From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] question on Hazcom training
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:52:19 -0500
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: 1523b422e55-357-73c2**At_Symbol_Here**

The first kickers in that OSHA statement are the words "duration" and "frequency."  It should be rather clear that someone paid to use cleaners for 8 hours/day is not using them as a consumer.  Householders would also be doing many other tasks during the day that did not involve use of the cleaner.  So the cleaners still come under hazcom unless use of them is limited to the duration and frequency of cleaner use by consumers.

The other kicker is "in the same manner," which means the kitchen cleansers would be used in an ordinary kitchen, the bathroom cleaners in an ordinary bathroom and so on.

So the way we explain it to art schools is that a custodian who is using the cleaners with far greater frequency than a householder would should be included in hazcom training on this product.  The teacher in computer graphics that has a cleaner in the room and occasionally cleans up after students leave does not need training on the cleaners.

But the painting teacher who cleans up the sink after children or college students leave a mess is not using this product in a typical kitchen.  They need training.  They also need the information because there are so many cases of teachers experiencing respiratory and eye irritation from the interaction of dry bleach-containing cleansers reacting with the ammonia stabilizers in the acrylic paints in the drains.

We have the same issues with cosmetics used in the theater department.  If the cosmetics are brought into the workplace for personal use, they are not covered.  But a makeup artist needs full hazcom training on these hazardous products.  And in this case, the difference was made clear by OSHA when the first hazcom was instituted.  A 1994 comment by OSHA in the February 9, 1994 was the following:

Cosmetics.  OSHA has separated the exemptions applying to cosmetics and placed them in a new subparagraph, but has not changed the substance of the requirements.  Cosmetics are exempt when packaged for sale to consumers in a retail establishment, and when brought into the workplace for employee consumption.  Otherwise, they are covered by the rule when they contain hazardous chemicals.

OSHA's intent is clear.  If the duration and frequency of use and the manner in which the product is used is similar to that of ordinary consumer use, hazcom does not apply.  

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062


-----Original Message-----
From: Shoshenskiy, Nicole <nshoshenskiy**At_Symbol_Here**MSDSONLINE.COM>
Sent: Wed, Jan 13, 2016 6:01 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] question on Hazcom training

Hello Dave,

The issue here is usage and not necessarily the manufacturers intended usage but how it is actually being used in the workplace.

From OSHA's website: OSHA does not require that MSDSs be provided to purch= asers of household consumer products when the products are used in the workplace in the same manner that a consumer would use them, i.e.; where the duration and frequency of use (and therefore exposure) is not greater than what the typical consumer would experience. This exemption in OSHA's regulation is based, however, not upon the chemical manufacturer's intended use of his product, but upon how it actually is used in the workplace. Employees who are required to work with hazardous chemicals in a manner that results in a duration and frequency of exposure greater than what a normal consumer would experience have a right to know about the properties of those hazardous chemicals.

Additionally, a letter of interpretation at OSHAs website states that one would be obligated to fulfill all of the requirements, not just where the SDSs are stored and how to access them.

An exerpt from the LOI states: ...OSHA's HCS which requires "all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed by means of a hazard communication program, labels and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and information and training." (See 1910.1200(b)(1)). Furthermore, section (g)(7) requires retail distributors that sell hazardous chemicals to commercial customers to provide MSDS to such employees upon request.

Training of course applies not just to supervisors but to any employee using the hazardous product for the course of their job.

I hope this helps.

Nicole Shoshenskiy
Authoring Services Team Lead
ACS, Chicago Chapter, Secretary 2015 & 2016

-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**] On Behalf Of Wilhelm, Monique
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] question on Hazcom training

Hi Dave,

I am in a completely different situation from you as we have a lot of chemicals in my Chemistry Department. Our CHP requires refresher every 3 years. My faculty actually do it annually as it is easy online training with a quick review proficiency with me. But, my husband used to be a manager for a pet supply chain and he had to provide HazCom training to all of his employees that came into contact with cleaning supplies or the fish maintenance supplies.

Good luck,
Monique Wilhelm
Laboratory Manager
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
University of Michigan - Flint

-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**] On Behalf Of David Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:50 PM
Subject: [DCHAS-L] question on Hazcom training

Hello world,

I have what I feel is a simple question on hazcom training. Let's try not to take this to the worlds edge here, but instead just focus on what is in fact necessary and needed here. I'm at a small (2000 student) Liberal Arts college. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, and have been managing our chemical storage for the past 18+ years. I'm a state certified hazmat technician (with our local and state fire responders). With that, I've had a lot of training in the area of hazardous waste, waste management, osha certs, epa audits, nfpa, etc-

But, I am uncertain of what to do here. At what level do most people go to with training of GHS and the hazard communication plan. Is it just the concept of where do we store MSDS's (that are basically just cleaning supplies), what labels are put on our cleaning chemicals, etc-??? Outside of academics, we really do not have a load of chemicals (really, I promise). Our cleaners that we have adopted are all green certified (whatever that means), and so there really isn't a whole lot here. Is it necessary to train all of our facilities people on the hazcom standard, or can we simply make sure all the supervisors know and leave it at that. What is the rule here? I do understand the "right to understand" concept and ensuring that all employees need to know what they have and what they are working with. But frankly, the majority do not ever see a chemical and harsher than windex while working here.

So we do have grounds people, and they are working with fertilizers/pesticides. Most of them have outside certifications that allow them to apply things, so they have training above and beyond. For them, I see maybe going over this information. We have a few others that also may apply. I guess I'm just trying to see if people get third shift and janitors to go through this training and how necessary that is. I am more than willing to do that, there is no fight on that, but if I can minimize how many people I have to torment with these trainings, that would be nice.

I'm just wondering what others do. I can do an online thing that is simple, maybe a part of employee orientation, but what is the frequency of the refreshers?

I understand that part of the hazard communication plan is to define training, so I guess that's what I'm asking here. How do most define it, and what do they actually do?



Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.