OSHA Hazard Communication Research Articles

An evaluation of engineered nanomaterial safety data sheets for safety and health information post implementation of the revised hazard communication standard

In 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued the revised Hazard Communication Standard to bring the US in closer alignment with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, and make the exchange of health and safety information more effective. To evaluate the impact of this change on the reliability and accuracy of safety data sheets, a sample of safety data sheets specific to engineered nanomaterials was obtained by using an internet search engine and subsequently evaluated. These safety data sheets were evaluated using a modified Kimlisch et al. (1997) criteria for ranking the quality of data into categories of reliability and the Eastlake et al. (2012) ranking scheme for scoring four categories. While 86 safety data sheets for nanomaterials were obtained during 2016-2017, 19 of these had no date of completion or revision and could not be evaluated since it was impossible to determine if they were pre or post 2012, when the revised OSHA Hazard Communication Standard was issued. The remaining 67 safety data sheets were ranked by the Kimlisch et al. criteria, and 28.4% (19) were found to be reliable without restrictions (excellent), 35.8% (24) were reliable with restrictions (good), and 35.8% (24) were determined to be unreliable. Evaluating the SDSs using the Eastlake et al. ranking scheme resulted in 3% (2) as satisfactory, 17.9% (12) as being in need of improvement, and 79% (53) in need of significant improvement. It is noteworthy that out of the 79% in need of significant improvement, 25.4% (17) did not have enough data to be evaluated. This evaluation of nanomaterial safety data sheets revealed that the quality of information on many still cannot be relied upon to offer adequate information on the inherent health and safety hazards, including handling and storage of engineered nanomaterials.

Radioactive materials and the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

Many radioactive substances have chemical hazards that are regulated under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. Environmental health and safety professionals need to be aware which substances fall into this category. These substances need to be part of their organization’s hazard communication program.

Clinical Issues—June 2017

Defining a small amount of surgical smoke Key words: surgical smoke, medical-surgical vacuum system, suction tubing. Assessment of hazardous medications Key words: hazardous medications, safety data sheets, OSHA hazard communication. Documentation of electrosurgical devices Key words: electrosurgical device. Developing an explant policy Key words: explant, guideline, implant, policy.

Managing process chemicals, technology and equipment information for pilot plant based on Process Safety Management standard

Injuries, accidents or even fatalities while working in pilot plant are reported worldwide. The OSHA Laboratory Standard and Hazard Communication Standard have been used as a guideline to manage safety of laboratories and pilot plant. In spite of the implementation of these standards, incidents which result in injuries and property loss are continuously occurring. The implementation of OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard in pilot plant is expected to further reduce the risks of accidents. This paper presents a new system for managing process chemicals, technology and equipment information in pilot plant and the concept is developed based on Process Safety Information (PSI) element of PSM 29 CFR 1910.119(d). It provides organized strategies to manage documentations, communicate information, and written program for maintaining, revising and updating related information. Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) is used as a foundation for data management. Implementation of this system at the CO2 Hydrocarbon Absorption System pilot plant as a case study is examined and discussed.

Lab-scale process safety management

The U.S. OSHA Laboratory Standard and Hazard Communication Standard have improved safety management in laboratories and pilot plants. In spite of these standards, incidents which result in injuries and property loss continue to occur in these research and teaching locations. Application of the methods outlined in the OSHA Process Safety Standard to laboratory and pilot plant operations has the potential to further reduce the risks associated with the operations in these locations. In particular, a Lab PSM Approach to hazard recognition and assessment, to the development of standard operating procedures, and to the management of change will provide significant guidance to researchers and educators in safety management. Application of Process Safety Management to the operations in these locations is examined and the benefits of the approach are discussed.

Management of Change for Laboratories and Pilot Plants

In spite of the U.S. OSHA Laboratory and Hazard Communication Standards, incidents which result in injuries and property loss continue to occur in the research and teaching locations. Application of the Management of Change methods contained in the OSHA Process Safety Standard to laboratory and pilot plant operations has the potential to further reduce the risks associated with these locations. Application of Management of Change from the OSHA Process Safety Management standard to these locations is examined, and the benefits of the approach are discussed.

New IARC classification for TiO2 and compliance with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard Provisions for amending the MSDS

New IARC classification for TiO2 and compliance with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard Provisions for amending the MSDS

New IARC classification for TiO2 and compliance with the OSHA hazard communication standard provisions for amending the MSDS

New IARC classification for TiO2 and compliance with the OSHA hazard communication standard provisions for amending the MSDS

What's in your wash tank?

Sellers of aqueous cleaning agents have but two things to offer: their proprietary formulation and their service. So they protect the former because it's their lifeblood. And users value the latter because they need to know as much as they can about the formulation—to fulfill OSHA's Hazard Communication (HAZCOM) requirements, to manage or troubleshoot their “bug pond” where the spent formulation is treated, or just to get clean parts. This, column will attempt to generally identify the composition of your aqueous cleaning agent.

