Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

Charles Peruffo

The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq. (1990)) was a paradigm shift in the control of pollution (and hazardous waste). While previous regulations emphasized the “end of the pipeline”, the PPA moved the control of pollution upstream in the manufacturing process to prevent the waste from being generated in the first place. Closely related to the PPA is the NJ Pollution Prevention Act.  Passed in 1991, the NJ PPA implements the concept of reduction in waste production “upstream” by requiring affected companies to develop and submit a 5-year pollution reduction strategy and file  a Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR). The NJ Release and Pollution Prevention Report collects data for New Jersey Right to Know Act ( NJRTK).

What does the Federal PPA require?

Facilities must account for their use of toxic chemicals  and, where feasible, reduce their use.  Toxic pollution that cannot be reduced should be recycled, and pollution that cannot be recycled should be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 

EHS professionals must have a firm understanding of the processes that use toxic chemicals in order to reduce their use.  Documenting these activities is an important step in PPA compliance and must include an accounting for the final disposal of toxic chemicals.  Generally this is done using the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting Form R.  

For facilities in New Jersey, what else is required?

The New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (NJ PPA), enacted in August of 1991, requires a Pollution Prevention (“P2”) Plan for facilities that meet specific requirements:

• A facility in New Jersey that files a Form R and a Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR) under the New Jersey Worker and Community Right to Know Act for the same chemical(s) in two consecutive years.  Note that in New Jersey any employer required to submit a TRI Form R is also required to submit the RPPR.


• The chemicals listed in the Form R and RPPR remain at or above the TRI activity thresholds.

The facility must  prepare a five-year Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan and submit a P2 Plan Summary by July 1 once they become covered (the second year they submit an RPPR for the same chemical).  This becomes the “base year”.  For each of the following years that the facility remains at or above the TRI activity thresholds, the facility completes the P2-115 which compares pollution prevention progress for the reporting year to the base year.

The PPA Filing Process by an EHS Professional

When recently preparing PPA paperwork for a small biotech site, I had to collect a variety of information for preparing a New Jersey P2 Plan.  A brief review of the steps is listed below.  For detailed instructions, look at NJDEP Form DEP-113.

1. Contacted the company’s purchasing department to find out how much of each toxic chemical had been delivered to the facility. 


2. Contacted the company’s hazardous waste management contractor to confirm that the amount purchased (Step 1) equaled the amount that was disposed. 


3. Compare the purchased to disposed amounts. The amounts did not match. 


4. Investigate the discrepancy.  It turned out the waste management contractor was using a less accurate method for calculating the percentage of toxic chemical in our waste stream.  Their laboratory data indicated that the company was disposing of more toxic chemical than purchased.  Ultimately, the volume data from the company’s purchasing department was used since no new toxic chemicals could be produced by the company’s processes. 


5. Reviewed the company’s air permit for an estimation of the toxic chemicals lost to the air.


6. Calculated the chemical remaining as residue in the empty drums, which were also removed by our hazardous waste management contractor.


7. Contacted the site Controller for the facility SIC code.


8. Prepared a “Five-Year Use Reduction Goal” based on pollution prevention activities such as process improvements after a review of documentation of meetings where possible improvements were discussed with personnel who work with toxic chemicals as well as process engineering diagrams. (Sets site five year pollution prevention goals).
   
   
   
   • Progress towards these goals needs to be reviewed yearly and documented on the site P2 Plan.
   
   
   
   


9. Obtain signatures for plan from the “highest ranking corporate official with direct operating responsibility” and the “highest ranking corporate official at the facility”.

Note --- A P2 Plan Summary needs to be updated and submitted every five years for the chemicals referenced in the original P2 Plan submission.

This process needs to be repeated for each toxic chemical at each applicable facility in New Jersey with all of the information included as part of one P2 Plan regardless of the number of toxic chemicals reported.  The facility does need to file one RPPR for each chemical. Does this seem like a lot of work? Consider this:  In the twenty years since adoption, the PPA and NJ PPA have helped to substantially reduce the use and improper disposal of toxic chemicals by requiring industry to examine their work processes.

