Appeal of Nonconformance Finding

Randy · Apr 27, 2023

Already told that, but I guess I was mistaken so I'm probably going to trash my degree in Safety Management, and flush the better part of 35+ years of Safety experience starting with all I acquired working under CalOSHA requirements. It seems like the "color" test is now sufficient therefore secondary containers of some Acids, Caustics, Flammables and Water can just sit around unlabeled because clear liquid is clear liquid, and we can tell them apart by just looking.

Golfman25 · Apr 27, 2023

DanielK said:
Okay, so I am more involved with safety than I am quality at this point (former safety czar turned quality supervisor guy) so my buzzers are going off big time here from that standpoint. I'll try to suppress that. I sense that this CB is trying to achieve the same results my safety auditor would
(we had a few accidents leading to a pretty serious one, i saved my company out of some issues and now am being positioned to do the same with ISO).

So, in your case any satellite container MUST be labeled, no excuses. I purposely buy open top containers, and spend a small fortune on them. Any clean containers that are not labeled need to be stored in the fire cabinet where there are respective locations. We do toolbox talks with gathered signatures for our safety program that trains procedure for that. Process is kept in the safety handbook, policy as well. I'd say this is a safety issue handled by a safety team rather than an ISO finding.

However, if you use the wrong materials for any job its an issue. I'm new here so be gentle and take it with a grain of salt.

Even OSHA has an immediate use exception. So I'd prefer to keep it related to ISO 9001.

Golfman25 · Apr 27, 2023

Randy said:
Already told that, but I guess I was mistaken so I'm probably going to trash my degree in Safety Management, and flush the better part of 35+ years of Safety experience starting with all I acquired working under CalOSHA requirements. It seems like the "color" test is now sufficient therefore secondary containers of some Acids, Caustics, Flammables and Water can just sit around unlabeled because clear liquid is clear liquid, and we can tell them apart by just looking.

The problem with your analysis is you jump from some lubrication products at issue to "Acids, Caustics, Flammables and Water." Granted, it's hard to have all the details over the interweb.

Wearerofmanyhats · Apr 27, 2023

Golfman25 said:
Even OSHA has an immediate use exception. So I'd prefer to keep it related to ISO 9001.

That wouldn't fly with my safety auditor if he saw somebody with a half empty container that got moved once in his visit. We have people who clean molds with "immediate use" containers. When an employee ingested acid through his eye there was no way to tell what the chemical was, we had to change the process and procedure, we did that through safety. Not only for safety but to ensure the chems were never mixed because some "immediate jobs" turned into "i'll just have a smoke break and forget what i was doing and go home" culture. I'm the guy who has to clean the crap up and close down shop at the end of the day. Finding flammable liquids (regardless of how flammable) around the shop was unacceptable to me.

Point being, if you were to change where would it come from? Work instruction? handbook policy? Safety handbook? I know it's to satisfy the clause but where is the source of that change if you were to even change. New guy asking here.

Randy · Apr 27, 2023

Yep, by the person (s) that transferred it.

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8)
The employer is not required to label portable containers into which hazardous chemicals are transferred from labeled containers, and which are intended only for the immediate use of the employee who performs the transfer.

I consider the NC an overreach of the 9001 auditor, but your practice, according to you, is questionable at best under the regulatory environment you're required to meet. Hazcom is one of the easiest things out there, so let an employee drop a dime on you to see where you really stand.

Wearerofmanyhats · Apr 27, 2023

Randy said:
Yep, by the person (s) that transferred it.

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8)
The employer is not required to label portable containers into which hazardous chemicals are transferred from labeled containers, and which are intended only for the immediate use of the employee who performs the transfer.

I consider the NC an overreach of the 9001 auditor, but your practice, according to you, is questionable at best under the regulatory environment you're required to meet. Hazcom is one of the easiest things out there, so let an employee drop a dime on you to see where you really stand.

