

to good information about the chemical hazards they face, and on

the virtue of U.S. leadership on the issue of chemical safety. The

participants in this hearing often disagree on health and safety

issues, but not on this one.

You and your subcommittee have a rare opportunity. By taking

the lead on the GHS, you can speak to the needs of chemical users,

especially small business, who are so frustrated with the confusing

and misleading safety data sheets they often receive. You can support the efforts of responsible chemical manufacturers who have

worked to supply good information to the users of their products.

You can make workplaces safe in the U.S. and, by example, around

the world. And you can demonstrate strong U.S. leadership on

chemical safety.

Finally, and to us most important, you can contribute to what we

think is a fundamental right of workers—the right-to-know.

Thank you very much. I would be glad to answer questions either

orally today or in writing later.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. WRIGHT

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you this morning on the issue of hazard communication in the

workplace. My name is Michael Wright. I am a member of the United Steelworkers
55

of America, and I lead the union’s Health, Safety and Environment Department.

The USWA has approximately 600,000 members in the United States and Canada.

Notwithstanding our name, we represent workers in virtually every segment of the

workforce—steel of course, but also mining, aluminum and other nonferrous metals,

chemicals, plastics, tires and rubber, plastics, glass, health care, services, and even

public employment.

Like other participants in this hearing, I have spent a large part of the last 25

years on the issue of workplace hazard communication. Often, however, we in the

labor movement called it by a different name—‘‘the right to know,’’ specifically the

right of every worker to know the names and the hazards of the chemicals to which

he or she is exposed. Indeed, the history of chemical hazard communication is a history of the struggle to assure the ‘‘right to know,’’ first in the United States and

other developed countries, and now, through instruments like the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), worldwide.

Right-To-Know in the United States

Perhaps a brief review of that history would be useful. In the late 1970s, the labor

movement in the United States began working toward an OSHA Right-to-Know

Standard. It was an uphill battle. Sadly, most corporations and trade associations

opposed us. The prevailing view was that workers did not need, would not understand, and would probably misuse information about toxic chemicals. I still have a

copy of a safety and health guide published by a large steel company, warning managers not to give workers access to chemical information, on the grounds that it

would complicate labor relations. Safety and health professionals, within both

OSHA and industry, too often saw chemical safety as their job exclusively, with no

real role for workers except to follow instructions. Nevertheless, OSHA began work

on a Hazard Communication Standard, and released a proposal in the closing days

of the Carter Administration. That proposal was promptly withdrawn by the incoming Reagan Administration.

Of course, the issue did not die. Spurred by coalitions of unions and environmentalists, State legislatures across the country began to pass worker and community right-to-know laws. These laws often conflicted, potentially forcing chemical

manufacturers and suppliers to use different labels for different States. Chemical

users and purchasers began to realize that the lack of chemical information hurt

them as well. And, safety and health professionals in industry and government increasingly came to understand that a trained and informed workforce is essential

to a good safety and health program.

As a result, OSHA published a new Hazard Communication proposal in 1982, and

issued the final standard in 1983. Organized labor strongly supported the standard,

but we thought it was deficient in two areas. First, it applied only to manufacturing,

leaving millions of workers in other sectors unprotected. Second, the trade secret exemption was much too broad, allowing chemical manufacturers and formulators to

hide information from workers, even when that information was known to competitors. We asked for judicial review on those two issues in the Third Circuit Court

of Appeals, even as the standard went into effect. We won that case in 1985, although it took 2 years and a subsequent court order before OSHA finally fixed the

deficiencies in the original standard. Even then, the Office of Management and

Budget attempted to revoke parts of the standard by administrative fiat. It took a

subsequent decision by the Third Circuit, upheld in 1990 by the U.S. Supreme

Court, to turn back OMB’s end run around the legitimate rulemaking process. It

had taken more than a decade but most American workers had finally achieved the

right to know the names and the hazards of chemicals they use on the job. (The

major exceptions were miners, and public employees in those States without a State

plan. MSHA finally promulgated a final hazard communication rule in 2002; public

employees still lack coverage.)

Right-To-Know Internationally

Meanwhile, right-to-know was becoming an issue internationally. Workers in Canada won the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System in 1988. Some European countries had effective systems in place at the beginning of the 1980s; European Union directives ultimately created a unified system across the continent.

By the end of the 1980s, two problems remained. First, the systems in place in

the United States, Canada and the European Union were mutually inconsistent. Labels and Safety Data Sheets produced in one country often were not acceptable in

another. This is especially a problem in trade between the United States and Canada. The Canadian WHMIS system specifies a detailed format for chemical labels;

the U.S. Hazard Communication standard does not. As a result, chemicals labeled

in Canada can be sold freely in the U.S., while most chemicals labeled in the U.S.
56

have to be relabeled before they can be sold in Canada. As more countries adopted

chemical labeling and information regulations, this problem only became worse. In

my office, I have a bag designed to hold 10 kilograms of a toxic chemical called acrylamide. The bag has about 12 square feet of surface area, and almost every square

inch is needed to contain the different labels required for the United States, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and other countries.

Second, and more serious, most workers in developing countries and countries in

transition still lack the right to know the names and hazards of the chemicals they

use on the job. The International Labor Organization estimates that two million

people die worldwide each year from workplace injuries and disease. Many of those

deaths could be prevented if workers and their employers had good chemical information in their own language. However, countries without effective systems rarely

have the resources to develop one on their own. And whose system should they

model it after? Existing systems are, after all, incompatible.

There is an answer to both these problems—global harmonization, the worldwide

adoption of a single unified system, combining the best elements of existing national

systems. Happily, we have achieved the first step toward global harmonization.

After a decade of work by a number of international organizations, we have a Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. What remains is for countries to adopt it.

The idea of a globally harmonized system was first proposed at the 1989 Conference of the International Labor Organization in Geneva. One of the items on the

Conference’s agenda was a new international convention on ‘‘Safety in the Use of

Chemicals at Work.’’ ILO conventions normally require discussion at two consecutive ILO conferences. The draft convention that emerged from the first year’s discussion in 1989 contained extensive language on chemical labeling and the right of

workers to good chemical information. But for a country to fulfill those obligations,

it would have to adopt a system for chemical classification and labeling. Developing

countries maintained that they could never adopt such a system unless there was

a globally harmonized system to adopt. Led by the Government of India, they

pushed through a resolution calling for such a system. (The ILO is a tripartite organization; I am proud to have been the chair of the workers delegation in the discussions on the Chemicals Convention. In 1990 the Convention was adopted by the full

ILO Conference by a near unanimous vote. The only vote not in favor was an abstention by the United States employers delegation.)

Three years after the ILO Resolution, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development identified harmonization as one of its action programs.

Working groups were set up under the ILO, OECD, and the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. The work was coordinated by the Interorganizational Program for the Sound Management of Chemicals. Jennifer Silk of

OSHA chaired that group; Michelle Sullivan, who testified earlier, represented industry. I was one of the labor representatives. We quickly agreed on a set of general

principles—most importantly, that the GHS should not weaken protection in any existing system. However, the technical work on classification criteria, and the painful

political work of reconciling differing systems took the better part of a decade.

The Road Ahead

I included this history to make two points. First, ‘‘hazard communication’’ is more

than a technical measure designed to increase safety. It is also at the heart of what

should be seen as a fundamental worker right—the right to know.

Second, right-to-know is a worldwide issue best addressed by a worldwide instrument—the Globally Harmonized System. In fact, the GHS would help with what I

think are the two most serious problems of the OSHA Hazard Communication

Standard—the low quality of Material Safety Data Sheets and the lack of an effective training requirement.

The OSHA HazCom Standard is an almost pure ‘‘performance’’ standard. During

the original rulemaking, chemical manufacturers urged OSHA to let each company

decide how best to communicate chemical information on its own labels and safety

data sheets. Unions and some chemical users thought a specified format and phrasing would make labels and safety data sheets more readable and more easily understood, but the manufacturers’ views prevailed.

Indeed, many manufacturers produce clear, readable and informative labels and

safety data sheets. The American Chemistry Council and the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturers Association have produced useful guidance to their members, and the American National Standards Institute has provided a model format

to the industry as a whole. However, most chemical suppliers are not members of

the ACC or SOCMA, and relatively few companies have adopted the ANSI format.

