my point of view…

HazCom Promises to Be Long on Citations, Short on Safety

Some rules are just “born” bad. HazCom, the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s (MSHA) new hazardous communication rule, is one of them. Based largely on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) hazardous communication regulation, I believe that MSHA’s rule is likely to be long on citations, but short on safety and health improvements. We’ll know the outcome soon enough, though. HazCom enforcement begins Sept. 23 for mines with six or more employees. Enforcement for mines with five or fewer employees begins March 21, 2003.
OSHA’s regulation is that agency’s most frequently cited violation, accounting for four of its top 10 citation sources. Between 1986 and 2001, it resulted in 378,254 citations and $46,768,214 in fines. The proverbial regulatory “speed trap,” HazCom may be more effective as a revenue generator than as a means of improving worker safety and health. Rather than spending time training workers on surface haulage or implementing occupational health programs, HazCom has the potential to transform industry safety personnel into paper pushers. In the case of small producers, it could mean the difference between remaining independent or putting up the “for sale” sign.
MSHA claims that it has reduced the paperwork requirements because Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are not required to be kept on site; they just need to be readily available in case of emergency or if a miner asks for one. However, I find it difficult to imagine that the “competent person” or certified MSHA instructor can provide training on the hazards of a given material without reviewing the MSDS to determine what those hazards are. In fact, the enormous amount of paperwork required by this rule is exactly what the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 was passed to prevent. It seems ironic that the final HazCom rule was published in the Federal Register June 21, 2002 — exactly one week before the paperwork relief act was finalized.
To its credit, MSHA has provided the aggregates industry with some options on how to implement HazCom training. These options include a waiver on the requirement to modify Part 46/Part 48 training plans if the HazCom training does not exceed two hours and takes place prior to the rule’s implementation date. Through Part 46 refresher training, producers would be required to keep a record of the training, but that may be to the producer’s benefit since it provides documentation that the training did indeed occur. Alternatively, producers can also provide HazCom training before the implementation date under the rule itself, Part 47. There are no recordkeeping or training plan modification requirements under this option.
On its website, www.msha.gov., MSHA has also provided an example of an acceptable Part 46 training plan modification. A word of warning, however: one size does not fit all. Your training plan modification should include the name of the trainer and the duration of the training.
While the aggregates industry is certainly not pleased with this rule, I’m confident that we will strive to meet the regulation’s requirements. The challenge we face is how best to comply with HazCom while investing resources in programs that truly protect our workers. If you’d like to share insights on how your company or operation is dealing with HazCom, I’d love to hear from you. By sharing best practices, we may all be able to better focus on what’s really important — the safety and health of our workers.

Therese Dunphy, editorial director
therese@aggman.com

September 2002 my point of view... HazCom Promises to Be Long on Citations, Short on Safety				my point of view… HazCom Promises to Be Long on Citations, Short on Safety Some rules are just “born” bad. HazCom, the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s (MSHA) new hazardous communication rule, is one of them. Based largely on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) hazardous communication regulation, I believe that MSHA’s rule is likely to be long on citations, but short on safety and health improvements. We’ll know the outcome soon enough, though. HazCom enforcement begins Sept. 23 for mines with six or more employees. Enforcement for mines with five or fewer employees begins March 21, 2003. OSHA’s regulation is that agency’s most frequently cited violation, accounting for four of its top 10 citation sources. Between 1986 and 2001, it resulted in 378,254 citations and $46,768,214 in fines. The proverbial regulatory “speed trap,” HazCom may be more effective as a revenue generator than as a means of improving worker safety and health. Rather than spending time training workers on surface haulage or implementing occupational health programs, HazCom has the potential to transform industry safety personnel into paper pushers. In the case of small producers, it could mean the difference between remaining independent or putting up the “for sale” sign. MSHA claims that it has reduced the paperwork requirements because Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are not required to be kept on site; they just need to be readily available in case of emergency or if a miner asks for one. However, I find it difficult to imagine that the “competent person” or certified MSHA instructor can provide training on the hazards of a given material without reviewing the MSDS to determine what those hazards are. In fact, the enormous amount of paperwork required by this rule is exactly what the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 was passed to prevent. It seems ironic that the final HazCom rule was published in the Federal Register June 21, 2002 — exactly one week before the paperwork relief act was finalized. To its credit, MSHA has provided the aggregates industry with some options on how to implement HazCom training. These options include a waiver on the requirement to modify Part 46/Part 48 training plans if the HazCom training does not exceed two hours and takes place prior to the rule’s implementation date. Through Part 46 refresher training, producers would be required to keep a record of the training, but that may be to the producer’s benefit since it provides documentation that the training did indeed occur. Alternatively, producers can also provide HazCom training before the implementation date under the rule itself, Part 47. There are no recordkeeping or training plan modification requirements under this option. On its website, www.msha.gov., MSHA has also provided an example of an acceptable Part 46 training plan modification. A word of warning, however: one size does not fit all. Your training plan modification should include the name of the trainer and the duration of the training. While the aggregates industry is certainly not pleased with this rule, I’m confident that we will strive to meet the regulation’s requirements. The challenge we face is how best to comply with HazCom while investing resources in programs that truly protect our workers. If you’d like to share insights on how your company or operation is dealing with HazCom, I’d love to hear from you. By sharing best practices, we may all be able to better focus on what’s really important — the safety and health of our workers. Therese Dunphy, editorial director therese@aggman.com