As of Dec. 1, all U.S. shippers of industrial chemicals should be in full compliance with regulations that standardize hazard communication around the world. Containers of hazardous materials should have an approved 16-part Safety Data Sheet and labels with the correct product identifiers, signal words, pictograms and precautionary statements. And employees should have completed their training on all of the above.
In reality, the deadline has blown past while many industrial shippers – including lubricant and additive companies – are still trying to gather and evaluate information from upstream suppliers, and scurrying to hand it along to their own workers and downstream customers.
In an Oct. 20 presentation at the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Associations annual meeting in Boca Raton, Fla., Mark Vagasky of the Redstone Group sought to elucidate GHS labeling requirements and gave an update on the implementation and enforcement timeline. As well, Shawne Edwards-Zollar, an environmental safety analyst with Afton Chemical, highlighted some of the pitfalls companies are trying to avoid.
Background
Now in its fifth edition, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals – also called GHS or the purple book – was developed by the United Nations in the 1990s to help make the global chemical trade safer. Previously, each country had its own classification system, Vagasky explained, and large label variations could be seen for the same substance in different countries. GHS is intended to harmonize such matters.
GHS is hazard-based rather than risk-based, comprising 16 physical hazards, 10 health hazards – either acute or chronic – and two environmental hazards, also acute or chronic. On labels, hazards and precautions are listed in both code and text. Threats are also communicated through a set of nine pictograms and two signal words: danger and warning.
The pictograms all are diamond shaped with a red border and a specific symbol in the center to signal the hazard: i.e., a skull-and-crossbones for acute or fatal toxicity; an exclamation mark for skin, eye or respiratory irritants; a flame for flammable materials; the outline of a human body with an inflamed chest for health hazards, etc.
GHS is not a regulation itself, but a standard that countries must adopt and write into their own regulatory systems. To date, the standard has largely achieved its goal of global harmonization, but with some regional variations.
Many countries are in different phases of implementation. While Brazil, Malaysia, South Korea and others have fully implemented the fifth and most current edition of GHS, China and the European Union have implemented revision four, and Australia and Mexico have only adopted revision three. It is important to be aware and informed of these regional differences, Vagasky cautioned.
GHS in the USA
The United States adopted GHS in 2012. Unlike others such as the EU and China, which replaced their former regulations with the new standard, the U.S. used GHS to modify the existing hazard communication standard under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
According to Vagasky, this meant the scope of hazard communication regulations in the U.S. remained largely the same. The fundamental principles are still in place: The standards apply to all chemicals in the workplace to which employees could be exposed; laboratory application remains the same; and exemptions such as tobacco, food and beverages and biohazards are unchanged.
However, GHS brought extensive revisions to the hazard labeling system. As Vagasky pointed out, GHS is very prescriptive. The rules spell out exactly what statements must go on a label according to a compounds classification, and unlike its predecessor and other labeling regulations, its not debatable, he said. It is much more regimented.
OSHA takes hazard communication very seriously, Edwards-Zollar agreed in her ILMA presentation. Since December 2013, the agency has issued more than 10,000 violations of the Hazard Communication Standard. Frequently, these violations involved incorrect container labels, neglecting to maintain current Safety Data Sheets or have them available for each work shift, and failing to train workers on hazard labels and workplace SDSs. The top-ranked violation, however, was failure to have a written hazcom program in place.
If youre not compliant, its like throwing money away, because you can be fined, Edwards-Zollar stressed. For example, Walmart was fined $190,000 for having improper documents for its employees. And if youre found not in compliance knowingly and willfully, you can go to jail.
She also underscored that Right to Know is now Right to Understand, with greater emphasis placed on teaching employees what theyre working with, the hazards they face, and what personal protective gear to use. Meanwhile, the familiar 11-section Material Safety Data Sheets are no more. Employees now must learn to read and comprehend the 16-section Safety Data Sheet. Workers dont like to change, but we have to train them anyway, Edwards-Zollar stated.
