Following is ASSE’s comment on OSHA’s long-awaited Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on establishing a globally harmonized system for hazard communication. This comment was developed and written by a task force of ASSE members appointed by the Council on Professional Affairs (CoPA) and Council on Practices and Standards (CoPS).. The task force was chaired by Don Garman and included Tom Cecich, Ed Granberry, Jr., Allen Macenski, Jim Ramsay, and Todd Ravazza. I am sure you want to join me in thanking them for their leadership on this issue of importance to the SH&E community.
AMERICAN SOCIETY November 10, 2006 The Honorable Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 Via email at www.regulations.gov RE: Comment on Hazard Communication Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Docket No. H-022K Dear Assistant Secretary Foulke: The 30,000 member safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) have an interest in seeing that any effective method of managing occupational safety and health risks becomes more uniform and widely accepted. In any workplace or across an industry, the more uniformity, the better chance our members have to help employers overcome the barriers in communicating chemical hazards or any other risks to employee safety and health. Therefore, ASSE commends the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for taking the necessary step in moving forward uniformity in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Hazard Communications [71 Fed. Reg. 53617 (Sept. 12, 2006)] and signaling this nation’s willingness to integrate with the rest of the world in bringing harmonization to the classification of chemicals for their health, physical and environmental effects. By and large, the ANPR and the questions it poses is a good first step in what we hope will be this nation’s commitment to meeting the 2008 goal for implementation of a globally harmonized system for hazard communications (GHS) set by the international community. Leadership from key staff at OSHA has given the United States an excellent opportunity to be the international catalyst for adoption of GHS. This opportunity cannot be taken lightly. Attached is a document providing answers to the questions posed in the ANPR. These answers were developed directly by members who are experts and have years of domestic and international experience managing hazard communications for both large and small employers. They come from the manufacturing, construction and chemical industries as well as academia. ASSE is committed to helping move this nation towards adoption of GHS. In the end, however, it will have to be the commitment of OSHA to keep pressing forward that sees this issue through the rulemaking process. To ensure a positive outcome, we urge you to work with ASSE and other partners and stakeholders to help educate and inform the employer community about the competitive benefits and opportunities GHS has the potential to provide. As always, ASSE and its members stand ready to help. We look forward to opportunities to do so. Sincerely, Donald S. Jones, Sr., CSP, PE |
Modifying the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to adopt the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) would have the greatest impact on chemical manufacturers, importers, and employers who produce or distribute hazardous chemicals as currently covered under the HCS. In order to be harmonized, the hazard classifications of each product will need to be reviewed according to the classification criteria of the GHS, and new labels and safety data sheets will have to be prepared.
1. How many hazardous chemicals as defined by the HCS do you produce, import or distribute? How many hazardous chemicals do you export? How many different labels or data sheets do you need to prepare for each chemical you export?
Question one raises issues best answered by manufacturers, importers, or distributors. Cost factors will be initially higher for conversion to new formats of labels and safety data sheets (SDSs). However, economies of scale are anticipated from the use of standardized signal words and risk phrases within the globally harmonized system (GHS) format. Labels should become easier after GHS is integrated into hazard communication.
2. Who is responsible for reviewing the data on chemicals and preparing appropriate labels and safety data sheets? What is their professional background? Do you make independent determinations or rely largely on labels or data sheets developed by others (suppliers, materials available on the Internet, etc.) ?
Many of our member safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals work for large multinational employers with professional staffs employing toxicologists, industrial hygienists, transportation experts, environmental engineers and safety professional generalists working as a team to prepare an SDS and/or labeling. For the most part, these individuals hold a degree in a technical field. Our members who are typically involved in preparing SDSs have the education, experience and training necessary to have achieved a voluntary safety and health professional certification awarded by nationally recognized and accredited certifying agency like the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP) or the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH).
For the majority of small to mid-size employers, however, this responsibility is left to individuals who typically have insufficient training and education to appropriately produce an SDS and label. Assistance from government agencies or databases is helpful to an extent. If a material has sufficient verifiable data published, this task becomes easier for the person with appropriate technical background. Without staff with such background, appropriate interpretation is difficult. Employers without adequately trained staff will have to utilize commercial services or databases for SDSs and labels.