How about your facility?

As a facility, are you tracking your toxic chemicals and filing the appropriate PPA/NJ PPA documentation? Have you noticed that a mindful approach to the processes and paperwork have resulted in reduced usage and better, more healthful disposal of chemicals?

About Our Guest Blogger:  Charles Peruffo is an EHS professional specializing in laboratory health and safety. Prior to his EHS career, Charles spent many years as chemist in the pharmaceutical industry with responsibilities ranging from laboratory safety to analyst training.  He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Montclair State University and is pursuing his Master of Science in Occupational Safety Health Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Read More

Topics: health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, EPA, Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste Management, HazCom, Compliance, Air Sampling, reporting, chemical manufacturer, regulation, chemicals, Hazard Communication Standard, pollution prevention, pollution, chemical disposal, Right to Know

Barbara Glynn Alves

I cut my teeth in the environmental, health and safety (EHS) business helping prepare a group of experts for deposition in civil actions.   It was fascinating work, but I can tell you without hesitation, that not all experts are created equal. If you are in litigation regarding an environmental, health or safety issue, there is a good chance that both plaintiff and defendant counsel will enlist the services of an expert or two. Caveat emptor - shop around!

What is the role of an Expert Witness?

The legal profession relies heavily on the use of industry experts to clarify and support evidence or facts that are at issue. These experts are most often used to clarify the scientific or technical facts of the case.  Specifically, the job of the expert witness is to assist the “trier of fact” (either the judge or a jury) by helping them understand “things” they might not otherwise understand.

Counsel seek experts based on their knowledge, training, education, skills, reputation or experience in their field of expertise in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (FRE 702). As with all expert witnesses, EHS experts are generally asked to perform a variety of different tasks, depending on counsel’s strategy for the case:

• Review documents


• Conduct independent investigations


• Perform research – particularly on regulations


• Prepare an opinion about the facts


• Present an expert report – written or orally


• Give a sworn deposition


• Testify at trial

How do you shop for an EHS expert? 

Cautiously! Litigation is expensive in both professional fees and time so it pays to use the most qualified and suitable expert available.  In addition to following FRE 702, your counsel should also consider the expert’s ability to write technical documents, the level of support the expert can provide to research the facts of the case, and their comfort level providing these services in the legal forum and within a litigious and, perhaps, emotionally charged environment.

Also, to better illuminate a witness’s expertise, there are several independent certifying boards that can help you and your attorney through the vetting process. The organizations listed below use a fairly elaborate and strict certification procedure and have required continued maintenance actions of their designees.  Each one of these organizations gives additional information about their specific certification requirements and process on their websites. Their areas of expertise are also clearly explained, particularly if you are in need of a specialist.

• The American Board of Industrial Hygiene certifies professionals in the practice of industrial hygiene. ABIH is responsible for ensuring high-quality certification application and examination processes, certification maintenance and ethics governance and enforcement.


• The Board of Certified Safety Professionals certifies professionals within several designations – all related to safety in the workplace.


• The Institute of Hazardous Materials Management offers several professional certifications that demonstrate various levels of knowledge, expertise, and excellence in the management of hazardous materials.


• The Board of Environmental Auditor Certifications certifies four designation of EHS professionals which demonstrates the competency, professionalism, and ability of EHS auditors.


• The American Board for Occupational Health Nurses (ABOHN) is an independent nursing specialty certification board and is the sole certifying body for occupational health nurses in the United States and awards four credentials:  Certified Occupational Health Nurse (COHN), Certified Occupational Health Nurse - Specialist (COHN-S), Case Management (CM), and Safety Management (SM).

For both counsel and client, I recommend spending time to do research and find qualified EHS professionals who can help you win your case.  Ask for detailed CVs, referrals, samples of published writings and the achievement of board certification. As an EHS consulting group with professionals who have achieved CHMM, CIH, CSP, PE, CHMP and CHST designations, Emilcott is often asked to provide expert witness services in a wide variety of environmental, health and safety legal matters.  We take certification from independent sources seriously, as do our clients.  In fact, attainment of a professional certification has always been a requirement for our senior technical staff.  Working with the legal profession has only reinforced that philosophy.

