GHS/HazCom:
March 26, 2012, the Federal Register published OSHA’s final Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). With this rule OSHA has modified its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to be consistent with to the United Nations’ System.
GHS Requirements
OSHA estimates that 880,000 hazardous chemicals are currently used in the U.S., and over 40 million employees are now potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals in over 5 million workplaces. Approximately 75,000 firms create hazardous chemicals (i.e., products, substances, or mixtures) for which new labels and ‘safety data sheets’ (formerly material safety data sheets) will be required.
OSHA explains that implementation of the GHS will improve HCS by changing the performance requirements for labels to the GHS-specific requirements that labels include four standardized elements: a signal word; hazard statement(s); pictogram(s); and precautionary statement(s). The appropriate label elements for a chemical are to be determined by the hazard classification. Standardized label elements will better convey critically important hazard warnings, and provide useful information regarding precautionary measures that will serve to better protect employees than the performance-oriented approach of the current rule.
Chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to re-evaluate chemicals according to the GHS criteria. Chemicals must be classified based on the type and degree of hazards posed. For health hazards, this will involve assigning the chemical both to the appropriate hazard category and subcategory (called hazard class). For physical hazards new criteria are generally consistent with current DOT transportation requirements. Preparation and distribution of modified labels and safety data sheets by chemical manufacturers and importers will also be required.
Jurisdiction
The rule adopts only sections of the GHS within the scope of OSHA jurisdiction. DOT, CPSC and EPA will implement GHS at a later date. EPA and OSHA have worked together to develop a common position on coverage of pesticides and chemicals. The GHS will not require additional labels on pesticides labeled under EPA requirements; that is, the final products that enter into commerce. However, OSHA GHS requirements will apply to the other chemical ingredients of pesticides; the ‘inactive’ ingredients or cleaning products that are hazardous. This is a continuation of current OSHA HCS worker protection requirements. OSHA anticipates that EPA will provide guidance to their regulated community on how to develop an OSHA GHS-compliant SDS to avoid conflict with pesticide labeling requirements.
Key GHS Elements
Hazard communication. A key goal of the final GHS is to better communicate hazard information to those most at risk—the workers exposed to hazardous chemicals Hazard communication requirements are provided in 29 CFR § 1910.1200. Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements, details how specified label elements apply to each hazard class and hazard category. Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets, specifies requirements for the 16 SDS elements.
Concentration limits. OSHA announced it will require the most protective GHS concentration limits for hazard classifications. For example, for sensitizers and reproductive toxins, the final rule requires information to be provided on labels and safety data sheets at concentrations above 0.1%. (See e.g., Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements.)
Precautionary statements. In addition to hazard statements, the GHS requires precautionary statements that describe recommended measures that should be taken to protect against hazardous exposures, or improper storage or handling of a chemical. (See Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets). Precautionary statements must also address hazard information necessary to protect workers from “hazards not otherwise classified that have been identified during the classification process.” (See Table D.1.)
Mixtures. Health hazards posed by mixtures should be addressed based on the risks posed by the mixture itself, rather than by the hazards posed by the component chemicals individually. The GHS does allow alternative classification methodologies where primary data are unavailable, including extrapolation and bridging. The rule specifies procedures for determining whether mixtures are covered by the Standard.
Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers who become newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical shall revise the labels for the chemical within six months of becoming aware of the new information. New information about hazards and ways to protect against hazards must be added to the SDS within three months.
OSHA has modified General Industry Standards containing hazard classification and communication provisions so that they will be internally consistent and aligned with the GHS modifications to the HCS.
Implementation
Timeline. Compliance with all of the provisions for preparation of new labels and safety data sheets is required by June 1, 2015. Distributors will be allowed an additional six months to distribute containers received from chemical manufacturers and importers with the old labels and MSDSs in order to accommodate those they receive very close to the compliance date. Workplace labels and training programs must be updated by June 1, 2016.
State implementation. OSHA intends to closely scrutinize amendments to previously approved State hazard communication standards to ensure equal or greater effectiveness, including assurance that any additional requirements do not conflict with, or adversely affect, the effectiveness of the national application of OSHA’s standard.
