Issue link: http://palletcentral.uberflip.com/i/507696
palletcentral.com PalletCentral • March-April 2015 29 properly documented training (with backup materials showing what was used for training, such as powerpoints or bilingual handouts) can be critical in avoiding fines that can reach $70,000 per affected worker and which can place an employer into OSHA's "Severe Violators Enforcement Program" (which triggers additional inspection of the employer's other worksites). The HazCom standard is definitely not one that an employer should ignore. In the many citation cases I've handled for pallet industry employers, HazCom seems to inevitably be cited. Some employers think (incorrectly): "We just make (or disassemble) pallets and maybe warehouse some goods or load trucks … why would a standard aimed at the chemical industry even apply to us?" This is overly simplistic thinking, because the scope of the HazCom standard is quite broad and covers not only wood dust (which is certainly present in pallet workplaces) but common chemicals like bleach, solvents, paints, lubricants and even cleaning products. Consumer products are exceptions, as long as they are used in the same manner as a non-industrial consumer. This would include products like windshield washer fluid and hand sanitizer, but OSHA sometimes forgets this exception. In a recent case, an employer was cited for not applying HazCom to its portable fire extinguishers! While the judge did find that the fire extinguishers fell within the definition of a "hazard substance," in the workplace they were used in a manner comparable to a normal consumer, and so the citations were vacated. M.A. Mortenson Company (ALJ Joys 2014). In one 2015 case, the employer received multiple HazCom- related citations – some marked "serious." The allegations in this recent case included: • Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area (in this case, bags of natural stone); and, • The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer did not include an explanation of the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employees could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information (the citation specifically alleged that workers were not trained on the new pictograms and new SDS format). Based on information contained on the safety data sheets for the chemical at issue (natural stone), OSHA also alleged that appropriate respiratory protection had not been provided, and that employees had not been trained properly on the "voluntary" use of disposable paper dust masks, had not had a medical evaluation to determine their ability to use disposable masks, and had not been "fit tested" to use such dust masks. So it should be clear that employers need to review their chemicals' SDSs too, in order to determine appropriate exposure limits under OSHA's air contaminants standard, ensure these limits are not exceeded, and ascertain what PPE should be used by employees who are exposed to the chemical. For now, training is the only aspect of the revised HazCom GHS standard that OSHA enforces against employers (the older sections, covering written programs, labels and the chemical inventory list have always been required). On February 9, 2015, OSHA issued some enforcement guidance concerning the next trigger date – June 1, 2015 – when chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors and employers must be in compliance with all modified provisions. Under the final rule, by that date manufacturers and importers were to develop GHS-compliant SDSs and labels for chemicals and mixtures. However, OSHA has lagged behind in issuing guidance and in responding to