Apogee EHS Group

Growth is the goal of every business.  Business growth that requires adding employees will usually require the development of a Safety and Health Program at some point.  Knowing when to develop a Safety and Health Program and what exactly is required can be challenging because a deeper look into the OSHA regulations indicate the expectation is to have a processes in place to protect employee safety and health regardless of the number of employees.

OSHA regulations contain requirements for specific hazard control programs such as Lockout/Tagout and Confined Space Entry, for example.  Even if you only have one employee, if that employee is potentially exposed to a cited hazard, the control program must be implemented.  Often, employers think they must have 11 or more employees for OSHA regulations to apply.  The 10 or fewer exemption applies to routine recordkeeping of on –the-job injuries and the requirement to have a written Emergency Action Plan is also limited to those with at least 11 employees.  In the case of Emergency Action Plans however, if an establishment has 10 or fewer employees there is still a requirement to have a Plan, but it need not be written and can be communicated orally.

Worker’s Compensation coverage is required in most states once a business has 4 employees and is often thought of as the “rule of thumb” for when to implement at least the basics of a Safety and Health Program.  Worker’s Comp insurance policies often have requirements or incentives for covered companies to have a formal Safety and Health Program in place, but it is not an enforceable regulatory requirement. 

The perception that compliance with OSHA regulations require a minimum number of employees is basically a false perception.  Anyone meeting the definition of an employer must meet the OSHA requirements for hazard control if only one employee is potentially exposed to a regulated hazard.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS, will be referred to Safety Data Sheets, SDS, if Global Harmonized System is adopted) are a required to be maintained under the Hazard Communication standard (CFR29.1910.1200). While the intention of maintaining documented specific chemical hazard information is logical (essentially why MSDS are required), in practice the maintenance of MSDS is little more than a paperwork filing exercise.  MSDS must be available for employees exposed to chemical hazards for the purpose of accessing additional information, however the only person that usually refers to an MSDS for information is someone responsible for safety management.  This practical reality and the intent of regulatory requirements for communication of chemical hazard information brings into question if employees must be able to read and understand a MSDS as a requirement.

To answer the question of how adept employees must be at reading a MSDS, you first need to evaluate the actual information included on MSDS.  The majority of a MSDS is boiler plate legal text.  Unfortunately, much of the hazard and precautionary information on MSDS is boiler plate.  For example, “A system of local and/or general exhaust is recommended to keep employee exposures as low as possible” or “Dispose of container and unused contents in accordance with federal, state and local requirements”. Manufacturers are reluctant to include specific safety recommendations and are also reluctant to exclude generic warnings even for very innocuous materials.  Usually, the only material specific information on a MSDS is physical characteristics (such as specific gravity and boiling point) and testing data such as toxicology testing, if such testing has been completed.  Even specific material component information can be misleading.  Ranges are usually given for material composition, and since most chemicals have several different names, the names used for a material component can even be misleading and the CAS number used.  I have seen the name Yellow Chromate used instead of Lead Chromate on paint MSDS because the manufacturer is concerned that as soon as the word Lead is seen, the paint will not be used (which it should not be used).  Basically, without some general chemistry knowledge MSDS information can be misleading or unusable.

Most plant employees will not have general chemistry knowledge to help them use MSDS information effectively.  Training on the specific details available in a MSDS will essentially be a waste of time and will usually only undermine your safety program by being “Another boring safety presentation about information that does not affect us on the floor.”  This can serve as another example to employees that safety is about rules and not about what they actually do every day.  The key to effective safety management is employee engagement in the safety process.  Getting to involved in technical details (what the Safety Manager should worry about) without bringing it into day to day work decisions and processes can demonstrate to employees that safety is an office process, not a work process that extends to everything we do.  To achieve an injury-free workplace, the safety process must be brought to the floor level and extend into every task performed.  Therefore, training on the content of MSDS should be limited to information employees can find useful or interesting, and many of the details left in the hands of the Safety Manager.

Whenever effective safety management systems are brought up on discussion boards on networking sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook, terms such as employee accountability, commitment from management and employee engagement are often the crux of the discussion.  These terms are usually discussed very matter-of-fact as if a singular definition exists and can be applied to every organization.  My experience has shown me that establishing and cultivating these three important concepts; employee accountability, commitment from management and employee engagement; is different in each organization due to cultural factors, personal beliefs and business management “styles”.

Employee accountability is the general concept that employees have accountability for the choices or decisions they make.  How a business is managed and the current culture “on-the-floor” dictate what employee accountability means within an organization.  A “work team” operational environment will have different accountability traits then a top-down organization where clear expectations and direction are issued.  These factors also dictate how employee accountability needs to be cultured to establish the necessary commitment for an effective safety management system.

The keys to establishing employee accountability, in any organization, are an expectation to work safe and clear understanding by employees the difference between working safe and being at-risk for injury.  How and what this will exactly mean depends on the factors mentioned above, establishing what is safe and an expectation to work safe will allow employees to be accountable for themselves and accept consequences when not meeting the expectation to work safe.

Management commitment can best be described as the expectation from the highest level of management that nobody should ever be injured on the job, and “we” need to do whatever is reasonably necessary.   The fact “should” and “reasonably” are in the description demonstrates the variation in management commitment between organizations….and also leads to the discussions.  Too often, people expect an organization to take a management stance that is not reasonable for the current state of the organization and criticize the “lack of management commitment”.  You need to work within the current state of an organization to cultivate a future state where less and less is considered un-reasonable.

