Agency inspectors will review the written program during a workplace walkaround, confirming that the program includes a complete inventory of all hazardous substances.
The hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200)—sometimes referred to as the HazCom standard or “worker right-to-know”—remains one of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) most frequently cited standards.
Employers must have a written HazCom program to meet requirements of the standard. A written HazCom program establishes all aspects of the program, like the use of labels and safety data sheets (SDS) and employee information and training. Employers must provide employee access to SDSs in addition to training on understanding the hazard and precautionary information contained in labels and SDSs.
In addition to training on labels and SDSs, a compliant HazCom training program would need to cover:
Methods used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical in a work area;
Hazards of chemicals in the workplace, such as asphyxiation or health hazards, combustible dust, and physical hazards like explosiveness, flammability, or reactivity, as well as some hazards not otherwise classified; and
Measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including specific procedures the employer has established to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals like emergency procedures, routine work practices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) to be used.
Agency inspectors will review the written program during a workplace walkaround, confirming that the program includes a complete inventory of all hazardous substances; methods for informing employees of hazards encountered in both routine and nonroutine tasks and the hazards of substances in unlabeled pipes; and methods for informing other employers’ employees at multiemployer worksites, such as whether all workers at a facility or site know how to access information about the program.
Epidemic Adds a HazCom Wrinkle
The scope of worker right-to-know expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, as OSHA employer guidance included cleaning and sanitation guidelines recommending the use of disinfectants on the EPA’s “List N” of Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). State emergency temporary standards (ETSs) for COVID-19 also included cleaning and sanitation requirements.
Some disinfectants on the EPA’s list have health or flammability hazards. OSHA’s HazCom standard requires that employees be informed of potential work hazards and trained in safe practices, procedures, and protective measures for chemical hazards. Employers must ensure employees have access to cleaning products’ SDSs and are informed of potential hazards and trained in safe handling and use practices detailed in the products’ SDSs.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) last summer alerted employers that employees need to be informed of documented health risks from exposure to specific cleaning ingredients such as acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and peracetic acid. Employers need to maintain sufficient ventilation in areas where chemicals are used and ensure that employees use appropriate protective clothing, gloves, or safety goggles.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from surfaces is low, but cleaning and disinfection guidelines and requirements remain in place.
HazCom, GHS
The HazCom standard has been aligned with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), an international agreement for uniform regulation to ease the trade and transportation of chemicals. However, the HazCom standard usually conforms to an earlier edition of the GHS due to quirks of U.S. administrative procedures. For example, OSHA recently extended the public comment period for a proposed update to the HazCom standard, aligning provisions of the rule with the seventh revision of the GHS published in 2017. An eighth revised edition was published in 2019.
Updates in the seventh edition of the GHS included:
Revised criteria for categorization of flammable gases within Category 1;
Miscellaneous amendments intended to clarify the definitions of some health hazard classes;
Additional guidance to extend the coverage of section 14 of the SDSs to all bulk cargoes transported under provisions of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), regardless of their physical state;
Revised and further rationalized precautionary statements in Annex 3; and
A new example in Annex 7 addressing labeling of small packages with foldout labels.
OSHA’s HazCom standard proposal would implement substantive changes for chemical manufacturers and importers, amending the requirements for the labels and SDSs that manufacturers and importers must provide for hazardous chemicals in commerce. The proposed amendments would alter the content of the labels and SDSs that employers receive and necessitate updating their SDS collections.
The proposal would allow manufacturers to guard their chemical trade secrets by reporting a range of chemical concentrations on their SDSs. Canadian regulators already have adopted the SDS ranges of concentration.
Inspection, Enforcement Procedures
During OSHA inspections, agency compliance safety and health officers (CSHOs) will check that employers have developed a written HazCom program covering all employees who may be exposed to hazardous substances. The program must include information and procedures for labels and other warnings, SDSs, and training used in the workplace.
Under OSHA’s inspection procedures, CSHOs also check for a complete and current collection of SDSs for all substances in the workplace, the person designated as responsible for SDSs, how SDSs are maintained (electronically or in a notebook) and how employees can access them, procedures used when shipments do not include SDSs, and whether workers are trained in the format and use of SDSs.
In a multiemployer workplace, a CSHO will look at how other employers’ employees can access SDSs for substances on-site and how they are informed of and trained on chemical hazards in the workplace and necessary precautions. Agency inspectors expect both host employers and employment agencies to take responsibility for HazCom. CSHOs may cite both if an employment agency’s workers are not informed about and trained in hazards of chemicals used at the workplace.
