National
Administrative Offices
  
Secretariat
 |
|
Workshop Report
Mexico City, Mexico
August 26, 2003
The third meeting of the Trinational Occupational Safety and Health Working government experts Group was held on August 25th and 26th in Mexico City, Mexico. The Working Group, formed under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (a supplement to the North American Free Trade Agreement), was established to foster technical cooperation between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on occupational safety and health issues. Four Subgroups have been formed under the Working Group.
The meeting consisted of an opening plenary session on the 25th, followed by a meeting of the Subgroup, with a second plenary session held after the Subgroup meeting. A chemical hazard communication workshop was held on the 26th.
Representatives to the Subgroup included Kim Headrick and Len Hong (Canada), Jennifer Silk (United States), and Armando Alejandre, Mónica Mora, Jesus Zepeda, and Victor Pedro (Mexico). A number of other government representatives of STPS attended the Subgroup meeting and participated in the workshop.
The Working Group convened in plenary session on the morning of August 25th. After welcoming remarks and opening statements by the heads of delegations, each of the subgroups presented a report on the progress of its work. As previously agreed by the HHS Subgroup, Canada was serving as Subgroup facilitator for a six-month period. Kim Headrick and Len Hong (Canada) reported on behalf of the HHS Subgroup.
Ms. Headrick and Mr. Hong indicated that the Subgroup was continuing to work to support coordination of chemical hazard communication requirements through the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Activities in this regard include:
- Indicating support for the GHS by Mexico joining the U.S. and Canada on the U.N. Subcommittee of Experts on the GHS
- Preparing comparisons between the current requirements in each country and the provisions of the GHS;
- Sharing the guide to the GHS currently being developed by the U.S.;
- Sharing information regarding national implementation plans and coordinating implementation dates;
- Considering joint participation in the November 2003 meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety; and
- Considering a joint presentation at the World Congress on Safety and Health.
In addition to the GHS-related activities, the Subgroup is also exploring ways to share information regarding non-GHS issues.
Following the opening plenary session, the Subgroup met for discussion of HHS issues. Kim Headrick served as discussion facilitator. After introductions, the agenda developed by the Subgroup prior to the meeting was adopted. A summary of the discussion of the agenda items is as follows:
Labor and Industry Involvement
This item was discussed briefly by the Subgroup. It was agreed that the issue of labor and industry involvement applies to the entire Workgroup, not only to the HHS Subgroup.
The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
Indicate support internationally by applying for the membership in the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized Systems (GHS). The US and Canada are members.
Mexico indicated that several ministries would be involved in the regulatory changes necessary to conform with the GHS. Progress was reported in identifying individuals to work with at the affected ministries, but no decision has been made at this point regarding who will lead the process. A decision regarding participation in the UN Subcommittee will be made after this has been determined.
The U.S. and Canada indicated that each country had experienced difficulties at the inception of work on the GHS. Both countries indicated that they had formed committees drawing members from a number of agencies/departments in order to coordinate work on the GHS. Industry and labor representatives were also heavily involved in the process.
In response to questioning, Canada and Mexico indicated that in each country responsibility for regulation of chemical hazard communication is shared between the federal government and the provinces/states.
The possible Mexican participation in the U.N. Subcommittee of Experts was said to be beneficial to both the U.S. and Canada, as representation of all members would increase the influence of the NAFTA countries on Subcommittee affairs.
Prepare Comparisons Between the Current Requirements in Each Country and the Provisions of the GHS
Canada is in the process of conducting a situational analysis comparing present chemical hazard communication requirements with the GHS. This process is expected to be completed in a matter of weeks.
In the U.S., regulations of four government agencies would need to be revised to conform with the GHS. OSHA has completed a comparison of its Hazard Communication Standard with the GHS. EPA has commenced a comparison of its requirements for pesticides with the GHS. DOT does not consider a comparison necessary, as few changes are anticipated to the DOT requirements, which are already internationally harmonized. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is expected to discuss CPSC efforts in this area during the fall.
Mexico has established a group including representatives from several ministries to examine current chemical hazard communication requirements in relation to the GHS. Important progress was reported, however the group has been hindered by the lack of a Spanish translation of the GHS.
The availability of technical experts able to review the Spanish translation of the GHS was mentioned as a means of expediting delivery of that document.
Lack of harmonization between sectors within countries was suggested as a possible point for future discussion.
Share the Guide to the GHS Currently Being Developed by the U.S.
The U.S. currently has a contractor developing a guide to the GHS. It is not yet ready to share with other Subgroup members. The guide will serve as a tool to educate stakeholders about the GHS.
Share Information Regarding National Implementation Plans and Coordinate Implementation Dates
Coordination of national approaches to implementation is regarded as an important issue for stakeholders. Although the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum established a goal of having the GHS adopted by as many countries as possible by 2006, the goal of 2008 set by the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development is regarded as a more realistic timetable by the U.S. and Canada. The cost of preparing revised labels and safety data sheets would be reduced if a longer phase-in period is provided. The review of pesticide information would also be less difficult for the EPA if more time is allowed for this task.