Guidance. OSHA will be offering guidance materials such as quick cards and fact sheets to aid firms in developing and implementing the training requirements of this rule. OSHA will also be releasing a small business compliance guide to provide additional guidance to small businesses, which will ease the economic impact and compliance burden.
Next Steps
OSHA notes that the GHS is a living document, and the UN actively reviews it and considers possible changes based on implementation experiences and other information. These changes are made on a two-year cycle, referred to as a biennium. The OSHA proposal and the final rule are based on Revision 3 of the GHS. OSHA will undertake future rulemaking as necessary to reflect new technological and scientific developments and UN revisions to GHS requirements.
Although not addressed in the rule, OSHA discusses interest in the development of a common classification database. The European Union plan to deploy one. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and New Zealand have already done so. However, classifications in these databases are not necessarily the same for the same chemical. OSHA would like an international database of classifications developed and maintained. A UN Sub-committee has been established to explore the issue further.
EU Member State Committee Identifies 5 More SVHCs
/in News & Events, REACHREACH/SVHCs/Authorization
During meetings held from June 6 – 8, 2012, the EU’s Member State Committee (MSC) unanimously agreed on the identification of five substances of very high concern (SVHCs). SVHCs are thought to have serious and often irreversible effects on human health and the environment. The five substances identified by the MSC are diborontrioxide and the following four dyes: C.I. Basic Violet 3; C.I.Basic Blue 26; C.I. Solvent Blue 4; and 4,4′-bis(dimethylamino)-4”-(methylamino)trityl alcohol. The listing for the four dyes will clarify that the substances will only be identified as SVHCs when the concentration of the impurities Michler’s ketone or Michler’s base is equal to or higher than 0.1%.
SVHCs include substances that have one or more of the following hazard characteristics: Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR 1,2); Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) or very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative (vPvB); or cause probable serious effects to human health or the environment (e.g. Endocrine Disruptors). REACH, the primary regulation for industrial chemicals, aims at ensuring that the risks resulting from the use of SVHCs are controlled and that the substances are replaced where possible.
The five substances will be added to the Candidate List and may subsequently become subject to authorization under REACH Title VII. When an SVHC becomes subject to authorization, persons using or making it available on the EU market must apply for authorization within a prescribed deadline (i.e., the “sunset date”), seeking approval of nonexempt uses while also including an analysis of possible substitutes. If they can show that the risks from their uses are adequately controlled (except non-threshold CMRs and PBTs/vPvBs), or that the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risks and no suitable alternatives exist, then their uses of the SVHC are “authorized” to continue.
Even without being selected for authorization, inclusion of substances on the Candidate List immediately triggers certain regulatory obligations.
More information about the MSC is available here, and information about the process for identifying SVHCs is available here.
New TSCA Work Plan Chemicals
/in News & Events, Risk Assessment, TSCATSCA/Work Plan for Existing Chemicals/Chemical Risk Assessment
June 1, 2012 EPA announced the addition of 18 chemicals to its work plan for existing chemicals risk assessment. The 18 chemicals include flame retardants, fragrance chemicals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Many of these chemicals are potentially carcinogenic, or pose reproductive or developmental toxicity. In addition, some of these chemicals present persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic potential or are found in consumer products. New and existing work plan chemicals are listed on EPA’s website.
As part of the Agency’s strategy to manage existing chemicals (see EPA’s Existing Chemicals Program Strategy (PDF), EPA has been screening chemicals against risk criteria (see e.g., Identifying Priority Chemicals for Review and Assessment). Chemicals are likely to be flagged for further review and assessment if screening indicates:
In the June 1 announcement, EPA solicited unpublished health and safety studies on these chemicals. Research should be submitted to docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-20110-516 by August 31, 2012. Health and safety studies comprise “any study of any effect of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment or on both,” including but not limited to:
Risks assessments on the new work plan chemicals will be conducted in 2013 and 2014.
