The fire occurred on the night of Oct. 5, 2006, at the EQ hazardous waste transfer facility on Investment Boulevard in Apex, a suburb of Raleigh, N.C. The facility was not staffed or monitored after hours, and no EQ employees were present at the time of the fire. Emergency responders did not have access to specific information on the hazardous chemicals stored at the site and ordered the precautionary evacuation of thousands of area residents. The evacuation order remained in place for two days, until the fire had subsided.
The CSB investigation found that a small fire originated in the facility's oxidizer storage bay, one of six storage bays where different wastes were consolidated, stored, and prepared for transfer off-site to treatment and disposal facilities. Within the oxidizer bay were a number of chemical oxygen generators, which had earlier been removed from aircraft during routine maintenance at a facility in Mobile, Ala. However, they had not been safely activated and discharged before entering the waste stream, and solid chlorine-based pool chemicals were stacked on top of the box containing still functional oxygen generators.
Apex firefighters initially responded to a 911 emergency call from a resident driving past the facility, who reported observing a haze with a "strong chlorine smell." When firefighters arrived, they discovered a small "sofa-size" fire. But that fire spread quickly, most likely as the aircraft oxygen generators discharged and accelerated the blaze.
"The only fire control equipment on-site consisted of portable, manually operated fire extinguishers," said CSB Supervisory Investigator Rob Hall, P.E., who led the investigation. "The facility lacked fire walls and automatic fire suppression systems. As a result, the fire spread quickly into other bays where flammables, corrosives, laboratory wastes, paints, and pesticides were stored."
The bays were separated by six-inch-high curbs only designed to contain liquid spills. The facility was destroyed in the ensuing fire and explosions, which sent fireballs hundreds of feet into the air. About 30 people, including 1 firefighter and 12 police officers, required medical evaluation at local hospitals for respiratory distress and other symptoms that occurred as a plume from the fire drifted across the area.
Hazardous waste facilities are regulated under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The investigation noted that RCRA regulations developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require facilities to have "fire control equipment" but do not specify what equipment and systems should be in place. In addition, there is no national fire code to define good fire protection practices for hazardous waste facilities.
The CSB investigation identified 22 other hazardous waste fires, explosions, and releases that have occurred at U.S. hazardous waste facilities in the past five years. More than one-third had adverse community impacts, such as evacuations, orders to shelter, and transportation disruptions.
Federal RCRA regulations require operators to "familiarize" local responders in advance concerning facility hazards, but they do not specify what information must be shared about stored chemicals or define the frequency of communications. Similarly, EPA regulations under the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) do not require facilities to share information about hazardous wastes with local agencies, because those wastes are generally exempt from OSHA rules requiring preparation of material safety data sheets (MSDSs).
In fact, the CSB investigation found that EQ had limited contact with the Apex Fire Department prior to the October 2006 fire.
"Specific, accurate, up-to-date information on chemical hazards is essential to emergency response planning," said CSB Board Member William Wark, who accompanied the investigative team to Apex in October 2006. "Communities have a fundamental right to know about stored hazardous chemicals that may affect their health and well-being. For first responders, having prompt access to such information is a matter of basic life safety."
The CSB report recommended that EPA require permitted hazardous waste facilities to periodically provide specific, written information to state and local response officials on the type, approximate quantities, and location of hazardous materials.
The Board called on the Environmental Technology Council, a trade association representing about 80% of the U.S. hazardous waste industry, to develop standardized guidance on waste handling and storage to prevent releases and fires. The CSB also recommended that the Council petition the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)—an organization that authors national fire codes—to develop a specific fire protection standard for the hazardous waste industry. The new standard should address fire prevention, detection, control, and suppression. Similar NFPA standards already exist for other industries, such as wastewater treatment.
Earlier in June 2007, the CSB issued a safety advisory and made urgent recommendations designed to ensure that chemical oxygen generators are safely activated and discharged prior to transportation and disposal. The advisory cited findings of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) following the 1996 ValuJet crash in Florida, which was caused when generators activated and ignited in the plane's cargo bay.