The issue of appropriate professional certification, experience and training must be addressed in the rule making. Final GHS rulemaking must make it clear that those responsible for preparing SDSs have appropriate qualifications to do the preparation and that their employers certify that they are qualified. Appropriate technical backgrounds would include a degree in chemistry, toxicology, industrial hygiene, biology, microbiology, chemical engineering, or health physics, or a series of chemical courses or toxicology course as part of another technical degree. Further, “peer” review of classifications should be encouraged and carried out by either knowledgeable employees within the company or private contractors capable of producing SDSs and labels. As this rulemaking moves forward, ASSE offers the expertise and experience of its members to help establish such requirements. The best possible hazard communication system will not work if those who control the input of information are not qualified to do so.
3. How long does it take on average for each hazardous chemical to complete the review and prepare new labels and safety data sheets? How much does it cost for each chemical product? Please break down the cost for the classification, preparation of a new label, and revision of a safety data sheet.
Question three can be best be answered by manufacturers, importers, or distributors who do the research, test, and classify the material(s). From our members’ experience, a vast range of costs can apply, depending on factors that range from the need for animal testing and physical data determinations to simple verification of published data. For a new material, whether public or proprietary, cost is dependent on the availability of published data from toxicology testing. At the highest range of expense might be a new material requiring inhalation testing, which could cost several hundred thousand dollars. For a known material, commercial services have quoted from $1,000 to $5,000 for an SDS.
The costs associated for the revision to an existing SDS and label are dependent on the number of technically qualified employees on the manufacture’s staff. The additional cost for labels will be minimal compared with present labels as they are going to be readily available once the change incorporating GHS is made. Label producers will be on top of it. The cost associated with selecting the correct label will increase until the new system is learned. But with the use of standardized signal words and hazard phrases, costs should be reduced long-term.
4. Would the time required to prepare a GHS SDS be more, less, or about the same as currently required for preparing an SDS? What time and costs would be required to convert existing SDSs to the GHS format? Would the costs depend on the amount of time allowed for the conversion process?
If the company developing the SDS is updating the previous SDS, GHS neither requires a re-evaluation of the criteria for testing nor the specification of a method. If the original data was correct and the literature does not indicate any major changes such as epidemiological evidence or further testing of health hazards, developing the new SDS should be reasonably straightforward.
Time will have to be given to learning the new system of naming based on previous information as to toxicity ranges and physical properties such as flammability. With an appropriate software solution, and the use of “crosswalks,” a new format SDS with useful data should not be difficult to produce. More time will be taken and costs will increase marginally for a company that has professional staff in place because they are likely to provide a deeper review before the update. As a possible indication of the costs companies that hire out this work will face, a recent estimate obtained from a company that specializes in writing SDSs was about $1,000 for the new sixteen- section SDS in two languages. Our own estimate based on the experience of knowledgeable members is that it would take about a week’s work, or 40 hours, on average to update an SDS from old to new.
5. Please describe any electronic tools you have to assist with this process, such as systems that classify chemicals or prepare labels or safety data sheets. How long would it take to update those systems to make them GHS-consistent?
This question can best be answered by manufacturers, importers, distributors or proprietary SDS software developers. Some companies have purchased software and others have developed their own. Currently available software tends to add a lot of “boiler plate” information instead of useful specifics. Some companies run sophisticated “enterprise” systems that link production, distribution, and support data so that changes in one area force a change in another. Companies with enterprise systems will have a longer and more costly transition period than those with stand-alone SDS systems.
Most employers who produce chemicals have some form of database or developmental software for actually writing the SDS and making the information available to the public. For employers with existing systems, they will face added expense in updating the format and content portions to accept the GHS/HCS terminology. Even today, however, many employers rely on hardcopy SDS information and have no computer database for managing the SDSs, or receiving on-line SDSs.
6. How many of your employees receive hazard communication training? How many hours of training at what frequency (on hire, annually, as needed, etc.)? How long would it take to teach employees to recognize GHS pictograms? Would more standardized labels and SDSs make it easier to use the available hazard communication information?