Employee engagement in the safety process can take many forms; from safety committee membership to basic hazard reporting or safety suggestion submission.  Essential to establishing employee engagement is meeting employees at their ability and level of desire.  The goal is to engage as many employees as possible, and to “delegate” as much down as capabilities allow.  You need to engage as close to 100% as possible, but you also need to make sure you engage employees at a level that matches their desire and ability.  Those that have leadership ability and want to make a difference must engaged differently than those just wanting to come to work each day be left alone.

An effective safety management system requires employee accountability, management commitment and employee engagement, but these concepts are not simple absolutes.  They are fluid definitions that advance with an organization.  This is brief, and does not due the topic justice, but I hope this can begin the discussion so this concept can be explored.

Being able to determine the root cause of incidents is a critical component of an effective Safety Management System (SMS).  Operating under the presumption that there should not be any incidents (zero) if the SMS is functioning properly, each incident indicates failures or faults must be present in the current SMS.  Hence the need for effective incident investigation, to determine the failures and faults in the current system so they can be corrected and prevent future incidents.  However, the term root cause is often “mis-used” following an incident.

When attempting to determine why an undesirable event occurred, injury, equipment failure, quality defect etc., root cause must be established to prevent future occurrences.  Unfortunately, many investigations only establish root cause leaving secondary causes and contributing factors unaddressed.  Failure to identify the secondary causes and contributing factors along with root cause will often retain the same risk of future failures as correction of root cause eliminates.

System failures are seldom based on a single cause-event, but rather a series or chain of events that lead to failure.  In this writer’s experience conducting hundreds of incident investigations, there are always at least two secondary cause or contributing factors (usually 3-4), which left unaddressed, will contribute to future incidents.   Incident investigations need identify as many causes and contributing factors as possible to allow for system corrections, and true future incident elimination.

There are several incident investigation tools available.  Many utilize lists or check-boxes of common causes and contributing factors as an aid.  Regardless of the tools used, successful incident investigation includes analysis of the work environment (including equipment), work processes (how tasks are completed) and personal or people related factors (such as knowledge and decisions made).  Investigating to root cause only leaves the door open to secondary causes or contributing factors to re-surface and put you at-risk of incident.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are required documents under OSHA Hazard Communication standards (29CFR1910.1200).  Manufacturers are required to produce MSDS for any chemicals having components with physical or health hazards.  While there are requirements for must be contained on MSDS, much of the information is boiler plate/legal disclaimer except for the physical data.  The MSDS requirement as prescribed in HazCom can require significant effort for limited value.

OSHA requires MSDS be available, without barriers, for all employees on every work shift.  The theory is MSDS will contain specific material data that employees can reference and have full knowledge of material hazards, treatment for exposures, protective measures etc.  The reality is MSDS are really only used to retrieve technical information.  Specific information regarding hazards, treatment etc. are often obtained from other sources based on the components listed on the MSDS.  Ironically the technical data most often used, hazardous components, are reported as a range of weight percent rather than a specific value.  To obtain specific content component weight percent, a Certified Product Data Sheet (CPDS) is needed.  Given the limited intrinsic value of MSDS,  what can be done to maximize the value of maintaining MSDS as required?

When evaluating how to maintain MSDS information and maximize value, ensuring compliance is where to start.  Let’s face it, we maintain MSDS because it is required so we must meet those requirements first.  To maximize the value delivered by meeting the MSDS management requirements, review your environmental regulatory requirements and index your MSDS by specific hazards and components.  Too often the safety and environmental management systems are independent of each other and you end up a separate data file of chemical information for environmental reporting.  Using one system for both sets of requirements can increase value by reducing effort required for data management.   Having your MSDS indexed by hazard and component can be very helpful when new regulations are proposed or specific safety concerns arise.

Archiving obsolete data and limiting MSDS in the active system to only what is currently used can also significantly increase value.  Without an archive process, the number of documents to search can become quite large quickly and employees can have difficulty determining the correct MSDS for a product.  MSDS are considered medical records and must be maintained for 30 years past employment, so an archive process is required, but often the process used is time intensive and neglected because of conflicting priorities or time constraints of the person maintaining the system.  The most effective archive processes are usually tied directly to material procurement so changes are initiated at the source.

MSDS requirements and practical application can create challenges for safety managers.  Focusing on how and what material information is actually used can create synergies and maximize the value your chemical management system provides.

Hazardous chemicals are required to be labeled with “appropriate hazard warnings” under Hazard Communication standard (29CFR1910.1200).  Hazard warning is defined as “any words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof appearing on a label or other appropriate form of warning which convey the specific physical and health hazard(s), including target organ effects, of the chemical(s) in the container(s).”  This definition has caused many to question if the two most popular methods of secondary container labeling, the HMIS and NFPA labeling systems, meet the requirements.

The HMIS and NFPA systems were designed to provide quick, visual general hazard information.  The definition of hazard warning requires specific information, including target organ effects.  To provide appropriate hazard warning, some additional information should be on containers than just the standard HMIS or NFPA markings, but often times it is as simple as adding target organ information.  If employees understand the color and number scheme of NFPA or HMIS, adding verbiage about target organ effects will meet regulatory requirements (before GHS enactment).

Target organ verbiage can be obtained from MSDS or manufacturer container labels.  That verbiage can usually be easily added to an open area on the bottom portion of HMIS or NFPA pre-printed labels.  Target organ effects need to be included in employee training to fully close the loop and ensure hazard “communication” is effective.

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.