T8 CCR §5194 and Prop 65: Exemptions and Shortfalls in California Construction

In California's construction world, Title 8 CCR §5194—our Hazard Communication standard—and Proposition 65 often spark confusion. §5194 mandates labels, SDS, and training for hazardous chemicals, mirroring federal OSHA but with Cal/OSHA bite. Prop 65 demands warnings for carcinogens and reprotoxins in consumer products and public spaces. Yet both hit roadblocks on job sites. Let's unpack when they don't apply and where they leave gaps.

§5194 Hazard Communication: Core Exemptions in Construction

§5194 kicks in wherever workers handle hazardous chemicals that could cause acute or chronic health effects. But check the exemptions in §5194(d). Consumer products used as intended—like off-the-shelf paints or cleaners—dodge full compliance if exposure stays incidental.

Wood and wood products get a pass too, unless treated with preservatives. I've seen crews on framing jobs skip SDS binders for lumber stacks, legally. Hazardous waste ops fall under §5192, pesticides to §5180—construction often overlaps here, sidelining §5194.

• Small quantities: Lab-scale chemicals under §5209.
• Articles: Solid materials not releasing hazards in normal use, think rebar or concrete forms.
• NIOSH pocket guides: No SDS needed if that's your only reference.

Construction twist: Multi-employer sites mean prime contractors rely on subs' programs. If a sub's epoxy doesn't trigger under §5194 exemptions, no domino effect. But we've audited sites where this loophole hid sloppy training.

Prop 65: Barely Touches Construction Workplaces

Prop 65 targets businesses with 10+ employees for 'significant' exposures to listed chemicals. Crucial fact: occupational exposures are exempt. OEHHA clarifies Prop 65 doesn't regulate workplaces—Cal/OSHA owns that turf via Title 8.

No warning signs needed at construction fences for diesel exhaust or silica dust if it's worker exposure. Consumer products sold to the public? Yes, label those respirable crystalline silica bags. But on-site use? Prop 65 sits it out.

Exemptions stack: Article 6 skips warnings if Title 8 standards provide 'no significant risk' protection. For lead paint abatement, §1532.1 trumps Prop 65—no dual signage hell. We've consulted crews scraping old paint; Prop 65 warnings vanished post-audit because Cal/OSHA PELs ruled.

Where §5194 and Prop 65 Fall Short on Construction Sites

Construction defies office norms. Transient crews, weather-exposed SDS, subcontractor handoffs—§5194's written program crumbles without digital tracking. It covers chemicals but ignores construction-specifics like §1538 (asbestos) or §1529 (lead), leaving siloed compliance.

Prop 65? Useless for airborne hazards where respirators rule. No Prop 65 label stops a boom lift silica plume. Gaps amplify on public-adjacent sites—think highway work—blurring occupational vs. public lines.

Real-world fix: Layer GHS-compliant labels under §5194 with construction JHA templates. For Prop 65 edges, audit consumer sales at yard offices. Based on Cal/OSHA enforcement data, 30% of construction citations stem from HazCom lapses—exemptions don't excuse ignorance.

We've walked sites where exempt 'articles' morphed into hazards via cutting/grinding. Pro tip: Treat borderline cases as covered. Reference OEHHA's No Significant Risk Levels (NSRLs) and Cal/OSHA's §5194 appendices for thresholds.

Bottom line: These regs shield, but construction demands more. Integrate with LOTO, JHAs, and incident tracking for airtight ops. Stay sharp—fines hit $15K+ per violation.