The problem with voluntary standards is that not everyone volunteers. We have
57

seen many safety data sheets that seem designed to hide information, rather than

communicate it. Some are internally inconsistent or just plain wrong.

Let me give just two examples. Several years ago one of our local unions sent me

two safety data sheets for a type of refractory fiber from two different manufacturers. They wanted to know which was safer. In fact, the two products were virtually

identical. But the hazard warning on one data sheet stated: ‘‘Warning: similar material has been shown to cause malignant and nonmalignant neoplasms in experimental animals exposed via interperitoneal installation. As this route of exposure

does not mimic the human experience, the significance of this finding is uncertain.’’

The other safety data sheet said: ‘‘Warning: causes cancer.’’ Both warnings are

legal under the OSHA HazCom standard.

Incidentally, the local union was far more worried about the first product. They

worked with carcinogens all the time. They knew what precautions to take. But they

thought that if the first company had taken the trouble to write such an incomprehensible statement, their product must be especially dangerous.

The second example can be found in almost every plant I or our staff visit. We

usually look at the safety data sheets for chemicals used in the plant. We almost

always find one that, at the top, says: ‘‘This product contains no hazardous ingredients.’’ At the bottom it says: ‘‘Use with adequate ventilation. Do not breathe vapors.

Avoid skin contact. Use approved respiratory protection equipment and protective

clothing.’’

As for training, there is no question that good training greatly improves the ability to understand chemical labeling and safety data sheets. Unfortunately, the

OSHA standard is vague, requiring only that: ‘‘Employers shall provide employees

with effective information and training on chemical hazards in their work area.’’ [29

CFR 1910.1200 (h)(1)] That training need only be provided once in the employee’s

entire working life, unless new chemical hazards are introduced into the work area.

OSHA provides additional guidance in a nonmandatory appendix to the standard,

but the guidance is unenforceable.

OSHA has written many citations to companies that did no training at all, but

to the best of my knowledge, they have never written a citation for inadequate

training. In my office, we have a betting pool to see who can find the company that

got away with the shortest HazCom training. So far, the record is 7 minutes. In contrast, when the USWA does HazCom training for safety representatives and first

responders, it takes 6 hours. The training done by the University of Oregon Labor

Education and Research Center—typical of university-based extension programs—

takes 4 hours. And those sessions only include the standard itself and the fundamentals of chemical safety. Employers have the additional obligation of training

their workers on the chemical hazards specific to their jobs.

The GHS would help solve both these problems. Safety data sheets prepared

under the GHS contain 16 specific elements in a specified order. The GHS labeling

criteria contain specified hazard and warning phrases, which are also applicable to

safety data sheets. In addition, the GHS specifies a number of pictograms that guide

workers who cannot read, and provide additional emphasis for those who can.

The GHS also contains a strong endorsement of training, although it does not

specify a detailed agenda for training or training methods. I understand that the

United Nations subcommittee on the GHS will be looking at the training issue in

the future, and that UNITAR—the United Nations Institute for Training and Research—is developing a set of general training materials. Adoption of the GHS

would give the United States an opportunity to upgrade our own training requirements.

The Next Steps

I want to commend OSHA for its partnership with the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication, and for its recent Hazard Communication Initiative. The initiative will be more effective if it is informed by the views of chemical users, and not

just chemical suppliers and experts. The initiative should include small businesses

that use chemicals. Many of them are overwhelmed by the complexity, inconsistency

and low quality of the safety data sheets they receive, and could contribute greatly

to OSHA’s work. Workers are the ultimate consumers of chemical information, and

those most at risk from chemical hazards. Their voices should be heard as well.

In addition, Congress should provide an adequate budget for the initiative, without detracting from enforcement or other OSHA programs.

But OSHA’s voluntary initiative can only go so far. There is a role for the U.S.

Congress, and that role is legislative. In the last few years, we have heard ideas

for tinkering with safety data sheets, or establishing yet another group to study the

issue. Those ideas are well intentioned, but most of them would have little impact.
58

One thing, however, would make a dramatic difference. Mr. Chairman, we urge

the Congress, beginning with your subcommittee, to begin the work of adopting the

Globally Harmonized System.

Let me outline what ‘‘adoption’’ means. The GHS is described as a voluntary system, but it is voluntary only in the context of international law. In other words, it

is not the subject of a binding convention or treaty. No country can be forced to

adopt it. A government can adopt the GHS and later reject it without violating

international law. (However, once the GHS is widely adopted, a country that tries

to enforce a different system for imported chemicals may be guilty of a trade violation.)

Once adopted, however, the GHS would be mandatory within the adopting country. Chemical suppliers and employers would be obligated to follow it. Within the

U.S., for example, the GHS—or more accurately, regulations based on the GHS—

would replace the OSHA HazCom Standard and other labeling rules for some consumer products.

The only effective way for the U.S. to adopt the GHS is through legislation. The

ordinary OSHA rulemaking process is too cumbersome and constricted for ordinary

standards, much less one derived from a decade of international negotiations. There

will have to be OSHA rulemaking to determine how the elements of the GHS best

fit into existing U.S. law and regulation, but Congress can set the stage by requiring

the adoption of those elements.

Fortunately, there is no need to adopt the GHS all at once. In fact, the GHS celebrates a building block approach. For example, the United States could first adopt

the GHS as it applies to workplace health and safety, leaving consumer products

to a later date.

While we are at it, the United States should also ratify the ILO Convention on

Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work. Nothing in that convention is inconsistent

with U.S. law, and it would do nothing to change U.S. regulations for hazardous

chemicals. However, ratification would send a message that the U.S. believes in

chemical safety worldwide, and expects all countries and corporations to provide

safe working conditions.

Mr. Chairman, in a period of intense partisanship, this is not a partisan issue.

Today you heard widespread agreement on the value of workplace hazard communication, on the right of workers to good information about the chemical hazards

they face, and on the virtue of U.S. leadership on chemical safety. The participants

in this hearing often disagree on health and safety issues—but not on this one.

Mr. Chairman, you and your subcommittee have a rare opportunity. By taking the

lead on the GHS you can speak to the needs of chemical users, especially small businesses, who are so frustrated with confusing and misleading safety data sheets. You

can support the efforts of responsible chemical manufacturers, who have worked to

supply good information to the users of their products. You can make our workplaces safer, and by example, workplaces around the world. You can demonstrate

strong U.S. leadership on chemical safety. And you can contribute to a fundamental

right of workers—the right-to-know.

Thank you again for the chance to testify this morning.

Senator ENZI. Thank you very much.

I want to thank the whole panel for the information that they

have provided. There is a lot of tremendous information there, and

we will make sure that OSHA looks at it some more, and we will

also take a look at the Global Harmonizing System and see what

sorts of legislative things are possible with it.

I really appreciate all the comments and suggestions on how we

can do this, and the need for simpler sheets, one page, and also the

training that needs to go with that, because if the employees do not

understand how to use the information that is there—and it is very

complicated information—it still will not achieve our objective.

I do have a few questions. I will start with Mr. Grumbles.

You said that outreach assistance on Material Safety Data Sheet

and hazard communication should be provided to small business.

How do you recommend that OSHA’s compliance assistance efforts

take into account and reach small businesses?

Mr. GRUMBLES. First of all, I am sure they cannot do it by themselves, and I think the efforts that have happened in the last 2
59

years to develop multiple alliances with groups of interested parties are the perfect framework for OSHA to use to, in essence, multiply their resources and their capabilities to deliver the messages,

and in fact, as we have heard this morning, actually develop the

information that can be delivered to those small businesses.

So I think that in working with the alliances and looking at the

large number of companies that are involved in those alliances, no

matter how you count, that can be done.

I also think that in their alliances with associations like ours—

we have developed infrastructures, for instance, electronic infrastructures, to develop telewebs and other mechanisms that, with

cooperation between the alliances, we can develop delivery mechanisms to perhaps even more efficiently deliver the messages.

So I really think that the alliance work that OSHA has done in

the last 2 years can really pay off and really be a good framework

to develop this, perhaps in further cooperation with the small business development centers.

Senator ENZI. That is a great idea. I have appreciated the mention of electronics that everybody has done. One of the things that

I had to do in this job was to allow electronic data sheets to be acceptable as opposed to paper, so they are a recognized means now.

