                     US Interagency GHS Coordinating Group
                                Public Meeting
                         200 Constitution Avenue, NW 
                                Room C5521, # 4
                             Washington, DC 20210 
                                       
                               November 30, 2010
                             Summary of Discussion

Maureen Ruskin called the meeting to order at 1:04 pm and read an opening statement (attached)
API provided written comments for the panel (attached)

Opening Statement
1. Updating of the third revised edition of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
	 (a)	Physical hazards
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9 (Germany)
Classification of chemically unstable gases and gas mixtures
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/10 (Germany)
Determination of chemical instability of gases
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/16 (United States of America)
Proposal to address simple asphyxiants in the GHS
   CLASSIFICATION OF CHEMICALLY UNSTABLE GASES AND GAS MIXTURES ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/69-ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9 
   The working paper provides a proposal to update GHS Chapter 2.2 Flammable Gases to include classification criteria and hazard communication label elements for two Chemically Unstable Gas Categories.  The proposal incorporates editorial revisions, such as modifying the name of Chapter 2.2 to "Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases)", to the proposal submitted in informal document UN/SCEGHS/19/INF.25 & UN/SCETDG/37/INF.62 during the 19[th] session.  It also proposes assignment of precautionary statement P202 "Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood" to gases classified into either category of chemically unstable gases.
   * In response to a stakeholder's question, Maureen Ruskin stated that there is no guarantee that a working paper will be adopted into the GHS.  
   * Michelle Sullivan asked whether the changes adopted during this session affect OSHA's proposal to adopt GHS in the US. 
   * Ed Baird replied that OSHA's final rule on the revisions to its Hazard Communication Standard is constrained by the notice of proposed rulemaking and the record developed in the rulemaking proceedings.  OSHA intends to deal with any new changes adopted at the upcoming meeting, if necessary, through additional rulemaking. . 
   * Mike Wright supported including as classification. 
   Determination of chemical instability of gases, 
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/70-ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/10 
   Working paper 10 contains the proposal for a method to determine whether a gas is chemically unstable using the classification criteria proposed in working document ST/SC/AC.10/C.3/2010/69-ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9 at the 19[th] session of the GHS sub-committee.  The TDG sub-committee has previously approved that this method be incorporated into the Manual of Test and Criteria.
   * Michelle Sullivan inquired as to what effect these informal papers would have on the GHS. 
   * Maureen Ruskin stated that the Agency was concerned that this proposal would create a moving target. She informed stakeholders that US was currently was waiting for an update from Transport, and was in the process of developing a position. 
   * Maureen Ruskin confirmed that Transport had already adopted the test method, which had the potential of being adopted in the Orange Book. 
   * Mike Wright supported the informal paper in principle, and argued that the more information provided to suppliers and users the better. 
   Proposal to address simple asphyxiants in the GHS
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/16 (U.S.)
   This paper provides a proposal to address simple asphyxiants in Chapter 2.5, Gases Under Pressure, of the GHS and was developed in consultation with the Practical Classifications Issues (PCI) correspondence group as part of its program of work for this biennium.  It incorporates comments from the perspectives of various participants (i.e., competent authorities and industry).  The criteria and hazard communication elements are being proposed as a building block option. 

   * Robert Keifer suggesting adding the caveat "in confined or enclosed spaces." 
   * Mike Wright supported the paper, but stated that he was wary that the term "enclosed spaces," was too limiting because people can asphyxiate in spaces that do not qualify as an "enclosed space." He indicated that the term "enclosed spaces" is a misnomer, because as long as a gas can be confined and is heavier than air, it can displace oxygen. He supported the use of hazard warning, "displaces oxygen." 
   * API supported the proposal as currently written
   * Several stakeholders questioned the use of the word "data." A suggestion was made to replacing the word "data" with "any information" or "appropriate information." 
           (b)	 Health hazards
The Sub-Committee will be informed about the progress of the work of the informal correspondence groups dealing with matters related to health hazards.
	(c)	Environmental hazards
At the time of writing no document has been submitted under this agenda item.
	           (d)	Annexes
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/12 (United Kingdom)
Revision of annexes 1, 2 and 3 of the GHS: Precautionary statements

   Working Paper 12 - Revision of Annexes 1, 2, and 3 of the GHS - Precautionary Statements 
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/12
   The working paper proposes a set of amendments to rationalize and in some cases to provide further clarification on the use of existing precautionary statements.  The accompanying informal paper provides support to the working paper by providing full justifications of the changes, example substances that trigger precautionary statements, and excerpts from Annex 3 of the GHS.
   