Have you ever worked with an EHS expert witness? What did you think of the experience?

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, EHS, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, H&S Training, Hazardous Waste Management, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., Lab Safety & Electrical, Fire Safety, legal, law, experts, expert witness

Capt. John DeFillippo, CHMP, EMT-B

The health effects from airborne hazards are a frequent topic in many health and safety courses, especially in hazardous substance and hazardous waste training.  This is because so many of these exposures may not show up as health problems for decades! Consider asbestos. While it’s not harmful to the touch, inhalation can be fatal, but it can take 25-30 years before asbestosis or mesothelioma can develop. Both are chronic and often deadly diseases of the lungs.

The lungs are amazing. It surprises most people to learn that the lungs have the largest surface area of any body organ -- about 80 times more area than the skin, or about the size of a tennis court!  As we breathe, our lungs are in constant contact with the outside world and that is a lot of contact area. They need to be protected.

Over three million American workers are required to wear respirators to protect themselves from hazardous airborne contaminants.  Not surprisingly, OSHA has some pretty strict rules when it comes to protecting our lungs . Despite this , it is estimated that more than half of the respirators worn are not worn in accordance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.134

Did you know that…

• If workers are wearing respirators, a written program is required?


• A medical evaluation is required for anyone who wears a respirator?


• A fit test of each respirator worn must be conducted initially AND annually?


• The workplace must be evaluated to determine the hazard so that the proper respirator (there are many) can be selected?


• These rules, and others, apply to what many people refer to as “dust masks”?

Proper respirator usage training is also required. Why? Because wearing the wrong type, wrong size, or an improperly fitted respirator can be more dangerous than not wearing one at all. For example:

1. Wearing a filtering respirator in an O₂-deficient atmosphere, or the wrong cartridge, can mislead you to believe that you are protected…when you are not!


2. A mask with even the slightest poor fit allows contaminates in and may actually increase exposure levels.


3. Not everyone can wear a respirator. Because a respirator restricts your breathing, people with certain medical conditions can be seriously harmed by wearing them. This is why being medically cleared prior to use is so important, and required.

Not complying with the rules designed for occupational safety can be costly… and not just in fines and penalties. Too many workers have destroyed their health by failing to protect their delicate, vital lungs. And, it’s not just at work. Working around the home and yard can also present respiratory dangers, too. If you are not sure that you need more than a “dust mask” ask someone who can help.

Have you been properly trained to use your respirator and fit-tested to make sure it is actually stopping hazards from reaching your lungs?Are you confident that you are using your respirator properly and that the respirator that you have selected is the best for the contaminants you are exposed to?  How about the person next to you - are they in compliance?  Hopefully you and your workmates can answerYES! to these questions. If you have any questions about respiratory protection, please ask me!

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, Personal Protective Equipment, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, H&S Training, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Lab Safety & Electrical, emergency response training, Fire Safety, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Occupational Training

Carrie Bettinger - CSP, CHMM

It’s a windy, rainy day in northern New Jersey today and, as I drive through my town, I see the sanitation trucks are out to collect garbage and paper recyclables as early as they can before everything is soaked.  My town roads are basically paved horse trails so imagine narrow, winding roads with lots of sharp curves with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH.  So why is one of the garbage trucks going about 35MPH on one of these roads with a soaking wet worker standing on the truck’s rear platform clinging with a death grip to the side?  Is it that important to get the garbage in as fast as possible?  Why is the worker not in the truck if they are not making stops?  Does one of these workers have to die before this sanitation company takes steps to stop these stupid and unsafe acts?

As an experienced Safety Professional, I’m trained to recognize compliance-driven and non-compliance "best practice" occupational safety violations.  However, what does it take to change laws and habits that affect workers and citizens?  In our society and legal system it seems that, yes, someone (or many) has to tragically die before change and regulation are considered.

Let’s review some of our history:

1911:  The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York resulted in 146 worker deaths due to locked escape routes leading to local then nationwide Life Safety Laws.

