Effective June 19, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has added ethylene glycol (ingested) (CAS No. 107-21-1) to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Proposition 65.
The listing of this chemical is based on formal identification by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in a final report by the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), that ethylene glycol causes reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint) at high oral doses. The criteria used by OEHHA for the listing of chemicals under the “authoritative bodies” mechanism is found in Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs., Section 25306.
New Exclusions for Solvent Recycling and Hazardous Secondary Materials
EPA’s new definition of solid waste rule will present new opportunities for waste recycling outside the scope of hazardous waste regulation. Environmental Resource Center will be presenting a webcast on the new Definition of Solid Waste rule on Monday, June 29th at 2:00 pm Eastern Time. This rule, which goes into effect on July 13, 2015, will maintain critical environmental protections while streamlining the regulatory burden for wastes that are legitimately recycled.
The first of the two exclusions is an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for high-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the original solvent product by keeping the materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent product.
The second, and more wide reaching of the two exclusions, is a revision of the existing hazardous secondary material recycling exclusion. This exclusion allows you to recycle, or send off-site for recycling, virtually any hazardous secondary material, and it will not meet the definition of solid waste. Provided you meet the terms of the exclusion, the material will no longer be hazardous waste.
Learn how to take advantage of these exclusions at Environmental Resource Center’s live one-hour webcast. You will learn:
- Which of your materials qualify for the exclusion?
- What is a secondary material?
- Which solvents can be remanufactured, and which cannot?
- What is a tolling agreement?
- What is legitimate recycling?
- What are the generator storage requirements?
- What documentation must be maintained?
- What are the off-site shipping requirements?
- What are the training and emergency planning requirements?
- Can the recycler be outside the US?
How to Implement OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard (GHS)
OSHA has issued a final rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard, aligning it with the United Nations’ globally harmonized system (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. This means that virtually every product label, safety data sheet (formerly called “material safety data sheet” or MSDS), and written hazard communication plan must be revised to meet the new standard. Worker training must be updated so that workers can recognize and understand the symbols and pictograms on the new labels as well as the new hazard statements and precautions on safety data sheets.
Dayton RCRA and DOT Training
Raleigh RCRA, DOT, and EHS Regulations Training
Macon RCRA and DOT Training
Cal/OSHA Issues High Heat Advisory as Temperatures Rise Across the State
Cal/OSHA is advising all employers to protect their outdoor workers from the risks associated with heat illness. In the next few days, temperatures are expected to be 15 to 25 degrees above normal in Southern California. The National Weather Service forecasts excessive hot and dry weather patterns in Imperial, Riverside, and San Diego counties in particular. Northern California should be prepared for high heat as well.
“During times of sustained high heat, it is especially important that employers take the necessary steps to prevent heat illness for their outdoor workers,” said Christine Baker, director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Cal/OSHA is a division within DIR.
California’s heat illness prevention regulation, originally established in 2005, was amended effective May 1, 2015. Employer requirements under the heat regulation include:
- Provision of cool, fresh water as close as practicable to the work area at no cost to workers
- Shade provided whenever the temperature rises above 80 degrees Fahrenheit and enough shade to accommodate the number of workers taking a break
- Encouragement of employees on cool down rests and monitoring for symptoms of heat illness
- Acclimatization to ensure that workers, especially new employees, safely adapt to increased temperatures during a heat wave
- “Acclimatization is critical to the health of all employees during a heat wave and employees who are newly assigned to high heat areas,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Juliann Sum. “The workers must be closely observed to ensure that their bodies adjust properly to the heat.”
Special high heat procedures are also required when temperatures reach 95 degrees and workers are at greater risk. At these times, supervisors must take extra precautions:
- Observe workers for signs and symptoms of heat illness
- Hold pre-shift meetings on safety and remind workers to drink water frequently
- Require that workers take a cool-down rest every two hours
- Ensure effective communication systems are in place so that emergency assistance can be summoned immediately if necessary
Cal/OSHA inspects worksites in outdoor industries such as agriculture, construction, landscaping, and others throughout the heat season. Through partnerships with various employer and worker organizations in different industries, Cal/OSHA also provides consultation, outreach, and training on heat illness prevention.