European Chemical Industry Debuts Chemical Combination Screening Tool – Concludes Regulating Individual Chemicals is Usually Adequate
/in News & Events, REACH, Risk AssessmentChemical Mixture Risk Assessment:
May 31, the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) unveiled a tool for assessing the risks posed by chemical combinations: the Maximum Cumulative Ratio (MCR) (see e.g., news release, combination effects tools). MCR compares the toxicity of individual chemicals to the cumulative toxicity of all chemicals in an exposure scenario. Cefic argues that in most exposure scenarios the risk of one or two chemicals contribute nearly all risk of harm. The organization notes that prioritization of chemical combinations is necessary to identify combinations of concern that warrant full risk assessment.
Cefic references Maximum Cumulative Ratio (MCR) as a Tool for Assessing the Value of Performing a Cumulative Risk Assessment (in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health) for full discussion of the application of MCR. The article comprises an investigation of the magnitude of toxicity from multiple chemical exposure that is missed in scenarios where no cumulative risk assessment is conducted. U.S. Geological Survey water quality data were used for the evaluation. From 5 to 81 chemicals were present in the 3,000 samples analyzed. The authors estimate that approximately 20 percent of cumulative toxicity –compared to component chemical toxicity– is missed where cumulative risk assessments are not conducted. However, mixture toxicities were dominated by only a fraction of chemical compounds present.
Because risk is usually driven by one or two chemicals in a combination, Cefic believes that controlling individual substances through the current regulatory schemes will often control the risk from combination exposures.
Cefic notes that MCR is based on the WHO risk assessment framework (see e.g., Combined Exposure Risk Assessment Workshop Report) and relies on cumulative risk assessment theories from the European Scientific Committees (see e.g., Environmental Risk Assessment of Mixtures Symposium).
EPA Draft (IRIS) Ammonia Assessment Available for Public Comment
/in IRIS, News & Events, Risk AssessmentIntegrated Risk Information System (IRIS):
Today, EPA released for a 60-day public comment period the draft IRIS assessment for ammonia. Excerpts from the agency’s press release are provided below, and a copy of the draft assessment is avaialble here.
IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates information on health effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. Through the IRIS Program, EPA attempts to provide the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency’s regulatory activities. The IRIS database is web-accessible and contains information on more than 550 chemical substances. Readers familiar with IRIS will recall the various criticisms of the agency’s evaluation process, which EPA has been attempting to address, as described in further detail here. General background information on IRIS is available here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 1, 2012
EPA Draft Ammonia Assessment Available for Public Comment
Draft assessment continues agency’s responsiveness to NAS recommendations
WASHINGTON – The U.S Environmental Protection Agency today announced the release of its draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) health assessment for ammonia. The draft assessment will be available for public comment for 60 days and will be sent for independent expert peer review.
Ammonia is used in agricultural fertilizers, the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and explosives, water purification, household cleaners, as a refrigerant, and in many industries. Scientific studies show that ammonia can affect the respiratory system. The draft assessment includes an estimate of the amount of ammonia a person can inhale daily throughout a lifetime that is not likely to cause harmful health effects, which is less stringent than the current value for ammonia on IRIS.
The draft IRIS assessment for ammonia represents major progress for EPA in implementing the April 2011 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations for improving IRIS assessments. The draft assessment uses a new streamlined document structure that is more transparent and clear; includes a template for describing the literature search approach; identifies the strengths and weaknesses of analyzed studies; and describes how EPA applied their guidance, methods, and criteria in developing the assessment.
When the assessment is final it will be posted to the IRIS database. IRIS is a publicly available online database that provides high quality science-based human health assessments used to inform the agency’s decisions on protecting public health and the environment.
The IRIS database contains crucial information on more than 550 chemical substances and their impacts on human health. Governments and private entities use data from IRIS in conjunction with exposure information to help characterize the public health risks of chemical substances. These characterizations are then considered in risk management decisions to protect public health.
Cefic Reports on EU Chemical Industry Sustainability Initiatives
/in Green Chemistry, News & Events, Sustainable ProductsSustainability:
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) published The Chemical Industry in Europe: Towards Sustainability on May 8. In the report, Cefic stresses the importance of applying sustainable chemistry to the entire product life cycle, beginning with consideration of raw material sourcing impacts, and including manufacturing, packaging, transport and distribution, sales and use, and post-use recovery or disposal. Towards Sustainability asserts that chemistry innovation is a catalyst for sustainable innovation in up- and downstream industries including consumer product sectors. In addition, the authors argue that “Industry’s ongoing focus on using renewable raw materials is helping identify new ways of protecting the environment.”