   * Mike Wright stated that he supported the proposal, with the caveat that he believed removing Precautionary Statement 223 would be a mistake. However, he indicated that if the information was already on the label he could the support change.
   * Robert Keifer stated that he supported the flexibility of using precautionary statements as guidance.  

          (e)	Miscellaneous proposals
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/6
(Secretariat)
Draft amendments to the GHS adopted in principle by the Sub-Committee at its nineteenth session

   Draft amendments to the 3[rd] revised edition of the GHS adopted in principle by the Sub-committee at its 19[th] session - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/6 

   * Michelle Sullivan pointed out a typo in 3.1.2 Acute Toxicity
   * Maureen Ruskin stated that the correction has been approved and will be corrected through a working paper. 
2. Hazard communication issues
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/13
(United Kingdom/FEA)
Hazard communication for supply and use of aerosols
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/14 (RPMASA)
Proposal for revision of P410 for gases in transportable gas cylinders under pressure
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/18 (EIGA)
Hazard communication for gases under pressure: proposal resulting from ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/19 (Australia)
Information relating to nanomaterials for inclusion on the guidance on the preparation of Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
   HAZARD COMMUNICATION FOR SUPPLY AND USE OF AEROSOLS 
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/86 & ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/13  
   The working paper amends the UK/FEA proposals made during the 19[th] session of the GHS sub-committee.  
   
   * Laura Madden, CPSA strongly supported this paper.
   * ACI supported the working paper. 
   * In response to a question from Robert Keifer, Maureen Ruskin stated that the US has supported the proposal.
   * In response to a question from Michele Sullivan, Ed Baird stated that this proposal, if adopted by the subcommittee, would not be included in the final rule for the current GHS rulemaking.
   Proposal for revision of precautionary statement P410 for gases in transportable gas cylinders under pressure 
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/14 
   This paper proposes updating the Conditions for use (5) column of Table A2.2.4 (GHS Annex 3, Section 2) to include the following text for Precautionary Statement P410 Protect from sunlight: "- may be omitted for gases filled in transportable gas cylinders in accordance with packing instruction P200 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations, unless those gases are subject to (slow) decomposition or polymerisation, or the competent authority provides otherwise".
   
   * No comments. 
   Hazard communication for gases under pressure: proposal resulting from ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9 
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/18 
   This paper proposes modifying the hazard statement H280 "Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated" which is used for the categories Compressed Gas, Liquefied Gas and Dissolved Gas under the hazard class Gases Under Pressure.  The proposed hazard statement is "Contains gas under pressure may burst if heated".  The rationale provided for this proposal is to keep the terminology similar to the new hazard statement H229 "May burst if heated" which is being proposed for the labeling of aerosols in Chapter 2.3.  While the paper asserts a link between European Industrial Gases Association's (EIGA's) proposal and Working Paper 9 on chemically unstable gases, in fact, the proposal would simply change (weaken) the hazard statement for all gases under pressure to be consistent with the statement proposed by the UK and FEA for aerosols in Working Paper 13.
   
   * No comments 
   Information relating to nanomaterials for inclusion on the guidance on the preparation of Safety Data Sheets (SDS) 
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/19 
   This paper provides further updates to the work that Australia has undertaken since the 18[th] session when they proposed including additional physicochemical information in section A4.3.9.3 of Annex 4 of the GHS.  Australia notes the work of multiple organizations working to address engineered nanomaterials and specifically notes the progress of the ISO TC229 Working Group 3 project.  This paper also informs the GHS sub-committee of Australia's proposed content for the Australian SDS Code of Practice, which will specifically address the information provided for nanomaterials on an SDS.   This paper specifically asks the sub-committee to note progress made in relation to characterization and test methods for physiochemical properties of engineered nanomaterials and the Australian precautionary approach to the SDS.
   