CSHOs also will check for the person responsible for label compliance, appropriate labels on all containers in the workplace, descriptions of alternative labeling methods used for stationary process containers, descriptions and explanations of labels used in or shipped through a workplace, and procedures for reviewing and updating labels.
Additionally, CSHOs also will look into elements, formats, and procedures of the training program, as well as the person responsible for training. Inspectors may cite an employer for the lack of a written program, as well as all the missing elements of a program, like the absence of labels and SDSs or a training program. Agency inspectors issue nearly as many citations for information and training violations as they do for lack of a written program.
For example, the agency cited a Pennsylvania manufacturer for willful violations of the HazCom standard and sought $94,753 in proposed penalties. Inspectors concluded that the employer failed to train employees in methods and observations to detect the presence of hazardous substances; health and physical hazards of the substances in their work areas; work practices, emergency procedures, and PPE intended to protect employees from exposures to hazardous substances; and labeling systems and SDSs used in the employer’s HazCom program.
Other employers have been cited for violations that include:
Failing to compile a list of hazardous substances in the workplace, label a dip tank containing a flammable liquid, maintain workplace copies of SDSs, and provide employee training on hazards in the workplace and details of the company’s HazCom program;
Serious violation of the HazCom standard for failing to provide information and training on brake cleaners, silica, solvents, and other hazardous substances used at a concrete production plant; and
A serious violation for failing to ensure containers of hazardous substances were properly labeled, tagged, or marked and failing to provide information and training at the time of initial assignment or whenever a new substance was introduced into a work area.
The HazCom standard is one piece of a bigger chemical regulation scheme that also involves the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Each has its own regulatory authority during various points of the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous substances. Chemicals go through an assortment of information, labeling, and placarding requirements as they move through the supply chain and eventually end up as waste products.
Outlines of the chemical regulation scheme include:
The PHMSA sets and enforces hazmat transportation regulations under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA), which conform to the United Nations’ UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (the “Orange Book”), a model regulation of standards for containers, packages, and placards used for hazmat transportation.
OSHA’s HazCom standard, which regulates chemical safety in the workplace and incorporates elements of the GHS.
The EPA regulated hazardous waste disposal under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), although OSHA regulates the health and safety of workers through its Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
Even the nongovernmental National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has its own set of chemical hazard symbols. At various points in the supply chain, a container could display a DOT Hazmat placard, an NFPA “fire diamond,” and an OSHA label.
The NFPA developed and maintains the industry consensus standard (NFPA 704) for labeling containers, tanks, and facilities to alert firefighters and other first responders to fire, health, and other hazards. An NFPA fire diamond is separated into blue, red, and yellow quadrants to communicate health, flammability, and instability hazards, as well as a fourth white quadrant with special warnings. The white quadrant warns firefighters whether a substance is an asphyxiant gas or an oxidizer or reacts with water.
Information about the health, flammability, instability, and special hazards displayed in a fire diamond also would be included in sections of an SDS required by the HazCom standard.
Remember that HazCom compliance is not “one and done” but an ongoing responsibility. Your written HazCom program is the cornerstone of compliance and needs to cover how you will handle labels and other warnings, SDSs, and employee information and training.
A failure to address inhalation exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts workers and the public at serious risk of infection, according to the letter.
This article was originally published February 25, 2021 on PSQH by Guy Burdick
Thirteen medical and scientific experts urged the Biden administration to take immediate actions to address SARS-CoV-2 inhalation hazards, including issuing an emergency Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus causes COVID-19, which was declared a pandemic in March 2020.
Signers of the letter to the White House, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials included David Michaels, former OSHA administrator under President Barack Obama.
The letter’s signers contend that current CDC and OSHA guidance does not adequately address the risk of transmission through inhalation of small airborne particles. Much of the federal guidance still refers to exposure to “respiratory droplets.”
A failure to address inhalation exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts workers and the public at serious risk of infection, according to the letter. The letter urged the CDC and OSHA to recommend and require the use of respiratory protection, such as N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), to protect all workers at very high risk of exposure and infection, including all healthcare workers and workers in correctional facilities and food processing.
The letter from Michaels; Peg Seminario, former director of occupational safety and health for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech); and 10 others called on the administration to:
Issue an OSHA emergency standard on COVID-19 that recognizes the importance of aerosol inhalation and includes requirements for exposure risk assessments and control measures following a hierarchy of controls, as well as addressing requirements for effective respiratory protection for healthcare and other workers at high risk of exposure to COVID-19.