UL Launches New Certification Program for Bottled Water
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has announced a new certification program for bottled water. This new program enables consumers of bottled water to choose brands that have been validated by UL to meet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) requirements for quality and safety. This mark also will enable producers of bottled water to differentiate and more effectively communicate their commitment to the quality and safety of their product.
"The introduction of this new mark for bottled water is a natural extension of UL's commitment to public safety," said Jeff Smith, general manager, UL Global Water Business. "Consumers can feel confident that when they see the UL Certified Water Quality Mark on bottled water, that the global leader in product safety certification, with more than 100 years of service, has independently tested the safety and quality of the water."
The announcement of the new Certified Water Quality Mark demonstrates UL's continuing commitment to and leadership in water quality. In the summer of 2007, UL commissioned a blind market research study to quantify the value of the UL Mark among U.S. consumers of bottled water. The study found that in every tested scenario there was significant consumer preference for bottled water brands that carry the UL Mark, and that many consumers would switch brands or pay more to get the benefits of the UL Mark.
"High consumer preference toward the UL Mark demonstrates the public's desire for independent verification that bottled water meets all federal regulations for quality and safety," said Ann Marie Gebhart, UL Water Program director. "The UL Mark is one of the most widely recognized and trusted safety symbols in the world. Bottled water manufacturers who partner with UL can now very effectively communicate their commitment to the quality and safety of their products."
The new UL Certified Water Quality Mark will first be available for bottled water products intended for distribution in the United States. Consumers can be assured that bottled water bearing the UL mark is produced at plants audited by UL, and those audits are inclusive of the IBWA, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements. To date, UL has analyzed more than 1.5 million water samples for thousand of bottlers, public water supplies, engineering firms, consultants, and state and federal agencies, including the EPA and the U.S. military. UL's water laboratory is certified in 48 states and Puerto Rico, making it the most certified laboratory for bottled water analysis.
The introduction of the new Certified Water Quality Mark for bottled water is the latest in a series of milestones for UL's Water Program. UL's drinking water analytical laboratory in South Bend, Ind., has more than 20 years of experience analyzing bottled water in accordance with FDA standards. Highly active in water safety and quality, UL staff has served on the Technical and Government Relations committees for the IBWA and continues to make presentations to the water industry. In 2007, UL was awarded the IBWA Plant Inspection Contract, allowing UL to conduct unannounced annual third-party audits of bottled water plants for IBWA members and candidate members.
UL's water quality certification program is fully accredited in the United States and Canada. UL is a recognized certifier of water products and water testing by the EPA and is an active participant on numerous national standards committees and industry task groups.
OSHA Fines Contractors $135,000 for Fall Hazards
Eleven contractors, mostly from western and central New York, have been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for failing to protect their employees against fall hazards during the Walden Galleria Mall construction project in Cheektowaga, N.Y. The employers face combined penalties totaling $135,700.
"What's disturbing is the breadth and frequency of fall hazards observed throughout this jobsite, encompassing a wide variety of construction trades," said Arthur Dube, OSHA's area director in Buffalo. "This situation is unacceptable. Falls are the number one killer in construction work. It takes only one misstep, be it from a roof, scaffold, ladder, or into a hole, to cause death or disabling injury."
OSHA conducted an inspection in response to a complaint alleging fall hazards. The agency identified a variety of these hazards, including lack of fall protection for employees working at heights of 6 feet or greater; missing or inadequate guardrails; an uncovered storm drain; ladder deficiencies; a missing stairway, ramp, or ladder; an employee tied off to the basket of a boom truck while standing on a roof; and lack of fall-protection training and programs.