All employees receive to a greater or lesser extent hazard communication training. The integration of GHS labels, terminology, and SDSs will give a fresh look to the training requirement of HCS. Any training requirement should include, at “new employee orientation,” a classroom portion that provides a basic review of chemical hazards, including target organs, toxicology terminology, and exposure and protection guidelines. After the employee enters the workplace, training particular to the specific materials can emphasize exposure considerations and appropriate safe guards including handling and storage. ASSE members estimate that new employee orientation briefly covers HCS for about 15 minutes, and time spent in the work area may add another 15 to 20 minutes for each material handled. Member experience indicates this is a never-completed task as employees relocate, materials change and processes evolve, all of which vary the degree of exposure.
As to the recognition of new pictograms, this should come along quickly. Standardization in this area will help, especially for non-English speaking employees and employees with little formal general education.
7. What savings will you incur when you only have to classify a chemical once instead of multiple times depending on how many agencies and countries are involved? What other benefits do you anticipate?
Once the new classification ranges are known or learned and are applied to the current list of products, then standardized translation can be applied for multiple language needs and put into a database for future use. Once completed, this effort should yield benefits in future years when an SDS or label is required. The primary savings will be in external translation and printing costs. For companies involved in international commerce, additional savings will be achieved by not having to classify materials into many different systems.
Further savings – including training costs – occur when similar data is used for multiple purposes. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) flammable liquid ranges and the GHS flammable liquid ranges are the same, though NFPA classification of flammable and combustible liquids will have to be revised. Shippers of flammable liquids under DOT or IATA/ICAO instructions are in the position of having to consider the use, storage requirements and handling of the materials separately from the transit requirements. NFPA requirements should be brought into alignment with the international criteria for flammable and combustible materials. It is anticipated that multi-national employers will see more benefit than US-only employers.
As has been noted, the international goal is for as many countries as possible to adopt the GHS by 2008. Since OSHA has longstanding requirements for labels and safety data sheets, the Agency expects to allow a significant phase-in period for compliance in order to give people sufficient time to review their classifications and amend them as necessary, and subsequently revise labels and safety data sheets to reflect the new requirements. It seems probable at this point that the revised requirements could potentially be in place by 2008, but the phase-in period for compliance may have to extend beyond that time period.
8. What is a reasonable time period for phasing in the modifications? Should the phasing be done by size of business? Are there any other factors that should be considered to differentiate the phasing?
Phasing of requirements should be done so long as the phasing does not detract from the goal, which is conversion of the HCS to GHS integrated. There are several possible schemes to initiate phasing that will work. The issue is selecting a method that achieves the greatest impact in the shortest time.
The goal of HCS and GHS is to provide safe use of chemicals needed for industry and everyday life. A scheme that selects the top 200 most-produced chemicals by weight and then sorts by the top 100 most hazardous chemicals would be a way to determine the phase-in of GHS changes to HCS. While chemicals lists run counter to the many themes of GHS, this is one alternative that would provide a known direction and guide for manufacturers to use in compliance with the revised GHS. The key here is to agree on what the “most hazardous” means. Certainly highly flammable materials and reactive materials should head the listing. Then the highly toxic by inhalation follows logically. We are confident that the list can be assembled in a fashion that garners agreement. Such an approach will give the most protection to the most exposed based on the amount produced and available in the marketplace. The time frame for the most-produced, most-hazardous chemicals can be set at a reasonable period of two years from the passage of the regulations. All other materials could follow within another year, yielding a total three-year phase-in after passage of the regulations for revised GHS. Other phase-in schemes are possible, but ASSE believes that this approach would result in a relatively swift but orderly management of the greatest hazards for the greatest impact on limiting exposure.
While phasing-in implementation is recommended, setting deadlines must be firm. Employers no doubt will face challenges in changing hazardous communication systems. Our members’ experience shows that, when the deadlines remain firm, employers seem to abide by them and do not feel that they are singled out for punishment. Consistency must be a paramount consideration in implementation.