Read More

Topics: OSHA, health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, Chemical Safety Board, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Safety, Occupational Training, Lab Safety, Safety Training in Spanish, water safety

Bruce Groves - CIH

In July, David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, published a memo to his staff at OSHA highlighting several new approaches that OSHA is using (or planning to use) in its effort to protect workers.  Dr. Michaels is building on the progress of his predecessors and reinforcing some of the weak links in the system created both by Congress and former administrations. In his recent letter, Dr. Michaels reviews some legacy issues that limit OSHA-influence in creating safer workplaces such as

• OSHA has only 2,000 inspectors responsible for the health and safety of 130 million workers at 7 million worksites


• OSHA fines are too small to have an adequate deterrent effect


• OSHA standards provide limited protection to whistleblowers from retaliation


• OSHA occupational exposure standards have been established for only a small percentage of chemicals used in US workplaces (most of those are based on out-of-date science) with a slow and resource-intensive standard-setting process

Dr. Michaels states that OSHA needs to transform how it addresses workplace hazards, and in its relationship to employers and workers. As such he outlines a new strategy that is a clear shift from recent years indicating that there is a “new sheriff in town” and business (ALL businesses) should take heed.  Here are some of my extrapolations and thoughts regarding 6 of these transformational items -- consider how they will affect your business or workplace.

1.       Stronger Enforcement:  Some Employers Need Incentives to Do the Right Thing

OSHA will have more and bigger sticks.  OSHA is redirecting resources to conduct inspections of high risk industries and tasks including ergonomics.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, OSHA, indoor air quality, health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, H&S Training, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Lab Safety & Electrical, emergency response training, Occupational Training, Safety Training in Spanish, water safety, small business

Capt. John DeFillippo, CHMP, EMT-B

Every organization develops a “safety culture”, be it good or bad. It is immediately observable to anyone who cares to look, and more people are – particularly prospective clients and business partners.  When evaluating vendors and business partners, companies with strong safety cultures will steer clear of doing business with companies with poor safety records; the risks and exposures are too great.  In addition to the obvious reasons of possible injury or death to workers or the public, there is the potential for serious damage to a company’s image and reputation should their vendor or subcontractor have an incident or accident.  We’ve all heard some of the stories recently in the news; reporters will highlight a major construction accident and all the players are named, regardless of their culpability.

Government agencies also use strong criteria to evaluate potential vendors. The State of New York has severely tightened up its safety and health requirements following the series of construction accidents that have plagued NYC in recent years.

A company can develop a comprehensive health and safety programs. It can post attention-getting signs and posters warning workers of hazards. It can also provide all manner of safety and personal protective equipment and conduct training for employees. These measures are good, but as soon as a supervisor or company owner walks onto a site ignoring the PPE requirements, all this good goes out the window. “Do as I say, not as I do” is not the way lead. The rules must to apply to all, without exception. Even more importantly, owners and managers should set a proper example. Professional experience has shown me that when management creates and “lives” a proactive safety culture, it will get the best results. It’s the front-line managers and supervisors that make the difference.

And it’s a never ending task. Maybe your company has a few workers who constantly violate the safety rules without any real consequences or discipline. The message being sent is pretty clear: the company doesn’t take safety seriously. Most people realize that the rules are there for a reason; their protection and it’s the law.  However, there will always be a small percentage of people that just don’t get it. Without enforcement of the policies, there is not only the risk of worker injury, but an erosion of the “safety culture” of the organization and a negative impact on morale. Plus, it is the employer and management who will be responsible for any fines or penalties handed out as well as increased insurance premiums, particularly workman’s compensation. Often, they are found personally responsible. Why would anyone risk this?

The point is that paying lip service to safety won’t fly anymore -- proactive is best. There are all kinds of resources to help your company succeed. OSHA even offers free services:    http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html and http://www.osha.gov/dte/outreach/construction_generalindustry/index.html.  You may also get help from a trade or professional association that you belong to. Health and safety consulting services from companies like Emilcott who are experienced in honing in on risk and compliance can be a great investment to shift your company onto the right track.

