Last February, OSHA outlined its enforcement position for manufacturers, importers, and distributors that have not received classification and SDS information from upstream suppliers necessary to meet the June 1, 2015, deadline for HCS 2012 (GHS)-compliant SDSs and labels. The February 9th memo explained that in this situation, enforcement discretion would allow for limited continued use of HCS 1994-compliant MSDSs and labels provided that the manufacturer or importer exercised reasonable diligence and made good faith efforts to comply with HCS 2012 prior to June 1st. Since issuing the guidance on February 9, 2015, OSHA has received an overwhelming number of additional questions and requests for further clarification on behalf of manufacturers, importers, and distributors.
OSHA plans to issue a new enforcement directive shortly after June 1,2015, but issued an interim policy statement that can be followed until the directive is published. The text of the policy statement is included below:
Guidance for Manufacturers and Importers of Hazardous Chemicals
Where a manufacturer or importer has not received classification information from its upstream supplier(s) on which it intends to rely for the classification of its product before June 1, 2015, the manufacturer or importer may continue use of the HCS 1994 label under certain limited circumstances. To do so, the manufacturer or importer must be able to initially demonstrate it has exercised reasonable diligence and made good faith efforts to obtain and integrate the information.
The Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) must review the overall efforts and actions taken to comply. No citation will be issued in cases where the manufacturer or importer provides persuasive documentation to show that it made reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary information from upstream suppliers, and attempted to find hazard information from alternative sources (e.g., chemical registries) to classify the data. In these limited situations, manufacturers and importers must promptly create HCS 2012-compliant labels within six months after they develop the updated SDS. All containers shipped after the six-month period must be labeled with an HCS 2012-compliant label.
Manufacturers or importers of hazardous chemicals (including businesses that repackages) that have existing stock packaged (e.g., boxed, palletized, shrink- wrapped, etc.) for shipment prior to June 1, 2015, that are HCS 1994-compliant labeled, may continue to ship those containers downstream. In such instances, there is no requirement to re-label packaged for shipment containers with HCS 2012-compliant labels. The manufacturer or importer must provide HCS 2012- compliant labels and SDSs for each and every individual container shipped, unless the manufacturer or importer can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable diligence and good faith as discussed in this policy.
After June 1, 2015, a manufacturer or importer of hazardous chemicals who packages containers for shipment must label each and every container with a HCS 2012-compliant label prior to shipping.
Guidance for Businesses that Repackage, Blend, or Mix Hazardous Chemicals
Some businesses repackage, blend, or mix hazardous chemicals, but consider themselves to be distributors in the supply chain. Under the HCS, however, they are considered manufacturers, and the labeling guidance discussed above for manufacturers and importers applies to them as well.
Guidance for Distributors of Hazardous Chemicals
The HCS 2012 permits distributors to continue to ship chemicals with HCS 1994 labels until December 1, 2015. There may be distributors that are consequently unable to comply with the December 1, 2015, effective date where a manufacturer or importer cannot comply with the June 1, 2015, effective date despite its reasonably diligent and good faith efforts. In these situations, CSHOs must determine, whether the distributor has evidence that it has in fact exercised reasonable diligence and good faith to comply with the December 1, 2015, effective date.
Before December 1, 2015, distributors with existing stock packaged (e.g., boxed, palletized, shrink-wrapped, etc.) for shipment and containers that are HCS 1994-compliant labeled, may continue to ship those containers downstream. In these instances, there is no requirement to re-label packaged for shipment containers with HCS 2012-compliant labels. Distributors must provide a HCS 2012-compliant label and SDS for each and every individual container shipped with any future shipments after December 1, 2015, or upon request, unless they can demonstrate reasonable diligence and good faith as discussed in this policy. Additionally, distributors must provide HCS 2012-compliant SDSs to downstream users with the first shipment after a new or revised SDS is provided by the manufacturer or importer.
All containers in the control of a distributor after December 1, 2017, must be HCS 2012-compliant labeled prior to shipping.
What are Reasonable Diligence and Good Faith Efforts?