I would like all of you to think about the question that I posed

to Mr. Henshaw, which was what do we do about limited English

proficiency. If you have any specific suggestions on that, I would

really be interested, because it is a problem out there in the work

force. You may have run across it with the things that you have

done.

Is there anything specific that any of you would like to contribute

on that at this moment?

Mr. Wright?

Mr. WRIGHT. I guess I got my hand up first. I think that in many

ways, the GHS will help that, because the kind of hazard warnings

in the GHS are quite standard, so they would be easily translated

into different languages.

In addition, a lot of chemical suppliers supply chemicals to many

different markets, so especially large chemical companies probably

have MSDSs available in different languages already. The problem

now is that those MSDSs are not standardized, so the MSDS that

they send to, say, China is going to be quite different from the one

they send to the United States and different from the one they

send to Canada. But as the GHS standardizes MSDSs, the only remaining task will really be to translate between different languages, and that will be made much more easy because of the

phrasing of the MSDSs—the particular way that you warn about

a carcinogen, for example, will be standardized. So I think the

problem will begin to solve itself.

Senator ENZI. Dr. Sullivan, do you want to comment on that as

well?

Ms. SULLIVAN. Yes. I would just add to what Mike said that besides helping with having standardized phrases that will be translated sometimes by the international organizations and other regional organizations, the GHS will also include pictograms, which

would be helpful for people who either have some illiteracy or language problems. There are pictograms that can be used both on la-
60

bels and on the Material Safety Data Sheets, which will at least

allow them to understand what the hazards are. They represent

the hazards, whether it is a flammable or whether it is toxic or irritant to the skin or those types of things. So there is some help in

the GHS.

Senator ENZI. We have the GHS recommendations now. How

many countries are participating in that at the moment? We mentioned the difference between requirements from one country to another. Has this been adopted? We have adopted it kind of globally,

but as far as country to country, are we getting some uniformity

there?

Ms. SULLIVAN. There are several goals for GHS adoption that

have been put forward by different organizations. The International Forum on Chemical Safety, and the World Sustainable Development, the follow-up to the Rio work in 1992, have come out

with adopting by 2008, and the APIC Ministers have recommended

adoption of the GHS by 2006. But as yet, as far as I understand,

there are not any countries that have—several of them have committed to those dates.

For example, I just came from the Society for Chemical Hazard

Communication meeting in New Orleans, and we had speakers

both from the European Union and from Canada, and they are

both looking at considering adoption of the GHS in the 2006–2008

time frame.

But I have to admit, Mr. Chairman, as several of my colleagues

have mentioned, they are all waiting to hear what the United

States is going to do, sine we are a major player in the world trade.

Senator ENZI. I think our Government alone is the world’s largest customer, so it probably does have an effect.

Mr. Hanson, I want to thank you for coming all the way from

Casper, WY. Since I get out there almost every weekend to a different place in Wyoming, I understand the travel difficulties that

you had and will have before you get back, with or without the Material Safety Data Sheets that are involved with the airlines.

How many notebooks did you say you had?

Mr. HANSON. We started with 26 4-inch binders. We have since

then condensed our system down to one 12-inch ring binder with

the chemical categorization system. And just like GHS, instead of

pictograms, it categorizes chemicals numerically. All chemicals can

fall into the numbers one through 36.

Senator ENZI. And the reason you have the 26 books is for different areas, or does everybody have to use all 26?

Mr. HANSON. That was just our main inventory. You have to

have a master index of all MSDSs in your organization. So our

master index made up 26 4-inch ring binders. Now, taking into

consideration the MSDSs for each individual floor, unit, and area

where they are required—as per the standard, it has to be readily

accessible in the area where they work—take that into consideration, and patient registration may have just a little file folder with

three or four MSDSs, where our radiation oncology department,

where you are getting into anti-neoplastics and some of the pharmaceuticals that require MSDSs, you could have several hundred.

Senator ENZI. OK. You listed some of the things that you thought

could help; I think there were five different ones in your testimony
61

dealing with the 2,500 different Material Safety Data Sheets in

your hospital. Can you tell me a little more about the clarity, accuracy, and consistency that you are seeing on those?

Mr. HANSON. There is none. That sums it up.

Senator ENZI. OK. Have you had a chance to look at the Globally

Harmonized System?

Mr. HANSON. Yes.

Senator ENZI. Will that solve some of the problems, from your

perspective?

Mr. HANSON. Well, it is definitely going to help identify some of

the processes that were going to need to help focus on. However,

MSDSs in the United States still, as it stands, is no small issue.

You have to format the MSDS first and get consistency before we

can go to a GHS system. This alone suggests that substantial portions of the MSDS have serious deficiencies, and unless we correct

those, coming on board with the GHS is not going to be appropriate. So I think you have to almost align the two simultaneously.

Senator ENZI. Thank you.

Ms. Jackson, when I think of Pepperidge Farm, somehow I do

not think of hazardous chemicals—I think more of Milano cookie.

Ms. JACKSON. Well, you should.

[Laughter.]

Senator ENZI. Well, good. I am on the right track, then. I am

pleased with that.

Your testimony demonstrates how widespread and important this

issue of hazardous communication is to all types of employers, and

I appreciate the detail that you went into on the need for a standard format.

How do you see that standard format improving the communication and protecting your workers?

Ms. JACKSON. I think just the ease of training is one aspect;

being able to point to an MSDS—which we all do in our jobs when

we do employee training—this is what it should contain, and then,

when you actually show them examples, you have to really look

hard to find one that actually fits what you are training to.

So I think a standardized MSDS format would certainly ease

that, the employee training, employee communication. We need to

come up with, as I said, some kind of standardized hazard identification system. Whether it is the NFPA diamond or the HMIS

numbers, we need to stick with one and then make sure that they

are on the labels that go onto the secondary containers—all the

styrofoam cups, as you mentioned, or the spray bottles that are

used. Sanitation chemicals, for example, are downloaded into

smaller spray bottles. Think of your bottle of Windex, for example.

Senator ENZI. But of course, on those bottles, you do not have the

12 square feet that we heard about earlier.

Ms. JACKSON. No, but you can convey a lot of information in a

two-by-two label, which we do.

Senator ENZI. How does that all fit in with the electronic Material Safety Data Sheets that you have been using? How are those

working?

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the electronic is great as far as retrieval.

When we do have an issue or we do have employees who want to
62

see what it is they are working with, that is a great means—within

2 minutes, we can have a faxed copy of that MSDS.

As far as helping us with the labeling, yes, we can verify that

how we are labeling is correct per the MSDS. But again, if the

MSDS sheet is not correct, then, the label that we put onto our secondary container is not correct, and employees are not getting the

proper information.

Senator ENZI. I think that has been a real consistent message

today.

Mr. Hanson, did you want to comment on that?

Mr. HANSON. Yes. I think one thing that is important to understand, too, is that just having an online MSDS system does not alleviate the problems. You are taking it from paper in a book and

putting it on a computer with a more capable search function, but

the issue still remains. So going back to formatting the MSDS first

is a key priority.

Senator ENZI. Thank you.

I want to thank all of you for your testimony and your answers.

I do have some other questions here, but we are going to have to

finish the hearing.

I really do appreciate all the information, and as we gather this

together, I think it will be extremely helpful, and I will be pushing

for us to get this globally harmonized. I do recognize that the

United States is a leader and has to be a leader, and since it fits

with all the testimony that we have gotten from everybody and, in

my opinion, will be driven by the small businesses who have the

most difficulty working with this, I see that as particularly important.

The reason we held this hearing is because I have had extensive

complaints about the Material Safety Data Sheets from employees

and employers, and we do want to come up with a system that is

actually usable and that saves lives.

So thank you all for the time that you have given and the information.

The record will remain open. The hearing is adjourned.

