Apogee EHS Group

On September 30, 2009, OSHA announced a proposed rule to align current Hazard Communication (HazCom) requirements with the United Nation’s (UN) hazardous material labeling system, referred to as the Globally Harmonized System (GHS).  This announcement has left many wondering, “What will I have to change to remain in compliance?”

OSHA has yet to define specific requirements regarding GHS alignment, but after reviewing the elements of GHS and current HazCom requirements, some assumptions can be made.  HazCom has five key requirements; written program, hazardous material inventory, employee training, chemical labeling and material safety data sheets (MSDS).  Aligning HazCom to GHS standards will primarily effect labeling and MSDS components of HazCom.   MSDS (or SDS) changes will require more detail then most MSDS currently provide, but the primary effects will be on manufacturers who will have to revise current documents (and possibly conduct additional testing to quantify hazard risks).  The impact on MSDS users will primarily be limited to updating their document files.  Labeling changes could require a bit more.

GHS labeling, like HazCom, requires a chemical name that aligns to a Safety Data Sheet (SDS, basic equivalent to MSDS), but the similarities end there.  GHS uses symbols (pictograms), signal words, hazard statements and precautionary statements to convey physical and environmental hazards.  Hazards are quantified in 31 classes and 81 hazard categories.  Tables detail the labeling requirements for each hazard category.  Needless to say, GHS labeling will affect how chemical manufacturers must label materials offered for sale, but provisions in GHS states; “Products falling within the scope of GHS will comply to GHS at the point where they are supplied to workplace, and that label should be maintained on the supplied container in the workplace….However, the competent authority (OSHA) can allow employers to use alternate means of giving workers the same information in a different written or displayed format….”*  This provision should allow for current secondary container labeling systems to remain after GHS implementation.

Employee training on how to understand labels will be more involved under GHS, but hopefully our competent authority (OSHA), will provide guidance that will allow us to maintain our current secondary container labeling and minimize the need for safety management system re-design as a result of GHS.

*From 1.4.10.5.5.1 of Introduction

The Hazard Communication standard (29CFR1910.1200), requires “all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed”.  What is a hazardous chemical?  OSHA provides guidance on what is a chemical and what makes a chemical hazardous, but as with most regulations, you may have to establish more absolute definitions.

A chemical is defined in Webster’s as “a substance having a specific molecular composition, obtained by or used in a chemical process”.  Unfortunately, this is not very decisive for use in determining if a material in the workplace is a chemical as almost everything could fit under this definition.  OSHA includes a broad definition of chemical in the HazCom standard “any element, chemical compound, or mixture of elements and/or compounds”, which unfortunately is also very general.  I believe the best practical definition of a chemical for HazCom purposes is any liquid, powder, gas or hazardous solid.

A chemical that presents a physical or health hazard is considered hazardous under HazCom.  Sounds straight forward, but defining what is truly a hazard can be up to interpretation.  To some people, peanut butter presents a health hazard because of acute allergic reaction.  By defining a chemical and obtaining a MSDS for every chemical, you can be confident you are meeting regulatory requirements.  The challenge with this approach will usually be what are defined by OSHA as “articles”.  Articles as defined by OSHA – “consumer products that are used in the workplace in a manner comparable to normal conditions of consumer use”^* – may present some difficulty in obtaining MSDS because manufacturers will indicate consumer products do not require MSDS.  Require the MSDS anyway (manufacturers will have the MSDS despite thinking it is not required) because comparable to normal conditions of consumer use cannot be guaranteed.  I have seen some strange things, including eating the urinal cakes in the men’s restrooms and spraying Pledge in eyes while trying to shine up a bald head (to point out of couple of the stranger cases) where the MSDS for consumer products were needed by medical personnel.

* From 29CFR1910.1200

The OSHA Hazard Communication, or HazCom, standard, 29CFR 1910.1200, establishes responsibilities for providing hazardous chemical information to employers and employees.  While the standard establishes requirements for container labeling, material safety data sheets and employee training, the basis of the standard is that chemicals hazards must be communicated to those affected.  How one defines “communicated” is a key point in establishing a hazard communication process.

In 1995, the “New OSHA”^* was unveiled with a central idea that a program or site should be evaluated in whole and determined effective based on performance results, versus by compliance to excerpts from specific regulatory requirements (paraphrased).  This new focus on a “performance based” regulatory agency, as it has been commonly referred to, was meant to clarify employer requirements under the OSH Act and promote the real purpose of OSHA, preventing employee injuries.  Evaluating HazCom utilizing this performance based approach, presents some interesting potential non-compliance situations.  What does communicated mean in a performance based model?