To determine if a manufacturer or importer was reasonably diligent and made good faith efforts to obtain and integrate updated information, CSHOs must review overall efforts and action(s) taken to comply with HCS 2012. CSHOs should request that manufacturers or importers provide documentation of any and all efforts to:
- Obtain classification information and SDSs from upstream suppliers
- Find hazard information from alternative sources (e.g., chemical registries)
- Classify the data themselves
Establishing reasonable diligence and good faith requires that manufacturers or importers demonstrate attempt(s) to obtain the necessary SDSs through both oral and written communications directly with the upstream supplier. For each hazardous chemical shipped by a manufacturer or importer after June 1, 2015, that does not comply with HCS 2012, the CSHO shall consider whether the manufacturer or importer:
- Developed and documented the process used to gather the necessary classification information from its upstream suppliers and the current status of such efforts
- Developed and documented efforts to find hazard information from alternative sources (e.g., chemical registries)
- Provided a written account of its continued communications with upstream suppliers, including dated copies of all relevant written communication
- Provided a written account of continued communications with its distributors, including dated copies of all relevant written communication with its distributors informing them why it has been unable to comply with HCS 2012
- Developed the course of action it will follow to make the necessary changes to SDSs and labels once the information becomes available
Although CSHOs must evaluate all of the above factors, any combination of these efforts may be considered to be reasonably diligent and made in good faith. CSHOs shall also consider whether the manufacturer or importer attempted to obtain the hazard information in a timely manner (i.e., in a way that would have enabled it to comply with the June 1, 2015, effective date) in determining whether reasonable diligence and good faith efforts to comply are present. Additionally, manufacturers or importers should provide a clear timeline when it expects to comply with HCS 2012 to meet this test.
In cases where a distributor cannot comply with the December 1, 2015, effective date, CSHOs shall determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the distributor exercised reasonable diligence and good faith to comply with the December 1, 2015, effective date. In making such determination, distributors must present documentation of any and all communications with the manufacturer or importer regarding its reasons for noncompliance with HCS 2012.
Issuance of the revised HCS 2012 directive will cancel both the February 9, 2015, memorandum and this interim enforcement memorandum. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Health Enforcement at 202-693-2190.
How to Implement OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard (GHS)
OSHA has issued a final rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard, aligning it with the United Nations’ globally harmonized system (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. This means that virtually every product label, safety data sheet (formerly called “material safety data sheet” or MSDS), and written hazard communication plan must be revised to meet the new standard. Worker training must be updated so that workers can recognize and understand the symbols and pictograms on the new labels as well as the new hazard statements and precautions on safety data sheets.
Chattanooga RCRA and DOT Training
Irvine RCRA and DOT Training
Dayton RCRA and DOT Training
OSHA to Coordinate With Canada on GHS Requirements
OSHA recently announced that it will continue their partnership with Health Canada to align United States and Canadian regulatory approaches regarding labeling and classification requirements for workplace chemicals through the Regulatory Cooperation Council.
"We work in a global environment with varying and sometimes conflicting national and international requirements," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Through this partnership, OSHA and Health Canada will work together to reduce inconsistencies among hazard communication regulations and provide concise information to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals without reducing current protections."
The goal of the partnership is to implement a system allowing the use of one label and one safety data sheet that would be acceptable in both countries. OSHA and Health Canada signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2013 to promote ongoing collaboration on implementing the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling in their respective jurisdictions.
OSHA aligned its Hazard Communication Standard with the GHS in March 2012 to provide a common, understandable approach to classifying chemicals and communicating hazard information on labels and safety data sheets. Canada published a similar regulation in February 2015.
MMWR Looks at Occupational Fatalities during the Oil and Gas Boom
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) looked at a comprehensive database of fatal work injuries to examine occupational fatalities during the oil and gas boom.
Silent Epidemic of Workplace Chemical Exposures Rages On
Workplace chemical exposures are the nation’s eighth leading cause of death but the US lacks any strategy for preventing the more than 40,000 premature deaths each year, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group recently unveiled a Worker Right-to-Know website displaying 30 years of OSHA chemical exposure readings from inspections back to 1984 so workers can see what substances they encountered and to help guide OSHA in improving safeguards for worker health.
Occupational exposures kill malignantly, from cancer, neurological breakdown, cardiopulmonary disease, and other chronic maladies. While this toll claims the lives of more than 10 times the workers killed in all on-the-job accidents combined, OSHA spends in excess of 90% of its budget on safety issues.
“More Americans die each year from workplace chemical exposure than from all highway accidents, yet we have no national effort to stem this silent occupational epidemic,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, pointing out that allowed chemical exposure on-the-job is roughly 1000 times higher than in the general ambient environment. “In the US, environmental protection stops at the factory door.”
The new PEER database allows comprehensive workplace exposure data to be searched by year, by state, by establishment type and by substances detected. Individual inspection data may also be viewed. It also provides a geospatial display of all OSHA workplace monitoring sampling results. PEER hopes the readings will give workers and their doctors clues about the origins of otherwise mysterious illnesses.
