New Spray Applicator/Painter Training Requirements
New environmental regulations went into effect establishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for companies not currently associated with a “major source of HAP emissions”. Manufacturing processes affected by the new regulations include paint stripping operations and spray applications of coatings which contain any of the following HAP’s: chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, or cadmium. Some exemptions are part of the regulation, but many smaller businesses that were exempted before may be subject to this standard because there are no minimum usage quantities. It may be advisable to check your MSDS sheets and manufacturing processes to see if your company’s spraying or paint stripping operation uses any chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, or cadmium.
Some highlights of the requirements include an initial notification requirement for all existing and new startup operations and evaluations of paint stripping practices. One significant change affects all spray application painters who apply surface coatings containing the previously mentioned HAP’s; they must now receive training and certification for the proper spray application of surface coatings in addition to the proper setup and maintenance of spray equipment. The training includes items such as hands-on and classroom training, spray techniques, spray booth maintenance, and other environmental requirements. Spray application by individuals who are not certified will be prohibited. All spray-applied coatings must be in a spray booth, prep station, or mobile enclosure that meets the standards requirements. Painter training must be completed prior to January 10, 2011 and recurring at least every five years.
Does the Current Use of the Globally Harmonized System Comply with OSHA’s HazCom Standard?
In line with the recent OSHA announcement to move toward adopting Globally Harmonized System (GHS) OSHA released a letter of interpretation on its current policy on GHS complying with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS).
A writer asked specific questions regarding the use of the GHS of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The following responses constitute OSHA’s interpretation of only the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated outside of the listed scenarios and questions. The paraphrased scenario and questions are below, followed by OSHA’s responses.
Scenario: Your company manufactures various ink products for industrial inkjet printers and some of these ink products are considered hazardous within the context of:
OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200;
Canada Hazardous Products Act;
European Union (EU) Regulation EC/1272/2008 (EU GHS);
United Nations (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (UN GHS).
Question 1: Would you consider an EU GHS label sufficient to meet the spirit and intent of OSHA’s current HCS?
Reply 1: A qualified yes, as long as the label complies with the provisions of the HCS as discussed herein. The HCS was promulgated to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced in or imported into the U.S. are evaluated and that information concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers and employees. The transmittal of information is to be accomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs which include container labeling and other forms of warning covered under 29 CFR 1910.1200(f).
The HCS requires that labels contain the identity of the chemical; appropriate hazard warnings; and the name and addresses for the chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party [29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)]. The identity of a chemical is the chemical name or common name that is also used on the material safety data sheet (MSDS), and a hazard warning means words, pictures, symbols, or a combination thereof which conveys the specific physical and health hazards, including the target organ effects [29 CFR 1010.1200(c)]. Manufacturers, importers, and distributors must ensure that containers of hazardous chemicals leaving their facilities have labels which contain these elements.
Classification schemes in the EU and other countries may be different from those in OSHA’s HCS. These classification schemes may affect the information provided on both the safety data sheet and the label. However, as long as the EU GHS label contains the information required by the HCS, OSHA will consider the EU GHS label sufficient.
OSHA is proposing to amend the HCS to incorporate the GHS. If these changes are ultimately adopted, then EU GHS labels should generally meet the requirements of the HCS.
Question 2: Would you take enforcement action under your current regulations against manufacturers, importers or distributors that market products that have been appropriately labeled according to EU GHS requirements?
Reply 2: OSHA would not issue any citations so long as the chemical label and other forms of warning include the information required by OSHA’s HCS, as discussed above.
Question 3: Would you take enforcement action under your current regulations against employers or users of a product that has been appropriately labeled according to EU GHS requirements?
Reply 3: Employers obligations under the HCS are distinct from those of manufacturers, importers, or distributors. According to the Hazard Communication Directive, CPL 02-02-038, Paragraph (E)(1)(d)(1), available on OSHA’s website: “Employers are not to be held responsible for inaccurate information on the MSDS/label which they did not prepare and they have accepted in good faith from the chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor. The “responsible party” named on the MSDS and the label would be held responsible for the accuracy of the information and potentially subject to citation if a violation of the HCS was determined to exist.”
Manufacturers, importers and distributors of hazardous chemicals are required to determine the hazards of the chemical(s) they produce or import and provide that information downstream to employers and employees through MSDSs and labels that comply with 29 CFR 1910.1200.
OSHA Cites Seafood Processor Following Worker Death in Ice Machine
OSHA has cited Northern Wind Inc., a New Bedford, MA, seafood processor, for 23 alleged violations and $66,800 in penalties after a worker was killed on May 4 when he became caught in the moving parts of a large industrial ice-making machine that activated while he was performing maintenance work inside it.
OSHA found that the plant lacked specific steps and procedures to power down and lock out the ice machine’s power source before employees entered it. The agency’s investigation also found that workers were not trained to recognize and address the hazard of the machine operating without warning. In addition, the plant lacked a program and employee training for working in confined spaces, such as the ice machine, and ladders were not available to ensure safe entry and exit from the ice machine.
Additionally, OSHA’s inspection identified unmarked exit doors and a lack of emergency exit route lighting, no eyewash or drenching facilities for employees working with corrosive chemicals, a lack of material safety data sheets and chemical hazard communication training, unguarded open-sided floors, a missing safety latch on a hoisting hook and several electrical-related hazards.
All told, these conditions resulted in the issuance of 19 serious citations, with $62,800 in proposed fines. The company also has been fined $4,000 for four other-than-serious hazards, including incomplete recording of injuries and illnesses. The combined penalties total $66,800.
OSHA requires several documents and written programs to be accessible to all employees.This includes Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), Bloodborne Pathogens, and Permit Required Confined Spaces.In the past, documents were required to be printed out and stored in a binder.Frequently, multiple copies needed to be printed for different buildings or locations creating document control problems, like pages being out of order or ripped out by employees.Other frustrations included outdated documents in circulation, extensive time required to update all the copies, and being known as the “tree killer” when approaching the copy machine.Now that we are well into the digital age, OSHA has thankfully recognized the need for some businesses to shift away from paper.In a Standard Interpretation Letter dated September 16, 2008, OSHA states that employee access to written programs may be in paper or electronic format.Where a standard requires that the written program be made available to employees, they must know how to easily access the documents without any barriers.The program must meet all other requirements of the standard.
However, it may not be that simple!An OSHA Letter of Interpretation dated 10/28/1996 states that when computers are used for MSDS access, employees must be trained on how to obtain the information, and the employer must integrate the system into their overall hazard communication program.This could be a major hurdle for some employers if their workforce is uncomfortable or unfamiliar with computers.The same letter also states that employers should provide a backup computer system when the main system is down for short periods of time for maintenance, repair, or power disruption.Providing a backup system to the main computer or printing a hard copy set of MSDS’s before shutting down the system would meet the standard’s intent.To comply with these requirements, an employer would still be required to print a complete set of MSDS sheets or create a computer system which has an independent power source, such as a generator, and have databases stored on a server and local drive!
