Scientists are reporting that the indoor air in offices is an important source of worker exposure to potentially toxic substances released by carpeting, furniture, paint, and other items.
Michael McClean and colleagues explain that PFCs, used in water-repellent coatings on carpet and furniture, may have adverse effects on human health. The substances are widespread in the environment and in humans around the world. Scientists know that potential sources of exposure include food, water, indoor air, indoor dust, and direct contact with PFC-containing objects. The link between levels in air and blood had not been explored previously, so McClean’s group set out to fill that gap with a study of 31 office workers in Boston.
They found concentrations of a PFC called fluorotelomer alcohol (FTOH) in office air that were 3–5 times higher than those reported in previous studies of household air, “suggesting that offices may represent a unique and important exposure environment.” In addition, the study found a strong link between concentrations of FTOH in office air and perfluorooctanoic acid (a metabolite of FTOH) in the blood of office workers. The results also suggested that workers in newly renovated office buildings may receive considerably higher doses of PFCs than workers in older buildings.
How to Author GHS Safety Data Sheets
OSHA is adopting the new Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. A cornerstone of GHS is the adoption of a completely revised Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
- January 27, 2012
- February 29, 2012
How to Label Hazardous Chemicals Using OSHA’s New GHS Hazcom Standard
Workplace and supplier hazard communication labels are being reinvented as OSHA adopts the new Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for labeling hazardous chemicals.
- February 3, 2012
- March 1, 2012
How to Prepare for OSHA Adoption of the GHS for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
This means that virtually every product label, material safety data sheet (soon to be called “safety data sheet”), 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 MSDSs.
Environmental Resource Center is offering webcast training for you to learn how the new rule differs from current requirements, how to implement the changes, and when the changes must be implemented.
Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, and IATA/IMO Training
Atlanta RCRA, DOT, and SARA Title III Training
Tampa RCRA and DOT Training
Safety Consultant/Trainer
Environmental Resource Center has a new opening for a safety consultant and auditor. We are looking for a former OSHA CSHO, OSHA trainer, or state inspector for this position in our Cary, North Carolina, office. Applicants should have excellent writing and speaking skills and be willing to travel 7–14 days per month. We are looking for an expert in all of the General Industry and Construction standards who is capable of performing audits of industrial facilities as well as conducting on-site training.
Strong consideration will be given to applicants who also have experience providing HAZWOPER, Hazcom, lockout/tagout, confined spaces, and machine guarding training.
The position includes maintenance of training materials (books and presentations), working on consulting projects, development of classes and computer-based training programs, and ensuring customer satisfaction.
California May Add Xylene to Proposition 65 List
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition 65, has selected xylene and Deltamethrin for Proposition 65 listing due to potential reproductive toxicity.
Hazard identification materials for these chemicals will be presented at future meetings of the DARTIC for Committee review for possible listing under Proposition 65.
The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) of OEHH’s Science Advisory Board serves as the State’s qualified experts for rendering an opinion as to whether a chemical has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause reproductive toxicity. Chemicals identified by the DARTIC are added to the Proposition 65 list, which is updated annually.
California Adds Four New Chemicals to List of Proposition 65 Carcinogens
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list the chemicals identified in the table below as known to the State to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The Act, commonly known as Proposition 65, is codified in Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq. This action is being taken pursuant to the Labor Code mechanism contained in Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a).
|
Chemical |
CAS No. |
Endpoint |
References |
|
Benzophenone |
119-61-9 |
Cancer |
IARC (2011); Grosse et al. (2011) |
|
Coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide diethanolamine) |
68603-42-9 |
Cancer |
IARC (2011); Grosse et al. (2011) |
|
Diethanolamine |
111-42-2 |
Cancer |
IARC (2011); Grosse et al. (2011) |
|
2-Methylimidazole |
693-98-1 |
Cancer |
IARC (2011); Grosse et al. (2011) |
Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a) incorporates California Labor Code Sections 6382(b)(1) and 6382(d) into Proposition 65. The law requires that certain substances identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer () be listed as known to cause cancer under Proposition 65. Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) refers to substances identified as human or animal carcinogens by IARC. Labor Code section 6382(d) refers to substances identified as carcinogens or potential carcinogens by IARC or the National Toxicology Program ).
As the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition 65, OEHHA evaluates whether listing under Proposition 65 is required.
Tissue Holders Containing Low-Level Radiation Recalled from Bed, Bath & Beyond
Two metal tissue holders containing low levels of radioactive material were distributed to a Bed, Bath & Beyond store in Overland Park, Kansas, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) learned recently that it is possible one of these items was sold before the store could remove both items from the shelves. These tissue holders do not pose an immediate health risk, but KDHE is urging citizens who might have purchased one of these items to return it to Bed, Bath & Beyond immediately.
