Background and Development of the ANSI Standard

In 1993, The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) along with the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) requested that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) develop a universal standard for communicating all hazard information related to products. This led to the development of the ANSI Standard Z400.1. The preamble to the re-certification of the proposed final rule of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (8228-8252) states: Subsequent to this rulemaking, OSHA published a request for comments and information on ways to improve the information presented on labels and MSDSs. International activities regarding harmonization of formats and information are underway as well (Exs. 75 and 71-12), and research has been conducted regarding MSDS variability, appropriate format, etc.

The Issues At Hand

OSHA believes that the quality of available MSDSs needs to be improved. Although the implementation of the HCS has resulted on the creation of many more data sheets than were provided voluntarily, and most of these sheets are of better quality than were available prior to promulgation of the standard, there are still many which need to be improved. The accuracy and sufficiency of the information provided is one concern. Some employers have generated MSDSs to comply with the rule, but have not ensured that the information provided is accurate.

The second issue with regard to the quality of the MSDSs has to do with the presentation of the information. MSDSs now serve a multitude of purposes, being directed to employees as well as to health professionals and the community. In some cases, the language is too technical to properly communicate the necessary information. The format of the MSDSs often "buries" the information that is of most concern to workers (such as hazard communication and protective measures).

Manufacturers and importers should carefully review their MSDSs to ensure they provide accurate and useful information, and to consider whether or not they are presented in the most effective manner. They are aware that many employers are already considering these factors. For example, many word processing programs will reveal the reading level required to understand the information presented. For those parts of the MSDS or label that are intended for workers, the reading level should be directed to a level that is appropriate for the workforce (generally sixth to eighth grade). It would also be helpful to place information intended for workers at the beginning of the sheet.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has prepared two studies of the HCS, and has made recommendations concerning MSDS requirements in a recent report (GAO/HRD-92-8). It found that MSDSs are seen by employers as being too complicated, and that OSHA's system of reviewing the accuracy of the sheets is not likely to detect systemic problems. As a result, the GAO recommended that the HCS be revised to the ANSI Standard.

Related to this issue of comprehensibility were the comments received objecting the use of MSDSs under the rule (see Exs. 11-74, 11-78, 11-108, 11-118, 11-142). Many of these employer comments indicated that employees are either not interested in the information on the MSDSs, or that it is not useful to them. "The information contained on these sheets is written by chemists and for chemists. They are much too technical for everyday use. The average employee on a home improvement job site already knows not to drink paint and not to apply hot tar to his skin." (Ex. 11-74).

Proper implementation of the HCS results in both employers and employees being educated about the hazards of chemicals in their workplaces. Statements such as these trivialize the importance of the information conveyed. For example, many paints contain solvents that are neurotoxins. Application can generate vapors that can impair a worker's ability to function and may lead to accidents such as falling off ladders. Unfortunately, some of the comments indicate that employers do not want more information about the chemicals that they use. For example, the Coalition submitted an analysis of label information versus MSDS information for the same chemical products. Their conclusion was that MSDSs include more information, but they don't want nor need it (Ex. 11-142). This simply perpetuates the situation that necessitated the promulgation of the rule, i.e., that employers do not know about the chemicals in use in their workplaces, and therefore workers are not able to learn about these materials either. This is a significant problem both in terms of safety and liability.

The effectiveness of a hazard communication program is directly related to the attitude and ability of the person presenting the information to the workers (see Ex. 4-75). If the trainer or employer conveys the impression that the information is trivial, or the message is unnecessary, then the program will not be effective. (For example, a trainer for the Agricultural Government Council (AGC) testified that: "You need to understand that the interest level is low, the attention span is limited, and is some cases, people showed up for class, shall we just say 'under the influence'." (Tr. 6-33). OSHA recognizes that not every employee is going to be interested in all of the information presented. However, it appears to OSHA that approaching a class with the attitude that the workers aren't interested and won't understand will not result in an effective program.)