Have you ever worked for a company that has an ineffective or sham health and safety policy? How did it make you or fellow employees feel? Was there a tipping point event that made them switch to being proactive and how did they implement a new, comprehensive program (that worked)?

Image Credit:  www.lumaxart.com

Read More

Topics: Personal Protective Equipment, health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, H&S Training, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Lab Safety & Electrical, emergency response training, Fire Safety, Occupational Training, Safety Culture, Leadership

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

In a recent blog about the rapidly approaching Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Form U submission in 2011, I mentioned that the EPA published a Proposed Rule detailing TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications. The EPA anticipates promulgating a final rule by the spring of 2011 as the next scheduled IUR submission period is currently scheduled to run from June 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011.

Some of these modifications are really a big deal and will require a lot additional effort for most submitters. We should be seeing some commentary in response to the proposed rule about the cost of compliance with the modifications along with the benefits of having this collection of information about chemical importation, manufacture and use in the US. Hopefully this will be a spirited discussion and we will keep you posted on the outcomes and what they mean to you.

Although we don’t know what the final rule will look…the following is a list of the proposed changes that may affect many of our clients and you:

• Electronic reporting of the IUR data, using an Agency-provided, web-based reporting software
  
  
  
  • After the final rule’s effective date, paper submissions would no longer be accepted.
  
  
  
  


• Form U submission every 4 years (instead of every 5 years)


• All submissions would require processing and use information (Part III of Form U)


• No minimum manufacture (or import) quantity for certain chemical substances
  
  
  
  • This an elimination of the 25,000 lb. threshold for the chemical substances that are subject to rules or orders in following TSCA sections:
    
    
    
    • Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules (SNURs)
    
    
    • Section 5(b)(4) Chemicals of concern to EPA
    
    
    • Section 6 Prohibitions for chemicals with unreasonable risks
    
    
    • Section 5(e) Requirements or restrictions on chemical production or use
    
    
    • Section 5(f) Chemical with an unreasonable risk
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• IUR exemption changes for the following chemical substances:
  
  
  
  • No exemption for those with an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) to conduct testing.
  
  
  • Full exemption water.
  
  
  • Removal of polymers that are already fully exempt from the partially exempt list of chemical substances.
  
  
  
  


• Significant new reporting requirements Form U completion:
  
  
  
  • Name and address belonging to the parent company.
  
  
  • Current Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name, as used to list the chemical substance on the TSCA Inventory, as part of the chemical identity.
  
  
  • Production volume for each of the years since the last principal reporting year. For the 2011 report this would include 2006, 2007, 2008 AND 2009 in addition to 2010.
  
  
  • Production volume directly exported and not domestically processed or used.
  
  
  • Volume of manufactured chemical substance (such as a by product) that is recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked .
  
  
  • Company Business Information (CBI)
    
    
    
    • Submission of substantiation for CBI claims in Section III (processing and use information).
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Proposed changes for AFTER 2011 Form U submissions
  
  
  
  • Require reporting if the production volume of a substance met or exceeded the 25,000 pound threshold in any calendar year since the last principal reporting year.
  
  
  
  

With this significant list of proposed changes, Emilcott is paying close attention to TSCA-related news so that we can advise and guide our clients to be in compliance. We have worked with multiple U.S. and International clients with U.S. facilities that have misunderstood or ignored TSCA regulations resulting in a big problem that could have been avoided. If your facility falls under the TSCA guidelines, are you paying close attention to modifications to the TSCA IUR program? What do you think of the company cost vs. informational and monitoring benefits? What are you doing to be a part of the debate or prepare for submission?

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General EHS, EPA, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act, reporting, chemical manufacturer, regulation, chemicals, regulatory

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

August 2011 Update:   Information from the EPA regarding TSCA requirements and submission has changed significantly since this post was originally written in August 2010. Please also read BREAKING NEWS: New EPA TSCA Inventory Update Requirements (IUR) for 2012   and additional posts following to ensure that you have the most up-to-date information.