   * Maureen Ruskin confirmed that this paper was an update rather than a proposal. 
   * Mike Wright supported the inclusion of nanomaterials, and inquired as to whether it would fit under 3A, implementation issues. 
   * Maureen Ruskin responded that implementation issues are for practical matters, and are not geared toward bringing in new classifications
   * NIOSH and several stakeholders asserted that some provision should be made for nanomaterials and carbon nanotubes. Stakeholders also inquired as to the whether the OCED would support the adoption of nanomaterials.  
   * Mary Frances Lowe stated that GHS is based on existing systems. She added that because nanotechnology a very technical emerging issue, a foundation would need to be created before it can be adopted. She concluded by stating that if significant progress was made on this issue, the Subcommittee would not be opposed to picking it up.
   * API said it would support further work on this issue.
   * Rick Niemier stated that nanomaterials have been included in REACH, and there is a REL for titanium dioxide. 
3. Implementation of the GHS
          (a)	Implementation issues
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/7
(AISE, SDA, IPPIC, CEFIC)
Proposal to address potential issues associated with the adoption of "corrosive to metals" for supply/use situations
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/15 (United States of America)
Proposals to address issues from the programme of work for the practical classification issues correspondence group 
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/20 (Australia)
Proposals from the informal working group on GHS implementation issues: Global list of GHS classified chemicals

Proposal to address potential issues associated with the adoption of "Corrosive to metals" for supply/use situations 
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/7 
The working paper modifies the original proposal, submitted by the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE) as an information paper (UN/SCEGHS/19/INF.31) at the 19[th] session, proposing that competent authorities be able to implement an exemption for applying the corrosive to metals label elements, for the supply/use sector, when Substances and Mixtures classified as corrosive to metals but are not corrosive to skin and/or eyes.  The current proposal still seeks to limit the exemption for substance and mixtures that are in the finished state, intended for the final user.  However, this proposal now applies to all sizes of containers since the condition "and the contents of the immediate container do not exceed 5 liter/5 kg" has been removed from the proposal."  In those cases where the exemption to the corrosive to metals label elements is applied the information for the classification "corrosive to metals" would still be included in the SDS 

         *       American Cleaning Institute indicated this is a way to avoid labeling that has no meaning or relevancy, and to provide flexibility to the competent authority. For example small bottles of industrial and consumer products, would not pose a corrosive to metal risk.
   * Mike Wright, in response to the proposal, stated that routine use could make a danger significant, whereas one time use would not. 
   * Dan Levine raised the point that consumers do transfer containers. 
   * Mike Wright stated numerous fires and releases in the oil refining sector were due to metal corrosion. 
   * ACI stated that even after decades of experience, metal corrosion has yet to pose an issue for consumer products. 
   * Mike Wright suggested that a separate pictogram should be developed for corrosive to people. 
   * Another stakeholder inquired as to whether there were exceptions for small containers.
   * Mary Francis Lowe stated that while there were no exceptions, but if the hazard doesn't exist then it does not have to be included. 
   * Paul Brigandi added that working groups were currently determining how to address warnings on small labels. 

   Comments on Annex 3 to ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/15 
   This paper discusses and comments on the worked aquatic environment examples provided in Working Paper #15.  The annex to the paper provides suggested changes to the working paper.  The paper proposes accepting the changes now or waiting until the UNITAR training document is proposed and including the changes in the training document.
   