The largest fine, $78,500, was proposed against GVH Development Inc., the mall project's general contractor, for alleged willful, repeat, and serious violations of fall and other safety standards. Also cited were the following subcontractors: CBO Glass [$16,000]; Guard Contracting Corp., demolition and carpentry [$12,000]; Alpha Masonry Construction Co. [$7,500]; E.B. Atlas Steel Corp.[$5,400]; Greater Electric Corp. [$4,500]; Single Ply Systems Inc., roofer [$3,600]; S. Federowicz Construction Inc., concrete flatwork [$2,500]; JC Construction, drywall [$2,250]; Edwards Excavating LLC, plumbing and excavation [$1,950]; and Gordon & Zoerb Electrical Contractors Inc. [$1,500].
Each company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations to contest them before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Buffalo Area Office.
OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. Repeat citations are issued when an employer previously has been cited for similar hazards, and those citations have become final.
New Safety and Health Information Bulletin Focuses on Oil and Gas Production Industry
OSHA published a new Safety and Health Information Bulletin to highlight specific workplace hazards in the oil and gas production industry. OSHA and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board investigated a fatal incident involving the ignition of hydrocarbon vapor released during the off-loading of basic sediment and water from two vacuum trucks into an open area collection pit.
OSHA Fines Valero Energy $101,750
OSHA issued citations against Valero Energy Corp., alleging 13 serious, 2 repeat, and 1 other-than-serious violation following an investigation that began Oct. 16, 2007, at the company's Port Arthur, Texas, refinery. The inspection was initiated as part of OSHA's National Emphasis Program for petroleum refineries. Valero, headquartered in San Antonio, has about 830 employees at its Port Arthur facility.
"We are pleased that Valero has expressed a willingness to take quick, corrective actions in resolving the safety and health violations," said Dean McDaniel, OSHA's regional administrator in Dallas.
Serious violations include failing to: implement accurate process safety information, provide employees with accurate operating procedures, have an adequate system in place to advance recommendations from process hazard analysis, and correct equipment deficiencies. A serious violation is one with potential to cause death or serious physical harm to employees when the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.
The repeat violations address the company's failure to implement inspection and testing procedures that follow OSHA's standards and regulations. Repeat violations are issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same, or a substantially similar, violation that has become a final order.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Houston, or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Employers and employees with questions about workplace safety and health can contact OSHA's Houston South Area Office at 281-286-0583. A toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742 may be used to report workplace accidents, fatalities, or situations posing imminent danger to employees.
DCS Sanitation Management Fined Following Electrocution Death
OSHA has cited DCS Sanitation Management Inc. for 10 alleged violations of federal safety and health standards following the Oct. 12, 2007, death of an employee at a Springfield, Mo., poultry processing facility.
An employee of Cincinnati, Ohio-based DCS Sanitation Management, working to sanitize poultry processing equipment, was electrocuted when the equipment's conductive surface became energized.
"Our inspection revealed multiple violations of OSHA's electrical standards," said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA's regional administrator in Kansas City. "It is imperative that employers remain committed to keeping the workplace safe at all times."
An alleged willful violation addresses hazards associated with the company's failure to ensure that: employees are removed from equipment hazard areas, all tools are removed, and equipment is operationally intact prior to its release from lockout/tagout safeguards and employee use. Lockout/tagout refers to preventing the accidental start-up of machinery during maintenance. Willful violations are those committed with an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and regulations.
An alleged repeat violation addresses a hazard associated with the lack of suitable facilities for quick drenching and/or flushing of the eyes and body in the event of an emergency when employees were working with injurious corrosives. Repeat violations are issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same, or a substantially similar, violation that has become a final order.
Alleged serious violations address the following hazards: failure to ensure electrical equipment was free from recognized hazards; failure to ensure the means of grounding machines and equipment was continuous and effective; enclosures for electrical components in wet environments that were not waterproof; failure to provide all flexible cords with a strain relief; failure to provide a standard guardrail system for every floor opening or platform above dangerous equipment; failure to provide and/or require the use of appropriate eye and face protective equipment; and allowing the consumption of food and beverages in areas exposed to toxic chemicals.
An other-than-serious violation addresses the employer's failure to report the fatal accident to the nearest OSHA area office within the required eight hours of occurrence. The agency's proposed penalties for all violations total $124,500.