Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said today that the protection workers receive from chemical hazards in the workplace is only as good as the information they are given on how to handle a hazardous situation.

Enzi's comments came at an Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee hearing he called to examine ways to improve worker safety regarding hazard communication and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). MSDSs are used by employers and employees to determine how to recognize and handle a hazardous substance in the workplace.

Enzi also called on the expertise of Jon Hanson, Director of Safety at the Wyoming Medical Center in Casper to testify on the issues surrounding hazard communication at the Center.

Enzi, the chairman of the subcommittee, said there have been some accidents involving hazardous chemicals that have called into question the accuracy of MSDSs. Enzi said this an important issue for workers nationwide and for many businesses in Wyoming which deal with hazardous chemicals.

"Everyday, hundreds of Wyoming workers go to work and are exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. Whether or not they return home safely at the end of the day depends on their awareness of these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures. I am concerned about the risks posed by inaccurate or incomplete MSDSs and called the hearing today to begin to look at how their accuracy, clarity and accessibility can be improved. Communication is the key to protecting the safety and health of our workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the communication," said Enzi.

Enzi's statement follows. 

Hazardous chemicals pervade the 21st Century workplace. An estimated 650,000 hazardous chemical products are used in over 3 million workplaces across the Country. Everyday, more than 30 million American workers will be exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. Whether or not they return home safely at the end of the day depends on their awareness of these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures. Communication is the key to protecting the safety and health of these 30 million workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the communication.

Twenty years ago, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted the Hazard Communication Standard. The stated purpose of the rule is to: "ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated, and the information concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers and employees." Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are the cornerstone of hazard communication. The chemical manufacturer or importer evaluates the chemical and provides employers with information about its hazards and protective measures on the Material Safety Data Sheet. The manufacturer also provides employers with warning labels on containers. The employer, in turn, provides the Material Safety Data Sheet, labels, and training to workers.

OSHA's rule provides a generic framework for hazard communication. It does not specify how chemical hazards are to be evaluated, what warnings are to be used, or the format for Material Safety Data Sheets. With over 650,000 chemicals in use, and tens of thousands of chemical manufactures, the content and format of Material Safety Data Sheets varies widely. At least three different parties are involved in hazard communication – the chemical manufacturer, the employer, and the worker. Safety and health professionals and first responders are also often involved. Each of these parties has a different perspective, different resources, and usually speaks a different language. Within OSHA's generic framework for hazard communication, clarity, consistency, and accuracy can get lost in translation.

The chemical manufacturer might prepare the Material Safety Data Sheet with an eye towards the courtroom or the laboratory, not the factory floor. The worker needs to quickly find and understand the Material Safety Data Sheet in the event of an emergency. If the Material Safety Data Sheet is stuffed in some thick binder gathering dust, the worker doesn't have time to shuffle through the pages of complex, technical jargon. Workers shouldn't need a Ph.D in biochemistry to know how to protect themselves against hazardous chemicals.

The complexity of Material Safety Data Sheets and hazard communication creates a particular problem for small businesses and their workers. With limited resources, many small businesses don't have the expertise to develop or interpret Material Safety Data Sheets. If you're the Human Resources manager, accountant, and safety director of a small business, you don't have the time or expertise to decipher a 30 page Material Safety Data Sheet. Small businesses want to promote the safety of their workers. They just need assistance doing so.

I can speak from personal experience about the problems Material Safety Data Sheets pose for small business. There are a number of reports that have also called into question the quality of Material Safety Data Sheets. A 1991 study commissioned by OSHA found that only 11% of Material Safety Data Sheets examined were entirely accurate. That same year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report that found that a substantial number (52%) of employers surveyed were not in compliance with OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. 55% of the employers who received Material Safety Data Sheets said they were too technical for the typical worker to understand. GAO recommended that OSHA address the problem of employers' and employees' inability to understand the Material Safety Data Sheets by clearly specifying the language and presentation of information.

More recently, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has investigated and issued reports on 19 chemical accidents that killed or injured workers since 1998. In 8 of the 19 cases investigated, the Board uncovered deficiencies in Material Safety Data Sheets. In a total of 9 cases, inadequate communication of hazards to workers or contractors was found to be a root or contributing cause of the accident. In some cases, the Board found that no Material Safety Data Sheets were even issued. In other cases, the Board found that the Material Safety Data Sheets were inaccurate or that language barriers prevented workers from understanding them.

Twenty years after the Hazard Communication Standard was published, it's time for review. It's time to heed the call of workers and employers alike for more clarity, consistency, accuracy, and guidance. Over the years, I've had the great fortune to work with Ron Hayes on improving the safety and health of American workers. Ron was not able to testify today, but he wrote me a letter I'd like to submit for the record. He writes that: " Other standards cover many issues for the workers, but the [Material Safety Data Sheet] paperwork is used millions of times each workday, and the accuracy of these sheets [are] of paramount importance for the complete protection of our most important resource our great American workers." In the twenty years since the Hazard Communication Standard was adopted, the American workplace has changed dramatically. Electronic or internet-based systems not envisioned in 1983 can significantly improve hazard communication. Furthermore, our workforce has become increasingly diverse. Effective hazard communication should reflect that fact that numerous languages may be spoken at a single worksite.

Our economy has also become increasingly global. The chemical industry is one of the United States' largest exporting sectors. The manner is which other countries regulate hazardous chemicals impacts American manufactures' ability to complete in the global marketplace. Inconsistent hazard communication requirements – both internationally and domestically – are a significant regulatory burden for chemical manufacturers. The preamble to OSHA's1983 Hazard Communication Standard included a commitment by the Agency to pursue international harmonization of such communication. In 2002, the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The Globally Harmonized System is designed to improve the quality of hazard communication by establishing standardized requirements for hazard evaluation, safety data sheets, and labels. Countries are now in the process of deciding whether to adopt the System.

The Globally Harmonized System has the potential to address significant concerns with current hazard communication. Whether the United States adopts it cannot be decided by OSHA alone. Other agencies involved in regulating hazardous chemicals must be involved. Key stakeholders in hazard communication – chemical manufactures, employers, workers, and safety and health experts – must also be involved. As the economy becomes increasingly global, and with worker safety at stake, this consideration cannot be delayed or made lightly.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Assistant Secretary John Henshaw and key stakeholders will discuss issues and recommendations regarding hazard communication in the 21st century workplace. Someday these Material Safety Data Sheets will be electronic for faster lookup and ease of answering questions, with the blackberry type devices doing all the calculations. The sheets will even be updated daily and wireless. Of course, tomorrow is already here thanks to a Wyoming company spelled P-E-A-C (pronounced "peak"). What we need now is simplicity and uniformity.

I'd like to read another statement from Ron Hayes, who could not be here today. He writes that: "Education and information is the key, please help me make the changes that will protect all of our workers all the time." I couldn't agree more that education and information is the key to workplace safety. Those of you who know Ron know about his determination and commitment to the safety and health of American workers. We must rise to the challenge he sets.