Mexico considers that progress with harmonization in Canada and the U.S. makes management of the issue easier. Mexico believes that the correct path is being followed and will continue with the group that has been established.
The E.U. has reportedly compared its existing requirements with those of the GHS, and has indicated that the GHS will be part of the first phase of changes that are anticipated to European chemicals legislation. Implementation will be discussed at a conference to be held in October.
Subgroup members agreed to share a discussion on possible implementation plans. Although it was considered premature to establish implementation dates, members will focus on 2008 as a goal for implementation.
Consider Joint Participation in the November 2003 Meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS)
Canada indicated that the IFCS meeting in Bangkok in November will address many challenges to implementation of the GHS. Included will be a panel discussion, with presentations by a developed and a developing country implementing the GHS, perspectives from industry and labor, and a brief statement from countries not on the panel, such as the U.S. and Canada, and perhaps a report from the NAFTA Subgroup if all agree.
Mexico indicated a desire to learn more about the meeting. A very brief history of the International Labor Organization's (ILO) involvement in harmonization was presented by Canada. ILO is involved in managing the commitments of the IFCS.
Consider a Joint Presentation at the World Congress on Safety and Health
At the previous meeting of the Subgroup, the U.S. agreed to draft an abstract for submission to the World Congress on Safety and Health to be held in Orlando in 2005. A draft abstract, limited to 300 words on the topic “international cooperation,” was provided to Subgroup members prior to the meeting. The abstract, to be submitted on behalf of the NAFTA partners, would serve as the basis for a two to three hour presentation and discussion. Information regarding the experiences of a number of countries with harmonization is anticipated. Mexico indicated that considerable progress on implementation should occur prior to the meeting, and that participation will be very beneficial.
Subgroup members agreed to proceed along the lines of the draft abstract. Comments on the draft should be submitted to Jennifer Silk by the end of September.
Other Subgroup Topics
Considerable discussion took place regarding appropriate non-GHS topics to be addressed by the Subgroup. Canada expressed an interest in placing substantial emphasis on identifying best practices for protecting workers and making that information available to employers and employees through outreach and other compliance assistance measures. The U.S. suggested that appropriate topics should focus on chemical handling in the workplace, should not overlap GHS-related activities, and should avoid commitments that the Subgroup may not be capable of fulfilling.
Control banding was discussed as a means of assisting small- and medium-sized businesses to identify appropriate control measures. A workshop on control banding was recently held in the U.K., and another workshop is scheduled in the U.S. in 2004. Both Mexico and Canada expressed an interest in learning more about the subject, and the U.S. agreed to share the information it had available on the subject.
The Subgroup also agreed to further discuss and consider opportunities for disseminating information regarding best practices for protecting workers, and to consider the needs of employers and employees for compliance assistance information.
Next Steps
The U.S. agreed to assume the role of Subgroup facilitator for the next six months.
Report to Plenary
The Subgroup agreed to the report the following items to the plenary:
- NAFTA countries will continue to consider implementation of the GHS;
- NAFTA countries will work towards harmonization between key sectors (pesticides, consumer products, transport, workplace) within each country;
- NAFTA countries will work towards coordinating national implementation plans for harmonization between countries to the extent possible;
- NAFTA countries will submit an abstract for the 2005 World Congress on Safety and Health;
- Canada will provide Mexico with additional information on the IFCS meeting to be held in November of 2003;
- A chemical hazard communication workshop will be held on August 26, 2003 to exchange information regarding current practices and needs in NAFTA countries, and to discuss the GHS and its implementation;
- Information on control banding will be provided by the U.S. to Canada and Mexico;
- The Subgroup will continue discussion of means of disseminating information on best practices for achieving compliance; and
- The Subgroup will consider issues raised in the August 26, 2003 workshop in assessing the needs of employers and employees for compliance assistance information.
Second Plenary Session
The plenary reconvened after the Subgroup sessions. Kim Headrick and Len Hong reported for the HHS Subgroup, discussing each of the agreed upon points. Each of the other subgroups also reported points of agreement. After closing remarks, the Working Group ended the meeting.
Chemical Hazard Communication Workshop
Armando Alejandre opened the workshop and welcomed participants.
Overview of Chemical Hazard Communication in Mexico
Ministry representatives presented information regarding hazard communication requirements in Mexico. Separate regulations addressing labor, transport, the environment, and sanitation were discussed.
Jesus Zepeda discussed the labor regulations. In addition to specific regulations addressing such topics as personal protective equipment and procedures for handling, transport, and storage of hazardous chemicals, Mexico has general hazard communication requirements in the workplace similar to those found in the U.S. and Canada. Mexico recognizes the Hazardous Materials Identification System and the National Fire Protection Association diamond for identifying the hazards associated with chemicals. Mexican regulations also specify a 12-section safety data sheet.
Mexican transport regulations were discussed by Irma Flores. The transport regulations were revised approximately 13 years ago to conform with U.N. recommendations. This exercise provided some experience with harmonization, and later discussion revealed that the experience has been positive, providing great benefits to the country.