[Additional material follows.]
63

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Chairman Enzi and Respected Subcommittee Members: The American Society of

Safety Engineers (ASSE) is the oldest and largest society of safety professionals in

the world. Founded in 1911, ASSE represents about 30,000 dedicated safety, health

and environmental (SHE) professionals. Our members are dedicated to excellence,

expertise and commitment to the protection of people, property and the environment

worldwide. The Society has thirteen Practice Specialties across every type of SHE

practice—Academics, Construction, Consultants, Engineering, Environmental,

Healthcare, Industrial Hygiene, International, Management, Mining, Public Sector,

Risk Management and Insurance, and Transportation. ASSE’s members in these

specialties are leaders in their fields with the knowledge and expertise needed to
87

1 In addition to the OSHA and MSHA standards explained below, other codified Federal

standards with Hazard Communication implications are contained in 10 CFR (Energy), 39 CFR

(Postal Service), 40 CFR (Protection of Environment), 49 CFR 171.8, 172.101, 172.102 (Hazardous Materials Regulations), and DOT-HM-181 Regulations (Dangerous Goods Regulations).

These cannot be ignored as Congress and the Federal Government as a whole explores the best

approach to efficiently developing a conforming system of hazard communication.

advance occupational safety and health forward on a global level. On behalf of our

members, ASSE is pleased to submit this statement for inclusion in the formal hearing record.

ASSE commends the subcommittee for addressing the issue of hazard communication (HazCom) in the 21st Century workplace, especially as it pertains to global harmonization and the HazCom system cooperatively developed last year under the

auspices of the United Nations with significant input from the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and

the Department of State.

With more than 32 million workers exposed to 650,000 hazardous chemical products in more than 3 million American workplaces, HazCom is a significant workplace and public safety and health issue. Moreover, each year emergency responders

are seriously injured or killed because of deficient information about chemicals on

site when they are addressing situations such as fires, explosions or transportation

disasters. Our expanding multilingual population also requires consideration of a

HazCom system that has greater utility than the present Anglo-centric system in

place. Significant challenges face Congress and both Federal and State agencies

tasked with managing HazCom as the United States continues to cooperate with

other nations in implementing a unified system that can protect individuals across

international boundaries.

BACKGROUND

All existing HazCom rules and guidance in the United States—whether codified

by various governmental entities or developed by consensus organizations—recognize that not only can certain chemicals present physical hazards such as fires and

explosions, they can cause a variety of health problems, including sterility, cancer,

chemical and thermal burns, and heart, kidney or lung disease.

In 1983, OSHA enacted its Hazard Communication (HCS) Standard (29 CFR

1910.1200) to reduce injuries and illnesses related to exposures in the chemical industry. Today, the standard covers chemical exposures that occur in all nonmining

workplaces. In 2002, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) adopted

a system quite similar to OSHA’s standard (30 CFR Part 47). OSHA’s standard is

the second most cited Federal occupational safety and health standard. More than

7,000 citations were issued in fiscal year 2003, amounting to more than $1.3 million

in penalties. MSHA’s standard, while newer, also ranks among the most-often cited

rules. In addition, other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense,

NASA, and the Department of Transportation, have regulations that include hazard

communication components and/or have published ‘‘hazard communication’’ guidance. 1

Increasingly, these United States measures must be reviewed against international HazCom developments. In 2003, the United States and other nations cooperatively developed a Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of hazard communication.

In addition, the global safety and health community has moved into the mainstream

a new method termed ‘‘control banding’’ that can be utilized to minimize potential

worker exposures to hazardous chemicals. This new method utilizes key statements

included in MSDSs to assist in the selection of appropriate chemical control methods.

OSHA/MSHA HAZCOM STANDARDS

Current U.S. Department of Labor Hazard Communication (HazCom or HCS) regulations (29 CFR 1910.1200 and 30 CFR Part 47) apply to all employers producing

or using a hazardous chemical to which a worker can be exposed under normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency. If a hazardous chemical is ‘‘known to

be present’’ by the chemical manufacturer or the employer, it is covered by the

standard. The basic requirements of OSHA/MSHA Hazard Communication mandate

that employers:

• Inventory the chemicals at the workplace and determine which are hazardous.

• Keep a list of the hazardous chemicals.

• Establish a written HCS program.
88

• Prepare a label and Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for hazardous chemicals that the employer produces on site. • Make sure that containers of hazardous chemicals are labeled. • Keep MSDSs for the hazardous chemicals at the worksite. • Train all employees about the HCS program and the hazardous chemicals to

which they can be exposed. • Allow workers (and other workers on site) to access at the HCS information and

provide them with a copy upon request.

Only chemical manufacturers and importers are required to perform hazard determinations on all chemicals they produce or import, although distributors and employers may also choose to do so. Hazard determination procedures must be in writing and made available, upon request, to employees, and to representatives from

OSHA/MSHA and/or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH). Employers are responsible for conducting a hazard assessment to determine which hazardous chemicals are currently being used by doing a ‘‘walk-around

inspection’’ and checking records, obtaining an MSDS for each identified chemical

hazard, determining which workers may be exposed in the normal course of their

duties, and providing appropriate training. The employer must also, of course, take

remedial actions to control the hazards, limit worker exposures to the maximum extent feasible, and provide workers with appropriate personal protective equipment.

In an effort to harmonize HCS with analogous environmental statutes, OSHA and

MSHA exempted hazardous substances defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) when the hazardous

substance is the focus of remedial or removal action being conducted under

CERCLA. There is some interface between chemicals listed in an employer’s chemical hazard inventory and community right-to-know laws, including the EPA’s SARA

Title III. The standard also exempts consumer products and hazardous substances,

which are defined in the Consumer Product Safety Act and Federal Hazardous Substances Act respectively, where the employer can show that it is used in the workplace for the purpose intended by the chemical manufacturer or importer, and the

use results in a duration and frequency of exposure not greater than the range of

exposures that could reasonably be experienced by consumers when used for the

purpose intended.

Labeling requirements—The OSHA/MSHA HCS also includes labeling requirements, and the employer must ensure that containers of hazardous chemicals are

marked, tagged, or labeled with the identity of the hazardous chemical and appropriate hazard warnings. The label must be in English and prominently displayed,

although OSHA and MSHA permit employers to add warnings in other languages

or use symbols to help workers understand the label contents. This is critical in

light of the growing number of multilingual workplaces in the U.S. The information

on a container label varies depending on what type of container it is and how it

is used. Chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors are required to ensure

that every container of hazardous chemicals they ship is appropriately labeled with

such information and with the name and address of the producer or other responsible party. Employers purchasing chemicals can rely on the labels provided by their

suppliers, but if the employer subsequently transfers the chemical from a labeled

container to another, the employer must label that container unless subject to the

agencies’ portable container exemptions.

The OSHA/MSHA hazard communication standards recognize the use of alternative in-plant labeling systems such as the ‘‘HMIS’’ (Hazardous Materials Information System), National Fire Protection Association (‘‘NFPA’’), and others that may

be used in industry. These systems rely on numerical and/or alphabetic codes to convey hazards and are generally nonspecific. These agencies permit these types of inplant labeling systems to be used when an employer’s overall HCS program is proven to be effective despite the potential absence of target organ information on container labels. The employer must assure through more intensified training that its

employees are fully aware of the hazards of the chemicals used and that their training program instructs employees on how to use and understand the alternative labeling systems.

MSDS—Chemical manufacturers and importers must obtain and develop an

MSDS for each hazardous chemical they produce or import. Employers must maintain and use a material safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical they use. The MSDS provides information about the nature of the chemical, necessary personal protective equipment, how to handle unexpected spills or releases,

and emergency procedures.

Under the current Federal standards, each MSDS must be in English, although

the employer may maintain copies in other languages as well, and must contain specific information including contact data for the chemical manufacturer, importer,
89

employer or other responsible party; the identity used on the label; the substance’s

chemical and common name(s); information on mixture ingredients, information on

carcinongenicity, physical and chemical characteristics, health hazards, routes of

entry, permissible exposure limits (PELs) and other relevant exposure limits; precautions for safe handling and recommended control measures; and, appropriate

personal protective equipment for workers and emergency responders. The sheets

must also be dated and note when it was last revised.

This month, OSHA has launched a multipart initiative of enforcement and compliance assistance activities relative to HazCom. From the enforcement end, OSHA

will focus on MSDSs. Compliance officers will have a list of critical information for

selected chemicals to be used as a reference when reviewing MSDSs on file at a

worksite. If an inspector finds an MSDS is inaccurate, the manufacturer will be notified of the deficiencies, and will be cited if the manufacturer does not take corrective action. Employees will also be provided with telephone and fax numbers for use

to articulate concerns about the content of MSDSs.

