March 2015 Spray 25 Regulatory International Influences the deadline for Hazcom 2012 compliance was denied by OSHA. The issues identified here by the ACA will sound all too familiar to formulators: ACA and the supporting trade associations were compelled to petition OSHA for relief due to the lack of updated hazard classifications for raw materials down the supply chain. When issuing the final rule, OSHA applied the same compliance date of June 1, 2015 for raw materials, intermediate mixtures and final formulated products. OSHA assumed that currently available data and expected early compliance would allow for sufficient time for product formulators to receive or locate the necessary HCS compliant SDS and then process the information to create new labels and SDS. Unfortunately, this scenario has not played out as OSHA expected. Compliance with the single deadline for many manufacturers of formulated products has been virtually impossible since manufacturers of individual raw materials are not required to provide SDS that conform to the new standard until the June 1, 2015 deadline for all manufacturers. We have seen this all too often at Nexreg, where companies do not have access to the upstream information to ensure their SDS and labels are fully compliant with GHS. OSHA’s decision not to follow the EU in having a staggered phase-in for mixtures and substances has caused difficulty, and neither the EU nor the U.S. has made allowances for the issue of intermediate mixtures. How are companies supposed to be Hazcom 2012 compliant when their upstream suppliers are tardy in providing them with Hazcom 2012 information on raw materials and intermediate mixtures? OSHA’s decision not to have a staggered phase-in for mixtures and substances has caused difficulty, and neither the EU nor the U.S. has made allowances for intermediate mixtures. To OSHA’s credit, they recognized the problem and have offered a solution: OSHA is able to use its enforcement discretion when compliance staff consider whether formulators and manufacturers have performed their due diligence and made good faith efforts to obtain necessary information to comply with the June 1, 2015 deadline. Our policy allows us to consider barriers to the downstream flow of information that are beyond their control. Manufacturers and formulators should therefore document all efforts to alternatively obtain the required information such as: attempts to contact their supplier to obtain the proper information; reasonable efforts to find alternate suppliers who could provide timely and accurate classifications, and reasonable efforts to find relevant data themselves… The agency intends to apply the same approach to distributors that can demonstrate that they have received chemical labeled under this policy. Here is our advice to companies that have not been able to obtain the information they need to ensure products have compliant labels and SDS: 1. Put all requests for information by mail or over e-mail, do not simply ask over the phone. The paper trail is absolutely crucial. 2. Proactively have documentation showing that other suppliers have been contacted to request this information or that there are no other suppliers with an equivalent product. 3. For documentation where no relevant data exists, it would be helpful to keep a memo on file showing that a search was undertaken, including: a. The specific information that is lacking. b. The form the search took (internet searches, phone calls, databases accessed, etc.) c. Who undertook the search d. When they undertook the search In my next column, we will be examining updates to California’s Proposition 65 along with the final version of Canada’s Hazardous Products Act if released in the next three months. Until then, we will be working hard meeting GHS deadlines around the world! SPRAY
Spray March 2015
To see the actual publication please follow the link above