These occupational risks may be on the rise as thousands of new chemicals are introduced in US workplaces each year. Yet OSHA figures show a slow decline in health sampling. At its current rate of health inspections, it would take OSHA nearly 600 years to sample chemical exposure at half the nation’s industrial facilities that handle hazardous substances.
On a policy level, PEER is asking responsible agencies to come to grips with the problem by calling for:
- OSHA to start using its own air sampling data to pinpoint where health inspections are most needed and to increase the number of such inspections
- The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to conduct an updated national survey of occupational exposures, a survey it last did thirty-five years ago
“Reversing this long lethal trend requires a national commitment to ‘green’ the American workplace,” added Ruch. “Above all, OSHA needs to rediscover its ‘H’ by taking affirmative steps to sharply reduce the slow poisoning of American workers.”
Fatal Staten Island Mezzanine Collapse Leads to Worker Fatality
The life of a 46-year-old demolition worker, killed in a building collapse in November 2014 at a Staten Island auto dealership, could have been spared if his employer had not disregarded federal safety rules.
Delfino Jesus Velazquez Mendizabal died when the mezzanine of the former Dana Ford Lincoln dealership collapsed on him. A husband and father, Mendizabal was employed by Formica Construction Co., Inc., a Port Richmond, New York, contractor.
“This worker’s death should never have happened,” said Patricia Jones, OSHA’s area director for Staten Island. “Had Formica Construction chosen to plan and carry out the demolition correctly, this collapse would not have occurred, and Mr. Mendizabal would not have died.”
OSHA inspectors found that the company did not conduct a required pre-demolition engineering survey to determine the building’s stability and a possible structural collapse. Once work had begun, Formica Construction ignored required safety practices by removing load-supporting sections of walls and floors before upper-level sections of the building were demolished and removed. The company also did not shore or brace the walls and floors against collapse while employees worked in the building.
In addition, as the demolition proceeded, Formica did not conduct ongoing inspections to identify hazards created by weakened or deteriorated walls and floors. The company also failed to train its employees to recognize and avoid demolition hazards. Formica also did not keep a record of on-the-job injuries and illnesses.
Proposed fines total $121,000. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.
“No enforcement action will bring Mr. Mendizabal back to his family, friends and co-workers, but future tragedies can be prevented. Employers doing demolitions should remember this fatal incident, take note of these violations and follow procedures, so that other workers are not killed or injured,” said Jones.
Conway Stores Fined $80,000 for Locked Emergency Exits
A blocked or obstructed exit route can be the difference between life and death. Despite the clear risks, Conway Stores' Bronx location jeopardized workers and shoppers despite two warnings from federal safety inspectors in December 2014.
During the December 5, 2014, inspection, they also identified two exit routes with no lighting and one exit route blocked by a wooden cabinet. Store managers were told to correct the violations. When inspectors returned on December 22, the four emergency exits were still locked.
"The point is simple and the requirement is clear. Seconds wasted can hurt people or cost them their lives," said Diana Cortez, OSHA's Tarrytown area director. "Conway Stores chose to ignore the safety and well-being of its employees and customers. This is not the first time. It must be the last."
In 2011, Conway was cited by OSHA when the same hazard was discovered at another Bronx store at 215-223 Fordham Road. Workplace safety standards require that employees be able to open an exit route door from the inside without using keys or tools.
OSHA cited the store's parent company, Southern Island Stores, LLC, in Gardena, California, for one serious and one willful violation for the locked exits, and three serious violations for the remaining hazards. Among these hazards was an ineffective extermination program, which exposed workers to rodents. Proposed fines total $80,300.
Panolam Industries International Inc. Fined Nearly $80,00 for 18 Serious Safety and Health Violations
OSHA initiated the November 20, 2014, inspection of Panolam Industries International, Inc., in Norcross, Georgia, after receiving a complaint alleging workplace safety hazards.
Johnson Service Group and Randstad North America, Inc., provided Panolam Industries with temporary workers, while the laminating company provided daily supervision, training, and direction for the temporary workers employed at the facility. OSHA concluded an inspection with Johnson Service Group and Randstad North America and did not issue citations to the staffing agencies.
"Taking defective safety equipment out of rotation should be a no-brainer. When employers fail to address workplace hazards, workers are put at risk of illness, serious injury or even death," said William Fulcher, OSHA's director of the Atlanta-East area office. "This inspection underscores the need for workers to inform OSHA of workplace hazards because no one should have to work in dangerous conditions just to make a living."
Proposed penalties total $79,650.
Superior Roll Forming Company Fined $70,000 after Worker Loses Finger
On March 2, OSHA's Cleveland office initiated an inspection of Superior Roll Forming Company, Inc., a the metal stamping plant in Valley City, Ohio, after a 55-year-old worker's left index finger was crushed between weld clamps.
