Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

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

Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP

When the National Weather service issues a forecast calling for 3 to 4 inches of rain, most people react by wondering how it will affect their plans or travel.  I think about what water damage will occur.

 When heavy rains are forecast, are you ready? Do you know what to do if your building is affected by rain penetration through the roof or walls? What is your plan if your building is flooded by a local stream or river?  Even without bad weather, water damage is always a possible threat if your building has a water line break.  Or worse yet, do you know how to react if there’s a sewage back-up?

Depending on the water source your options for cleaning up and salvaging property vary greatly.  But for all kinds of damage, you need to have a plan in place anticipating what you will do, who you will call, and how quickly they will respond.  Emilcott was recently asked to work in four, very different, water-damaged commercial and/or multi-tenant residential properties.   These events included:

• Retail and Office Complex – Roof and Façade Leak


• Office and Warehouse – Broken Water Supply Main


• Multi-tenant Apartment building – Sprinkler Activation


• Public Housing Complex – Steam Leak

What did all four projects have in common?  The answer is time.  Lots of time!  Too much time between the initial event, the response and Emilcott’s resulting late involvement!  Time and water combined can grow to be an expensive and time-consuming enemy.  Failure to respond promptly will, very likely, result in mold growth within the building requiring significantly more demolition than if the condition is handled in a timely manner.  What is the definition of timely? As soon as it is discovered!

With the retail complex, we were called in approximately one month after the roof and walls began leaking.  An employee actually complained to their nearest OSHA office and OSHA issued a notice of potential violation to the employer.  Mold was present in a localized area of the store, along with a significant insect infestation due to wet, damp conditions of building surfaces.   Unfortunate results of the delay:  a mold remediation project was required and portions of the retail space were out of use for weeks.

The damage to the office and warehouse operation was more significant.  Water from the broken water main filled the 5400 sq. ft.  office to several inches and made its way to the adjacent warehouse.  The initial response by the building owner seems logical:  removal of standing water, placement of a few box fans to attempt to dry the carpet, and operating the air conditioning 24/7 as cold as the occupants would tolerate.  By the time we arrived just 5 days after the event, sheetrock walls were saturated at the base of every wall and elevated moisture readings were present up to 8 feet above the floor. Relative humidity was close to 70%, carpets had a strong musty odor, and internal wall cavities were impacted by mold growth even though no visible growth was observed on the exterior of the wall.  Final results of a mere 5 day delay in appropriate responsiveness:  the tenant and their sub-tenants loss use of the office area as trailers were brought in to house them while remediation and reconstruction occurred over a two week time period.

A kitchen fire occurred in the residential apartment complex triggered sprinklers to turn on which caused water to run from the sixth floor down to ground level.  Removal of standing water was the only initial response.  When Emilcott arrived 2 weeks later sheetrock walls were still saturated with water, visible mold was appearing in multiple, occupied apartments, and paint was bubbling and peeling from the walls.  Another significant mold remediation project was required, which in turn required relocation of tenants while remediation was in progress.

Finally, the public housing complex had experienced a steam leak for a period of several months.  Tenants in effected units were relocated and those apartments remained unoccupied.  However, an unusual occurrence happened with this steam leak as these apartments had plaster walls.  Mold grew quite well on the painted surface of the walls, something that may be expected, but due to high, high humidity and moisture levels in the plaster for extended periods of time, the analytical laboratory verified that the mold growth penetrated into the plaster from the surface.  This resulted in the demolition of the plaster walls and loss of effected housing units for several additional months.

For each of these properties and water-related circumstances, delayed and improper response increased the magnitude of the problem resulting in increased time that each space was unusable, and increased the total cost of response and repair. What should you do instead?  Bringing in a water-remediation expert immediately to identify the scope of the problem, develop a water response action plan, and implement that plan right away will minimize the damage to building materials and reduce impacts to building occupants.  In each of the four instances listed above, response actions like relocating furnishing away from walls or out of the area completely, immediately removing cove moldings, installing commercial grade dehumidification equipment, installing commercial grade floor fans, selective limited demolition, and actively monitoring and evaluating the drying process would have significantly reduced the duration of the response activity and the overall cost of each event. 

So, how can you reduce the costs of the surprise water problem? My advice is to plan now -- whether it is for rain and flooding that may occur due to weather conditions or for the pipe break that always happens unexpectedly.  Knowing who to call to determine the scope of the problem and who can implement the recommended response will save you significant time, money, property and hassle.

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, EPA, Air Sampling, Mold, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Water Response Plan

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

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

Tom Carlson, PE, Sr. Project Manager

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, Personal Protective Equipment, health and safety, Construction H&S, EPA, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Air Sampling, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Public Safety

John Quatermas - EHS Consultant

Read More

Topics: Personal Protective Equipment, health and safety, General Industry H&S, Construction H&S, H&S Training, Respiratory, water safety

Capt. John DeFillippo, CHMP, EMT-B

These are tough economic times and businesses are looking to cut costs and save money. A disturbing trend I have noticed is the willingness of many companies to make cuts in safety programs and employee training in a misguided attempt to improve the bottom line.

Trained workers are safer workers.  The facts bear this out. Shortsighted statements I’ve heard include; “We don’t have problems in that area, so we’re cutting back on training.”, when the training was most likely the reason for the lack of problems.

Often, it is difficult to see how beneficial training can be until you experience the effects of its absence. Negative indications show themselves in higher EMRs, increased workman’s compensation claims, lost production time, and property damage. Only companies actively tracking and trending incidents are likely to realize this. (By the way, such companies would also be the ones least likely to make such cuts in the first place!)

It takes just one serious incident resulting in injuries to quickly eliminate any savings associated with cutting programs and training.  What’s more, most health and safety training is required by regulations, so there is also the risk of fines for non-compliance. These can be hefty and since most companies don’t budget for them, they become an extraordinary cost – right off the bottom line!

At Emilcott, we have seen firsthand the effects that result from a lack of training.  Recently, we were hired by a client who laid-off their safety director a couple years prior.  After starting our work, we informed the client of numerous safety violations throughout their organization. These appeared to be a direct result of the lapse in proper safety training – since they no longer had a safety director to oversee their program.  Through the Emilcott Training Institute, our client was able to receive the training needed to avoid these safety violations – and keep their employees safe and on the job. However, in their attempt to save money, the client ended up spending more in a short period of time just to catch up.

Making drastic H&S budget cuts just never pay off.  As experienced health and safety consultants, we work with our clients to offer solutions when budgets get tight:

• Outsource until you can hire again – we have provided EHS professionals at our clients’ sites for just this purpose for both short and long term requirements.


• Prioritize your H&S needs – consider the total reduction in your workforce or operations to determine where you can pull back and where you cannot.


• Take advantage of training courses open to the public – it may no longer be economically sound to run a training course in-house, but don’t lapse on required courses.


• Take advantage of FREE resources – many consultants provide lots of free info and OSHA will provide all types of assistance at no cost. As an example, Emicott offers a comprehensive Free Training Needs Assessment at www.emilcott.com!


• Pool resources – look toward your industry’s professional organizations or neighboring companies to share services. Maybe a part-time Safety Director is better than none at all.


• Ask a professional – put together a plan and a program to get you through the lean times

Has your company adjusted their health and safety program for leaner times?

Have you seen a direct effect and how are you compensating?

Read More

Topics: OSHA, health and safety, General Industry H&S, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, H&S Training, Compliance, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Fire Safety, Occupational Training, Lab Safety, Safety Training in Spanish