9. What is the normal cycle for updating labels and safety data sheets?
As above, this question can be answered best by individual manufacturers, importers, or distributors. Generally, from the experience of our members, only major chemical companies consistently update materials. There is no major update effort on stable well-known materials. Updating should occur a minimum of every three years, possibly longer for products that are not changed in formulation or chemical and physical properties. This usually varies from company to company and product to product. Many major chemical companies employing our members review on a three-year cycle unless new data is received.
10. Do you have stockpiles of product that are already labeled? How long will those stockpiles last?
The management of stock on hand is a question manufacturers are best positioned to answer. Stock should not be a difficult issue in transition to GHS. Most stock of active products does not sit longer than eight weeks if materials stay in a manufacturer’s active products list. For such products, a new label and SDS will have to be developed but simply can be placed on the old container. Where the transition could be more of a problem is in situations where customers have old stock they purchased in quantity due to price/ quantity breaks or other incentives. With appropriate phase-in requirements and sufficient notice to the industrialized employers, however, such difficulties should be minimal.
11. Do you have any other information or data that would help OSHA determine the appropriate phasing in of the new requirements or other issues related to timing?
As an Alliance partner with OSHA, ASSE encourages OSHA to come out strongly with guidelines, e-tools and other cooperative resources to encourage companies to take an active role in implementing this change. OSHA’s cooperative efforts over the last several years have proven effective in creating a more positive environment for change, which should not be underestimated. Clear, simple requirements, dates certain for implementation, and performance standards for labels and training will also be helpful in achieving employer and employee “buy-in” to the changes.
As discussed, the scope of hazards covered by the GHS is similar to that of the HCS. OSHA anticipates adopting all of the health and physical hazard criteria in the GHS. Definitions in the HCS will need to be the same as the GHS in order to be harmonized. However, there are some determinations that are left to countries to decide in terms of whether all categories and all hazards are adopted.
12. Are there any health or physical hazards that are currently covered by the HCS that you think are not adequately addressed in the GHS criteria? What are they and why do you think they are not adequately addressed? Are there any health or physical hazards that aren't covered in either the HCS or the GHS that should be added?
The GHS criteria appear to cover known hazards well. Nevertheless, ASSE would like to see provisions in the final rulemaking that will make it possible for all agencies to participate with support for inclusion of SDS information that ranges over the DOT, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor and possible other competent authorities (CAs). Effort should be concentrated on determining the weaknesses of the current HCS that foster inconsistencies in material safety classification and handling under more than one agency, which would improve the regulation.
13. In addition to references to hazardous chemicals with OSHA PELS, should OSHA propose to include any other listing of hazardous chemicals when aligning the hazard determination provisions of the HCS to the GHS? Should OSHA propose that the mixture provisions only reference exceeding the OSHA PEL when revised to adopt the GHS? Should OSHA propose deleting the requirement that the ACGIH TLV be included on the SDS when the requirements are changed to be consistent with the GHS? Should other recommended exposure limits be included on the SDS?
All relevant exposure limits should be listed. The safety and health community needs to stand behind the currently best-supported data available, whether ACGIH TLVs, OSHA PELs, NIOSH Recommendations or other values. While the need exists for a process to achieve updated measures through an open process, until that time, the best data we have must be used to provide the best possible employee exposure control. As to mixture provisions, they should not be changed with regard to inclusion of carcinogenic materials.
14. Within the health hazard criteria, are there any categories of hazard that should not be adopted in the HCS? For example, should OSHA adopt all of the categories addressed in the acute toxicity criteria? If not, what categories would be appropriate to address anticipated workplace exposures?
Use of all of the Acute Toxicity criteria may serve to confuse people other than toxicologists and safety and health professionals who focus their practice in this area. To help avoid confusion, ASSE suggests the use of Category 1, Category 3, and Category 5 as a useful range. Category 5 can be modified to include its own values without reference to Category 4. Not adopting every classification in itself will not negatively impact the HCS harmonization.
