By keeping this requirement in place, OSHA squanders employer industrial hygiene (IH) and safety resources on an effort that has questionable practical value. The OSHA rationale for the requirement is counter to professional IH practice. OSHA should revisit this requirement, poll the regulated community, poll interested parties and seriously consider jettisoning the resource wasting accumulation of MSDS.

29 CFR 1910.1020 defines MSDS as an “employee exposure record” and hence must be retained for 30 years. This, in IH practice, is a nonsensical definition. A MSDS sheet at its best only characterizes the properties of toxicity and physical hazards. Exposure is related to dose and a MSDS is mute in this regard. Similarly, the absence of a MSDS does not mean a certain exposure did not occur.

From my experience and talking shop with other IH/safety professionals, I have the following impressions regarding the constant accumulation of MSDS:

• Involves IH/safety resources that could be better used in the field.
• A boring tedious job that can dampen morale. [Bravo to anyone who can do it with dedication.]
• Requests for past MSDS are rare.
• Accelerating employment turnover; the constant introduction and reformulation of chemical products; and the comings, changes in and demises of employers makes thinking there can be any reliable MSDS record on a national scale tied to past history a pipe dream.
• MSDS are not standardized and the quality is suspect (see Rekus, IH Insights, July 2008).
• Not aware that there has been any significant occupational injury or illness prevention arising out of this effort.
• All of the above infers accumulating MSDS, other than for legal reasons, nonproductive.

What is practical and worthy is expecting an employer to have a MSDS on-hand for every chemical product currently in use and readily available to knowledgeable employees. This is reasonable and inexpensive with the availability of commercial Internet MSDS services. OSHA inspectors can verify this, but the real value is the opportunity to enhance employee involvement in the exposure and safety practice assessment in the present, not some wishful dubious evaluation down the road.

David K. Ermer, CIH, QEP, CLSO, can be reached at Ermland@comcast.net.

Average rating:  

Past Comments:

07/08/2008

Very well written piece: describes the problem in a few, well chosen words. The only thing I could add is this: given that products are frequently reformulated, it becomes almost impossible to match a given exposure to a specific version of the product. The correlation to a specific version of MSDS becomes even more questionable.

07/08/2008

I agree 100 percent with this article. However, OSHA has not listened to the community before concerning this standard. Most MSDS's are not worth the paper used to print them.

07/08/2008

While I agree with most of what David said regarding the benefit of maintaining MSDSs for prolonged periods, the OSHA standard governing employee access to exposure and medical records does not require maintaining MSDSs for 30+ years. As long as some record of the identity of the substance and when/where it was used is kept, there is no requirement to maintain MSDSs for any specific period of time. As indicated in paragraph (d)(1)(2)(B) of 29CFR 1910.1020, "Material safety data sheets and paragraph (c)(5)(iv) records concerning the identity of a substance or agent need not be retained for any specified period as long as some record of the identity (chemical name if known) of the substance or agent, where it was used, and when it was used is retained for at least thirty (30) years."

07/08/2008

I am in 100% agreement. With companies selling and going out of business how does one manage? How can you actually be sure that if a person "says" they were exposed on your watch that they were exposed indeed? They may have had a short tenure, the other involved people are gone, dead or unable to be found; sheets after 30 years may have been saved and cannot be found. To have that as a priority and keep an employee to track that is unthinkable. Fix this rediculous standard. Heidi Brightly 25 year safety professional.

07/08/2008

Well stated. The MSDS, while noble in intent falls orders of magnitude short of its' intended purpose. The lack of authority by OSHA over the MSDS preparer results in the intentional failure to inform of hazards (most common "proprietary"). Similarly, the vague information on hazard control is useless ("adequate ventilation or appropriate personal protective equipment or appropriate respiratory protection"....). The Haz Com standard moved safety and health light years ahead of where it was. It simply did not take the intentional tendency of the manufacturer to tell as little as possible, to get the sale. Vic Feuerstein CIH

07/08/2008

This all sounds good, but like the standard to keep the MSDS for 30 years, this is of little use without an action plan.

07/08/2008

Touche!

07/08/2008

I agree whole-heartedly. Thanks.

07/08/2008

I concur and would like to know what can be done to execute the notion of asking OSHA to revisit this requirement?

07/08/2008

I am interested in how OSHA HCS will apply GHS.

07/08/2008

The statements made are all valid, especially the issue of standardization in format. The only remaining use for retention of 30 years past employment is litigation. An MSDS is one provable exhibit that an employer may use to show good faith, or, that the employee may use to show failure to train, based on the knowledge of the material at the time of use.

07/08/2008

I think this is a good practice, at this point we are not sure of the lasting/chronic effects of certain chemicals and at worst it is a fall back if I ever need any information. And yes it is tedious, but I have set a understanding with my purchasing agent that every time he buys something to request an msds sheet along with it and turn it over to me, and all I do is cross check it with what I have already and add or toss it depending on its worth. This makes the whole process easy and quick. There are many things about our profesion that are tedious and time consuming, but everything has its importance. I have had MSDS sheets save lives in my history and experience and would never over look their overall value. Remember its the small things that find their way back to causing issues and we should never over look a single one. We are the ones that are suppose to set examples for others if we treat issues like this as tedious and unworthy how are we to portray that to our employees?

07/08/2008

Mr. Ermer is incorrect in his interpretation of the record keeping requirement. Employers may CHOOSE to keep their MSDS as a record, which in many cases means only the work of putting them in a labled file folder or box--how much effort is that! But 1910.120 gives this option: "1910.1020(c)(5)(iv) In the absence of the above[retaining MSDS], a chemical inventory or any other record which reveals where and when used and the identity (e.g., chemical, common, or trade name) of a toxic substance or harmful physical agent." So all an employer has to do is keep a dated copy of his chemical inventory for 30 years--for most employers this is just a few sheets of paper at the front of their MSDS binder. Larger enterprises with more chemicals typically utilize computer databases, which obviously can easily be retained indefinitely at little expense of time or money. Mike Horowitz, Cal/OSHA Research and Standards Unit

07/08/2008

The 30 year after use rule does need to be dropped. I helped maintain the MSDS files at a previous employer (at only 1 of our locations) and the MSDS' filled 4-4 drawer cabinets that were ~4 feet in length. We had MSDS' from the time they came into existence and in some cases they were no more than Technical Data Sheets. The filing was tedious but interesting and had to be done at least once per week to keep the whole system running since we also maintained the most current MSDS' for materials currently in use.

07/09/2008

While OSHA may have had sound reasoning behind promalgating the HCS, it has created an unmanageable mess. The manufacturer is to pass the MSDS to the wholesaler who is to pass the MSDS on to the end user. Well this doesn't happen with great regularity on first purchase not to mention the distribution of revisions. If the MSDS is such an important tool to employers, employees and health care providers, why aren't affected manufacturers required to post new and revised MSDS on a national web site where anyone can access the information? My $0.02 worth.

SUBMIT A REVIEW

Rating :

Your Email Address (optional)

Comments (optional - 1000 characters maximum) :

Note: the email address is for internal use only. It is not posted or shared.