Week 5 — Chemical Exposure & HazCom: Why "We Have an SDS Binder" Is Not a Program

Hazard Communication — 29 CFR 1910.1200 — has been in the OSHA Top 10 most‑cited violations for as long as the Top 10 has been published. There are only a handful of standards that consistently sit on that list, and HazCom is one of the few in general industry that does. That tells me something the inspections data already tells us: most employers think they have a HazCom program because they have a binder of Safety Data Sheets near the door, and most of those programs would not survive a serious inspection or a serious injury investigation.

When I review chemical exposure cases as an expert witness, the failure point is rarely the chemistry. It is the gap between what the worker knew, what the SDS said, what the label said, and what the supervisor told them when they asked. Bridging that gap is the entire point of the HazCom standard.

What 29 CFR 1910.1200 Actually Requires

The standard, in plain language, requires every employer with hazardous chemicals in the workplace to do six things:

1. Maintain a written Hazard Communication program (1910.1200(e)). It must list the hazardous chemicals known to be present, identify the person(s) responsible for the program, and describe how labels, SDSs, and training are handled.

2. Maintain SDSs for every hazardous chemical (1910.1200(g)). Sheets must be in the standard 16‑section GHS format, must be readily accessible to employees during their work shift, and must be in English (with translations as appropriate for the workforce).

3. Ensure container labels comply with GHS requirements (1910.1200(f)). Manufacturer labels include product identifier, signal word ("Danger" or "Warning"), pictograms, hazard statements, precautionary statements, and supplier identification. Workplace labels (for transferred chemicals in secondary containers) must include product identifier and words/pictures/symbols providing general information about the hazards.

4. Train employees on the hazards (1910.1200(h)). At time of initial assignment and whenever a new hazard is introduced. Training must cover the requirements of the standard, operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present, location of the written program and SDSs, the physical and health hazards of the chemicals, protective measures, and how to read labels and SDSs.

5. Coordinate on multi‑employer worksites (1910.1200(e)(2)). Each employer must inform other employers on site of the hazardous chemicals their employees may be exposed to, the precautionary measures that need to be taken, and the labeling system in use.

6. Treat trade secrets appropriately (1910.1200(i)). Specific identity may be withheld from the SDS in narrow circumstances, but the chemical's hazards must still be disclosed.

The last revision of the standard incorporated the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) — the standard SDS format, the standard pictograms, the standardized signal words, and the harmonized hazard classifications. Most employers updated to GHS years ago. Most employers have not refreshed training since.

The Six Failure Modes I See

When I audit HazCom programs or analyze them in litigation, six recurring problems:

• The written program is generic. Off‑the‑shelf template, never customized to the actual chemicals or operations on site. The "list of hazardous chemicals" section is blank or labeled "see SDS binder."

• The SDS binder is out of date. Chemicals in use that are not in the binder. Chemicals in the binder that haven't been on site in five years. Sheets that pre‑date the GHS update. Sheets in formats that aren't 16‑section.

• Secondary containers are unlabeled or improperly labeled. A spray bottle marked "cleaner" with no identifier. A pump container marked with the manufacturer's full label transferred from a 5‑gallon pail with no field labeling. Both are violations.

• Training is one‑and‑done. Employees received initial HazCom training on hire and never again, even after new chemicals were introduced. The standard requires retraining "whenever a new chemical hazard the employees have not previously been trained about is introduced into their work area."

• Multi‑employer coordination doesn't happen. A contractor brings hazardous chemicals onto a site. The host employer never sees the SDSs. The contractor's workers don't know what the host employer's own chemicals are. Both employers have a 1910.1200(e)(2) violation.

• Exposure monitoring is missing. HazCom does not by itself require exposure monitoring, but the substance‑specific standards (lead, hexavalent chromium, silica, formaldehyde, isocyanates, and many others) layered on top of HazCom often do — and the SDS will tell you when, if anyone reads it.

The Substance‑Specific Standards You Cannot Ignore

HazCom is the floor. For many chemicals, OSHA layers on substance‑specific standards in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart Z (Toxic and Hazardous Substances). A non‑exhaustive list of the ones I see most often missed:

• 29 CFR 1910.1025 — Lead. Permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 µg/m³ as an 8‑hour TWA. Action level of 30 µg/m³ triggers monitoring, training, and biological monitoring requirements.

• 29 CFR 1910.1026 — Hexavalent Chromium. PEL of 5 µg/m³ as an 8‑hour TWA. Common in welding on stainless and certain coatings.

• 29 CFR 1910.1053 — Respirable Crystalline Silica (general industry). PEL of 50 µg/m³. Construction has a parallel standard at 29 CFR 1926.1153.

• 29 CFR 1910.1048 — Formaldehyde. PEL of 0.75 ppm 8‑hr TWA, action level 0.5 ppm.

• 29 CFR 1910.134 — Respiratory Protection. Triggered when respirators are used. Requires a written program, fit testing, medical evaluation, training, and proper selection.

If any of these chemicals are in your operation and you cannot quickly produce the matching exposure assessment, written program, and training records, that is a stack of citations waiting to happen.

Where Litigation Lands

In chemical exposure injury cases — chronic respiratory disease, dermal injury, acute exposure incidents — the discovery focus is almost always:

• The exposed worker's training records.

• The exposure assessment (or absence of one).

• The SDSs the worker had access to.

• The labels on the containers the worker actually handled.

• The PPE program covering the chemicals in use.

• Any near‑miss or prior incident reports involving the same chemical.

When the SDSs are present but no training records exist, the employer is conceding the case. When the labels were stripped or replaced with handwritten markings, the employer is conceding the case. When the exposure assessment was never performed, the employer is conceding the case. As an expert witness, my report writes itself when the documents tell that story.

What to Do This Week

For HazCom and chemical exposure, three concrete actions:

• Walk one work area. Pick five containers at random — including secondary containers like spray bottles, pump cans, and labeled drums. Verify each one has a label that meets either manufacturer GHS requirements or the workplace labeling rule. Anything unlabeled is removed from service today.

• Pull the SDS binder (or load the digital SDS system) and pick three chemicals from the bench or shop floor. Confirm there is a current SDS for each, in 16‑section format, and that the SDS matches the actual product on the floor.

• Pull HazCom training records for any employee hired in the last 90 days. Confirm initial training was documented before the employee was assigned to work with hazardous chemicals.

IamWright Safety Consulting performs HazCom program audits, builds and updates written programs, delivers employee and supervisor HazCom training, and serves as expert witness in chemical exposure injury and disease litigation. The standard is one of the most knowable and one of the most often broken — which means it is one of the easiest to fix before it becomes someone's injury and someone else's lawsuit.

For consulting, training, or expert witness inquiries, please contact us using the contact form.

David Wright is the owner of IamWright Safety Consulting and serves as Director of Safety & Health, Construction at CDM Smith. He has audited HazCom programs across construction, manufacturing, and utility sectors and has served as expert witness in cases involving chemical exposure injuries.