Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

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

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

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

Diego Tolosa, CHST

Read More

Topics: DOT, Personal Protective Equipment, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, worker safety, Occupational Safety

Capt. John DeFillippo, CHMP, EMT-B

Does your company have employees that work on, near or over water? Hazardous waste site and emergency response workers, those in the construction trades, surveyors and bridge inspection/repair crews are but a few occupations where this applies. OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.106 for example) cover the safety of such workers including training and protective equipment requirements. Other federal and state (USCG and TSA) regulations may also apply to your operation. For example, if you are working over water, such as bridge work, you must have a rescue skiff at the ready, with trained personnel to operate it, in case someone falls in. Working at piers, refineries or other marine facilities may entail very specific security requirements.

Water can be unforgiving of carelessness. As a veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard, an EMT and a licensed captain working in the marine salvage industry, I’ve seen plenty of tragedies on the water. Nearly all were avoidable. Here are some essential questions to help you assess your water safety knowledge:

• Is everyone wearing personal flotation devices? Are they the right type, worn correctly, and U.S. Coast Guard approved?


• What is the water temperature? In April in the mid-Atlantic region, the water is about 45 degrees F which means you can last about 15 minutes before hypothermia sets in.


• Do you understand the risk of hypothermia? Even if the water is at 80 degrees F, it’s the same as being in air of 42 degrees F. And, water removes heat from the body 25 times faster than air of the same temperature.


• Does everybody know how to swim? What to do if caught in a current? Will they know to swim parallel to the shore or go with it until you out of it? You can't swim against a current, even a gentle one, for very long, so don’t try.


• If someone does fall in, what’s the plan? Formulating a plan when you hear the splash is too late! Having the proper rescue equipment and understanding how to use it is essential.


• Who is trained in CPR and Basic First Aid? Knowing what to do in an emergency saves lives! Too many would-be rescuers become victims themselves, so leave water rescue to those who have the training and tools.


• Is the boat operator trained? Employers who would never think of allowing an untrained person to operate a crane often have no problem letting someone without proper training operate a boat on a navigable waterway. Many states, including New Jersey, now require all operators of power-driven vessels to take an approved Safe Boating Course. Fines can be steep and may get the vessel impounded.

The Emilcott Training Institute offers many training programs that can help keep workers safe, including an 8-hour Water Safety and Boating Basics that is approved by the NJ State Police and recognized in several other states as well. Fall Protection, Water Safety and Red Cross CPR and Basic First Aid are also offered in-house or on-site. If you have ANY questions about water safety at work, give Emilcott a call or comment below.

Read More

Topics: OSHA, Personal Protective Equipment, health and safety, General Industry H&S, Construction H&S, Emergency Response, H&S Training, worker safety, Occupational Safety, emergency response training, Occupational Training, water safety, Water Response Plan

Topics: Emilcott, OSHA, DOT, health and safety, General Industry H&S, Construction H&S, EPA, Emergency Response, H&S Training, Hazardous Waste Management, HazCom, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, MSDS, Hazard Communication Standard, Occupational Training, Safety Training in Spanish

Topics: health and safety, Construction H&S, worker safety, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Mold, Occupational Training, Working Green, Water Response Plan

EHS Top Ten Tuesday: Fire Safety

Eileen Lucier

Read More

Topics: OSHA, health and safety, General Industry H&S, H&S Training, Hazardous Materials, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, Fire Safety, Occupational Training, Lab Safety, Medical Records, NFPA

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

1. Is the material hazardous? This can be determined by looking at the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or the label.

2. Does the Department of Transportation consider the material a hazardous material for transportation? Check the Hazardous Material Table (HMT) found in 49 CFR 172.101.

3. Is the material listed by name in the HMT? If so, that would be the proper shipping name.

4. Is the material not listed by name in the HMT but is a hazardous material due to flammability, corrosivity, etc.? If so, a generic proper shipping name would be used. The generic proper shipping names are also located in the HMT.

5. Do you have personnel trained according to 49 CFR 172.704?

6. Do you have the proper label(s) as required by 49 CFR 172.400 - .450?

7. Is the packaging approved for the shipment of hazardous materials according to 49 CFR 173?

8. Have you completed the Shipper's Declaration of Dangerous Goods?

9. Is the listed emergency response telephone number answered by a "live person?"

10. Failure to ship hazardous materials properly has resulted in monetary fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Read More

Topics: OSHA, DOT, health and safety, General Industry H&S, Emergency Response, H&S Training, Hazardous Materials, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety, emergency response training, MSDS, Respiratory, Occupational Training, Safety Training in Spanish