ASSE applauds OSHA’s initiative in developing guidance materials and also in

making international chemical safety cards covering over 1,300 substances available

on the agency website, www.osha.gov. However, ASSE cautions against over-investing OSHA’s limited financial resources in developing HazCom materials now that

may soon be outdated, if modifications to 29 CFR 1910.1200 are determined to be

necessary in order to achieve conformity with the U.N. global harmonization system.

OSHA has also solicited public comment on two new publications, Draft Guidance

for Hazard Determination for Compliance with the OSHA Hazard Communication

Standard and Draft Model Program for Hazard Communication. ASSE plans to participate in the stakeholder process for these instructional materials.

GLOBAL HARMONIZATION SYSTEM

The genesis of the Global Harmonization System (GHS) addressing hazard communication occurred at the 1992 ‘‘Rio Earth Summit.’’ The stated goal was to develop a ‘‘globally harmonized hazard classification and compatible labelling system,

including national safety data sheets and easily understandable symbols, should be

available, if feasible, by the year 2000.’’ Although the developers missed this target

date, the GHS was finalized in early 2003, with a final implementation goal of January 2008. The GHS is a voluntary system and, as such, does not impose binding

treaty obligations on countries. However, to the extent that countries adopt GHS

into national regulatory requirements, it will be binding upon the regulated community.

The United Nations’ Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods was

predecessor project, which developed criteria for classifying and labeling dangerous

goods for purposes of transportation but which did not address environmental, worker or consumer safety regulations. A core concept agreed upon by participants in developing the GHS was that the level of protection offered to workers, consumers,

general public and environment should not be reduced.

Benefits of the new GHS include

• Greater regulatory consistency among countries;

• Safer transportation, handling and use of chemicals;

• Improved understanding of hazards;

• Increased compliance and reduced costs for companies involved in international

activities; and

• Enhanced protection of workers, consumers and potential exposed populations.

The GHS hazard classification criteria were adopted by consensus for physical

hazards and key health and environmental classes. Standardized label elements—

symbols, signal words, hazard statements—were developed along with standard format for Safety Data Sheets (SDS), the GHS counterpart to MSDS. The GHS also

addresses product identifiers, confidential business information, and precedence of

hazards. Target audiences include consumers, workers, transport workers and emergency responders.

The GHS requires the following information on product and container labels:

• Signal Words;

• Hazard Statements;

• Precautionary Statements and Pictograms;

• Product Identifier;

• Supplier Identification;

• Multiple Hazards and precedence of hazard information;

• Arrangements for presenting the GHS label elements; and

• Special Labeling Arrangements.

Guidance on the preparation of SDSs was drawn from the following sources:
90

• ILO Recommendation 177 on Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work; • ISO Standard 11014; • European Union SDS Directive 91/155/EEC; and • ANSI Standard Z400.1.

Training is also a critical component of the GHS, and the developments encourage

such training to address workers, emergency responders, and those involved with

preparation of labels, SDS and HazCom strategies as part of risk management systems.

Participants in the GHS project agreed that validated data already generated for

classification of chemicals under existing systems should be accepted when reclassifying the chemicals under GHS. However, the new harmonized system may require

adaptation of existing methods for testing of chemicals. Significantly, the GHS was

not intended to harmonize risk assessment procedures or risk management decisions such as the establishment of a PEL for employees). It also leaves to participating countries the decision as to which of the GHS ‘‘building blocks’’ will be applied

in different parts of their systems.

The current OSHA/MSHA standard is much less prescriptive than the GHS,

which contains specific pictures and phrases that companies must place on their

goods. Therefore, modification may be required at some point in the future as the

OSHA/MSHA HCS contains general performance requirements for communicating

hazards, but allows flexibility for companies that have their own hazard labeling

system.

VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS

ASSE serves as Secretariat of nine American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Committees and projects that develop safety and health standards used by private

sector organizations and State and Federal governmental agencies. ASSE members

sit on over forty additional standards development committees, including the ASTM

E34 Committee that addresses occupational safety and health, including hazard

communication.

Some voluntary consensus standard organizations, such as ANSI and ASTM, have

developed standards that address hazard communication. ANSI promotes the use of

U.S. standards internationally, and encourage the adoption of international standards as national standards where appropriate to the needs of users. ANSI is also

the U.S. representative on two major nontreaty international standards organizations—the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Therefore, its role should not be overlooked in the global harmonization process.

To the extent that ANSI and ASTM standards have utility and are consistent

with the GHS, Congress and the Federal regulatory agencies should consider them

for incorporation in any new government-wide hazard communication system. This

is consistent with directions given by Congress in the Technology Transfer Act of

1995 (P.L. 104-113) and the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-119.

Some relevant consensus standards include the ANSI Z535 series (addressing

safety color codes for facility environmental and safety systems), ANSI Z-400.1 (Hazardous Industrial Chemicals—Material Safety Data Sheets), ANSI Z490.1 (Criteria

for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training), ASTM E1445-

03 (Standard Terminology Relating to Hazardous Potential of Chemicals), and two

standards developed by the ASTM E34.40 subcommittee on hazard communication,

ASTM E1628-98 (Standard Practice for Preparing Material Safety Data Sheets to Include Transportation and Disposal Data for the General Services Administration)

and ASTM E2238-02 (Standard Guide for Evacuation Route Diagrams).

CONTROL BANDING

For the past year control banding has become a topic of international significance

and John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and

Health, recently has discussed publicly the benefits of control banding. Control

banding is a risk assessment method that couples information on MSDSs with actual usage information in order to select one of four control methods—substitution

of less hazardous chemicals, engineering controls, ventilation, and containment.

Using MSDS information and tables, chemicals are placed into exposure classes or

‘‘bands’’ based on volatility, toxicity, and common properties. Consideration is given

to the use and quantity of the chemical to select the appropriate control method.

Although this method provides what appears to be a simple and largely useful

way to select exposure control methods, several limitations must be taken into consideration if and when control banding is promoted in the U.S. as a leading tool to

advance HazCom. PELs are not incorporated into the current scheme. Given that
91

OSHA regulates exposures and selection of personal protective equipment on the

basis of PELs, if the method is to be used in the United States, it would need to

be amended to either incorporate PEL considerations or current regulations would

need to be amended to eliminate the need for PEL measurement. In addition, selection of control methods in the United Kingdom is based on inclusion of specific information in MSDSs that is not currently incorporated into MSDSs used in the United

States. Finally, control banding, though useful, does not adequately address every

chemical in a band. Some chemicals, though included in certain bands, may cause

reactions outside the norm of the band and require unique responses that banding

simply will not address. Care must be taken to ensure that control banding is used

with this kind of warning always in mind.

CONCLUSION

In the current economic climate, global harmonization has taken on heightened

importance, and any issue surrounding HazCom must be carefully scrutinized from

an international perspective for the purpose of helping United States companies and

their SHE managers achieve greater global conformity and, as a result, competitiveness. ASSE and its members were involved throughout the GHS development process and recognize that its implementation in the U.S. will require ongoing cooperation between the private sector and numerous Federal and State agencies. State

plan states may also need to revise HazCom programs that differ from OSHA’s requirements. Moreover, adoption of the GHS system will likely require significant revision of EPA standards with unique labeling requirements, including the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and chemical ‘‘risk management’’ provisions of the Clean Air Act. Again, State agencies that have their own environmental

right-to-know laws may also face challenges in properly adapting those statutes to

fit the GHS model.

The issue of whether OSHA should continue a leadership role in this regard or

delegate its powers in the hazard communication spectrum to a single nonregulatory

agency that would direct the efforts of other regulatory agencies must not be decided

without full consideration of all ramifications. There is also value in considering how

existing voluntary consensus standards fit into the framework of HazCom global

harmonization.

Although the U.S. Department of State was in charge of the U.S. activities on

GHS, this is not likely to be the appropriate agency to carry out this function in

the long-term. Because of the implications for modification of existing statutes and

realignment of regulatory powers, it is likely that congressional action will be warranted. As Congress and the affected agencies consider how to create a new coordinating body to handle the domestic implementation of GHS, ASSE pledges its assistance in advancing this project. It is critical that any such committee include

input from Certified Safety Professionals, Certified Industrial Hygienists and others

with the requisite demonstrated qualifications to have full understanding of chemical safety and related processes. Any such system must achieve the goal of being

transportable for multinational companies while still providing a level of protection

for American workers that is equivalent to, or greater than, the protections now afforded under Federal and State laws.

STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION

International Truck and Engine Corporation was pleased to see Senator Enzi’s position on the globally harmonized system for classification and labeling (GHS) and

would like to support it. Please add the following comments to the record of the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training March 25, 2004 hearing on ‘‘Hazard Communication in

the 21st Century Workforce’’:

International Truck and Engine Corporation has been using Material Safety Data

Sheets (MSDS) for over 30 years as part of a hazardous materials control program

that predates the OSHA hazard communication standard. During this time there

has been an evolution in the design and content of MSDS documents. Mostly there

has been improvement but a number of challenges to effective communication remain:

• There is a great deal of variability between MSDSs from different manufacturers that makes it difficult to compare the degree of hazard. Some data sheets seem

to be written by the law department, others by the marketing department. Operations have substituted a more hazardous material for a less hazardous one because

the warnings seemed less ominous.

• Some warnings are excessive. Some data sheets contain directions to use personal protective equipment that may only be appropriate for the worst case scenario
92

but are unnecessary for ordinary uses. This may cause users to discount the instructions on other data sheets where specifications are appropriate.

• Most materials (over 99 percent) used in our operations are mixtures of several

ingredients. The hazards of each component are listed as the hazard of the product

as a whole. For example, a Loctite thread sealer sold in hardware stores and used

as a glue to keep bolts from coming loose contains 2 percent saccharine and must

be designated as a carcinogen on a par with benzene.

• MSDS documents are often six or eight pages long and do not work well as

training documents. We find it easier to distill the pertinent information from each

data sheet into a separate one-page training summary.

While not the complete solution to these issues, the globally harmonized system

for classification and labeling (GHS) would be a significant improvement. The GHS

could be improved from its current form. For example, criteria for listing occupational exposure limits should be more clearly specified to only require limits set by

governmental agencies or as a result of a recognized open consensus process. All

listed exposure limits or risk characteristics used for regulatory purposes should

comply with FACA guidelines for review. Nevertheless, even in its present form the

GHS would bring welcome consistency and order to hazard communication.

Noting the comments of Senator Enzi and Assistant Secretary Henshaw at the

March 25, 2004 hearing, International Truck and Engine Corporation would like to

add its support to calls for adopting the globally harmonized system.

Please feel free to contact me or Thomas Slavin (312–836–3929) with any questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN W. MERRITT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to

submit written testimony on behalf of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) for this hearing to discuss the communication of hazards in

the workplace.

This is an issue of great interest to the CSB as the independent Federal agency

that investigates major chemical accidents at fixed facilities around the country. The

CSB became operational in 1998 and is governed by a five-member board of technical experts, appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Since

opening its doors, the Board has investigated and issued reports on 19 major accidents that killed or injured workers, impacted communities, and caused property or

environmental damage. CSB has also issued several studies and bulletins on broader chemical safety issues.

Our investigations show that lives continue to be lost in accidents because chemical hazards are not being effectively communicated in the workplace. Among accidents we have investigated, faulty communication of material hazards contributed

to 12 deaths among workers and 79 injuries to workers, first responders, and members of the public.

Ongoing CSB investigations also raise serious concerns whether the hazards of

combustible dust products are being communicated effectively to users. The Board

is currently investigating three catastrophic dust explosions that occurred in 2003;

together these explosions caused 14 deaths and scores of injuries.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Accidents rarely result from a single cause, and CSB investigations usually uncover several root causes and contributing factors behind each accident. In ten of

the 19 cases investigated, deficiencies in hazard communication were identified. In

nine of these ten investigations, the deficiencies were found to be a root cause, contributing cause, or significant causal factor. In eight cases, CSB identified specific

deficiencies in Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) or found that the required

MSDSs did not exist. Descriptions of specific accidents follow.

I. NO MSDSS PROVIDED FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

BLSR Operating Ltd.: On January 13, 2003, a vapor cloud fire erupted at the

BLSR Operating Ltd. oilfield waste disposal facility in rural Texas, south of Houston. The fire occurred as two tank trucks were delivering flammable gas condensate

waste for disposal at the facility. Three workers were killed, and four others suffered serious burns. CSB’s investigation found neither the truckers nor the disposal

company workers knew that the wastes were highly flammable, and allowed the

waste to run over open ground into a trench, which was their usual practice for nonflammable drilling mud. CSB found that the company that generated the flammable
93

wastes had not provided any MSDSs to either the truck drivers or the disposal company where the fire occurred.

What CSB Recommended: The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil

and gas operations in the State, should require that all drillers and producers provide accurate MSDSs on waste liquid hazards to workers and contractors, in languages they can understand. This action would allow State inspectors to help enforce basic MSDS requirements. In addition, the Board recommended that OSHA

issue a Safety and Health Information Bulletin emphasizing the responsibility of

drillers and producers to identify waste hazards and provide workers with MSDSs.

Kaltech Industries: On April 25, 2002, an explosion occurred at Kaltech Industries, a sign manufacturer in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City, injuring

36 people, including 14 members of the public. The explosion, which was the result

of a reaction between waste chemicals, originated in the basement of a mixed-use

commercial building and caused damage as high as the fifth floor. CSB’s investigation found that the company had not provided any MSDSs to its workers, including

the MSDS for nitric acid, the highly reactive chemical CSB found was involved in

the explosion. CSB also found that OSHA had never inspected Kaltech Industries

in the previous 10 years. Investigators noted that many Kaltech workers had limited proficiency in English.

What CSB Recommended: OSHA Region II should disseminate information on the

Hazard Communication Standard in the major nonEnglish languages spoken by

workers in New York City. The Board also recommended that New York City modernize its 1918-era fire code to include modern hazardous materials controls, such

as the requirement that MSDSs be made available to the workforce. In March 2004,

following two hearings of New York City Council where the CSB testified, the New

York Fire Department said it would institute a modern model fire code, such as the

International Fire Code. With a modern code in place, city fire inspectors would be

authorized to enforce MSDS requirements during their annual inspections of workplaces.

II. DESPITE MSDSS, WORKER NOT TRAINED ON HAZARDS

Georgia-Pacific: On January 16, 2002, highly toxic hydrogen sulfide gas leaked

from a process sewer manhole at the Georgia-Pacific paper mill in Pennington, Alabama. The gas was formed because sodium hydrosulfide—a feedstock chemical used

at the mill—had been spilled and released into an acidic sewer system, where a

chemical reaction occurred to produce hydrogen sulfide gas. Two contract construction workers who were near the sewer were overcome by the gas and killed; seven

other construction workers and a truck driver were injured.

CSB’s investigation showed that although the supplier’s MSDS for sodium hydrosulfide contained warnings about its reaction with acid, the mill’s procedures and

training did not include this information. Investigators concluded that if workers

had understood the risk, they would likely have prevented the sodium hydrosulfide

from entering the sewer system. CSB also found that the construction workers

lacked appropriate training on the hazards of hydrogen sulfide—such as how to

identify and respond to a leak of the gas—and did not attempt to evacuate the area

when the leak began.

What CSB Recommended: Georgia-Pacific Corporation should require all its paper

mills to identify hydrogen sulfide risk areas and train personnel who work in those

areas on how to respond to leaks of the gas. The CSB also recommended that the

construction company provide similar training to its employees.

Environmental Enterprises: On December 11, 2002, a maintenance worker at the

Environmental Enterprises hazardous waste treatment plant collapsed after he

walked near a waste treatment tank and inhaled toxic hydrogen sulfide. The worker

stopped breathing but was later pulled to safety and resuscitated by fellow employees. The gas formed because another worker earlier had added sodium sulfide and

an acidic substance to the treatment tank, causing a chemical reaction. Although

the MSDS for sodium sulfide warned about this potential reaction, not all workers

were aware of the hazard or were trained on the warning signs of hydrogen sulfide,

such as its characteristic rotten-egg odor. The victim did not recognize this odor as

a sign of life-threatening danger.

III. PRODUCT FLAMMABILITY NOT DESCRIBED IN MSDSs

Bethlehem Steel: On February 2, 2001, a flash fire at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation mill in Chesterton, Indiana, killed two workers and injured four others.