   * API supported the paper, except the change of 1.3 on page three, because the modification would change how you classify mixtures. 
   * Deana Holmes stated that the purpose of the modification ensure that the chapters correspond, and it would not change the criteria for classifying mixtures. 
   * Paul Brigandi added that it was not the intention of the Subcommittee to reopen the issue. He stated that the modification was geared toward making the text and overview consistent. No additional work was being proposed. 
   * Michelle Sullivan asked OSHA to note and keep an eye on the issue. 
   Proposals from the informal working group on GHS implementation issues: Global list of GHS classified chemicals
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/20 
   The working paper provides a summary of responses (see INF.5 for consolidated list of all responses) to the survey to capture factual information on the development and maintenance of a list of GHS classified chemicals currently in existence or planned, and to elicit views on the benefit and practical issues that would be posed by development of a future single global list.  This paper highlights common themes and issues related to the development of a global list.  The paper proposes that the GHS sub-committee consider formation of a small informal working group to study in detail the issues raised by respondents and prepare a discussion paper for consideration by the GHS sub-committee in December 2011.  It then proposes Terms of Reference for the small informal working group.

   * Maureen Ruskin stated that OSHA was still in discussions regarding this issue.
   * API questioned whether the Subcommittee should even undertake the development of a list. 
   * Mary Frances Lowe argued that a global list would be helpful for developing countries, and suggested it would be beneficial to create a master list rather than have numerous conflicting lists. 
   * ACC suggested developing an e-portal that everyone could use.
   * Mike Wright supported the proposal.
   * API supported proposal, and stated that before a list could be developed, criteria would need to be established, including: a global, rigorous process; defined criteria; and a conflict resolution mechanism. 
   * Michelle Sullivan suggested hazardous chemicals should be harmonized by sector. 
   * Mike Wright stated that a global list should be voluntary as one of the objectives of GHS is self classification.
           (b)	Reports on the status of implementation
Experts, observers and organizations may wish to inform the Sub-Committee about progress in the GHS implementation in their respective countries or areas of work.
	    (c)	Cooperation with other bodies or international organizations
At the time of writing no document has been submitted under this agenda item.
	          (d)	Miscellaneous
At the time of writing no document has been submitted under this agenda
   4. Programme of work for the biennium 2011 - 2012
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/8 (United States of America)
Proposed terms of reference for the dust explosion hazards correspondence group
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/11 (Netherlands)
Alignment with GHS, corrosivity criteria in Chapter 2.8
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/17 (Secretariat)
Draft terms of reference for the work on corrosivity criteria
The Sub-Committee may wish to consider any other proposal for inclusion in its programme of work for the biennium 2011 - 2012.
   Proposed terms of reference for the dust explosion hazards correspondence group for the next biennium
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/8 
   This paper provided an update of the activities of the correspondence group to date and proposes continuation of the work into the next biennium.
   
   * Michelle Sullivan inquired as to whether combustible dust issues from the US are being considered in Europe.
   * OSHA representatives responded that some countries already have systems in place, and that the Subcommittee is currently considering the proper steps to move forward with this issue.
   Comments on ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/17 -  ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/85 and on the proposal in ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/10  
   This paper expresses concerns about the Netherlands' proposal to amend chapter 2.8 to implement GHS alternative methods for skin corrosion in a new2.8.3 and about a correspondence group for work on corrosivity criteria.  The paper proposes alternative amendments to the Model Regulations and the GHS.

   * Michelle Sullivan found the paper to be unclear.  
   * API also stated that this paper is poorly written, and that the US should request clarification. 
   * Maureen Ruskin also agreed that clarification was needed on this paper. 
      Informal Papers and Closing Remarks 
   * Mike Wright asked that surveys which impact worker organizations, should send be sent to a wider selection of groups. 
   * Paul Brigandi explained that there may be criteria regarding whom the Subcommittee can send a survey to, and suggested that groups wishing to participate in surveys should obtain observer status.  
   * Derek Swick, API supported holding stakeholder meetings prior to each Subcommittee meetings. He also stated that he found the process helpful, and thought that it encouraged a candid conversation regarding the work being done by the Subcommittee. 
   * Mike Wright & Robert Keifer also supported holding stakeholder meetings prior to Subcommittee meetings. 


Attachments:

(1) Agenda
(2) Opening Statement
(3) API written comments