-PKaufmann

Is your facility a manufacturer or importer of chemicals in amounts of 25,000 pounds or greater?  If so, your company may need to participate in the next round of the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR) program and submit a Form U to the EPA.

Here’s how the EPA explains this rule:  “The IUR  requires manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory to report site and manufacturing information for chemicals manufactured (including imported) in amounts of 25,000 pounds or greater at a single site.  Additional information on domestic processing and use must be reported for chemicals manufactured in amounts of 300,000 pounds or more at a single site. EPA uses the IUR data to support many health, safety, and environmental protection activities.”  For more information go to http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/

When Is the Next Reporting? THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!

The next submission period is currently planned for June 1 - September 30, 2011 when manufacturers and importers will report information on their 2010 production (and the EPA has proposed adding data for years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009) . See revised information post:   BREAKING NEWS: New EPA TSCA Inventory Update Requirements (IUR) for 2012

How is IUR Changing for 2011 Reporting?

1. Inorganic chemicals are no longer partially exempt from the IUR rule. This was a one-time exemption for 2006 reporting only.


2. On August 13, 2010 the EPA published its proposed IUR Modifications Rule, beginning a 60-day comment period. The proposal would require electronic reporting and expanded manufacturing, processing, and use information.  The EPA anticipates promulgating a final rule by the spring of 2011. As aspects of the proposed rule have yet to  be finalized, Emilcott will  provide a definitive, easy-to-read list here on EHSWire.

So…stay tuned to EHSwire.com or www.emilcott.com to stay informed about any IUR reporting developments and reporting obligations in 2011 for the calendar year 2010.   If you have any questions about the upcoming IUR reporting or TSCA compliance question, please comment below, contact us directly or read more at http://www.emilcott.com/services/svcenvcompliance.asp.  Emilcott provides comprehensive support for TSCA compliance, including assisting with inventory and chemical substance use information subject to the IUR program.

Some interesting Form U questions and facts -

Did you know that 1,541 companies submitted a Form U in 2006?

Some submitted multiple Forms because as each manufacturing site that originates a chemical substance is required to report. The 2006 IUR public data are available on the IUR web site (www.epa.gov/iur).

Read More

Topics: EPA, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act, reporting, chemical manufacturer, regulation, chemicals, regul

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

Environmental Health and Safety Professionals are often faced with questions that do not seem to have black and white answers, but, in reality, regulatory requirements are not that gray.  A common question: When do the requirements for 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926.65 (OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations) apply?  The challenge for EHS professionals is to communicate to workers the distinction between what are considered environmental health risks and the risks to human health, and to clarify the difference of the word “hazardous” as used by various environmental protection agencies and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state environmental protection agencies have standards for soil and groundwater “cleanliness” for residential and non-residential properties.  Soil or groundwater in exceedence of those standards needs to be remediated (usually by removal), but to add to the confusion, sometimes when soil and/or groundwater is removed from the site and transported to a disposal facility it may not fall into the EPA’s definition for hazardous waste.  So here lies the misunderstanding; if it is not classified as “hazardous waste” by the EPA, people often make the determination that it is not considered hazardous to workers and, therefore, it is not necessary to take measures to protect the workers’ health and safety.

When it comes to worker safety and the risks to human health, we must look at the requirements provided by OSHA.   OSHA is focused on exposure potential and the resulting hazard assessment evaluation to workers from the chemicals that may be encountered when working in areas with potentially contaminated soil and/or groundwater.  If the chemicals present are regulated by OSHA with a Permissible Exposure Limit (exposure based on an 8-hour average), the employer is required to conduct exposure assessments and air monitoring to determine potential risks to the workers onsite.  It also requires that workers are protected from these potential exposures through either engineering controls or personal protective equipments (such as tyvek, gloves and respirators).

 There is also a need to protect the workers and meet all the other applicable OSHA standards that mitigate health and safety risks to workers on this site.   Such required protection would include: 

• developing a site-specific health and safety plan,


• training workers in chemical hazards and controls,


• conducting environmental monitoring to determine exposure,


• instituting controls (PPE and Engineering) to protect from exposure potential,


• clean up (decontamination).and a number of other procedures.  

