OSHA estimates that there are 945,000 different hazardous chemical products used in 7-million workplaces in the United States. United States manufacturers or importers of hazardous chemicals are responsible for obtaining or developing a material safety data sheet (MSDS) and for proper labeling of each chemical or chemical mixture in the American workplace.
OSHA estimates that there are 945,000 different hazardous chemical products used in 7-million workplaces in the United States. United States manufacturers or importers of hazardous chemicals are responsible for obtaining or developing a material safety data sheet (MSDS) and for proper labeling of each chemical or chemical mixture in the American workplace. This requirement resulted from the passage of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS or HazCom Standard) in 1983.
For the first time in many years, acceptable hazard communication in the United States has changed. OSHA’s recent modification to its longstanding Hazard Communication Standard will bring the US into conformance with the UN GHS. Changes in the HCS will force many workplaces to take a closer look at their hazard communication programs to ensure compliance with the new requirements. We will be doing a subsequent post on the new standard and implications for product manufacturers.
For the rest of this post, however, we focus on basic aspects of hazard communication that are influenced by monitoring the available science.
If an employee is harmed or alleges harm due to chemical exposure in the workplace, his sole remedy against his employer is typically worker’s compensation. On the other hand, he can pursue a toxic tort lawsuit against the manufacturer or importer of the chemical. The failure of a manufacturer or importer to properly communicate chemical hazards through appropriate labeling and an adequate MSDS is often the basis for these toxic tort cases. Since the advent of the hazard communication standard, failure to warn of hazards is a primary element in many legal actions.
What is the best way for a product manufacturer to ensure that he remains in compliance with the “HazCom Standard?”
We believe that there are three primary methods to best ensure compliance: (1) effective monitoring of the science related to the relevant products and exposures; (2) proper analysis of the science as it is identified; and (3) effective use of experts and consultants.
As we have discussed in a previous post, monitoring the science is critical for product manufacturers. In order to stay in compliance with the HAZCOM standard it is critical to maintain keen awareness of what is being published in the scientific literature. To do this properly, one must perform periodic and systematic searches on every chemical component associated with a chemical mixture, preferably as part of an overall science monitoring program.
Tools are now widely available to search the world’s most prominent biomedical literature with the most prominent resource being PubMed, an excellent resource to search the National Library of Medicine’s archives as well as up-to-date publications. Through systematic and recurring searches of the scientific literature using these tools, it is possible to stay abreast of information relevant to potential safety concerns related to chemical components of a product.
While the literature indexed in any one scientific literature database is extensive, it is not exhaustive. Some journals not indexed by PubMed may have data and information relevant to a safety assessment of individual chemical components of a product. In order to maintain thorough awareness of all information potentially relevant to chemical components of a product, it may be necessary to utilize other proprietary services such as various offerings by Thomson Reuters and the American Chemical Society (e.g., STN Easy).
In addition to searching the published scientific literature, it is also important to be aware of presentations at scientific meetings and societies as well as information published in books, dissertations, and grant applications. These sources can be searched using various internet databases. Finally, industry trade organizations often publish important guidance related to chemical safety on their web sites. The overall science monitoring plan should be well documented and adhered to in a systematic and periodic fashion. The program should include a written monitoring plan that documents the various resources that will be relied upon and how often they are monitored. Following this plan will help to ensure that scientific information relevant to a safety assessment of your product is not overlooked and therefore that the HazCom standard is fully complied with.
Scientific information outlined in the previous section pertaining to the safety of chemical components in a manufactured product (e.g., published literature, society presentations, books, dissertations, chemical research grants, and trade organization guidance) should be targeted, compiled and reviewed on a regular basis (e.g., monthly or quarterly). Once this has been done, it is essential to make sure that the findings from the targeted studies are carefully analyzed and interpreted.
Importantly, just because the authors of a given study conclude there is a human health risk doesn’t mean that the study represents a need to change current HazCom communications. Conversely, just because the authors of a study do not explicitly state a safety concern, doesn’t mean the absence of an event that may trigger the need to change current HazCom communications. At the end of the day, it is the reliability of the study findings (as determined by the study design and data) and the relationship of the findings to the hazard of the chemical that defines whether a HazCom “triggering” event has been identified by the study.
Information relevant to the HazCom standard can be found in the text of the article or in figures, tables, charts, or other types of graphical representations. The key to assessing whether there is information in the study relevant to changes in your hazard communication program lies in the details of the interpretation of the study, including the study design and other important factors.
The design of the study is critical to whether or not it should be interpreted as identifying a hazard with respect to a product or exposure. For example, uncorroborated case reports and in vitro studies such as Ames tests are not definitive findings of human health hazard (nevertheless, these studies must go into an overall consideration of hazard as set forth by Appendix B #2 in the Standard). Cross sectional study designs (e.g., a study set in a single manufacturing plant that uses historical controls) are more reliable than case reports, but even this study design is generally not reliable evidence for a causal relationship between a chemical constituent and an adverse health outcome. Even more controlled, observational study designs – such as case control or retrospective cohort studies – can be poorly designed (i.e., subject to confounding or bias) and therefore not indicative of a reliable causal association between a chemical exposure and a safety concern.
In addition to study design, there are a number of other factors that are important to assess before making a determination that a safety endpoint is a reliable source of concern. The following specific factors should be carefully evaluated.
As can be seen from the previous section, the analysis and interpretation of scientific data are complex and nuanced. Therefore, it is necessary to have the information reviewed and assessed to provide a reliable interpretation of the study, to determine the implications of the findings, whether they are relevant to a change in hazard communications, and whether there is any need for follow up. In order for this to be done most effectively, the data must be carefully assessed by scientists who are also knowledgeable about the specific nature of the factors assessed as well as litigation risks and data interpretation.
In general, it is less important to have specific subject matter experts and more important to have professionals who understand the regulatory landscape as well as the exposure characteristics and the toxicokinetics of chemical exposures. Good examples of effective consultants include occupational physicians, certified industrial hygienists, and occupational toxicologists. These types of professionals understand the nuance of different types of occupational study data as well as the complexities of analyzing human health data for regulatory compliance, including the HazCom standard.
Once your expert has had a chance to carefully review the scientific data relevant to an assessment of chemical hazards, he or she must provide written documentation of his or her conclusions. You may wish to have initial discussions about the implications of a given study verbally so that you can understand your experts’ viewpoint and his or her conclusions about the implications of the findings. Once you have a clear understanding, it is important to have your expert memorialize his or her conclusions in a written document for the product’s file. This document should demonstrate an adherence to a systematic methodology outlined in the written science monitoring plan in the evaluation of the chemical or product. This will help to provide a basis for the scientifically defensible evaluation by the expert and will also help to demonstrate that your company is providing responsible product stewardship.
Did you like this post? We are here to help! Schedule a consult with one of our experts.
Just fill out the form bellow and we will contact you with more information.
On Wednesday July 8, 2020, Dr. David Schwartz of Innovative Science Solutions presented at the IADC 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting on a panel titled The Use of Genetic Testing in the Courtroom. A complimentary copy of the panel presentation is now available for download. Read more
Dr. David Schwartz of Innovative Science Solutions will be presenting at the IADC 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting on a panel titled The Use of Genetic Testing in the Courtroom. Read more
Plaintiff experts having been asserting for decades that all mesotheliomas must be linked to some asbestos exposure. Indeed, this has led to the erroneous (but widespread) view that mesothelioma is a signature disease, only caused by asbestos exposure. Read more
The journey to scientific and commercial success is often complex and always critical, if you are looking for an expert partner to help steer you to confident solutions, contact us todayContact us