Dying to Know: A Historical Analysis of the Right-to-Know Movement

The history of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard is presented, with the implications for the role of government in regulation of job health and safety. The gaining of the Right-to-Know about chemical exposure was a significant achievement for labor, although it took fifteen years to gain a national standard. Labor and community group coalitions, divisions between chemical producers and chemical users, economic forces, third-party law-suits, and the difficulties in NIOSH/OSHA obtaining chemical identities were all important factors in gaining a standard. Chemical producers shifted from an ideology of “everything is safe” to “everything is dangerous,” and finally had to mount a campaign to get the Reagan administration to issue a national standard as a way to pre-empt state and local laws. The case illustrates the relatively greater power of industry, but that workers were able to gain increased control over their work through organizing.

Analysis of reproductive health hazard information on material safety data sheets for lead and the ethylene glycol ethers.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are essential sources of information regarding health risks from exposure to toxic chemicals. We analyzed the reproductive health hazard descriptions on nearly 700 MSDSs for lead- or ethylene glycol ether-containing products submitted by central Massachusetts firms to the Department of Environmental Protection under provisions of the Massachusetts Right-to-Know Law. Over 60% of the MSDSs made no mention whatsoever of effects on the reproductive system. Those that did were much more likely to address developmental risks than male reproductive effects. The MSDSs from firms employing 100 or more workers mentioned reproductive system effects more frequently than those from smaller companies. While the informativeness of the health hazard descriptions increased over time, 53% of the MSDSs prepared after promulgation of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard still contained no information on reproductive risks.

Dental Office Compliance Evaluation for the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard and Hazard Communication Program

On-site inspections of private dental offices in Maryland were conducted to assess compliance with the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard and Hazard Communication program, enforced by Maryland Occupational Safety and Health.

Book: How to Comply with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

Book: How to Comply with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

How to comply with the OSHA hazard communication standard: A complete guide in compliance with OSHA right-to-know regulations

How to comply with the OSHA hazard communication standard: A complete guide in compliance with OSHA right-to-know regulations

Occupational Health in the 1990s

Where have we come since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970? Have we made progress in this country toward "safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women?" Many hazardous exposures that were prevalent before the creation of NIOSH, OSHA, and MSHA have been reduced. Exposure to asbestos, coal dust, silica, lead, and cotton dust are common examples. Through OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and state Right to Know laws as well as an increase in the dissemination of information, the average employer and worker today is better informed of specific hazards on the job, and more attentive to safety measures. However, the high toll of work related disease and injuries continues today.

An industrial hygienist's perspective on generic standards.

OSHA and EPA regulations promulgated to date contain the necessary framework to consider generic standards in the 1990s. Missing in OSHA standards has been the requirement for a competent person to define and manage an occupational health program and the requirement for all employers who have toxic materials with significant exposures to have a basic occupational health program. Certainly we have evolved to a point where every worker significantly exposed to toxic materials has a right to know what that exposure is. Fundamental to generic standards is the need to define what is meant by toxic substance and significant exposure level. It is suggested that NIOSH maintain a list of recognized safe exposure levels that have been recommended by credible organizations including NIOSH. It is suggested that action levels be defined as one-half the lowest recognized safe exposure level. It is proposed that all employers be required to conduct an initial inspection of their workplace, using competent persons, to determine if exposures exceed action levels. This is only one step beyond the requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Rule which requires that employers identify and maintain a list of all hazardous materials known to be present in the workplace and to inform workers of the hazards. If exposure levels are found in excess of action levels, then the basic elements of current standards would be required, including regular employee-exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, sanitation, training and education, and a management plan.

OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

Risk management for hazardous chemicals. OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and EPA's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Regulations.

(1988). Risk management for hazardous chemicals: OSHA's hazard communication standard and EPA's emergency planning and community right‐to‐know regulations. Journal of Legal Medicine: Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 179-278.

A Hazardous Mix: Discretion to Disclose and Incentives to Suppress under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard

National surveys have shown that industrial chemical manufacturers fail to provide information identifying ingredients and warning of hazards with most of their products. This practice leads workers to expose themselves unknowingly to chemical dangers, leaves them unaware of the true causes of chemically induced diseases, and gives rise to injuries, premature deaths, lost productivity, and medical and social welfare costs.After years of delay, OSHA in 1983 promulgated the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). HCS requires chemical manufacturers to provide warnings with products they deem to be dangerous. Except for prescribing that a relatively small list of proven carcinogens must be labeled as hazardous, HCS leaves decisions about the elements and scope of adequate evaluation procedures to the "professional judgment" of manufacturers. HCS presents a manufacturer with two options: It may decide that a chemical is a health hazard and thereby obligate itself to comply with extensive labeling and reporting requirements," or it may decide that a product is not hazardous, and label it by trade or code names only. Courts have held that HCS preempts overlapping provisions of state "right-to-know" statutes, many of which contain more stringent hazard disclosure requirements. This Note argues that the wide discretion given manufacturers in performing hazard evaluations under HCS renders the standard ineffective.

The OSHA hazard communication standard or "right to know"

This paper addresses the new OSHA requirements; readers should consult their state and local laws for specific additional requirements imposed by local codes enacted in recent years.