“The radioactivity is contained within the metal of the box and cannot be transferred to tissues or people. There is little to no risk to human health, but it’s better to avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation,” explained KDHE Secretary and State Health Officer Robert Moser, MD. “I am urging those citizens who shop the Overland Park Bed, Bath & Beyond and have recently purchased a tissue box holder to check and make sure it’s not this item that’s been recalled.”
The contaminated item is in the Dual Ridge Boutique product line, model number DR9M. The product SKU is 18485524. The UPC is 8476820004980. These tissue box holders were manufactured at a facility in India and shipped to a Bed, Bath & Beyond distribution site in New Jersey. The items were shipped to the company’s stores in 20 states, including Kansas. Only the store at 12035 Metcalf in Overland Park received these items.
The company posted a brief statement on its website and Facebook page, as well as in stores, announcing the problem and advising customers who have purchased this product to return it to their nearest Bed Bath & Beyond store for a full refund. More information is available from the retailer at 1-800-462-3966.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment Announces New Agency Mission Statement
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has a new mission statement: To protect and improve the health and environment of all Kansans.
Before the New Year, KDHE personnel began incorporating this mission statement into all agency products, to include the website and presentation material. This new mission statement is the result of a strategic planning process involving all agency staff as well as representatives from approximately 10 external stakeholder groups such as the Kansas Association of Local Health Departments and the Kansas Hospital Association.
“Following a series of strategic planning sessions in which we assessed the current and future state of the organization, KDHE believes its mission can best be described using the phrase ‘protect and improve the health and environment of all Kansans’, and we hope all Kansans will join us in protecting and improve our residents’ health and our natural resources,” said KDHE Secretary and State Health Officer Robert Moser, M.D.
The former mission statement read: To protect the health and environment of all Kansans by promoting responsible choices.
“Leaving out ‘promoting responsible choices’ in no way means that we’re moving away from promoting healthier, greener living,” said Moser. “Promoting responsible choices is only one strategy the department uses to improve the state of health and environment in Kansas.”
During the strategic planning process last year, the agency also examined the vision statement. The consensus was that the vision statement should go unchanged: Healthy Kansans living in safe and sustainable environments.
The first strategic planning workshop was held in July 2011, and subsequent meetings and presentations took place through October in order to provide all 1,200 KDHE staff an opportunity for their input on setting the objectives that will guide the agency for the next three years.
“The KDHE team displayed a great level of commitment to the strategic planning process last year. The priorities and objectives we’ve set in our strategic map will help guide our project initiatives in all three divisions—public health, environment and health care finance—and support the ongoing work to achieve goals set forth in Governor Brownback’s Road Map for Kansas.”
Hazard Traits for Toxics Information Clearinghouse Identified
California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is taking action to implement a portion of Senate Bill 509, (Simitian, Chapter 560, Statutes of 2008) by specifying hazard traits (toxicological, environmental, exposure potential, and physical), toxicological and environmental endpoints, and other relevant data on chemicals used in consumer products.
These hazard traits, endpoints, and other relevant data will be used by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control to develop the Toxics Information Clearinghouse, a decentralized, Web-based system for the collection, maintenance, and distribution of specific chemical hazard trait and environmental and toxicological end-point data. The adoption of this regulation became effective on January 19, 2012.
Supporting rulemaking documents are available at the following links:
OSHA to Require Markets to Address Fall and Laceration Hazards
The US Department of Labor’s regional solicitor’s office in Boston has filed a complaint against DeMoulas Super Markets Inc., doing business as Market Basket, with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The complaint asks the commission to order the Tewksbury, Massachusetts-based chain to comply with OSHA’s safety standards designed to protect employees from fall and laceration hazards at the employer’s more than 60 stores in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
This request for enterprise wide relief is based upon hazards OSHA found during inspections of various DeMoulas stores, including the agency’s most recent inspections at Market Basket stores in Rindge and Concord, New Hampshire. Those inspections resulted in citations and proposed OSHA fines totaling $589,200, which DeMoulas has contested to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
“Hazardous conditions at multiple locations that expose employees to serious injuries demand a swift and comprehensive corrective response at the corporate level,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA insists that this employer completely and effectively eliminate the hazards it never should have allowed to exist in the first place.”
The department’s complaint alleges that employees at multiple Market Basket stores were exposed or likely to be exposed to fall hazards from unguarded, open-sided work and storage areas, including storage lofts and atop produce coolers and freezers. An employee of the Market Basket store in Rindge was seriously injured in April 2011 when he fell 11 feet onto a concrete floor from an inadequately guarded storage mezzanine, and an employee at a Billerica, Massachusetts, store was seriously injured under similar conditions in 2007.