Cal/OSHA has a toll-free heat helpline in English and Spanish at 1-877-99-CALOR (877-992-2567), so that workers and the public can report workplace hazards to Cal/OSHA’s district offices, and employers can receive consultation assistance for their worksites.
California Intends to List Teriparatide as Carcinogen
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list teriparatide as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 19861. This action is being proposed under the "Formally Required to Be Labeled or Identified" listing mechanism.
Teriparatide has been identified and labeled to communicate a risk of cancer (FDA, 2013) in accordance with formal requirements by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA-approved label indicates that teriparatide therapy in patients with osteoporosis increases the risk of developing osteosarcoma (a malignant bone tumor). The label also references FORTEO®, which is a trade name of teriparatide.
OEHHA is requesting comments as to whether this chemical meets the criteria set forth in the Proposition 65 regulations for listings via the formally required to be labeled or identified mechanism (Section 25902). Because this is a ministerial listing, comments should be limited to whether FDA requires that teriparatide be labeled to communicate a risk of cancer or tumors. OEHHA cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by FDA when it established the labeling requirement and will not respond to such comments if they are submitted.
In order to be considered, OEHHA must receive comments by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 20, 2015. Please include "teriparatide" in the subject line. Comments submitted in paper form may be mailed, faxed, or delivered in person to the address below.
Mailing Address: Esther Barajas-Ochoa
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
P.O. Box 4010, MS-12B
Sacramento, California 95812-4010
Fax: 916-323-2265
Street Address: 1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Comments received during the public comment period will be posted on the OEHHA web site after the close of the comment period.
Dan D Drilling Fined $221,200 for Safety Violations Causing Worker Fatalities
OSHA has concluded that an open-flame heater on the floor of a rig likely sparked the fire that killed three natural gas drillers and seriously injured two others in a December 2014 drilling rig fire in Coalgate, Oklahoma.
Mark Pittman Jr., Gary Keenan and Kelsey Bellah were working for Dan D Drilling Corp. when the fire erupted. Bellah, 27, and Keenan, 26, died at the scene. Pittman, 26, died from his burns 16 days later in the hospital. Two co-workers suffered serious injuries. One sustained extensive burns to his hands and arms caused by his attempt to assist an injured colleague. He spent a brief time in the hospital. The second man also suffered extensive burns and remained hospitalized until early March.
“Three young men died because Dan D Drilling again allowed the use of an open-flame heater. The heater probably started the fire. The company knew this was hazardous, but chose to ignore the hazard,” said David Bates, OSHA’s area director in Oklahoma City.
Based in Lamont, Oklahoma, Dan D Drilling received two willful, seven serious, and one repeated OSHA violation. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule, or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.
The willful violations were for using an open-flame heater on the rig floor that exposed six workers to fire hazards and for failing to provide and ensure that employees were wearing flame-resistant clothing. The seven serious violations include failing to provide a quick drenching shower for employees who work with corrosive materials; electrical equipment approved for hazardous locations; and training workers on the chemical and physical hazards of new chemicals at the work site. The repeated violation was cited for failing to provide an emergency egress from the rig derrick platform. A similar violation was cited in March 2013 at a drilling site in Tonkawa, Oklahoma.
Express Construction 3 Corp. Fined $112,200 for Exposing Workers to Fall Hazards
Three serious citations were issued for workplace safety violations, including exit, fire, and staircase handrail hazards.
“By ignoring OSHA safety standards, this company is putting its employees at risk every time they are on the job,” said Jean Kulp, director of OSHA’s Allentown Area Office. “Employers are responsible for ensuring that workers have a safe and healthy work environment.”