Rocio Sarmiento discussed risk communication and emergency response activities undertaken by the Mexican Government. These activities are designed to prepare for chemical emergencies by providing information to the public, devising emergency response plans, and conducting drills.
A number of sanitation regulations in Mexico also serve to communicate information to users regarding chemical hazards. Examples given included regulations addressing requirements for labelling of paintings, inks, varnishes, lacquers, and enamels, as well as regulations for labelling of pesticides for domestic use.
Remarks by the Heads of Delegations
During the session, the heads of delegations briefly addressed the Subgroup. Alberto Aguilar, Gerry Blanchard, and John Henshaw complemented the Subgroup on its work and encouraged continuing Subgroup efforts.
The Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
Kim Headrick and Jennifer Silk presented information on the GHS. The GHS represents a common approach to defining and classifying hazards. Countries have developed differing requirements for classification, labeling, and provision of safety data sheets. These differences adversely impact both worker protection and trade. Harmonization is anticipated to enhance protection of workers and the environment, facilitate trade, reduce the need for testing, and assist in the sound management of chemicals. Development of the GHS was based on the principles that protections would not be reduced, all chemicals would be covered based on their hazards, and all existing systems would have to be changed.
The GHS is the product of a consensus process initiated in 1992, when the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted a mandate to develop a globally harmonized system for classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. It draws upon four major hazard communication systems (U.N. Transport, E.U., U.S., and Canadian) as well as other systems. The GHS was formally adopted by the United Nations in December 2002. Development of the GHS has been a difficult process, and implementation is also expected to require a long-term effort and cooperation among countries, international organizations, and stakeholders.
The GHS includes criteria for classifying chemicals as physical, health, or environmental hazards. Physical hazards include explosives; flammable gases, aerosols, liquids, and solids; o xidizing gases, liquids, and solids; g ases under pressure; s elf-reactive substances; p yrophoric liquids and solids; s elf-heating substances; s ubstances which in contact with water emit flammable gases; o rganic peroxides; and substances c orrosive to metal. Health hazards include acute toxicity; skin corrosion or irritation; serious eye damage or eye irritation; sensitization ; germ cell mutagenicity; reproductive toxicity ; carcinogenicity ; and specific target organ systemic toxicity (TOST). Environmental hazards are currently limited to those substances hazardous to the aquatic environment.
In addition to classification criteria, the GHS includes standardized requirements for labels and safety data sheets. A standardized 16-section format is established for safety data sheets. The GHS also establishes standardized requirements for labels, including consistent use of pictograms, signal words, and hazard warning statements.
In response to questions following the presentation, several issues were addressed. With regard to implementation schedules, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum has established 2006 as a goal for adoption of the GHS in as many countries as possible. However, the goal of 2008 set at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development is considered more realistic . A Spanish translation of the GHS is expected to be available in 2004.
The changes required in U.S. and Canadian regulations with regard to the scope of coverage were reported to be fairly minimal with regard to the scope of coverage under the harmonized criteria. Industry was said to be supportive of the changes, as industry as well as labor was represented in the GHS development process. Work remains to be done to raise awareness about the GHS, and no assessments of the cost of implementation have been made to date.
Developing and Implementing a National Chemical Hazard Communication and GHS Action Plan, and Preparing a National Situational Analysis
Kim Headrick and Jennifer Silk presented information on the UNITAR/ILO program to strengthen regional and national capacities for implementing the GHS. The program is designed to assist in examining and assessing current needs, and establishing a framework for adoption of the GHS. As of July of 2003, 65 countries had expressed an interest in participating in capacity development. Pilot projects are currently underway in Zambia and South Africa, with related projects in Senegal and Sri Lanka. A WSSD Global GHS Partnership program has also been launched to assist developing countries and countries in transition with strengthening their capacities for implementing the GHS.
The UNITAR/ILO program is divided into four areas. At the regional and sub-regional levels, the program includes needs assessments and awareness raising workshops. At the country level, activities include awareness raising workshops, situation analyses and needs assessments, development of national GHS action plans, and implementation support activities. The third program area includes development of awareness raising, guidance, and training materials. The fourth program area involves supporting activities for capacity development, including development of a network of training institutions and preparation of a CD-ROM to provide access to guidance, training, and other documents, as well as development of a partnership and capacity building website.
Chemical Hazard Communication Needs in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. / Next Steps
Following the action plan/situational analysis presentation, several questions were raised regarding the implications of implementing the GHS. Inquiries addressed the need to change regulations, application of GHS to those not involved in import or export, and the costs involved.
Although a decision about the adoption of the GHS was not reached, Mexico expressed interest in becoming familiar with experiences of the U.S. and Canada regarding this issue. The discussion was centered in analyzing the technical content of the GHS that Mexico would have to consider in case it would adopt it. The successful efforts in harmonizing transport requirements in the three countries were mentioned as an example. Apparently there was consensus among the representatives of the Mexican Ministries regarding the necessity for a continuous dialogue and communication with which they will take the necessary decisions to make progress in the process.
With closing remarks, the workshop recessed.
|
|
|