Towards Sustainability details chemical industry initiatives to reduce waste, drive down emissions, conserve resources, and improve energy efficiency. Major reductions in emissions purportedly have been achieved through optimizing production processes and implementing improved emission control technologies. Industry initiatives promote energy efficiency through the value chain. Many companies have applied new technologies and processes to use fewer raw materials and to reuse or recycle products in a closed loop system. In addition, reducing the amount of material in products without performance loss, down-gauging, has helped industry optimize resources. Also, partnerships throughout industry have turned waste into resources. According to the report, successes include:
The industry has also published technical information on abatement and recovery options for solvent emissions.
Featured in the report is a case study on the relationship between new chemical industry products and development of a sustainable construction sector. For example, Cefic explains, plastic insulating materials save many times the amount of energy used in production. The materials are stable and durable, and unaffected by moisture, rotting, or mold. And plastic materials are easily and completely recyclable or recoverable.
Towards Sustainability stresses the importance of sustainability to corporate viability. The authors quote securities analyst statements, such as
“Investors are beginning to acknowledge the impact of sustainability topics on a company’s financial valuation. By adopting effective product life cycle assessment strategies chemical companies can realign their portfolios towards sustainable innovation and at the same time provide financial investors with increased transparency about their commitment to sustainability.” Andrea Ricci , Equity Analyst -Sustainable Asset Management
The report also highlights Cefic members’ efforts to enhance chemicals management throughout the supply chain. Activities include:
Towards Sustainability also reports that industry is working with academia, regulators and NGOs to identify alternatives to the use of animal testing. Cefic is a founding member of the European Platform for Alternatives to Animal Testing which focuses on meeting safety requirements while also reducing the use of and replacing animal testing.
Towards Sustainability can be downloaded from Cefic’s website.
DTSC Requests Nominations to Green Chemistry Category of GEELA 2012 Awards
/in Green Chemistry, News & EventsGreen Chemistry:
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control is requesting nominations for the “Green Chemistry Category” of the Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA) Program. The so-called GEELA awards are California’s highest environmental honor. More information is available in the excerpt below. If readers know of any deserving candidate – and there undoubtedly many – please forward to the appropriate person a link to this blog entry.
+++++++++++++++
The Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Awards
GEELA 2012
The Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award Program is California’s highest environmental honor. The program recognizes individuals, organizations, and businesses that have demonstrated exceptional leadership and made notable, voluntary contributions in conserving California’s precious resources, protecting and enhancing our environment, building public-private partnerships and strengthening the State’s economy.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) invites your organization to submit entries for the 2012 GEELA Awards in the Green Chemistry category. This category focuses on businesses, academia and nongovernmental organizations that are leading innovation and development of safer, and more environmentally benign consumer products, formulations, and technologies. Entries should demonstrate benefits to human health and the environment through using less hazardous chemical components and processes. Lifecycle perspectives should also be presented, especially those incorporating pathways for reuse, recycling, and improved management of chemical components.
Anyone wishing to apply for, or nominate an individual, organization, or business, for a 2012 Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award should submit an application by June 22, 2012.
For more information, visit:http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Awards/GEELA/2012/GrnChemApp.htm
Phil Moffat Will Speak at Informa Conference about REACH-like Programs Outside the EU and US
/in News & EventsGlobal Chemical Regulation:
Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Phil Moffat will be speaking at the upcoming Informa conference, “REACH and CLP: Practical and Technical Strategies for American Exporters to Europe on REACH and CLP Requirements and the Impact of Future Regulatory Strategy.” Mr. Moffat will talk about other chemical regulatory programs outside the EU and the US in his presentation, “Beyond REACH: Comparing and Approaching Upcoming REACH-like Regulations Across the World.” The conference is being held August 1 – 2, at the Hilton North Raleigh/Mid Town Hotel in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Additional details are available here.