Proposed penalties total $112,200.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Must Reinstate Injured Conductor and Pay $536K in Damages
North America’s second-largest freight railroad, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, must reinstate a train conductor and pay the man $536,063 in back pay, damages, and attorney’s fees after a federal investigation found the rail operator retaliated against its employee after reporting a knee injury.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe filed disciplinary charges against the conductor after he reported the injury, which occurred in November 2010 while en route from Vancouver to Pasco. The employee filed a Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) anti-discrimination complaint with OSHA in February 2011. Company officials fired him in August 2011 despite knowing that his injury report was protected by law.
OSHA investigators determined the railroad violated federal laws protecting whistleblowers. After an investigation, OSHA ordered the reinstatement and financial compensation.
“Disciplining an employee for reporting an injury is illegal,” said Ken Atha, regional administrator for OSHA’s Seattle office. “Those who do so face negative repercussions. Retaliatory actions can discourage other workers from speaking up, which may result in an unsafe work environment.”
In addition to paying punitive and compensatory damages, OSHA ordered Burlington Northern Santa Fe to rehire the employee and expunge his record of all charges and disciplinary action. The company must also conduct training for supervisors and managers on employee whistleblower rights and post a notice to employees of their whistleblower rights.
Both the employee and the railroad have 30 days from receipt of OSHA’s findings to file objections and request a hearing before the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.
With 38,000 employees, Burlington Northern Santa Fe operates more than 7,000 locomotives and 32,500 miles of track.
OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the FRSA and 21 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, maritime, and securities laws.
Under laws enacted by Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government.
Canton Drop Forge Exposes Workers to Amputation Hazards
On April 23, OSHA’s Cleveland office initiated an inspection at Canton Drop Forge in Canton, Ohio. The agency responded to a complaint alleging workers were exposed to machines lacking safety guards in the die shop. The company creates custom iron and steel forgings for high performance use in the transportation, aerospace, and power generation industries.
The company also lacked procedures to ensure equipment was turned off to prevent it from operating during service and maintenance such as the changing of dies, resulting in a serious violation.
The company was cited for similar violations twice in both April and May of 2011. In April 2011, a worker was killed at the company when he was struck by a loader bucket at the facility. Damaged equipment contributed to that fatality.
“Canton Drop Forge needs to make immediate improvements to its procedures to prevent workers from being exposed to dangerous machinery which can lead to amputations, cuts and other serious injuries,” said Howard Eberts, OSHA’s area director in Cleveland.
Proposed penalties total $77,000.
Worker Dies as a Result of Ignored Safety Hazards
OSHA inspectors have determined that if safety mechanisms had been in place, they might have saved the life of a 62-year-old parts assembler who died after he was struck by a 4-pound metal spacer that flew off a 4-ton hydraulic press.
An OSHA investigation at Ridewell Corp., a Springfield, Missouri-based manufacturer of vehicle suspension systems, found the worker received multiple broken bones and internal injuries in the January incident. He had been employed at the company for 31 years. Inspectors found that the machine he was working on lacked required safety mechanisms.
“This tragic loss could have been prevented,” said Barbara Theriot, OSHA’s area director in Kansas City. “Ridewell workers are at risk for life-threatening hazards every time machinery is operated because this company chooses not to keep them safe.”
OSHA cited Ridewell for one willful and one additional safety violation. The willful violation cites the company for failing to protect workers from operating parts of machinery. The company also failed to provide the requested First Report of Injury document within the required four-hour timeline, resulting in one other-than-serious violation. OSHA has proposed penalties of $71,000.
Provant Health Solutions’ Fined $62,000 for Exposing Workers to Needlestick Hazards
OSHA began an inspection of Provant Health Solutions, LLC, in November 2014, after an employee complained that a used needle punctured him as he unpacked a box in the company’s mailroom. The company ships clean needles and other medical supplies to clinics. After use, the contaminated needles are shipped in unmarked boxes back to the company’s headquarters for disposal by a private biohazard removal service.
OSHA inspectors determined that the packages in use did not effectively protect employees from needlesticks as boxes were unpacked. They also noted that needles could fall out of boxes into a shipping container, which happened at least twice. Boxes lacked required warning labels, and the company did not use an authorized carrier to return the contaminated needles to Provant’s headquarters. The company also lacked an effective program to minimize needlestick injuries. It also failed to train employees about hazards, as required, and did not record injuries properly.