The company also allegedly failed to protect employees in produce, deli, and bakery departments against laceration hazards from knives and cutting instruments by not conducting job hazard analyses that would have identified the need for hand protection, and by not providing such hand protection to workers exposed to the hazards. In 2006, after being cited by OSHA, the company agreed to complete job hazard analyses in all stores but failed to do so. Between 2008 and 2011, employees at the Rindge and Concord stores sustained at least 40 recorded hand lacerations.
“Worker safety is not optional, and it cannot be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. It must be addressed across the board,” said Michaels. “This employer has the responsibility to safeguard all its employees at all its locations, something it has failed to do.”
DeMoulas Super Markets has 20 days from receipt of the complaint to file an answerThe first time was against the US Postal Service in July 2010 for correction of electrical work safety violations at 350 postal facilities throughout the nation. That matter is pending.
Georgia Contractor Fined Nearly $54,000 for Knowingly Exposing Workers to Cave-in Hazards
OSHA has cited K.M. Davis Contracting Co., Inc., of Marietta, Georgia, with one willful safety violation for exposing workers to a cave-in hazard at a Marietta work site. Proposed penalties total $53,900.
OSHA inspected the site in August as part of the agency’s national emphasis program on trenching and excavations. The city of Marietta contracted K.M. Davis to install 2,700 feet of new water lines and fire hydrants on North Cobb Parkway. The violation involves allowing employees to work in a trench approximately 9 1/2 feet deep without cave-in protection. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.
“Management knew the excavation and soil conditions posed a hazard to the workers in the trench but chose not to protect them, although a protective system was available at the job site,” said Andre Richards, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-West Area Office.
OSHA standards mandate that all excavations 5 feet or deeper be protected against collapse.
$105,000 Fine after Worker’s Thumb Crushed by Unguarded Machine
On July 25, the employee’s thumb was crushed while he was bending a metal part between the unguarded dies of the brake. The thumb had to be medically amputated. The Eau Claire, Wisconsin-based company was still operating the unguarded press brake when OSHA initiated an inspection on August 16 based on a referral from the state of Wisconsin. Proposed fines total $105,000. Curt Manufacturing specializes in the manufacture of towing components and employs approximately 430 people.
“Failing to have proper machine guarding in the first place, and to cease operating the power press brake in order to correct safety discrepancies following the injury of a worker, demonstrate a complete lack of regard for employees’ safety and health,” said Mark Hysell, OSHA’s area director in Eau Claire. “OSHA is committed to protecting workers on the job, especially when employers fail to do so.”
The willful violation carries a proposed penalty of $70,000.
Five serious safety violations with proposed penalties of $35,000 involve failing to develop, document, and use hazardous energy control procedures for machines with multiple energy sources; conduct annual inspections of those procedures; ensure lockout devices were affixed to energy isolating devices by authorized employees; provide point-of-operation guarding on a band saw and tube bender; and provide hand tools that permit easy material handling and prevent workers from placing their hands in machine danger zones. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Two other-than-serious violations involve failing to provide information to workers voluntarily using respirators and failing to evaluate a potential permit-required confined space. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical injury.
Steel and Concrete Erector Cited for Repeat Fall Protection Violations
OSHA has cited Henry Gurtzweiler Inc., with six safety violations at a job site in Oregon, Ohio, including two repeat violations for failing to provide fall protection during steel erection operations and allowing workers to climb out of an aerial lift. Proposed fines total $50,820.
The inspection was initiated November 16, under OSHA’s National Emphasis Program for Fall Protection after the agency received a complaint alleging fall protection was not being used on the job site. 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. Similar violations were cited in 2008 and 2010.
“Falls are a known safety hazard during steel erection operations and the leading cause of death in the construction industry. Failing to provide fall protection for workers performing this hazardous job is unacceptable,” said Kim Nelson, OSHA’s area director in Toledo. “Employers cited for repeat violations demonstrate a lack of commitment to employee safety and health.”
Additionally, three serious violations involve failing to require the use of safety glasses while using powered tools, using a powered industrial vehicle without a vertical load back rest extension while loading insulation rolls and failing to train workers on fall hazards associated with steel erection.
One other-than-serious violation involves failing to provide detailed injury and illness reporting on the OSHA 300 log.
Henry Gurtzweiler Inc., specializes in steel and precast concrete erection, and employs approximately 60 workers. Prior to this inspection, OSHA has inspected the company 19 times since 2000 at job sites in both Ohio and Michigan, resulting in 29 citations.
Veterans Health Care System Notified of 19 Safety and Health Violations
OSHA has issued 19 notices of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions found at the St. Cloud Veterans Affairs Health Care System facility in St. Cloud, Minnesota, following a combined health and safety inspection conducted in July as part of OSHA’s Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program.
