Safety Basics IX: Understanding OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard

Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners with brief discussions about important workplace legal issues. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You can subscribe through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating this podcast so we can get your feedback and improve our programs. Please enjoy the podcast.

John: Hello, everybody. Welcome back to our Safety Basics podcast. This is Ogletree Deakins’ 17 part series relating to occupational health and safety. Today’s episode is on hazard communication, and with me today I have Ryan Swink out of the Houston office and Jeff Leslie out of the Dallas office. Welcome to the podcast, gentlemen.

Ryan Swink: Thanks, John. Happy to be here.

Jeff Leslie: Thanks, John. Appreciate it.

John: Let’s get right to it. Hazard communication at a high level, would one of you mind explaining for our audience, for those that aren’t aware of what hazard communication is?

Ryan Swink: Sure, John. Hazard communication is the OSHA standard that applies to pretty much all employers that have employees who are going to be exposed to hazardous chemicals in the workplace. OSHA defines hazardous chemicals extremely broadly, so for the most part, that’s going to be just about every employer. And it’s going to have about five requirements that I think we’ll get into in more detail here in a minute. But yeah, that has come at a high level.

John: And you kind of alluded to it there in your answer, Ryan, but not all employers are necessarily subject to hazard communication, but a lot of them are. Is that a fair assessment?

Ryan Swink: That’s a fair statement, yeah. And if you actually look at the regulation and the definition of a hazardous chemical, it is extremely broad. There are certainly going to be some workplaces that probably don’t have that exposure, but you probably want to lean more towards the expectation that you are subject to it instead of the expectation that you’re not subject to it.

John: In your answer, you kind of alluded to it, but help us understand what a hazardous chemical is. So I mean as a for instance, is a household chemical considered a hazardous chemical?

Ryan Swink: It can be. It depends on the chemical for the most part. It’s very likely that it will be if it has the potential to be harmful to a person’s health and safety. So that could be respiratory exposure, it could be if it touches your skin, it’s going to cause a rash. It really just depends. For the most part, the onerous is on the manufacturer of the chemical to indicate whether or not it is a chemical that’s subject to HazCom, but there are going to be quite a few household chemicals that are going to be subject to the HazCom standard.

John: My understanding of how some employers handle household chemicals or HazCom, I guess maybe is a better way of saying this in the workplace is rather than buying the industrial grade of something, they go out and they buy the household grade, so rather than going to one of the well-known supply houses that are on the industrial side of things, they go to your big box retailer or your online commerce place and order something that you might see in the household. But that doesn’t necessarily exempt the employer from hazard communications. And is there a reason why use of household chemicals, or are there triggers for when the use of household chemicals is really going to fall under the hazard communication standard?

Ryan Swink: Yeah, sure, John. So the key trigger is going to be the way in which the chemicals are being used. So if they’re being used in a manner that’s consistent with the way that they are used in the household, then they’re not going to be subject to the standard. However, if they’re used in a different way, more frequently, different purpose, then they’re going to be triggered under the standard.

Jeff Leslie: I would just add, too, the quantity in which it’s used is an important factor as well when looking at whether or not it’s going to fall under the HazCom standard or not.

John: Yeah, the amount that’s used, the frequency of use, how it’s used, et cetera. If it deviates from label instructions, I’m assuming that pretty much triggers, fall into hazard communication. Is that a fair summary? Are there key elements of the hazard communication standard?

Jeff Leslie: There are, in fact, there are probably five key elements to it when you really want to break it down, identification, labeling, safety data sheets, and then you have employee training, and program implementation.

John: And with regard to the training and implementation, what is the understanding that we’re talking in broad brushstrokes here, in that it’s not specifically tailored to any particular workplace because chemical usage is so broad and varied on implementation. What are the general expectations there?

Jeff Leslie: Yeah, that’s a great question. So I mean obviously the HazCom standard itself and what those requirements are is really important to communicate to your employees. But on top of that, places where the hazardous chemicals are located in the workplace, the location and the availability of the safety data sheets and the written HazCom program, and then how to read the GHS style safety data sheets and labels. And lastly, the in-house labeling system your company uses, if that’s applicable. Obviously, there’s a wide variety of types of workplaces, and not all are the same, so you just have to use those as they’re applicable. But in addition, an employer must also provide employees with specialized training for the specific chemicals that they’ll use in their job as well as symptoms of overexposure and how to protect the employee from harm.

John: In conveying the hazards of the chemical, in explaining the proper usage of the chemical, et cetera, what all does the employer have to train the employee on as relates to a particular chemical?

Jeff Leslie: That’s a great question. So what the employer is responsible for training the employee on, there are really kind of many, many sections within these SDS sheets that provide employees with hazard identification information, composition information on the ingredients, first aid measures, firefighting measures, if that comes up. So there are a number of things in which the employer is responsible for training the employee on so that they can safely use whatever this chemical is in the workplace.

John: Would it be fair to sum that up as saying the employer really has to train their employees on the contents of the SDS sheet?

Jeff Leslie: Absolutely.