Update and strengthen CDC guidelines to fully address transmission via inhalation exposure to small inhalable particles from infectious sources at close, mid-, and longer range.
Use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of N95 FFRs, elastomeric respirators, powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs), and high-quality barrier face coverings.
Direct healthcare organizations to stop all respirator contingency measures, such as decontamination of N95 FFRs and use of nonrespirator facepieces like surgical masks in place of respiratory protection, and expand CDC recommendations for respiratory protection to include all workers in healthcare and related sectors, not just those with direct care of COVID-19 patients.
Update CDC recommendations, and adopt standards for barrier face coverings for the public with high levels of filter efficiency.
Coordinate a national effort to enhance and distribute the supply of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirators and ASTM International barrier face coverings for worker protection.
Better Respiratory Protection
The group recommended providing workers at lower exposure risks with high-performing barrier face coverings certified to provide at least 80% filter efficiency. N95 FFRs have a 95% filter efficiency. A newly issued ASTM International barrier face covering specification includes labeling provisions for masks with filter efficiencies of greater than or equal to 20% and greater than or equal to 50%.
The letter pointed out that Austria, France, and Germany recently mandated respiratory protection equivalent to N95 FFRs and higher-quality masks for both workers and members of the public, as well as recommended enhanced ventilation in indoor spaces.
The letter was addressed to Jeffrey Zients, White House coordinator of the COVID-19 Pandemic Response; CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky; and Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH.
The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Indoor Environmental Quality Committee, Respiratory Protection Committee, and COVID-19 Project Team also recently called for stronger workplace health and safety guidance to address concerns about the aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The group also recommended an emergency OSHA standard and prioritizing better respiratory protection options.
The proposal could lead to changes in labels and SDSs employers would receive. For example, the agency is proposing a new provision for small container labels for containers with a capacity less than or equal to 100 milliliters (ml).
This article was originally published February 19, 2021 on PSQH by Guy Burdick
On February 16, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed an update to the agency’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which would align provisions of the rule with the seventh revision of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) published in 2017 (86 FR 9576). An eighth revised edition was published in 2019.
The GHS is an international model regulation for chemical testing, hazard classification, and hazard communication intended to ease trade by establishing a uniform system of chemical labels and safety data sheets (SDSs). The GHS is revised every two years.
OSHA last updated the HCS on March 6, 2012, to conform to provisions of the third revision of the GHS issued in 2009.
The new update would contain substantive changes for chemical manufacturers and importers, amending the requirements for the labels and SDSs that manufacturers and importers must provide for hazardous chemicals in commerce.
The proposal could lead to changes in labels and SDSs employers would receive. For example, the agency is proposing a new provision for small container labels for containers with a capacity less than or equal to 100 milliliters (ml). Such labels would be required to include, at a minimum, a product identifier; a pictogram(s); a signal word; the chemical manufacturer’s name and phone number; and a statement that the full label information for the hazardous chemical is provided on the immediate
outer package.
OSHA also proposed adding the term “combustible dust” to the standard’s definitions. The agency had not included it in the 2012 revision because OSHA was considering a combustible dust rulemaking. However, the agency never established a combustible dust standard. Other OSHA standards include the term “combustible dust” but do not define it.
OSHA now proposes adopting the definition used in Revision 7 of the GHS—‘‘finely divided solid particles of a substance or mixture that are liable to catch fire or explode on ignition when dispersed in air or other oxidizing media.’’
The agency also is proposing changes to the SDS requirements to address manufacturers’ concerns about trade secrets. Some chemical manufacturers claim a product’s exact concentration or concentration ranges are trade secrets.
OSHA now proposes offering a series of concentration ranges that chemical manufacturers could use on SDSs: from 0.1% to 1%; from 0.5% to 1.5%; from 1% to 5%; from 3% to 7%; from 5% to 10%; from 7% to 13%; from 10% to 30%; from 15% to 40%; from 30% to 60%; from 45% to 70%; from 60% to 80%; from 65% to 85%; and from 80% to 100%. The ranges are consistent with those prescribed in Canadian regulations, according to the agency.
The proposed revisions to the HCS would reduce costs and burdens, according to OSHA, while improving the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees about chemical hazards.
Comments are due to the agency by April 19. OSHA will schedule an informal hearing on the proposal if one is requested during the comment period.
The guidance includes a recommendation to provide COVID-19 vaccination at no cost to employees.
This article was originally published February 3, 2021 on PSQH.
On January 29, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued stronger workplace health and safety guidance for protecting employees from COVID-19 exposures.