After studying communication in college there was one concept I was absolutely sure of, no model will ever be created that can accurately depict how communication works.  There are too many variables.  The fact that each person is unique makes it impossible to depict a communication process that applies in all situations, not to mention all the medias available, distractions and the basic fact we as humans are always communicating.  We are always sending and receiving messages.  What we do or not do, what we say or not say, etc. is communicating something.  With such an unpredictable process, how do we ensure our communication of hazard information will provide the results required?  Traditionally, we would meet the communication requirement by simply making the information available.  Is that enough in a performance based environment?

Fortunately, OSHA has not (at the time this was written) defined performance based Hazard Communication to include comprehension or understanding by all target recipients.  They have defined performance based in letters of interpretation to include making manufacturer Material Safety Data Sheets available for employee review without request, labeling of hazardous materials, having hazardous material inventory for work sites and training of employees on hazards upon initial assignment and anytime a new hazard is introduced.  But ask yourself, “Could someone be seriously injured as a result of a chemical hazard not being understood, despite being clearly “communicated”?”  It is hard to deny that possibility so including employee comprehension in your HazCom program is important.

Testing of employees after training will at a minimum verify the basics were understood.  Including HazCom elements in your routine audit process can also provide verification that the basics are understood.  Questioning employees about chemicals in their work area and where they would find information on those chemicals during routine audits is usually a highly effective method of ensuring HazCom comprehension.

* From the May 1995 National Performance Review Report

It is the driving force in EHS…. accountability.  In developing a safety “culture”, establishing that everyone has a personal accountability for his or her safety is essential.  Accountability of executives with decision making responsibility has been the requirement of regulators for years as executives that take safety short-cuts because of financial considerations have been prosecuted following fatal incidents.  A case in Ohio has now highlighted the requirement for professional accountability as an EHS Manager was prosecuted and found guilty following a fatal incident where waste water treatment procedures were not followed.  See http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2010/06/14/daily22.html

While a brief report of the case does not tell the whole story and all of the facts of what happened, it does highlight the need to follow one of the basic safety rules of thumb, do the right thing.  When in doubt, do the right thing.  Sounds simple, but in the day-to-day activities of running or managing a business safety management system, we are often confronted with situations where resources, abilities and schedules clash with operational or financial expectations.  Asking the question, “Are we doing the right thing?” before making a decision will provide an opportunity to evaluate the risk involved from a perspective that supersedes the day-to-day realities.  The evaluation of risk from this high level perspective can prevent us from heading down a fatal path.  Look at the recent fatal disasters in the news and ask yourself, if they had stopped and asked, “Are we doing the right thing?”, would have this disaster been prevented?  Very frequently your reply to this question will be “Yes”.

We do not live in a perfect world.  The out-dated safety concept of having a safe work procedure for every task and always following that procedure has been proven over and over again to not work…it works 99.9% of the time, but it is the 0.1% that leads to fatal mistakes.  People are not perfect, we will make mistakes and not always perform up to our ability.  Evaluating if a decision involves doing the right thing will usually serve you well during those situations that occur 0.1% outside the norm.

It is often said the journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step.  When beginning an initiative to “improve safety”, what is that first step?  History, organizational culture and management commitment are just some of the variables that affect the safety journey and where we might want to begin, but to begin we must above all else know where we want go.  Steven Covey labels this “beginning with the end in mind” in his 7-Habits of Highly Effective People.  While there is never an end to our safety journey, knowing where we want to ultimately be is essential for knowing where to begin.

Often organizations will try to define their ultimate safety objective as a goal or target measurement, such as a recordable rate below 1.0.  Measurement is just one of the necessary components of a safety management system and by trying to establish how your organization will perform in each of the safety management system components will create an image of where you to “end up”, and thus help you figure out where to begin.

Safety Management System

The Safety Management System structure we model at Apogee EHS Group has 8 basic components.  Five foundational components required to successfully support and enact the three safety program components.

Foundational Components

Commitment – Commitment at all levels that everything we do must be done safely and no person should ever be injured on the job

Strategy – Having a plan that addresses the administrative, strategic and tactical requirements for enacting a sustainable safety management system

Communication – Multi-media approach to communicating expectations and results that reaches all levels of an organization

Education – Multi-faceted training process to develop employee skills and knowledge required to achieve zero injuries

Measurement – Series of metrics that shows progress, evaluates performance and indicates if current path will lead toward ultimate goals

Safety Program Components

Incident Management – Response plan for dealing with the result of a breakdown in the Safety Management System (incident) and process for investigating cause of the breakdown and how to correct.

Hazard Control Programs – Specific rules, expectations and work practices required to work safely despite exposure to known hazards (safety and OSHA programs)

Work Practice Controls – General rules or expectations and work practices to work safely in non-routine situations or when new or unexpected hazards arise

This is a simple description of the Safety Management System components, but by imagining how and what your organization will look in each component area when you “arrive”, the steps ahead will become much clearer and priorities will emerge indicating the first steps of your journey.