Workers were attempting to remove a cracked valve from a coke oven gas line, when

they were suddenly sprayed with highly flammable liquid gas condensate, which ignited. CSB’s investigation found that the workers expected the line to contain con-
94

densate but believed it was essentially made of water and not flammable. The company’s own MSDS had not indicated any potential flammability for gas condensate,

whereas CSB’s testing found that material in the line was highly flammable with

a flash point of 29 °F.

What CSB Recommended: Bethlehem Steel Corporation should revise the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for gas condensate to highlight its potential flammability and provide training and information for its workers and contractors.

Motiva Enterprises: On July 17, 2001, a large sulfuric acid storage tank exploded

at Motiva Enterprises’ Delaware City refinery, killing one worker, injuring eight

others, and releasing more than a million gallons of acid. The work crew had been

repairing an overhead catwalk when a spark from their welding equipment ignited

flammable vapors in the tank below. The tank had holes in its roof and shell due

to corrosion. CSB’s investigation found that although the used sulfuric acid in the

tank was known to contain a significant percentage of flammable hydrocarbons, the

company’s MSDS indicated a flammability rating of ‘‘0’’ [zero] and stated ‘‘the product is not combustible.’’

What CSB Recommended: The refinery should upgrade its system of reporting unsafe conditions to ensure communication of hazards to affected plant personnel.

IV. PRODUCT REACTIVITY NOT DESCRIBED IN MSDSs

BP Amoco Polymers: On March 13, 2001, three people were killed as they opened

a process vessel containing hot plastic at the BP Amoco Polymers plant in Augusta,

Georgia. They were unaware that the vessel was pressurized due to a decomposition

reaction affecting the plastic inside. The workers were killed when the partially unbolted cover blew off the vessel and expelled the hot plastic. CSB’s investigation

found that the MSDS for the plastic Amodel, which BP Amoco produced, stated it

should not be heated above 660 °F to avoid product decomposition but did not warn

of the hazards of doing so.

What CSB Recommended: BP Amoco should revise the MSDSs for Amodel plastics

to warn of the hazards of accumulating large molten masses.

Morton International: On April 8, 1998, an explosion and fire occurred at Morton

International’s plant in Paterson, New Jersey, when a runaway chemical reaction

over-pressurized and ruptured a 2,000-gallon chemical vessel used to produce dye.

Nine workers were injured, and the surrounding community was showered with

chemical residues. CSB’s investigation found that the dye was chemically reactive

and could decompose and release heat and gas just above the normal processing

temperature. However, the company’s MSDS for the dye indicated ‘‘0’’ [zero] reactivity. Investigators found that plant personnel were generally unaware of the hazards

of a runaway reaction.

What CSB Recommended: Morton should revise the MSDS for the dye to correctly

identify its reactivity.

First Chemical Corporation: On October 13, 2002, a violent explosion occurred in

a nitrotoluene distillation tower at First Chemical Corporation in Pascagoula, Mississippi, sending heavy debris over a wide area. The control room was damaged and

explosion debris narrowly missed a large storage tank that contained highly toxic

anhydrous ammonia. A nitrotoluene storage tank at the site was punctured by debris, igniting a fire that burned for several hours. CSB’s investigation found that

First Chemical’s MSDS for nitrotoluene lacked warnings about the chemical’s tendency to decompose and explode when subjected to prolonged heating.

What CSB Recommended: First Chemical Corporation (now a Dupont subsidiary)

should revise its warnings about nitrotoluene and other process chemicals and train

workers appropriately.

V. LANGUAGE BARRIERS PREVENT UNDERSTANDING MSDSs

Sierra Chemical: On January 7, 1998, two massive explosions destroyed the Sierra Chemical munitions reclamation plant in Mustang, Nevada, killing four workers and injuring six others. The company used reclaimed military munitions to

produce explosive boosters for the mining industry. The accident likely occurred

when a worker restarted a mixer containing solidified explosive material. CSB’s investigation found that Spanish was the only language understood by most plant

workers, but MSDSs for the chemicals used on-site were only in English. CSB found

that workers were not aware of the specific hazards of materials at the plant.

What CSB Recommended: Sierra Chemical should ensure that hazard information

and safety procedures are communicated in the language understood by workers.
95

VI. MSDSs not reliable for reactive hazard information

In September 2002, the CSB completed a 2-year study of serious incidents that

resulted from uncontrolled chemical reactions, which can occur when chemicals are

improperly combined or heated. The study uncovered 167 serious incidents in the

U.S. over a 20-year period that caused 108 deaths and extensive injuries and property damage. The CSB investigation pointed out that OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard—the main safety standard for highly hazardous chemical processes—allows companies to use MSDSs to compile hazard information. But in 1996,

OSHA itself issued a Hazard Bulletin stating that MSDSs do not always contain

information about the hazards from mixing or blending chemicals.

CSB INVESTIGATING ADEQUACY OF MSDSs for chemical powders

CSB is currently investigating three major dust explosions that occurred in 2003

at factories in North Carolina, Kentucky, and Indiana. In two of these cases, CSB

is investigating the adequacy of MSDSs that should have warned of the explosion

hazards of fine chemical powders used at the plants.

West Pharmaceutical Services: On January 29, 2003, an explosion and fire destroyed the West Pharmaceutical Services medical rubber plant in Kinston, North

Carolina, causing six deaths, dozens of injuries, and hundreds of job losses. CSB investigators have found that the fuel for the explosion was a fine plastic powder used

in producing rubber goods. Combustible polyethylene dust—accumulated over a

manufacturing area at the plant—ignited and exploded.

The company that produced the powdered polyethylene understood its potential

to explode and included a warning in the MSDS. However, West purchased polyethylene from a formulation company, which bought the polyethylene powder and

then prepared a slurry with water. Although the formulation company was aware

of how West intended to ultimately use the material, the MSDS for the slurry did

not indicate that once it dried, potentially explosive dust could be released.

CTA Acoustics: On February 20, 2003, an explosion and fire damaged the CTA

Acoustics manufacturing plant in Corbin, Kentucky, killing seven workers and injuring more than 30 others. The facility produced fiberglass insulation for the automotive industry, using a powdered resin as a binder. CSB investigators have found

that the explosion was fueled by resin dust accumulated in a production area. Although the MSDS for the resin powder indicated it was ‘‘combustible,’’ it did not describe the catastrophic potential if the dust was allowed to accumulate, and many

plant personnel remained unaware of the danger.

Based on these events, CSB is concerned that neither the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard nor the corresponding American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) standard contains a definition for combustible dust. MSDSs for combustible

dusts often lack critical technical information on the hazards, including what are

known as the deflagration index, minimum ignition energy, minimum explosive concentration, and volume resistivity. Employers need this information to accurately

assess the hazards of dust in the workplace.

In written comments to ANSI on the upcoming revision to the consensus standard

on preparing MSDSs, the CSB staff on August 22, 2003, recommended that ANSI

incorporate a definition for combustible dust. However, on November 19, 2003, ANSI

declined to do so stating that OSHA had not yet incorporated the concept of combustible dusts into the Hazard Communication Standard.

CONCLUSION

Deficiencies in hazard communication and Material Safety Data Sheets are among

the common causes of major chemical accidents that result in loss of life, serious

injuries, and damage to property and the environment. Approximately half of the

CSB’s root-cause investigations of major accident uncover such deficiencies. Since

1998, the Board has identified ten specific accidents where chemical hazard communication was inadequate.

The CSB believes that improving the quality of hazard communication and Material Safety Data Sheets will help prevent major chemical accidents and should be

an important goal of government agencies as well as the producers and users of hazardous materials.

STATEMENT OF KARAN SINGH

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for inviting me to submit this statement for inclusion in the hearing

record. There is no question that the Federal Hazard Communication Standard is
96

an important vehicle for promoting safety in the workplace. However, specific improvements are necessary to ensure that public policy represents the spirit of the

original regulations. I hope this statement provides some clarity on the weaknesses

in the current standard and the proposed areas for reform.

