Hazard Communication and Worker Right‐To‐Know Programs
Authors: Simkins Lisa K. , Rice Charlotte A. 
Published: August 2005

More than half a million chemical products are in use today with hundreds of new chemicals introduced every year. Many of these chemicals find significant commercial application, exposing an estimated 32 million U.S. workers to one or more potentially hazardous chemicals. Although not all of these chemicals pose a serious threat, some can cause harm to human health and the environment, if handled improperly.

Much of the original concern about chemical safety was with the flammable and explosive nature of chemicals and not with their toxicity and carcinogenicity. Since the early 1970s, there has been increased emphasis on health and environmental issues and support for the right of employees to know the nature of the hazards associated with chemicals they encounter on the job.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) believed that providing information to workers on chemical hazards was a critical factor in protecting workers.

Chemical manufacturers, labor unions, health and safety professionals, and various governmental agencies supported the idea of a national, generic chemical information and labeling standard. This support arose in part because of the proliferation of state and community right‐to‐know laws that were creating a confusing patchwork of overlapping and, in some cases, contradictory regulations. However, despite this broad support, the rule underwent numerous court battles and revisions after its introduction.

The Hazard Communication Standard (March 1982.), as originally proposed, applied only to manufacturing business sectors. In 1987 it was extended to virtually all employers. However, OSHA was prevented from enforcing the rule in construction, and prevented from enforcing requirements dealing with MSDSs on multi‐employer worksites, coverage of consumer products, and drugs in the nonmanufacturing sectors. These issues were subsequently resolved. Clarifications and modifications to the language of the HCS were made in the final rule that was published in the
Federal Register
in 1994. These clarifications and modifications have been summarized in this chapter.

Three years after OSHA proposed the HCS the U. S. Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). This law, also known as SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) Title III attempted to address community concern regarding hazardous materials. A brief discussion, however, does not imply that it is less important than HCS. A thorough understanding of EPRCA is critical.

In 1995, the Hazard Communication Workgroup to the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) convened to identify ways to improve chemical hazard communication and the “right to know” in the workplace. Its report, transmitted to OSHA and NIOSH in 1996, contained recommendations related to MSDSs, electronic management of MSDSs, labeling, training, enforcement of the HCS, harmonization of hazard communication requirements and misinformation about the HCS. Some of these recommendations are presented within relevant sections of this chapter.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the requirements of the HCS and to provide some tools and strategies for the implementation of a program. In The essential elements of a hazard communication program are reviewed and explained. Training and labeling are discussed. The informational systems that may be used are described. Program management strategies related regulations, interpretation, and enforcement and recommendations for program auditing are discussed.