John: Okay. So SDS sheets, every once in a while we hear people use the expression MSDS as opposed to SDS. And MSDSs were the old form. SDSs are the new form, although given that GHS was adopted in the US in 2012, saying new form is maybe a little stretch of the term new, but more recent maybe is a better term for it. If an employer has the MSDS sheet but doesn’t have the SDS sheet, does the employer have an obligation to go out and get the SDS sheet or can they rely on the MSDS sheet?

Ryan Swink: Yeah, John, they’re going to have to go out and get the new SDS sheet. The regulation is pretty clear as to what is required, and there’s a list of elements, and the old MSDS sheets are not going to meet that.

John: Is there a requirement relative to how SDS sheets be maintained? I mean, do they have to be maintained like they were back in 1988, when I first started working in industrial facilities, where you had this big, huge book in the lunchroom where you could go dig through it to find it? Or can employers keep them electronically or even remotely?

Ryan Swink: No, there’s no specific requirement as to how an employer has to maintain it. There’s definitely a trend that employers are moving towards the digital access where here’s the website you can go to pull the SDS sheets, and here’s the login information. From my perspective, even being I didn’t start working in 1988, I have kind of come to not be the biggest fan of the online access. I think it certainly has its benefits in terms of you’re going to have up-to-date SDS sheets, that’s for sure. But I think that in terms of the effectiveness of them, there’s certainly some question about that. I think OSHA certainly does not look too fondly on them. And during an investigation, an issue that can come up is whether or not employees truly understand how they can access their SDS sheets through this digital system, and that can create problems.
So I am a fan of the traditional giant binder sitting right there by the door as you walk into the facility. It’s going to be one of the first thing OSHA sees and perhaps it will put their mind at ease, knowing that more likely than not this employer is going to be in compliance.

Jeff Leslie: I think Ryan raises a good point, here, and I would add, or I guess emphasize that access is really what’s important. The employees need to be able to access these SDS sheets, they need to know where they are. The mistake that sometimes pops up is, “Yes, we have the big binder full of the SDS sheets, but they’re locked away in a manager’s office.” That’s not going to help you out during an inspection. So access is really key.

John: Is there anything that prevents an employer from having SDS sheets maintained in multiple formats? So the big binder, some sort of online system, some sort of computer database, is there a prohibition on that? I mean, does it have to be just one method?

Jeff Leslie: No, it doesn’t. It can be multiple methods and in fact, sometimes redundancy is a good idea.

John: Do SDS sheets have to be in the language of the folks that are working in the facility? So if you have a bunch of folks that speak Spanish, some folks that are Vietnamese, and Vietnamese only, and then English speakers, do you have to have the SDS sheets in all three languages?

Jeff Leslie: Again, I think this goes back to the broad understanding of accessibility. Yes, the employees do need to be able to access this in a language that they can understand.

John: I assume relative to hazard communication, there’ve been some updates this year, although this was one of those where there was the big update and there was a little update because there were a number of scrivener’s errors. But can either of you share for our audience what’s changed with this most recent set of updates and what type of things these recent updates require the employers do?

Ryan Swink: Yeah, so for the most part, the recent updates focused on the manufacturing front. So manufacturers are the ones that are responsible for creating the labels. They’re responsible for creating the safety data sheets. So the most recent update brought the standards for manufacturers and importers more in alignment with international standards. However, as part of that, that is going to eventually trickle down to your everyday employer. So the deadline for manufacturers, importers, and distributors to update their labels and SDSs is January 1 of ’26. After those labels are updated, they’re going to have to be pushed out to employers and employers are going to have to be ensuring that they are updating both the labels on any chemicals that they have in their facility as well as the SDSs, whether they keep that in an online database or in a binder. And employers’ deadline for that is July 20th, 2026.

John: Big, broad picture, I assume employers, because this is a relatively technical topic, tend to make mistakes that kind of fit certain patterns. Can the two of you comment on common mistakes that you’ve seen and things that employers might consider doing to avoid them?

Ryan Swink: Yeah, I can start with one, and I think Jeff has touched on this a little bit, and it’s ensuring that your employers truly understand the hazards associated with the chemicals in the workplace. So I think it’s kind of very common. Most employers will probably have some form of HazCom training, but when it comes down to whether or not these employees are truly retaining that training, and during an interview with an OSHA inspector can kind of give a high level overview of what they learned. I think this is especially true in facilities where HazCom is seen as less of an issue. So it’s not your major petrochemical refineries, it’s the employers that have smaller levels of exposure, but still exposure, nonetheless.
And this particularly crosses over into tasks that are uncommon. So cleaning certain pieces of equipment, things that may happen once a year or once every couple of years, ensuring that employees recognize that there is a new hazard created by using chemicals to clean or maintain this equipment that is not done every day. If you use XYZ chemical every day, you know probably the PPE requirements for that chemical. But if it’s something that you haven’t ever used before, your employees probably aren’t going to know that. So really putting the onerous on supervisors to recognize when employees are doing a task that is uncommon and is going to create a new hazard in the chemical space is certainly an area that we see mistakes occur a lot.