Update: A copy of Mr. Moffat’s presentation is available here. Moffat_REACH_around_world
California DTSC Announces Two-Day Workshop on Alternatives Assessment
/in Green Chemistry, Green Chemistry Regulation, News & EventsGreen Chemistry/Alternatives Assessment:
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has announced an upcoming two-day workshop on alternatives assessment, a key component of the department’s much-anticipated Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (SCPA) Regulations. Those regulations are in turn a key component of the state’s vaunted Green Chemistry Initiative. The timing of this announcement suggests that DTSC will soon release the official draft of the SCPA Regulations. The workshop will be held in Chatsworth, California from June 4 -5, 2012. Registration information and other details are set out below.
______________
Alternatives Assessment 101
What: Two-Day Training
When: June 4-5, 2012
Where: Chatsworth, CA
California’s Safer Consumer Products draft regulation requires alternative assessments for certain priority chemicals and products. Would you like to know more about alternatives assessment?
If you have not performed an alternatives assessment-
This training is for you! Gain practical, hands-on experience and insights.
If you have already conducted alternatives assessments-
Strengthen your understanding, exchange experiences, and learn from your peers through this two day training from specialists in alternatives assessments.
This two day training from the University of Massachusetts (UM) is in partnership with California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Participants will be introduced to the process of assessing safer alternatives for chemicals and products through sharing experiences with researchers from UM’s Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) and the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. DTSC staff will lead a discussion on the role of alternatives assessment in California’s draft Safer Consumer Products Regulation.
Visit for more information and to register:
http://sustainableproduction.org/proj.summerinstitute.overview.php
Irene Hantman to Moderate ABA Panel on Federal Suspension and Debarment Authority
/in Enforcement, News & EventsEnforcement:
Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman will be moderating a panel on the federal government’s suspension and debarment authority. The program, “Suspension and Debarment an Administrative Tool for Addressing NonCompliance: Perspective from EPA,” is sponsored by the ABA Sections on Administrative Law and Environment, Energy, and Resources. It will be hosted at EPA Headquarters Tuesday, May 15, 2012 from 12:00 – 1:30 EST. Additional details are set out below, and available here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tuesday, May 15
Suspension and Debarment: An Administrative Tool for Addressing NonCompliance: Perspective from EPA
The Section of Administrative Law, Environmental Law Committee and the Section of Environment, Energy and Resources In-House Counsel Committee invite you to attend a Brown Bag program 12:00-1:30 EST Tuesday, May 15, on the federal government’s suspension and debarment authority. Companies subject to these actions are unable to participate in government contracts, subcontracts, loans, grants, and other assistance programs. Being subject to such an action, or even the threat thereof, can have an immeasurable impact on a company, and can serve as a powerful incentive for a company to improve its compliance program. The effect of suspension and debarment by a Federal agency is government wide and can be extended to include subsidiaries and parent companies. Join SEER’s In-House Counsel Committee and EPA officials to learn how the Agency uses suspension and debarment as a tool for deterrence, what constitutes an actionable offense, and the regulatory framework. The program will also present industry perspectives and address control systems and remediation efforts.
Panelists are:
To Register:
To attend this brown bag on-site free of charge at EPA or for remote participation contact Alice Mims: (202) 564-6069 or mims.alice@epa.gov.
Final OSHA Rule Published on Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
/in Hazard Communication, News & Events, OSHA, Right-to-KnowGHS/HazCom:
March 26, 2012, the Federal Register published OSHA’s final Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). With this rule OSHA has modified its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to be consistent with to the United Nations’ System.
GHS Requirements
OSHA estimates that 880,000 hazardous chemicals are currently used in the U.S., and over 40 million employees are now potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals in over 5 million workplaces. Approximately 75,000 firms create hazardous chemicals (i.e., products, substances, or mixtures) for which new labels and ‘safety data sheets’ (formerly material safety data sheets) will be required.
OSHA explains that implementation of the GHS will improve HCS by changing the performance requirements for labels to the GHS-specific requirements that labels include four standardized elements: a signal word; hazard statement(s); pictogram(s); and precautionary statement(s). The appropriate label elements for a chemical are to be determined by the hazard classification. Standardized label elements will better convey critically important hazard warnings, and provide useful information regarding precautionary measures that will serve to better protect employees than the performance-oriented approach of the current rule.
Chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to re-evaluate chemicals according to the GHS criteria. Chemicals must be classified based on the type and degree of hazards posed. For health hazards, this will involve assigning the chemical both to the appropriate hazard category and subcategory (called hazard class). For physical hazards new criteria are generally consistent with current DOT transportation requirements. Preparation and distribution of modified labels and safety data sheets by chemical manufacturers and importers will also be required.
Jurisdiction
The rule adopts only sections of the GHS within the scope of OSHA jurisdiction. DOT, CPSC and EPA will implement GHS at a later date. EPA and OSHA have worked together to develop a common position on coverage of pesticides and chemicals. The GHS will not require additional labels on pesticides labeled under EPA requirements; that is, the final products that enter into commerce. However, OSHA GHS requirements will apply to the other chemical ingredients of pesticides; the ‘inactive’ ingredients or cleaning products that are hazardous. This is a continuation of current OSHA HCS worker protection requirements. OSHA anticipates that EPA will provide guidance to their regulated community on how to develop an OSHA GHS-compliant SDS to avoid conflict with pesticide labeling requirements.
Key GHS Elements
Hazard communication. A key goal of the final GHS is to better communicate hazard information to those most at risk—the workers exposed to hazardous chemicals Hazard communication requirements are provided in 29 CFR § 1910.1200. Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements, details how specified label elements apply to each hazard class and hazard category. Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets, specifies requirements for the 16 SDS elements.
Concentration limits. OSHA announced it will require the most protective GHS concentration limits for hazard classifications. For example, for sensitizers and reproductive toxins, the final rule requires information to be provided on labels and safety data sheets at concentrations above 0.1%. (See e.g., Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements.)
Precautionary statements. In addition to hazard statements, the GHS requires precautionary statements that describe recommended measures that should be taken to protect against hazardous exposures, or improper storage or handling of a chemical. (See Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets). Precautionary statements must also address hazard information necessary to protect workers from “hazards not otherwise classified that have been identified during the classification process.” (See Table D.1.)
Mixtures. Health hazards posed by mixtures should be addressed based on the risks posed by the mixture itself, rather than by the hazards posed by the component chemicals individually. The GHS does allow alternative classification methodologies where primary data are unavailable, including extrapolation and bridging. The rule specifies procedures for determining whether mixtures are covered by the Standard.
Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers who become newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical shall revise the labels for the chemical within six months of becoming aware of the new information. New information about hazards and ways to protect against hazards must be added to the SDS within three months.
OSHA has modified General Industry Standards containing hazard classification and communication provisions so that they will be internally consistent and aligned with the GHS modifications to the HCS.
Implementation
Timeline. Compliance with all of the provisions for preparation of new labels and safety data sheets is required by June 1, 2015. Distributors will be allowed an additional six months to distribute containers received from chemical manufacturers and importers with the old labels and MSDSs in order to accommodate those they receive very close to the compliance date. Workplace labels and training programs must be updated by June 1, 2016.
State implementation. OSHA intends to closely scrutinize amendments to previously approved State hazard communication standards to ensure equal or greater effectiveness, including assurance that any additional requirements do not conflict with, or adversely affect, the effectiveness of the national application of OSHA’s standard.
Guidance. OSHA will be offering guidance materials such as quick cards and fact sheets to aid firms in developing and implementing the training requirements of this rule. OSHA will also be releasing a small business compliance guide to provide additional guidance to small businesses, which will ease the economic impact and compliance burden.
Next Steps
OSHA notes that the GHS is a living document, and the UN actively reviews it and considers possible changes based on implementation experiences and other information. These changes are made on a two-year cycle, referred to as a biennium. The OSHA proposal and the final rule are based on Revision 3 of the GHS. OSHA will undertake future rulemaking as necessary to reflect new technological and scientific developments and UN revisions to GHS requirements.
Although not addressed in the rule, OSHA discusses interest in the development of a common classification database. The European Union plan to deploy one. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and New Zealand have already done so. However, classifications in these databases are not necessarily the same for the same chemical. OSHA would like an international database of classifications developed and maintained. A UN Sub-committee has been established to explore the issue further.