On January 21, President Joe Biden ordered OSHA to issue updated guidance within two weeks and consider establishing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) for workplace COVID-19 protections by March 15.
COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 pandemic. The disease is a recognized workplace health hazard, creating employer obligations to protect employees.
The guidance includes a recommendation to provide COVID-19 vaccination at no cost to employees. Other essential elements of a prevention program detailed in the newly issued guidelines include:
Conducting a workplace hazard assessment;
Identifying control measures to limit the spread of the virus;
Adopting policies for employee absences that don’t punish workers so that potentially infected workers are encouraged to remain at home;
Ensuring that coronavirus policies and procedures are clearly communicated to both English- and non-English-speaking workers; and
Implementing protections from retaliation for workers who raise coronavirus-related concerns.
“OSHA is updating its guidance to reduce the risk of transmission of the coronavirus and improve worker protections so businesses can operate safely and employees can stay safe and working,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick said in an agency statement.
Key measures offered in the guidance for limiting the spread of COVID-19 include separating and sending home infected or potentially infected people in the workplace, implementing physical distancing, installing barriers where physical distancing cannot be maintained, and using face coverings.
The guidance also covers use of personal protective equipment (PPE), when necessary; providing hand-washing supplies for good hygiene; routine cleaning and disinfection; and ventilation improvements (in accordance with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE) Guidance for Building Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic).
OSHA’s updated guidance recommends that employers take the following steps:
Assign a workplace coordinator who will be responsible for all COVID-19 issues.
Perform a thorough hazard assessment that involves workers and their representatives to identify potential workplace hazards related to COVID-19.
Identify precautions in line with the hierarchy of controls: elimination, substitution, engineering controls like installing physical barriers, workplace administrative policies, and PPE.
Consider enhanced protections, such as telework or work in less densely, better ventilated facilities, for workers at higher risk for severe illness, such as older adults and those who have serious underlying medical conditions putting them at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
Educate and train workers on COVID-19 symptoms and hazards, as well as the policies and procedures established and implemented for their protection.
Isolate workers who show symptoms at work, and instruct infected or potentially infected workers to isolate or quarantine at home.
Perform enhanced cleaning and disinfection after people suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 have been in the workplace.
Provide workers with information and guidance on COVID-19 screening and testing, following state or local guidance for screening and viral testing in workplaces, and make a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccination series available at no cost to all eligible employees.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had questions about the effectiveness of FFRs with exhalation valves for source control, such as whether such respirators protect others from the wearers' respiratory emissions.
Filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) with exhalation valves, as well as a surgical mask or an unregulated face covering, can reduce a wearer’s aerosol emissions, according to a report released on December 9 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). With modifications, the respirators can offer the same level of source control as FFRs without exhalation valves.
Compared with other workers and the general public, healthcare workers have faced a greater risk and a longer duration of exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers have used FFRs extensively, when available, during the pandemic.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had questions about the effectiveness of FFRs with exhalation valves for source control, such as whether such respirators protect others from the wearers’ respiratory emissions.
NIOSH confirmed that approved FFRs like N95 respirators protect the wearer, filtering particle penetration to less than 5%. The report, “Filtering Facepiece Respirators with an Exhalation Valve: Measurements of Filtration Efficiency to Evaluate Their Potential for Source Control” (NIOSH Publication No. 2021-107), also confirmed that an FFR with an exhalation valve provided the same source control as commonly used measures like surgical masks, procedure masks, and cloth face coverings.
NIOSH researchers determined that modifications to FFRs with exhalation valves can further reduce particle emissions. Using an electrocardiogram (ECG) pad or surgical tape over the valve from the inside of the FFR can provide a source control similar to that of an FFR with no exhalation valve.
Exhalation valves are designed to increase the wearer’s comfort at high work rates and during longer periods of use. The exhalation valve closes during inhalation, only allowing inhaled breath to be pulled through the respirator’s filter media, and the valve opens in order to allow exhaled breath to be expelled from the respirator through the exhalation valve, as well as the filter media. Such models provide the wearer with a level of protection similar to that of an FFR without an exhalation valve.
Respiratory secretions expelled by wearers may exit along with air through the exhalation valve. NIOSH researchers set out to address concerns that FFRs with an exhalation valve could spread disease if unfiltered, virus-laden aerosols passed through the valve.
Current CDC guidance does not recommend using an FFR with an exhalation valve for source control. The CDC advises that if FFRs with exhalation valves are the only options available and source control is necessary, then the valves should be covered with a surgical mask, procedure mask, or cloth face covering that does not interfere with the respirator fit.