Jeff Leslie: Yeah, those are all good points. I would add for employers that work on multi-employer work sites, we oftentimes maybe see a breakdown of communication, there. And so it’s important to develop the method in which the employer is going to use to inform other employers of precautionary measures needed to protect the employees in normal operation conditions. And that can get a little bit tricky, especially when you have supervisors from different companies all kind of working together. So making sure that communication is solid and that everyone understands the potential chemical hazards on that work site.

John: Both good points and I appreciate it. Let me ask you to another question along the same lines. One of the things that we see pretty often is there’s a big container of some sort of chemical, oftentimes some sort of cleaning chemical or some sort of solvent, and folks dispense them into spray bottles or other containers for that day’s use, because toting around a 55 gallon barrel of whatever that cleaning chemical is, just isn’t really practical. And there’s often problems from the standpoint of labeling, continued use, so on and so forth. I mean, let’s face facts. A lot of times it’s a spray bottle that has nothing on the outside of it. In general, what are the things that an employer is supposed to do as relates to the temporary use of chemicals in the non-manufacturer supplied container, be it a spray bottle or just a bottle that somebody has a brush in because they’re using some sort of solvent and a brush to clean off parts?

Jeff Leslie: That’s a great question. So first, yes, spray bottles are covered under HazCom and they are required to be labeled. And it’s the responsibility of the employer and the safety managers for transferring and labeling those secondary containers. When you’re looking at that, the label has to include certain information like the product identifier, general information about the chemical’s hazards, the full chemical name, what that hazard is, the date it was transferred, and the expiration date. So you can’t just put a chemical into a plastic spray bottle and just call it good.

John: Is there any obligation relative to how long that chemical can stay in that plastic spray bottle?

Jeff Leslie: That’ll be chemical-dependent, and that’s where I think that expiration date comes in. And that’s something that the employer is required to notify the employees who will be using that, what the expiration date is.

John: Thank you, Jeff. And we’re start bringing this to ground and wrapping this up, so I just have a few more questions for you. So the first question is this. So employer orders chemical ABC. Chemical ABC comes in a container or whatever it is, and there’s no SDS sheets for that chemical container. What are the steps that the employer is supposed to engage in relative to securing the SDS sheet for that chemical?

Ryan Swink: I would say the first step is to reach out to the manufacturer, distributor, whoever you got it from. Ultimately, it is the manufacturer, importer, distributor’s responsibility to either create or pass along that safety data sheet. For most reputable companies where you’re buying these things, it should be relatively easy. So yeah, so I’d say step one is go ahead and reach out to the company that you acquired it from.

John: And what if the company that you acquire it from either is unwilling to cooperate or is, for some reason other between the time you ordered it and the time you received it, or maybe not the time you received it, but the time you start using it, they’re now defunct and no longer able to service you. What do you do in those circumstances? Can you use just a generic SDS sheet off the internet?

Jeff Leslie: No, you can’t use a generic SDS sheet for those hazardous chemicals. They do require the specificity, the accuracy. Generic SDSs may contain outdated health and safety information. And the SDS sheets also have to include the contact information for the responsible party. Now, there are some exceptions there, and I don’t know that we’ll have time to get into those today, but the generic labels aren’t going to satisfy your obligations under HazCom.

John: And I appreciate that, Jeff. So I’ll ask you guys one more question, and this is the big, just lay it out there. Are there any other considerations that employers should be thinking about when it comes to hazard communication, training on hazard communication, SDS sheets, storage, maintenance, use of chemicals that you guys would put out there today as part of our podcast?

Ryan Swink: Yeah, I mean, I think probably my primary tip would be ensuring that employees are using the appropriate PPE. I think that’s going to really be the test of your HazCom program. I think most, for the most part, HazCom injuries stem from PPE or lack thereof. So ultimately, probably the best way to test your HazCom program and to ensure that that you’re in compliance, both from a training perspective as well as a labeling perspective, is to ensure that your employees are using adequate PPE or the correct PPE, and that can be done through regular audits or a number of other ways.

Jeff Leslie: Yeah, I think that’s a great point that Ryan just raised. I mean, your HazCom policy and your PPE policy need to work hand in hand and they need to directly address the issues on the work site. We touched on training earlier. I think that training is a real key here, and it needs to be practical training. It needs to be training on exactly what chemicals the employees are going to be using and how that PPE ties into that. The other thing is, and we also touched on this, too, is access and up-to-date information. That really is on the employer to make sure that the employees have access to that, to the SDS sheets and that the SDS sheets are the most up-to-date.

John: Gentlemen, thank you so much. It’s been incredibly pleasant to have this half hour with you. Look forward to working with you in the future. And I’m sure our audience appreciates your doing this for them. Thank you so much.

Jeff Leslie: Thanks, John.

Ryan Swink: Thanks, John.

Announcer: Thank you for joining us on the Ogletree Deakins podcast. You can subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts or through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating and reviewing so that we may continue to provide the content that covers your needs. And remember, the information in this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.