Investigators cited one repeated violation for exposing workers to operating parts of machinery by failing to install safety mechanisms. The company was cited for similar violations twice in 2012 and once in 2014.
"Superior Roll needs to continue making comprehensive improvements in their safety systems to correct the deficiencies that lead to these types of injuries," said Howard Eberts, OSHA's area director in Cleveland.
Proposed penalties total $70,000.
Welco Acetylene Corp. Repeatedly Exposed Employees to Workplace Hazards
OSHA initiated an inspection on November 21, 2014, as a follow-up to its May 30, 2013, inspection, of Welco Acetylene Corp., an acetylene repackaging facility of industrial gas manufacturer in Newark, New Jersey.
The company also did not ensure that the written process safety information included all the necessary information pertaining to the equipment. One serious violation was issued for not conducting management of change reviews as required.
A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule, or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.
"Acetylene gas is highly flammable and if released, could cause fire and explosion hazards," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office. "The violations found during the follow-up inspection, and the ones the company failed to abate, create a hazardous environment to the employees working at the plant and should be immediately corrected."
Proposed penalties total $57,400.
Griffin Lumber & Hardware Ignores Hazards, Receives Willful Violation
A job should be a source of personal accomplishment and pride, not the cause of disability and unemployment. A 29-year-old temporary worker suffered the latter at a local sawmill operated by Griffin Lumber & Hardware. The man's left arm was amputated when his jacket was caught in the drive shaft of a conveyor belt in January.
The severely injured worker was employed by Labor Finders, a staffing agency that provides Griffin Lumber with temporary workers. Griffin Lumber was responsible for daily supervision, training, and direction of the temporary workers. OSHA concluded an inspection with Labor Finders and issued no citations to the staffing agency.
"Griffin management admitted to inspectors that the unguarded parts had been that way for a long time," said Robert Vazzi, OSHA's area director in Savannah. "This terrible incident proves the company can no longer ignore worker safety and must address all safety hazards immediately."
Griffin Lumber received a willful violation from OSHA for failing to ensure workers were protected from an unguarded sprocket and chain. OSHA alleges that the 74 full-time and temporary employees who work on-site were exposed to serious injury or death due to this violation. The company faces a proposed penalty of $56,000.
The initiative includes outreach, training, and enforcement to ensure that temporary workers are protected on-the-job.
Magnetic Metals Corp. Fined $53,900 for 15 Safety Violations
Magnetic Metals Corp., in Camden, New Jersey, a manufacturer of soft magnetic materials for products including motors and transformers, was inspected on December 4, 2014, as part of OSHA’s site specific targeting program for industries with high injury and illness rates.
The company was previously cited for similar violations in 2010.
"During the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment, the unexpected startup or release of stored energy can kill or cause serious injuries to employees," said Paula Dixon-Roderick, director of OSHA's Marlton Area Office. "Employers need to take the appropriate steps to ensure that workers are protected from this type of hazard."
Proposed penalties total $53,900.
MIOSHA Awards Astech Inc. for Elevated Worker Safety and Health
The jobbing foundry and shot blast replacement parts manufacturer, Astech Incorporated this month received the prestigious Michigan Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (MSHARP) award from the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA). The MIOSHA program is part of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA).
With an exemplary safety and health management system in place that incorporates each of the seven required elements—hazard anticipation and detection; hazard prevention and control; planning and evaluation; administration and supervision; safety and health training; management leadership; and employee participation—Astech has also developed some unique best practices.
The facility uses several outside entities to audit and monitor its activities and thoroughly reviews new processes before adopting them into its operations.
“Astech’s status as an MSHARP participant speaks to its strong commitment to worker protection,” said MIOSHA Director Martha Yoder. “MIOSHA is pleased to recognize a team of managers and employees that prioritizes the health and safety of its workers above all else.”
MIOSHA established the MSHARP award to acknowledge employers with outstanding workplace safety and health programs that far surpass their counterparts.
MSHARP targets small manufacturers to help them develop, implement, and continuously improve the effectiveness of their workplace safety and health management system. The program provides an incentive for employers to emphasize accident and illness prevention by anticipating problems, not reacting to them. “Astech, Inc., is committed to maintaining a workplace that is safe, health conscious, and injury free, “ said Astech President Alan Bukach. “The safety of our people is paramount to our continued success. Working with MIOSHIA and their staff in achieving our MSHARP status has benefited our company through the implementation of new and more robust safety policies and practices. Keeping our focus on safety and our environment makes Astech a more desirable place to work.”
Safety News Links