15. If OSHA changes the HCS to adopt the physical hazard criteria, how will that impact other OSHA standards that use the same criteria as the HCS? Does OSHA need to change those criteria at the same time the HCS is changed? Storage and handling requirements for flammable liquids are one example that has been identified as a potential problem if different definitions apply, and information on a safety data sheet is linked to the definition in the HCS but not consistent with other definitions.
OSHA will no doubt need to address other standards. The HCS has never addressed physical hazards to the extent they should have been addressed. If other standards need to be changed, OSHA and the safety and health community should welcome such changes. For the example given, the storage requirement for flammable liquids is largely driven by NFPA 30 and would still be valid based on flash points and volumes. Whether the material is called a flammable or a combustible is of little consequence when physical values such as vapor pressure, boiling point and flash point are of greater value in hazard determination for use and storage requirements. A concern is that any changes that are required be meaningful ones. For example, the physical parameters used to specify flammable liquid storerooms should not be changed for enforcement purposes when only the name has changed and not the design criteria.
16. Are there any other technical issues that need to be considered in adopting the GHS? Please explain.
Given the growth and development of nanotechnologies, GHS definitions and classifications should adequately cover this new technology, though ASSE believes that the key technical issues will be adequately addressed from what is currently known. One issue that is always of concern to ASSE’s members is training, which the GHS addresses. The fact that the HCS requires training will no doubt be of value beyond the GHS. The largest issue will be support to those smaller industries without professional staff to work through the transition.
OSHA is interested in getting input on the types of materials or products that would assist employers in understanding whatever modifications OSHA makes to the HCS to adopt the GHS, and to help them achieve compliance. To this end, we would like to get input now on the types of outreach that would be most helpful. As has been noted, there are some explanatory documents that are already available on OSHA's website.
17. What products would be most useful to employers? Employees? Do you prefer paper publications? Electronic tools?
All forms of media from online interactive to hardcopy brochures will work somewhere. OSHA e-tools will be especially valuable. All materials need to be prepared in both Spanish and English. While it is anticipated that the private sector training material specialists will develop full packages, OSHA will need to develop a full package of materials for small and medium sized employers not able to make large purchases. ASSE encourages OSHA to examine the animated communication tools the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has been using recently to communicate its findings. ASSE’s members have made highly positive comments on their effectiveness.
18. What subjects would be of most interest? Classification criteria and procedures for substances and mixtures? Labels? Safety data sheets?
Materials should be prepared to address at least three levels of sophistication: for professionals (toxicologists, IHs and CSPs with chemical training or expertise), for other safety professionals not trained in toxicology or chemical hazards, and for the general employee base. Certainly, classification criteria and procedures for substances and mixtures should be provided with examples of then developed labels and safety data sheets.
Again, compliance assistance for employers will be critical for compliance and acceptance of the GHS integrated into the HCS. The classification process, labels systems, and necessary training will be of most interest to employers. Comprehending labels and data sheets will be of the greatest value to employees.
19. What is the best way to distribute the materials to reach affected employers and employees?
A variety of distribution methods will be needed. Materials should be available off the net at the OSHA website, through Area Offices and the Compliance Assistance Officer, and be available by request through the mail. Hard copy as well as electronic media should be prepared. Materials produced should be in a form that allows customization to an employer’s format. Additionally, materials should be in a form that can readily be reproduced in-house on a basic PC or simple copier. For all this information, ASSE encourages you to work with us and other safety and health associations in getting the word out. OSHA should consider the possibility of direct mailings to medium and small employers. Finally, the media – including the safety and health trade press – can be helpful in getting out this information.
20. Are there any types of materials that would be especially appropriate for small businesses? Most small businesses would be users of chemicals, rather than producers, so they will be receiving labels and safety data sheets prepared according to the new approach. Are there training materials that would be helpful to learn or teach about the new approach? In particular, would training on symbols or pictograms be of use?
The simple answer to each question above is, “Yes.” Training materials should consist of simple examples demonstrating the changes with back-up materials of all new HCS requirements. Information on labels and SDS issues would probably be the most useful for small businesses. ASSE would not recommend major differences in materials but only a concerted effort to ensure that a mixture of materials in different media that can address the needs of all stakeholders in this process, from the capable to the less capable in addressing safety and health hazards.