As is widely recognized, there is general consensus that the current program for

evaluating the impact of hazardous chemicals on workplace safety is inaccurate, outdated, and complex. This program, which relies on Material Data Safety Sheets

(MSDSs) developed by chemical manufacturers, is based on Federal regulations developed in 1983 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

While OSHA’s intent was admirable in this regard, and extended a host of new

rights to employees to know the potential chemical threats that exist in the workplace, the regulations fall short. There is no standard for the format of MSDSs, and

a vast majority of them are inaccurate. They are drafted in complex and technical

language, which makes it nearly impossible for the average workplace employee to

decipher the information embedded in the MSDS to respond correctly to a chemical

incident. Ironically, the Employee Right-to-Know Act will continue to render employees virtually helpless until the Federal standard is improved. An improved standard

would empower those who use chemicals in the workplace with information they can

use to make quick, informed, and accurate decisions to reduce the threat of acute

chemical incidents, as well as chronic exposure.

BACKGROUND

The assumption in the Hazard Communication Standard was that employees have

a right to know the hazards that they are being exposed to, and that they will be

able to protect themselves once aware of such hazards. As I indicated, the tool to

communicate hazards of chemicals is the MSDS. Over the years, the main objective

of MSDSs to communicate potential hazards to employees has been obscured by the

addition of information suitable for emergency responders, toxicologists, transporters, and the like. Consequently, the MSDSs no longer effectively communicate hazards of chemicals to an average employee, and have become documents created by

technical people for technical people.

Approximately 33 percent of the adult population in the U.S. reads at or below

8th grade level, and 22 percent is functionally illiterate. In our multiethnic society,

a large immigrant population does not comprehend English well enough to comprehend MSDSs written at an advanced level of reading, analysis, and interpretation. Lack of standardization, incomplete, inaccurate, and contradictory information,

and hazard warnings inconsistent with relevant and scientific evidence, collectively

render MSDSs all but irrelevant to an average employee.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In an effort to improve hazard communications, I respectfully propose the following recommendations:

1. Development of standardized phrases that could be translated into all of the

major world languages. Employees not only have a right to know but also a right

to understand. This will also bridge the gap between our system and the Global

Harmonization System (GHS).

2. Minimum levels of testing for acute hazards such as corrosiveness, flammability, and toxicity. A test to determine the flash point, pH, and reactivity is inexpensive and costs less than $10.00. Chronic health effect determinations are difficult,

expensive, and time consuming. However, there is no reason why manufacturers

cannot provide information available from extrapolation of available data from compounds with identical functional groups.

3. The NFPA and HMIS symbols used to designate relative levels of hazard are

not intended to address the intent of the HCS and, in certain circumstances, can

be dangerous. When applied by chemical manufacturers, almost half the numbers

are incorrect and misleading. No distinction is made between corrosiveness and toxicity, even though both are very different types of hazard and require different protective equipment. For example, manufacturers regularly declare aerosols to be noncombustible, even though they are filled with flammable propellants. There is a

need to categorize hazards—as primary, secondary, and tertiary—based on relative

severity and provide explanation in plain English. Additional warnings about the

potential of chemicals being lethal on any route of exposure should be instantly communicated by use of pictograms similar to those used in Canada, Europe, and in

the Global Harmonization System (GHS).
97

MC TECHNOLOGIES

A few years ago, I began working with a small company in the Midwest on a

project to divide a large number of hazardous chemicals into a small number of categories and hazard levels. My work revealed that most of the chemicals in use today

could readily be assigned to one of 36 categories, in terms of physical and environmental risks and proposed responses to spills or other incidents. It was from this

research that the MAXCOM program was developed. This patent-pending program

is now under the license of MC Technologies, where I currently serve as Chief Scientific Officer.

This program provides information on the potential hazards of each chemical category, provides effective training on how to safely use the chemicals, and prescribes

a specific intervention should a spill or other incident occur. The language in this

program is written at a 6th grade level of reading and comprehension. The system

reduces a facility’s paper archive of MSDSs, often times exceeding more than 20,000

technical pages, into a single, 1-inch binder. It is the only system which is fully compliant with OSHA regulations.

I have appended this statement with a review of the inherent flaws in the Federal

standard, along with the mechanisms through which MC Technologies has addressed them. I would be happy to review these in further detail with subcommittee

staff.

CONCLUSION

The time has come to renew the Hazard Communication Standard. The promulgation of the Employee Right-to-Know regulations put in place a bold new standard

to promote safety in the workplace. However, this addressed only part of the problem. It is one thing for employees to know about these hazards, but to understand

and act on them when time is critical is an entirely different issue. MC Technologies

looks forward to working with Congress and OSHA in this effort, to promote a

standard that provides guidance on hazard determination, effective training of employees on those hazards, and guidance on preparation of chemical-related documents.

APPENDIX—HAZARD COMMUNICATION IN THE WORKPLACE

‘‘Employee Right-to-Know’’

The assumption in the Hazard Communication Standard, promulgated by OSHA

in 1983, was that employees in the workplace have a right to know the hazards that

they are being exposed to, and that they will be able to protect themselves once

aware of such hazards.

Currently, the tool to communicate hazards of chemicals is the Material Safety

Data Sheet (MSDS). Due to the preference of a performance-based approach by

OSHA, there is no standard format for the MSDSs.

The following is a list of problems inherent in the current MSDS model and how

MC Technologies has addressed them:

1. Problem: Hazard warnings are often inconsistent with the weight of relevant,

scientific evidence.

Solution: MC Technologies has categorized hazards as primary, secondary, and

tertiary based on the relative severity. An employee would know in an instant, if

the hazards could be life-threatening.

2. Problem: Lack of testing requirement for the finished products means that

MSDSs often make no distinction between a diluted and a concentrated product.

Solution: The MC Technologies program separates chemical categories into Red,

Yellow, or Green, representing decreasing levels hazards. Red represents properties

that could be life threatening, whereas Green, at the other extreme, represents relatively safe chemicals. Color blind employees further benefit from the use of numbers and letters, in addition to color.

3. Problem: MSDSs for the same chemicals from different companies provide different degrees of thoroughness in coverage.

Solution: MC Technologies provides additional relevant warnings for users of

MSDSs with inadequate information.

4. Problem: MSDSs are too long and technical. Generic description of symptoms

etc., do not often match with the working condition exposures.

Solution: MC Technologies provides an Executive Summary of the MSDS in userfriendly terms, avoiding technical language and jargon. Similarly, abbreviations and

acronyms are avoided.
98

5. Problem: Foreign MSDSs. Symbols used in MSDSs from other countries do not

currently match with those used in the U.S. Data in the Metric System in foreign

MSDSs can result in misinterpretation of the hazard severity.

Solution: MC Technologies interprets different symbols and pictograms for the

American audience.

6. Problem: Redundant information. MSDSs are being used by many professionals

such as emergency responders, toxicologists, and transporters. Additional information provided to meet the needs of other professionals has no relevance for an employee. Even the new ANSI format of MSDS is full of irrelevant information for the

protection of the employee.

Solution: MC Technologies filters out all of the irrelevant information, and provides a summary of only the relevant information.

7. Problem: Incomplete/Inaccurate MSDSs.

Solution: MC Technologies brings to attention contradictory or inaccurate information in its Executive Summary of the chemical. Also, if inadequate information

is available due to lack of relevant scientific research, then a warning is provided.

8. Problem: Comprehensibility of MSDSs. One-third of the U.S. adult population

reads at or below the 8th grade level, and 22 percent of the population is functionally illiterate. The average MSDS is written at a collegiate reading level.

Solution: MC Technologies provides instructions in short and direct sentences,

using active voice and phrases that recommend positive action. Technical words,

whenever used, are provided with an explanation in simple English. Employees are

tested for their comprehension, not their reading abilities. Training materials are

sensitive to employees without basic language and math skills.

9. Problem: Legibility. Many chemical manufacturers provide too much information in a very small space, often in English, French, and Spanish.

Solution: Hazards of all chemicals and incident response procedures are provided

in easy to use ‘‘Safe-Use Guides’’ that follow the same format.

10. Problem: Effective training. In businesses with hundreds of chemicals, it is impossible to provide chemical-specific training for each chemical. OSHA has, therefore, recommended category-based training.

Solution: MC Technologies assigns categories based on a step-by-step hazard determination process. Each category is assigned a Safe-Use Guide number. The training program provides instructions in following the information in Safe Use Guides

followed by a test for comprehension.

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