DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

Employers are supposed to keep outdated MSDSs in a dead file for 30 years so if an employee later develops a chronic illness, there will be a record of what he/she was working with years ago. Monona

===
From: Bruce Van Scoy
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] MSDS for obsolete chemical
Date: January 24, 2012 9:01:53 PM EST

Dr. Langerman,
The conclusion may have been reached by recognizing that OSHA states that (1) MSDSs must include the exposure information; (2) MSDSs are part of the medical record; and (3) medical records are required to be maintained for duration of employment plus 30 years. Please see the links/citations below.

(1) 1910.1200(g)(2)(i)(C)(2) The chemical and common name(s) of all ingredients which have been determined to be health hazards, and which comprise less than 1% (0.1% for carcinogens) of the mixture, if there is evidence that the ingredient(s) could be released from the mixture in concentrations which would exceed an established OSHA permissible exposure limit or ACGIH Threshold Limit Value, or could present a health risk to employees; and,

(2) 1910.1020(c)(5)(iii) Material safety data sheets indicating that the material may pose a hazard to human health; or
1910.1020(c)(5)(iv) In the absence of the above, 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.

(3) 1910.1020(d)(1) Unless a specific occupational safety and health standard provides a different period of time, each employer shall assure the preservation and retention of records as follows: 1910.1020(d)(1)(i) "Employee medical records." The medical record for each employee shall be preserved and maintained for at least the duration of employment plus thirty (30) years, except that the following types of records need not be retained for any specified period:

I may be wrong. Otherwise, I would suggest the context of technology and accuracy of any older MSDS be considered. If you review the preamble to the OSHA HazCom standard, they hit it dead-on by simply requiring if the hazard(s) are known, they must be included on the MSDS. Compared to the proposed adoption of GHS which minimizes the knowledge shown/known into simple summary phrases leaving no acknowledgement of the extent of toxicology testing performed, accuracy of the analytical methods used, etc. Thirty years ago, we won if we had a validated method with an accuracy of a mg/m3 with a precision of +/- 30% (see the earliest IH methods, e.g., formaldehyde). But, now we can quantify to the ppt level with a very high level of precision, so we are no longer comparing apples to apples! For example I would rather take a current 12-page formaldehyde MSDS listing 8-pages of toxicology testing compared to a 4-page GHS compliant MSDS to compare/analyze potential employee exposu!
res, target organs, etc. Regulators may be misinterpreting the original intent of MSDSs, which were to provide accurate information to everyone, employee's, EHS professionals, physicians, etc., but each within the context of their respective professions. The original intent was to provide employees with the information they needed to know, what we needed as EHS professionals to evaluate potential exposures vs. the physician with the information they needed to react to an overexposure.

Now we are simply going to dumb them down (MSDSs to SDSs), to simple risk phrases that will provide employees with pictograms, but leave us and physicians in the dark. I suspect that in the future you'll just see "control bands" instead of PELs, TLVs, RELs, MAKs, who needs an OEL? But employees will have a pictogram!

The "original" MSDSs included disposal information, I remember it was common to see RCRA disposal codes for chemicals that were a listed waste for both neat/mixed materials, physical/chemical properties, etc. to properly classify for disposal, etc.

But that was before lawyers got involved, then it became "dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local regulations" with NO specifics!

Wasn't the original HazCom passed in 1994? It's only taken us <20 years to progress to only simple risk phrases based upon a 6th grade education instead of including what is known. I may be wrong, but maybe by 2030 we'll be reduced to a simple wallet card for every chemical… with one side saying don't use, inhale, drink, put on skin or inject, or place in lap… But the back of the card will be 1/1,600 font fine print legal ease. Now that can easily be understood by everyone. Sorry about being so skeptical/realistic instead of optimistic…But, it has been a very long day!
BruceV

===
From: Russ Phifer
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] MSDS for obsolete chemical
Date: January 24, 2012 9:20:44 PM EST

Neal – you aren't missing anything here. There is no requirement to maintain or provide an MSDS for a product that was discontinued 30 years ago. However, a prudent employer might keep them anyway to document possible exposures or for CERCLA liability purposes. OSHA certainly has no such requirement.

Russ

Russ Phifer
WC Environmental, LLC
1085C Andrew Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
610-696-9220x12/ fax 610-344-7519
Cell - 610-322-0657
rphifer**At_Symbol_Here**wcenvironmental.com