The following is from Mary Frances Lowe, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs –
The next meeting of the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals is scheduled for December 12-14, in Geneva, Switzerland. Documents for this meeting may be downloaded from the UN website.
The Sub-Committee meeting will be followed by a meeting of the full Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals on December 15. Documents are posted online.
The deadline for filing working documents has passed. There is no deadline for filing informal documents, so you may wish to check for new papers from time to time. The Sub-Committee has adopted a policy of only taking substantive decisions and amending the GHS on the basis of working documents, but informal documents may be the bases for discussions that may lead to future work.
The U.S. Government Inter-Agency Working Group on Harmonization will be developing positions for the meeting over the next couple of weeks. If you have comments you would like us to consider, we would be happy to have your input. Your organization may also be able to contribute to positions being developed by official (non-governmental) observer organizations who participate in the GHS meetings.
The Programme Advisory Group of the UNITAR/ILO GHS capacity building program will meet on December 11. Documents for this meeting will be available on the UNITAR website.
Visit: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides
On November 3, OSHA posted a directive revising its national emphasis program on amputations. The directive focuses on identifying industries and establishments associated with amputations rather than on equipment. The directive is available here.
From NIOSH – NIOSH participated in the development of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) revised interim pandemic influenza planning guidance, issued October 17. The revised interim guidance includes updated and more precautionary recommendations regarding the use of surgical masks and respirators in health care settings during an influenza pandemic. NIOSH participated on the work group that developed the document, which includes a discussion of the science of influenza transmission, the capabilities of respirators and surgical masks, their use in circumstances in which there is a potential for exposure to airborne agents, and the rationale for adopting these more protective health care worker recommendations. The updated guidance document can be found here.
OSHA has made available on its web site some new compliance assistance resources on avian influenza. The resources, available in English and Spanish, include
The new resources are available at http://www.osha.gov/dsg/guidance/avian-flu.html.
From NIOSH – The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has released findings from a survey conducted for NIOSH on workplace violence prevention. Nearly five percent of the 7.1 million U.S. private industry business establishments had an incident of workplace violence in the 12 months preceding the survey. The majority of those establishments did not change their workplace violence prevention procedures after the incident. Results from the survey will provide researchers with information to develop educational interventions to improve workplace safety. Findings from the survey are available in detail on the BLS website. More information on NIOSH research and recommendations for preventing and reducing workplace violence can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/injury/traumaviolence.html.
In a follow-up to it’s highly successful 2005 conference on bridging the perception that there is a gap between worker personal wellness and workplace safety and health, NIOSH has announced the next meeting –
NIOSH and over 15 cosponsors will host the symposium "WorkLife 2007: Preserving and Promoting Worker Health," September 10-11, 2007, at the Marriott Crystal Gateway in Washington DC. The symposium is part of the NIOSH WorkLife Initiative. The vision of the initiative is safe and healthy workers in workplaces that protect, sustain, and promote health and wellbeing. The symposium will gather researchers and practitioners in the areas of health protection and health promotion to better understand the relationships between workplace health protection and promotion programs and health care costs; identify programs, policies, and practices that work; and to build consensus around research priorities and a research agenda. The initiative is the NIOSH response to the "2004 Steps to a Healthier US Workforce Symposium".
Check the webpage for more information and updates.
November 7, 2006 - By law, the Secretary of Transportation must promulgate uniform guidelines for state highway safety programs. This notice revises six of the existing guidelines to reflect program methodologies and approaches that have proven successful and are based on sound science and program administration, according to NHTSA. The revised guidelines are Guideline No. 3--Motorcycle Safety, Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving, Guideline No. 14--Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Guideline No. 15--Traffic Enforcement Services (formerly Police Traffic Services), Guideline No. 19--Speed Management (formerly Speed Control), and Guideline No. 20--Occupant Protection. These became effective November 7, 2006.
November 20, 2006 - The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has given notice of a Forum on Human Factors Research Necessary to Support Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies to be held in Falls Church, Virginia, on January 25 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on January 26 from 8:30 a.m. to noon. The forum will be held at the Mitretek Systems Corporate Headquarters at 3150 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042, telephone (202) 551-1112. For more information, contact Michael Perel, Office of Human Vehicle Performance Research, at Mike.Perel@dot.gov.
