This is from a paper I wrote for a class on OSHA Standards:

Abstract 

It is well known that employers are obligated to provide a workplace and employment that are free of recognized hazards.  But when it comes to working with chemicals, how far does that obligation stretch? Specifically, what constitutes a true hazard and how is it determined?  Must the employer force employees to wear cumbersome protective equipment when using the same chemicals they use at home with no protection?  Does the overuse of PPE have negative effects on overall safety?  It seems that the quest for clarification on these questions may turn up more questions than answers, but it is worth taking a closer look. 

Must I wear gloves? – Employer Obligations Under OSHA’s HAZCOM Standard

The general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 obliges employers to provide a workplace that is free of recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. This already gargantuan responsibility is made even more difficult by the ambiguity of the statement. The difficulty comes with the term “serious physical harm,” which is quite subjective and has different meaning to different people. As I will demonstrate, even OSHA has trouble deciding what constitutes a hazard and what protective measures are “appropriate.”

For the purposes of this paper, I am going to look at OSHA’s Hazardous Communication Standard (also known as HCS or HAZCOM), 29 CFR § 1910.1200, a very broad horizontal standard that applies to almost all employers. Within the chemical hazards defined in the HCS, I am going to focus on the hazard of “irritation.” According to the mandatory Appendix A to the HCS, the definition of an irritant is:

A chemical, which is not corrosive, but which causes a reversible inflammatory effect on living tissue by chemical action at the site of contact. A chemical is a skin irritant if, when tested on the intact skin of albino rabbits by the methods of 16 CFR 1500.41 for four hours exposure or by other appropriate techniques, it results in an empirical score of five or more. A chemical is an eye irritant if so determined under the procedure listed in 16 CFR 1500.42 or other appropriate techniques.

The prescribed test is from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and it consists of an evaluation of the redness/abrasion of the rabbits’ skin after the measured exposure.

OSHA further complicates the issue in 29 CFR § 1910.120, the standard on Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) by using a different definition to describe a hazardous substance:

Any biological agent and other disease-causing agent which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any person…will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions…or physiological deformations in such persons or their offspring.

In an interpretation letter dated October 7, 1996, Ruth McCully, OSHA Director of Health Compliance Assistance, clarified this further:

In regards to your question of whether irritation would be considered a disease under subparagraph (B) of the definition for hazardous substance, it would depend on the type of irritation you refer to. For instance, dermatitis is a disease; thus, chemical substances that cause dermatitis would fall under the definition of a hazardous substance. Physical abrasion of the skin (another form of irritation), however, would not be considered a disease; therefore, substances that present only a physical skin abrasion hazard would not fall under the definition of a hazardous substance.

So, under HAZCOM, an irritant is a hazard, but under HAZWOPER, an irritant may be a hazard; it is only considered hazardous if it causes a disease, such as dermatitis. There is a disparity in the definitions, and it only causes confusion. To compound this problem, OSHA has admitted that there may be issues with the quality of the information provided about chemical hazards, mostly in the MSDSs. Studies have shown that the MSDSs may vary widely for the same chemical, depending on the manufacturer.

On the issue of warnings and PPE recommendations for chemical protection, OSHA is all over the map. OSHA maintains consistently in the standards, compliance directives, and interpretation letters that it does not approve of overwarning of the hazards of chemicals. The preamble to the hazcom standard reads:

OSHA is aware that there are MSDSs that have information on them that is not accurate in this regard. For example, the MSDS may indicate the material is not hazardous, yet under precautionary measures it is suggested that if the material gets on the skin, it must be washed off immediately. The precautionary measures must be consistent with the hazards of the chemical, not simply written to protect the liability of the manufacturer by suggesting more protective measures than are necessary. (OSHA, 1994).

In addition, OSHA (1990) states in the inspection procedures for the Hazard Communication standard:

Some MSDSs include recommendations for protective measures that are for ‘worst case scenarios,’ e.g., recommending supplied air suits for products of relatively low toxicity. The HCS requires that accurate information be provided on the MSDSs. This applies as much to ‘overwarning’ on the MSDS and label as well as the absence of information (‘underwarning’).

Despite taking this stance, OSHA does not practice what it preaches. For example, OSHA’s Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Isopropyl Alcohol, lists the health hazards as such:

1. Acute exposure: Acute exposure to isopropyl alcohol causes eye and mucous membrane irritation and may cause incoordination and narcosis. Ingestion causes gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, and may cause coma and death. 

2. Chronic exposure: Chronic effects of exposure to isopropyl alcohol have not been reported in humans, except for rare instances of eczema and skin sensitization [Sax and Lewis 1989]. (OSHA,  n.d.).