“This company needlessly exposed its employees to preventable injuries and illnesses that can result from being punctured by contaminated needles and also lacked required safeguards,” said Patrick Griffin, OSHA’s area director for Rhode Island. “Unless Provant Health Solutions updates, changes and improves its handling of needles and other bloodborne pathogen hazards, its employees will remain at risk.”
The inspection led OSHA to cite Provant for nine serious and one other-than-serious violation of OSHA standards. Proposed fines total $62,000.
Cycle Tex Inc. Repeatedly Exposes Workers to Fall and Amputation Hazards
OSHA initiated an inspection of Cycle Tex, Inc., in Rome, Georgia, on January 20, 2015, after the agency received a complaint.
OSHA issued the employer two repeated and six serious safety violations.
“Cycle Tex has once again subjected workers to amputation and fall hazards which were previously cited in 2010,” said Christi Griffin, OSHA’s director of the Atlanta-West Area Office. “We are requiring management to make immediate corrections to the hazards identified during this inspection.”
Proposed penalties total $58,410.
Gaspar Fuentes Repeatedly Exposes Workers to Head Injuries, Falls, and Electrocution
OSHA began investigating two Gaspar Fuentes worksites in Fort Worth, Texas, in March 2015 following a referral about unsafe conditions at the commercial and residential home masonry company.
Both repeat violations were issued for failing to provide hard hats to protect workers from falling objects. The company was cited for the same violation in January 2012.
Proposed penalties total $41,600.
“Employees were exposed to very hazardous, yet very preventable, conditions on these job sites,” said Jack Rector, OSHA’s Area Director in Fort Worth, Texas. “What will it take for this employer to fix these dangers and make sure its workers are protected against serious, deadly incidents?”
Temporary Staffing Company Agrees to Implement Changes to Protect Employees
A Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, company that supplies temporary employees to businesses has agreed to enhanced workplace safety and health protections for workers it places in all those businesses in a settlement agreement with the US Department of Labor.
OSHA cited Marathon Staffing Services, Inc., for a serious violation in December 2014 for not providing hearing tests for its employees exposed to high noise levels while working on assignment at Concrete Systems, Inc., in Hudson, New Hampshire.
Under the terms of the agreement, Marathon will have a qualified safety and health professional review and update a checklist to address foreseeable safety and health concerns at client workplaces. The list will be used to conduct initial and periodic safety and health inspections or audits at client worksites to ensure working conditions meet OSHA standards.
Marathon will also provide comprehensive safety and health training for its account executives and sales representatives. The company will develop, with each of its clients, written contracts specifying their respective responsibilities to develop safety and health programs applicable to each workplace where Marathon will supply temporary employees. These terms echo OSHA’s recommended practice that temporary staffing agencies and host employers define and implement their respective roles designed to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA standards.
“This is an example of what suppliers of temporary employees should be doing,” said Kim Stille, OSHA’s regional administrator for New England. “Both host employers and staffing agencies have critical roles in complying with workplace health and safety requirements. They share responsibility for ensuring worker safety and health. Each employer should consider hazards it can prevent and correct, and no employer—whether a temporary staffing agency or a client company—should ever send an employee into harm’s way.”
“This settlement ripples beyond this one case. It is designed to enhance safety and health for hundreds of Marathon employees at numerous work sites in several states. Other suppliers and employers of temporary workers can and should take heed and ensure that all employees—permanent, short-term, or day laborer—work in an environment that enables them to come home each day safe and healthy,” said Michael Felsen, the department’s regional solicitor of labor for New England.
Marathon Staffing Services, Inc., operates in several states and is part of a Marathon Staffing network of connected offices that collectively place more than 15,000 temporary workers annually.
The settlement in this case was negotiated by senior trial attorney Susan Salzberg of the Regional Solicitor’s Office.
The initiative includes outreach, training and enforcement to ensure that temporary workers are protected in their workplaces.
Safety News Links