NIOSH has issued a report, “Preventing Injuries from Installing Drywall.” Its recommendations target especially overexertion and fall injuries, which are prevalent among drywall workers. The report can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/wp-solutions/2006-147/.
November 6, 2006 - EPA has proposed two primary regulatory alternatives for new and existing hospital sterilizers that emit hazardous air pollutants and are area sources within the meaning of Clean Air Act. The first alternative proposes a generally available management practice requirement for new and existing hospital sterilizers that are area sources. The second proposes that there are no generally available control technologies or management practices within the meaning of Clean Air Act for this source category. EPA is proposing these alternatives because it believes it has imperfect info on the ability of the proposed management practice to reduce emissions as well as the cost-effectiveness. Comments are due January 5, 2007.
Fifteenth in a list of oversight needs the Government Accounting Office is recommending to Congress is a review of the effectiveness of strategies to ensure workplace safety. The reporttargets the need to look at OSHA’s adaptability to changes in workplaces and worker demographics, the effectiveness of the compliance assistance programs, effectiveness of protecting miners, and the ability of federal agencies to protect workers in pandemic emergencies.
Adele Abrams, Esq., is ASSE’s Federal Representative in Washington, DC. On behalf of ASSE, she attends a regular meeting at the Small Business Administration of interested stakeholders in various federal regulatory matters that have the potential of coming through an SBA review process for their impact on small businesses. Adele’s latest report provides some good insight into the near-term future of safety and health regulatory issues.
On November 17, 2006, I represented ASSE at the bimonthly meeting of the US Small Business Administration’s OSHA/MSHA Roundtable. The following subjects were addressed before a group of about 50 association representatives as well as several OSHA staff members:
Hexavalent Chromium Update: Attorney Baruch Fellner, representative of the Surface Finishing Industry Council, provided a summary of the settlement reached between OSHA and SFIC concerning OSHA’s final rule lowering the permissible exposure limit for HexChrome. The rulemaking was mandated by the US Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, and several industry groups filed for judicial review after the final rule was issued. Litigation between OSHA and some of the petitioners (including the National Association of Manufacturers and Edison Electric) continues. The SFIC agreement provides an alternative compliance schedule for metal and surface-finishing operations that are eligible (by being parties to the agreement before the November 30, 2006 cutoff for such declarations). Those facilities must implement engineering controls on an expedited schedule, on or before Dec. 31, 2008, but in exchange will have relief from some of the respiratory protection requirements that would have been mandatory on an interim basis. The union representing the industry employees (US Steelworkers) agreed with the settlement provisions, as their members did not want to wear respirators for 8+ hour workshifts. Eligible facilities in this industry sector must submit a list of specific, short-term operations that will still require the use of respirators and these declarations must be filed with OSHA to be eligble for the general respirator exclusion. It appears that only facilities under federal OSHA will be able to utilize the alternative compliance option.
OSHA Cranes/Derricks Rulemaking: OSHA’s Noah Connell provide a briefing on the construction directorate’s negotiated rulemaking status. The SBREFA panel was held and OSHA is working on the rule’s preamble. This is the first negotiated rule to be subject to the SBREFA process. The SBA issued its report on 10/17/06, reflecting the input of 20 small business participants. The major issues include:
a. Economic Analysis: The preliminary draft report has underestimated costs, especially for the crane operator certification process. OSHA was urged to check its facts and figures, especially related to claims.
b. Scope of Standard: Criticism mostly focused on the broad scope of the rule, including its coverage of low capacity and simple use hoisting equipment.
c. Ground Condition Assessment: Some questioned why the general contractor should be held liable for this when many lack the expertise to do so.
d. Inspection Requirements: The panel noted how these differ from the current rule and focused on whether the crane would have to “boom down” to be inspected each day/shift as this could increase hazards.
e. Operator Certification Requirements: Some changes were suggested and OSHA was encouraged to get additional public comment. There should be an option for a narrow certification for those competent for simple operations/equipment. It was also suggested that other educational institutions might be able to administer the test to reduce costs. There was some concern about delegation of certification to a third party (most other OSHA training certifications are done by the employer).
f. Literacy and Language Issues: This impacts operator certification as well as the manufacturers’ manuals. It was suggested that operator manuals should be in multiple language and/or in “Plain English” and should use more pictures to illustrate safe work procedures.