Deadline Relief
When the U.S. adopted GHS, implementation deadlines were staggered. On Dec. 1, 2013, all employees were to be trained on the new labeling system. By June 1, 2015, manufacturers were to have their SDS and labels in place. And on Dec. 1, all distributors were also to be compliant. The next and final deadline – June 1, 2016 – requires all workplace labeling and written programs to be in place, and all employees to be trained in their meaning and use.
That last deadline has caused a fair amount of consternation, remarked Vagasky. He related hearing lubricant and chemical distributors ask: Were trying to build our Safety Data Sheets and our labels in time for that June 1 date, but my supplier didnt give me the information. What do I do?
While OSHA will not change the deadline, Vagasky said the agency is providing some relief on enforcement. If an inspector visits a distributor that is not yet in compliance, that company can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to obtain the needed data. Documenting this effort is critical. For instance, the distributor can provide evidence that it has sought information from its suppliers and has searched for hazard information from alternative sources, with documentation of these efforts and conversations. The company will then have three months from the time it receives the data to create Safety Data Sheets, with labels ready six months after that.
Label Mismatch
Creating GHS-compliant labels is challenging, Edwards-Zollar pointed out, and a fair number of shippers have gotten it wrong. Weve gotten GHS labels where people have created their own pictograms, instead of using the standard ones which are required. Youre also not permitted to leave the red diamond blank, or to insert your own information.
In some cases, the mistakes may be due to shippers desire to avoid the most alarming pictograms – especially the one known as starman, which looks like a human chest radiating with pain to signal a health hazard. Starman is the one people really dont like to see, Edwards-Zollar said, as the ILMA audience nodded in agreement. We have salespeople call and ask if we can do something about it. In fact, you just have to tell customers that the product hasnt changed; its no different than before. Thats just the way we have to classify and label it now.
Dueling Labels
Vagasky highlighted another problem with GHS compliance: OSHAs rules sometimes collide with those of other agencies. Consumer products are generally exempt from OSHA labeling requirements, and instead are governed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, some chemicals, such as motor oils and brake fluid, are produced for both industrial and consumer use. How should manufacturers and distributors decide what type of label – CPSC or OSHA – to use in these cases?
Some companies make the determination based on package size. For example, quarts of motor oil are far more likely to be purchased directly by consumers, while bulk packages are used in fleet depots and quick-lube shops. While size is a good indicator, says Vagasky, the bottom-line criteria is, is it normally consumed in a home?
The next logical question might be, why not use two sets of labels? While CPSC and OSHA do not rule out dual labeling as a possibility, Vagasky warned that it can be quite challenging. Hazard definitions are different, testing methods are different, warnings may conflict, and there is likely to be repetition – all of which could easily confuse the intended audiences.
Furthermore, Vagasky said, Its hard to squeeze all the consumer information onto a label, let alone produce a legible label with both sets of warnings.
The best approach for packages that may appear in both the workplace and on retail shelves, advises Vagasky, is to use the CPSC labeling, but train employees thoroughly, and be sure to have accurate and up-to-date Safety Data Sheets available.
DOT Rules
When hazardous chemicals are being transported, yet another set of labeling requirements comes into play. In most countries, including the United States, these regulations are based on the U.N. Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
The U.S. Department of Transportation considers dangerous goods to be anything that poses immediate and serious hazards. Unlike OSHA, Transportation is not concerned with chronic hazards, such as carcinogens. Otherwise, Vagasky says, test criteria for hazard classes correlate pretty well between DOT and GHS.
Yet there are some differences, pointed out Edwards-Zollar. OSHA may require a product to be labeled as corrosive because it can irritate or damage skin or eyes, while DOT reserves the corrosive label for dermal irritants only; its regulations do not cover eye irritants.
Nor does DOT regulate skin sensitizers, carcinogens, aspiration risks and other hazards to which GHS applies. At heart, the difference is that DOT focuses on immediate hazards based on transport, while OSHA is focused on acute and chronic health and physical hazards, she explained.
In transit, packages will need to have both DOT and GHS labels, and that can be an issue, Vagasky noted. However, if a conflict arises between the labels, the DOT label will trump the hazard communication label. The one exception to this rule is an inhalation hazard, which is always within OSHAs purview, he said.