"Immediate use" means that the hazardous chemical will be under the control of and used only by the person who transfers it from a labeled container and only within the work shift in which it is transferred.
I redact all my statements. LOL.

I agree about the over reach, this really doesn't seem to carry any weight the more we get into it. There's not much of a safety concern, or process concern so i agree. Hypothetically I am curious if there's anything that you even can do.

Golfman25 · Apr 27, 2023

Randy said:
Yep, by the person (s) that transferred it.

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8)
The employer is not required to label portable containers into which hazardous chemicals are transferred from labeled containers, and which are intended only for the immediate use of the employee who performs the transfer.

I consider the NC an overreach of the 9001 auditor, but your practice, according to you, is questionable at best under the regulatory environment you're required to meet. Hazcom is one of the easiest things out there, so let an employee drop a dime on you to see where you really stand.

Our industry is targeted by OSHA, so we have seen them many times over the years. They have never had an issue with our oils. Here is a typical label:

In the four real life examples I gave, what is questionable?

Wearerofmanyhats · Apr 27, 2023

Golfman25 said:
1) Does the paint try need to be labeled while in use?

2) Does the reservoir need to be labeled?

3) Does the catch container need to be labeled?

4) A) Does the container need to be labeled? What does the label say?

where in your organization is it/or would it (hypothetically) state that labels have to be used. Obviously its not safety. That leaves work instruction? This is a question to help me moreso than you but also to challenge the fact that making labels for the sake of making labels is the most counter intuitive thing there is to do.

as per the famous @Sidney Vianna:

Randy · Apr 27, 2023

Golfman25 said:
Our industry is targeted by OSHA, so we have seen them many times over the years. They have never had an issue with our oils. Here is a typical label:
View attachment 29527

In the four real life examples I gave, what is questionable?

OK that's not a secondary container, you didn't supply artwork before.

Odd the SDS says "Individual protection measures and personal protective equipment: Splash goggles, face shield, oil and chemical resistant gloves, impervious apron if needed to avoid prolonged skin contact." but identifies it as Non-Hazardous in 1910.1200 "Classification of chemical: This material is classified as non-hazardous under OSHA regulations (29CFR 1910.1200) (Hazcom 2012)."
Then you have this "6 - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Personal precautions, protective equipment and emergency procedures: All persons dealing with the spill should wear appropriate personal protective equipment. Keep others away from spill. Restrict access to area until the spill has been cleaned up. Extinguish all sources of ignition.", and this " 7 - HANDLING AND STORAGE Precautions for safe handling: Minimize breathing oil mists. Avoid prolonged or repeated skin contact. Wash thoroughly before meals and at end of work periods. Launder or dry-clean soiled clothing before reuse. Personnel in close vicinity of oil mists above TLV limit should wear approved breathing devices."

Seems strange, but is this on the actual container in question? Did you also mention the lube is mixed with another oil? If you did and it is then that label is no longer valid for the mixture.

Here's your SDS and the Product sheet. I'm familiar with some of the "stuff" in it but can't say how, why, when or where.

Matt's Quality Handle · Apr 27, 2023

Randy said:
Already told that, but I guess I was mistaken so I'm probably going to trash my degree in Safety Management, and flush the better part of 35+ years of Safety experience starting with all I acquired working under CalOSHA requirements. It seems like the "color" test is now sufficient therefore secondary containers of some Acids, Caustics, Flammables and Water can just sit around unlabeled because clear liquid is clear liquid, and we can tell them apart by just looking.

"Johnny was a chemist
Now he is no more
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4"

Appeal of Nonconformance Finding

Randy

Golfman25

Golfman25

Wearerofmanyhats

New, don't hurt me

Randy

Wearerofmanyhats

New, don't hurt me

Golfman25

Wearerofmanyhats

New, don't hurt me

Randy

Attachments

Matt's Quality Handle

Involved In Discussions

Similar threads