Global Harmonization System: Attorney Larry Halprin provided a PowerPoint designed to show all the legal drawbacks of the GHS system. He claims that the “actual objective” for OSHA is easier enforcement and to “demonstrate” to Congress, the CSB etc. that it is addressing chemical safety. He called the CSB the “self-appointed policing board for OSHA.” He added that the European Union’s actual objective with GHS is to spread “green” principles through the world and to create non-tariff barriers to trade for those who do not go along. He referred to GHS as a “moving target” because the UN committee keeps meeting and he predicted that OSHA will continually have to update its standard, adding that the building block/hybrid approach does not meet legal requirements. He deemed GHS a “Speculation-based EU System” Halprin also predicts high costs for employers and manfacturers, because all MSDSs and labels must be changed and all employees at 7 million workplaces will have to be retrained. He stated that the GHS system includes much lower thresholds for carcinogens and mutagens and will force greater regulation of mixtures and consideration of synergy and interface between chemical products. He concluded that, in terms of EHS impact, it will eliminate some inconsistency but will facilitate control banding and require enormous EHS resources to implement the system. Baruch Fellner chimed in: “GHS makes OSHA’s Haz Com Standard look good!”
MSHA Civil Penalties Rulemaking: I was asked to provide an update on MSHA’s reopening of the 30 CFR Part 100 rulemaking (which closed on November 9, 2006). I informed the group of the implementation of MINER Act penalties, revision of other parts of the penalty system that were not required by Congress, and the changes to the informal conference procedures that are included in the reopened proposal (narrowing the conference request period to 5 days and requiring a written explanation of the employer’s defenses at the time the request is submitted to MSHA).
Election Analysis: Marc Freedman of the US Chamber of Commerce briefly discussed the impact of the November 2006 elections on OSHA/MSHA issues Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will likely replace Rep. Charlie Norwood as chair of the Workforce Protections subcommittee, with Rep. George Miller (D-CA) chairing the full Education & Workforce Committee. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) will replace Sen. Mike Enzi as chair of the HELP Committee, while Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) will take over the subcommittee from Sen. Isakson. Freedman predicted that OSHA Assistant Secretary Ed Foulke “will look like a member of Congress because he’ll be on the hill so often attending OSHA oversight hearings.” He added that the likely legislative agenda will include increased criminal penalties, ergonomics (congressional approval for OSHA to reengage in rulemaking, which would still not likely occur unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008), and possibly the state/local government employee protections (which he deemed unnecessary because many states already offer this). He said that the Republican OSHA reform bills, including third party audits and ACGIH legislation, will be off the table. He speculated that Sen. Enzi could join with Kennedy on criminal penalty legislation.
From EPA press release – (Washington, D.C. - Nov. 21, 2006) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule clarifying two specific circumstances in which a Clean Water Act permit is not required before pesticides are applied. The two situations are when:
After considering two rounds of public comments, EPA concluded that the Clean Water Act does not require permits in these two situations.
"This clean water rule strengthens and streamlines efforts of public health officials and communities to control pests and invasive species while maintaining important environmental safeguards," said EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that pesticides be registered by EPA before they can be sold or distributed. Before they are registered, they must undergo extensive study and review to help ensure that, when properly used, they do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. Pesticide labels contain application instructions. Applications of pesticides that violate the FIFRA labels are subject to enforcement.
The final rule replaces EPA's Interpretive Statement on the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in Compliance with FIFRA, published on Feb. 1, 2005.
For more information about the ASSE Northwest Chapter, please contact:
Chapter President
William R. "Bill" Stuart
Phone: 612-671-8431
Website Editor
Richard "Rick" Johnson
Phone: 763-551-1022