It is surprising and frustrating that this issue is still debated, but if it is, doesn’t it make sense to use the guidelines in these standards to clarify? We are talking about human health and the regulations are clear about the requirements for worker training and personal protection when dealing with chemical contamination.  You can use the environmental classifications to determine how to treat the situation, but you must look to OSHA to protect the workers as they are doing it.

Have you ever had workplace confusion regarding environmental risk and hazardous to human health? If so, I'd like to hear about your situation and how you resolved it.

Read More

Topics: OSHA, DOT, health and safety, General Industry H&S, Construction H&S, EPA, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

National Public Radio ( NPR) recently reported their findings of an investigation of safety issues at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia.  I was listening to the report while enjoying my morning walk in a nearby park.  It stopped me in my tracks!

As part of their investigative report, NPR discovered that there were situations at the mine when the methane gas monitors on continuous mining machines were disabled because the monitors repeatedly shut down the machines.  The miners interviewed explained that supervisors told them it was acceptable to disable these monitors as long as the miner operating the equipment used a hand-held methane monitor to test the air.  This is the part of the report that stopped me in my tracks!!!

The methane gas monitors are an essential part of the mining machine’s fail-safe system. They are factory-installed and essential components of the machine design; when the monitor senses an explosive atmosphere, the mining machine shuts down automatically.  The ONLY reason that spark-generating equipment can be operated in an environment likely to contain explosive concentrations of methane gas is precisely because the equipment is designed to automatically shut down if an explosive atmosphere is encountered. 

The procedures followed at the mine undermined (no pun intended) a fundamental safety feature of the continuous mining machine. 

The problem with using a hand-held monitor as a substitute for the interlock monitor is that the miner operating a continuous mining machine is 25 to 30 feet behind the face of a machine that is a continuous source of ignition (lots of sparks from metal cutting coal and rocks).  The monitor must be located directly at the source of the spark.  The miner isn’t at the source.

How could the mine leadership eliminate a critical risk management feature?  When deciding to override a critical safety system, the mine leadership should have considered the potential for loss of life AND damage to the mine AND damage to operating equipment.  You have to wonder if anyone really thought about “what if?” especially as Upper Big Branch was a notoriously “gassy” (methane producing) and, therefore, dangerous mine.  I wonder if any hazard or risk analyses were ever conducted for operating the mining machine without an operational methane monitor.   For clarity – here is a brief explanation about the hazards and risks of overriding a safety critical system and the outcome of their analyses:

What’s the difference between hazard and risk?

• A hazard is the source of potential damage, harm or adverse health effects on something or someone (i.e., explosive concentration level of methane gas, source of ignition).


• A risk is the chance or probability that damage, harm or adverse health effect will occur if something or someone is exposed to a hazard (i.e., a chance of the methane gas concentration would reach explosive levels in the presence of a source of ignition).

 A risk assessment is the process where one

• Identifies hazards,


• Evaluates the risk associated with that hazard, and


• Determines appropriate ways to eliminate or control the hazard.


• Safety controls minimize the risk by “controlling” the hazard (i.e., shutting down the mining machine eliminates the source of ignition)

Managers must understand the risk and the systems that put in place to control the hazard.  This is “managing the risk”. 

At the Upper Big Branch mine, the life-saving interlock system in a known high risk environment was disabled while workers were assured that an inappropriately-located substitute would be effective and work continued without interruption. It appears that appropriate risk management was not the goal since the presence of combustible concentrations of methane gas at sources of ignition might not be detected using the hand held monitors.   

The integrity of an organization depends on a leadership commitment to understanding and managing risk to protect their employees and assets as well as their reputation. This NPR report highlights what can happen when leadership is focused on one measure of success, in this case, production. Another recent example of compromised risk in exchange for uninterrupted production is the BP oil leak. Have you ever encountered myopic leadership in your workplace that trades risk management for another benefit. What happened? How do employees feel?

Read More

Topics: General Industry H&S, Emergency Response, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Safety, Fire Safety, Exposure, Respiratory, Confined Space