Questions Studied
NIOSH’s National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory developed a study with three goals:
Measure the filtration efficiency provided by FFRs with an exhalation valve both under conditions of inward airflow (inhalation) and outward airflow (exhalation).
Evaluate how particle penetration in FFRs with an exhalation valve compares with particle penetration in surgical masks, procedure masks, cloth face coverings, and fabric from cotton t-shirts.
Determine the filtration efficiency of three modifications to the exhalation valve in FFRs, with the goal of mitigating the emissions of unfiltered particles.
Modifications examined by researchers included covering the valve on the interior of the FFR with commonly available surgical tape, covering it with an ECG pad, and stretching a surgical mask over the outside of the FFR. Covering an FFR with a surgical mask was not the most effective modification. Covering the interior of the valve with either an ECG pad or surgical tape reduced particle emissions to 5%.
The researchers performed a total of 1,125 tests, examining 13 FFR models with exhalation valves. The study produced the first measurements of outward particle penetration through FFRs with an exhalation valve, which have important implications for guidance on source control and disease mitigation.
ASTM is targeting a February 2021 approval for the standard, Daniel Smith, vice president of technical committee operations said in an e-mail.
This article was originally published December 22, 2020 on PSQH.
ASTM International, a standards-setting organization formerly known as The American Society for Testing and Materials, is developing a new specification for face coverings.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended cloth face coverings for the general public to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recommended them in its workplace health guidelines during the pandemic, and four states now require them in emergency temporary standards for COVID-19.
The ASTM standard, which would create minimum design, performance, and labeling and care requirements for face coverings, is being developed by the subcommittee on respiratory protection at ASTM.
ASTM is targeting a February 2021 approval for the standard, Daniel Smith, vice president of technical committee operations said in an e-mail.
The current problem with cloth face coverings for both consumers and employers is that there are no regulations or consensus standards that apply to the variety of products available in stores and online, R. Bryan Ormond, assistant professor at North Carolina State University’s Wilson College of Textiles, said in an e-mail.
Ormond is testing fabrics and production masks at the college’s Textile Protection and Comfort Center, using and developing methods that build on those used by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to test respiratory protection. Most current test methods like NIOSH’s “work by challenging the ‘outside’ of the material and seeing how many particles enter the breathing zone through the material of the mask,” according to Ormond.
NIOSH, ASTM—A Nonregulatory Standard
NIOSH’s National Personal Protection Testing Laboratory (NPPTL) approached ASTM’s respiratory protection subcommittee about a standard that would encourage the use of commercially manufactured masks in the workplace. According to ASTM, the NPPTL’s opinion was that a federal rulemaking was not a viable option.
The ASTM standard primarily would evaluate the performance of face coverings as methods of source control—how well the products limit expelled particles from the wearer—according to the group’s description of the standard currently in development. However, the standard also would address a mask’s filtration capability to limit the inhalation of particulate matter.
The ASTM standard’s requirements would be intended for face coverings for the general public and workers outside of health care, according to the organization’s description of the standard. They would not apply to personal protective equipment (PPE) required under OSHA standards or any equipment used in healthcare settings.
Equipment and devices for infectious disease source control in healthcare settings, like surgical masks, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
The ASTM standard for face masks would include:
Design and general construction criteria, as well as criteria for head suspension;
Bacterial and solid particle filter efficiency criteria, criteria for inhalation and exhalation breathing resistances, and sizing and fit-testing criteria; and
Requirements for mask user instructions, including donning and doffing, sizing, cleaning, and recommended period of use, as well as packaging and labeling requirements.
The proposed standard would have two different levels of filtration performance, according to ASTM, based on test methods and requirements for breathing resistance.
The specification will increase “everyone’s confidence that the products that are available provide some level of performance that has been agreed upon by a very large group of industry, government, and academic subject matter experts,” Ormond said.
Having a standard from ASTM will “provide mask manufacturers with a set of requirements to aim for and a set of specifically selected test methods and parameters to show that performance,” according to Ormond.
Ormond’s recommendations for cloth face coverings are those made of “at least 2–3 layers of material, but not so many that it is hard to breathe through, and then something that can easily and repeatedly fit to the face.”
However, Ormond cautions that cloth face coverings “really are a last line of defense in the exposure controls toolbox.” He suggests that employers and facilities first ensure that administrative and engineering controls are in place. Those include social distancing, limiting the number of individuals in an indoor space, increasing building ventilation and air filtration, and hand-washing practices.