 Following this information are recommendations that seem to defy everything OSHA has stated about overwarning:

If isopropyl alcohol contacts the skin, workers should flush the affected areas immediately with plenty of water, followed by washing with soap and water.

Clothing contaminated with isopropyl alcohol should be removed immediately, and provisions should be made for the safe removal of the chemical from the clothing. Persons laundering the clothes should be informed of the hazardous properties of isopropyl alcohol, particularly its potential for causing irritation.

 If the only topical effects of isopropyl alcohol are irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes and chronic effects are non-existent aside from rare cases of eczema/sensitization, why does OSHA say that it must be washed off the skin immediately, and emphasize its potential for irritation? Isn’t that exactly what they have advised the authors of MSDSs not to do?

 Also, OSHA refers employers to the International Chemical Safety Cards developed by NIOSH for accurate information regarding hazards of some of the more common chemicals encountered in the workplace. These cards recommend PPE when there is no associated hazard listed, or the hazard listed is questionable at best. For the card on isopropyl alcohol, the table shows under acute hazards, “dry skin,” and recommends protective gloves (NIOSH). Since when is dry skin considered a hazard?

 Other cards in the set follow suit by listing no hazards under “eye” but recommending safety glasses or goggles. Is it even a good idea to require gloves for such a low level hazard? Asfahl (2004) wrote, in Industrial Safety and Health Management, “One pitfall for the safety and health manager is the blanket specification of personal protective equipment when its necessity is marginal. Such a blanket specification is a trap that will lead to employee apathy and subsequent violation of the rule.” Using that logic, it could be counterproductive to require employees to wear gloves when working with isopropyl alcohol, particularly when it is for a short duration.

Employees are aware when the PPE they are provided does not match up to the hazards of the chemicals they are working with (Goetsch, 2002). In the case of isopropyl alcohol, workers have familiarity with the chemical due to it use as an antiseptic for minor cuts, scrape or burns or for rubbing or massaging.  A lifetime of experience with the chemical with no problems encountered is likely to make workers believe that there is no basis for use of PPE with alcohol, especially since they use it on their skin at home and medical facilities use it to disinfect patients’ skin every day.

 Per the HCS, employees have a right to know the hazards of the chemicals they are working with and must be provided with the PPE necessary to protect against hazards. If the employees are aware of the hazards and do not consider “dry skin” a true hazard, do the employees have any say over whether or not they wear protective gloves?  Considering that “…overzealous safety rules contribute to worker apathy for the rules and in turn work against the cause of safety rather than helping it, ” (Asfahl, 2004) perhaps the employer would be better served to allow the employees to decide for themselves whether they want to wear PPE when working with chemicals of such low hazard risk.

What is the answer to this rhetorical question?  Are employers required to force employees to wear chemical gloves when the hazard they are facing is dry skin?  After all of my research, the answer is still unknown.  Perhaps the only way to find out would be to pose the question to the agency itself and ask for a letter of interpretation.  From the looks of things, it is possible that even OSHA isn’t completely certain.

References 

16 CFR § 1500.41. (1973). Method of testing primary irritant substances. Retrieved from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov on April 23, 2008.

29 CFR § 1910.120. (1989). Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Retrieved from 
http://www.osha.gov on April 14, 2008.

29 CFR § 1910.1200. (1994). Hazard Communication. Retrieved from 
http://www.osha.gov on April 16, 2008.

Asfahl, C. R. (2004). Industrial Safety and Health Management (fifth). In (W. J. Fabrycky & J. H. Mize, Eds.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Goetsch, D. L. (2002). Occupational Safety and Health for Technologists, Engineers, and Managers (fourth). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

McCully, R., Occupational Safety and Health Administration Director of Health Compliance Assistance. (November 7, 1996). Interpretation Letter. Definition of a hazardous substance. Retrieved from 
http://www.osha.gov on April 25, 2008.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (n.d.). International chemical safety cards- isopropyl alcohol. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0554.html on April 28, 2008.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1990, October 22). Inspection procedures for the hazard communication standard, 29 CFR § 1910.1200, 1915.99, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59, and 1928.21, OSHA instruction CPL 2-2.38C, appendix A (g)(1).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1994). 29 CFR §1910.1200 Hazard communication preamble to the final rule, section III. Summary and explanation of the issues and the provisions of the final rule. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov on May 1, 2008.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). 29 CFR §1910.1200 Appendix A- Health Hazard Definitions (Mandatory). Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov on April 20, 2008.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Isopropyl Alcohol. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov. on April 29, 2008.

OSH Act of 1970 § 5(a)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1).