Employee representatives did not indicate that employees are not interested in having access to MSDSs. In fact, the testimony and comments were quite the opposite. Employee representatives emphasized that access to MSDSs is considered to be necessary. "Let us repeat that the worksite is exactly where the MSDS is needed, and it is used by its members."

OSHA believes that the fact that MSDSs need to be improved is not an indication that they should be discarded in favor of the limited information on labels. The appropriate response to the problem is to improve the MSDSs by changing to the ANSI Standard, not to remove protections from employees by limiting the information that is available to them. Furthermore, labels simply cannot provide all of the information that is required to be disclosed. The label format is limited by size, and the effectiveness of a label in serving its primary purpose - to provide an immediate visual warning - will be impeded by information overload if all possible information is required to be included on a label. Participants arguing that MSDSs have information overload have missed the key difference in the roles of labels and MSDSs. Labels are subject to the overload argument because they are intended to provide an immediate warning - a purpose that research has shown cannot be met if there is too much information on the label. On the other hand, MSDSs are reference documents, not an immediate warning mechanism. It should also be noted that it was suggested that the labeling requirements of the ANSI standard result in enough information for workers. Yet the ANSI committee specifically addressed this issue in the preamble to the standard: "Precautionary labels are not intended to include all information on the properties of a chemical nor the complete details of its handling under all conditions. Such information is more appropriately provided through other means, such as MSDSs, technical bulletins, training, or other communications intended to enhance and supplement the label."

Clearly, the genesis of many of the comments received opposing the MSDS requirements is simply that these commenters do not want to deal with them, rather than any objective evidence that they are not necessary. As discussed at length in previous HCS Federal Register documents (see preambles to original Notification of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and final rule), the effectiveness of a hazard communication program relies on the three-pronged approach in the HCS (labels, MSDSs, and training). Each serves a different purpose, and they are all interdependent on each other. No information that was provided during this rulemaking proceeding has altered that finding. Comments that MSDSs are intended for manufacturing and are only useful there are not supported by evidence either (Ex. 11-104).

MSDSs were first created many years ago, and were used in many different types of operations. (See Ex. 71-33, a paper on the history of the development of data sheets) "[By] the middle of the nineteenth century manufacturers were supplying their customers with some sort of data sheet, either along with their product or on demand. The earliest example of an MSDS that I have ever seen is one by Valentine and Company on 1906." The first Federal requirements for MSDSs were in the maritime industries, ship building, breaking and repairing operations, and were promulgated in 1968. MSDSs have been required by various state laws in all industries for some years. International activities in the area of hazard communication also indicate that there is widespread recognition of the need for MSDS information to supplement labels (Ex. 71-12). Thus MSDSs remain a key aspect of the regulatory approach in the HCS. Activities to improve them will be encouraged by OSHA and will be issued in the form of the ANSI Standard.

The ANSI Standard

The original hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) for MSDSs did not dictate the format or content, as long as the hazard was communicated properly in the document. Unfortunately, as with most self-regulatory directives, the primary goal of communicating the hazard was rarely accomplished to a satisfactory level and ORM-Ds (Consumer Commodities) were being inappropriately omitted. It is important to remember that the Department of Transportation (DOT) classifies consumer commodities as hazards and therefore needs MSDSs. It was for these reasons that ANSI was called in by OSHA and the CMA to write a workable standard that actually complies with a complete hazard communication in a nationally and internationally recognized format. It is the primary goal of these agencies to have this standard used as a universal document due to its ability to communicate all possible hazards.

Conclusion

Since the initial development of the ANSI Standard in 1993, companies that have had or are currently having agencies re-write their old MSDSs or develop new MSDSs are doing so in the ANSI Standard. Although this standard is not actually enforced yet, the primary reasons for this decision is based on safety and cost. In terms of safety, this standard significantly limits a company's liability by providing in-depth information. In terms of cost, companies usually only develop a new MSDS one time, unless an incident occurs and a lawsuit follows. Therefore, if a company is seeking to re-write current MSDSs or develop new ones, they should do so in the ANSI Standard so as not to incur further expense in the near future to comply with the standard.