|  The
Global Harmonized System (GHS) is maturing slowly but steadily and impacting
the ways of international trade and commerce.
First things first: While GHS is supposed
to be a global application—harmonized in its reach between the nation
states’ varying legislations—and provide an unique and systematic
approach for manufacturers, transporters, distributors, retailers, sellers,
buyers, and users of chemicals, there are still a number of issues.
GHS is, in short, a spin-off of the UN Model
Regulations, which in their current 19th edition forms the basis for the
worldwide modal transport regulations, such as the IMDG code applicable
to the transport of Dangerous Goods by sea or the ICAO Technical Instructions
applicable to the transport of Dangerous Goods by Air.
In the U.S., 49 CFR covering the transport
of dangerous goods (or hazardous materials, as these are dubbed in the
U.S.) and, to a degree, 40 CFR dealing with environmental matters have
been harmonized with the UN Model Regulations and GHS so as to do away
with trade barriers.
The aim of GHS was to replace the differing
classification and hazard communication or labeling standards applied
by different countries by means of using consistent criteria for classification
and hazard communication on a global level.
The development of GHS kicked off during
the UN Conference in Rio, driven by stakeholders such as the OECD (Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the ILO (International
Labor Organization).
While certainly a main goal was to harmonize
the hazard communication standards for chemicals on the user level, a
second goal was to iron out differences between hazard communication requirements
applicable to the transport of such chemicals and their use.
For the U.S., the final rule mandating full
GHS implementation into OSHA Standards was published on March 26, 2012.
Full adoption of GHS standards by June 1st, 2015, is required for manufacturers
and distributors of chemical products. Workers had to be trained before
December 1st, 2013.
For the European Community, the regulations
covering GHS implementation were published on December 31st, 2008, and
mandatory compliance for substance classification in accordance with GHS
requirements was December 1st, 2010; although a grace period was provided
for the classification of mixtures and solutions, which expires on June
1st, 2015.
 |
Something important to understand is that
GHS deals with the hazards arising from a substance’s use, which
is fundamentally different from hazards encountered in transportation.
While most of the world differentiates between Transport regulations covering
Dangerous Goods and OSHA regulations covering hazardous substances, in
the U.S. this differentiation is made using the term hazardous materials
and hazardous substances.
Many issues pertaining to hazard communication
by means of SDS (Safety Data Sheets) stem from misunderstandings of these
terms; with very few exceptions, a substance meeting the classification
criteria for a Dangerous Good will also be a hazardous substance, but
one may not conclude that a product covered by hazardous substance labeling
requirements is also a Dangerous Good.
While both the U.S. and the EC adoption
of the GHS saw distinct changes in the system of chemical’s classification,
which posed considerable challenges for all stakeholders in the supply
chain, currently 67 states have adopted the GHS system and more are to
follow.
The alignment of the GHS hazard communication
standards with symbols used in transport for decades should, at least
in theory, boost understanding of the particular hazards exhibited by
a product and its use. However, the differing hazards encountered during
transportation and during use of such products sometimes, in practice,
result in a non-consistent approach:
With GHS being a full-fledged international
standard, modal regulations now call for observance of GHS labels to aid
identification of potentially undeclared or misdeclared shipments of Dangerous
Goods, particularly in air transport; but while certain household products
may not be exactly healthy, unfit for ingestion, and thus bearing the
skull-and-crossbones pictogram symbol, the classification criteria applied
in transport have not necessarily been met.
Something of particular interest for the
U.S. market is the transition from the “MSDS” or “Material
Safety Data Sheet” to the uniform “SDS” or “Safety
Data Sheet” by means of the HCS 2012, covered by 29 CFR 1910.1200
and organized in 16 sections. One main benefit here is that this transition
should do away with the considerable differences between the former US-MSDS
and EC-SDS, easing the regulatory burden for manufacturers of chemicals
who offer their products in multiple international markets. For the time
being, however, compliance providers such as market-leader Labelmaster
are doing good business with conversions from the old US-MSDS format to
the GHS-SDS format.
One issue not directly related to GHS always
has been and still is the simple fact that a considerable percentage of
people using SDS have never been properly trained in how to read and understand
such a document. An SDS will usually list the ingredients of a product
and identify the hazards for any given ingredient—thus, a flashpoint
and boiling point in a range indicating a “flammable liquid”
in transport (in other words, making this liquid a Dangerous Good when
transported) refers to the flammability of the ingredient and not the
end-product as such. Also, articles do not require SDS of any kind (batteries,
fuel pumps, and other dangerous goods commonly incorporated into machinery
or apparatus come to mind). While an air-conditioning unit might be accompanied
by an SDS identifying, for example, a “UN 1028, Refrigerant gas
R12” this classification actually pertains to the refrigerant gas
contained in the air conditioning unit. The unit as such—the “article”,
in transport-speak—would be identified as “UN 2857, Refrigerating
machines” (although it would likely be exempt from the transport-related
requirements under applicable modal Dangerous Goods Regulations when containing
not more than 12 kg [26.5 lbs.] of a non-flammable, non-toxic refrigerant
gas).
In practice such issues are indeed causing
delays, unplanned expenses, and fruitless discussions, since not all articles
written in abundance about GHS and its correct application were suitable
to be understood by a broader audience, which does include the stakeholders.
A common misperception is that “anyone
repacking or redistributing a chemical in commerce may simply transfer
the (GHS and or DG transport) label and SDS information” as long
as the substance is not diluted, mixed, or otherwise altered. While that
is usually the case, notable exceptions do exist—and sometimes even
the competent authorities of different states have differing opinions,
not to the benefit of the manufacturer or distributor.
And while GHS is a global undertaking, nothing
in the UN’s GHS Handbook prevents nation states from imposing additional
requirements above and beyond GHS in regard to OSHA hazard communication
requirements. So while GHS is a huge step ahead and a most welcome lowering
of trade barriers, certain small differences stemming from national legislation
may be less obvious than before, but all the more important.
As for trade between Europe and North America,
the trade agreements TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
– EC/US) and CETA (Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement –
EC-Canada) should further facilitate the uniform application of such standards
and do away with most particular requirements of the nation states, as
these would—under these agreements—be considered the trade
barriers, which they are, as a matter of fact.
While the overall quality of SDS should
improve with full GHS implementation and while it should ease the ordeal
of comparing products in different markets, it must still be said that
using SDS as the sole source of assessing health risks associated with
the use of such products by employees or buyers in commerce or using the
SDS as a means of transport classification may still not be a good idea.
Something the old MSDS and the new SDS have
in common is that just one part is guaranteed to be legally binding: the
disclaimer at the end stipulating that “all information is based
on current knowledge and is intended to describe the product for the purposes
of health, safety, and environmental requirements only. It should not
therefore be construed as guaranteeing any specific property of the product.
Information in this SDS is from available published sources and is believed
to be accurate. No warranty, express or implied, is made and no liability
is assumed resulting from the use of this SDS. The user must determine
suitability of this information for his application.”
Jens
|