“The St. Cloud Veterans Affairs Health Care System failed to properly ensure the facility was in compliance with established safety and health procedures,” said Mark Hysell, director of OSHA’s Eau Claire Area Office in Wisconsin. “All employers, including federal employers, are responsible for knowing what hazards exist in their facilities and must take appropriate precautions by following OSHA standards so workers are not exposed to such risks.”
Eight repeat safety violations involve failing to provide guardrails on open-sided platforms, keep exit routes free and unobstructed, evaluate the workplace to determine if permit-required confined spaces were present, implement and train workers in lockout procedures to control hazardous energy, provide training on specific powered industrial trucks, and provide workers with the necessary personal protective equipment for exposure to electrical shock and arc flash hazards.
Additionally, two repeat health violations involve failing to include the type or brand of sharps that were the cause of employees’ exposure to blood or bodily fluids in the sharps log, and failing to train housekeeping staff on the specific location of asbestos in their assigned work areas.
To issue notices for repeat violations, an OSHA agency wide inspection history must list a previous notice issued within the past five years to an establishment within the same standard industrial classification code, commonly known as the SIC code. US Department of Veterans Affairs facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; and Dayton, Ohio, previously have been cited for the same safety and health violations.
Six serious safety violations involve failing to provide personal protective equipment during chainsaw use; provide mats where wet processes were used; develop, document, and implement safe permit space entry operations for hydraulic elevator pits; verify machines were de-energized prior to performing maintenance; use eye protection when required; and use lockout devices to control energy sources.
Three other-than-serious violations involve failing to place a warning sign at the entrance of a mechanical room containing energized electrical parts, have a written schedule for cleaning and decontamination for surfaces routinely contaminated with blood, and conduct an initial exposure assessment of vinyl tile removal activities.
As required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, federal agencies must comply with the same safety standards as private sector employers. The federal agency equivalent to a private sector citation is the notice of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions. A notice is used to inform establishment officials of violations of OSHA standards, alternate standards, and 29 Code of Federal Regulations citable program elements. OSHA cannot propose monetary penalties against another federal agency for failure to comply with OSHA standards.
American Railcar Industries Cited Following Worker Electrocution
OSHA has cited American Railcar Industries Inc., headquartered in Saint Charles, Missouri, for 10 serious safety violations after an employee was electrocuted while performing repair work on a tanker-style railcar July 25 at the company’s work site near Marmaduke, Arkansas.
“Exposing workers to electrocution hazards without proper safeguards and training is inexcusable,” said Carlos Reynolds, the agency’s area director in Little Rock. “It is the employer’s responsibility to create a safe and healthful workplace where preventable hazards don’t cost workers their lives.”
Upon receiving a fatality report from the employer, OSHA’s Little Rock Area Office initiated an investigation July 26 at the company’s facility on Highway 34 East and found that workers were being exposed to electrical shocks from welding equipment. The violations include failing to provide personal protection for employees conducting cutting and welding operations; properly mark the power supply and control boxes for voltage, current, and wattage; use fixed wiring instead of flexible cords and protect the wiring from possible damage; remove defective electrical equipment from service; and inspect and mark web slings.
American Railcar Industries, which employs about 260 workers at the Marmaduke facility and about 1,500 workers nationwide, designs and manufactures railcars.
American Marazzi Tile Fined $318,000 for Excessive Noise, Machine Guarding and Other Hazards
OSHA cited American Marazzi Tile Inc., with 25 safety and health violations for exposing workers to excessive noise levels, machine guarding hazards, and other dangerous conditions at its facility in Sunnyvale, Texas. Proposed penalties total $318,000.
OSHA’s Dallas Area Office initiated an investigation on July 13 at the company’s Clay Road facility as part of the agency’s Site-Specific Targeting Program, which directs enforcement resources to workplaces with higher-than-average injury and illness rates.
“This company knowingly failed to implement necessary safety and health programs to protect employees from coming into contact with moving parts of machinery and prevent hearing loss,” said John Hermanson, OSHA’s regional administrator in Dallas. “It’s the employer’s responsibility to know the hazards and safeguard workers from these hazards in order to provide a working environment free of injuries and illnesses.”
Three willful violations involve failing to establish and maintain a hearing conservation program for workers exposed to noise levels exceeding 85 decibels; provide the required machine guards for exposed belts, pulleys, chains, and sprockets; and establish a lockout/tagout program for energy sources to protect workers from the unexpected start up of machinery.
Twenty-one serious violations involve failing to provide personal protective equipment, provide confined space training, provide machine guarding to prevent workers from coming into contact with rotating parts, develop energy control procedures for machines with more than one energy source, provide fire extinguisher training, properly store oxygen and acetylene cylinders, develop a bloodborne pathogens program, and train employees on hazardous chemicals used in the facility.
One other-than-serious violation is for failing to post a copy of the hearing conservation standard in the workplace. Initiated in June 2010, the program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations.
Safety News Links
