The good news is that a wide variety of financial incentives are still available. Many states continue to offer Brownfield tax relief, and there is a range of federal and state-sponsored government funding sources for redevelopment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for instance, include Brownfield incentives. In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorized a non-competitive $50 million grant program to establish and enhance state and tribal response programs, addressing assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of Brownfield sites. Some state programs even provide financing for environmental risk insurance premiums associated with Brownfield redevelopment. Redevelopers are well advised to research financial incentives that many states and major cities have for Brownfield cleanup and assessment activities, including community grants and loan guarantees. In addition, there are often a variety of tax incentives available, such as property tax abatement.

These financial incentives make sense for private developers, as well as state and local governments. Brownfield redevelopment projects help to reclaim underutilized land, and support new business growth with accompanying new tax revenues. As an example, the 1,600-acre site of the former Bethlehem Steel plant near Bethlehem, Pa., has been redeveloped into a commercial distribution center, casino and arts center. This award-winning redevelopment has created thousands of new jobs, has drawn more business and visitors to the site as well as businesses in the city center, and helped turn what could have become an eyesore into a source of civic pride and additional tax revenue.

Of course, the financial incentives go hand in hand with the intensifying challenges associated with the developing of a Brownfield site. Initially, developers need to understand what they’re getting into when they evaluate a potential investment in a Brownfield property. For that reason, a redevelopment site should be assessed for environmental exposures before purchase. Such an evaluation can help investors decide whether a particular project meets their expected rates of return and at what price they would consider proceeding. The environmental site evaluation can also assist with establishing “innocent landowner” protection under the Superfund law, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA).

This is crucial because environmental regulations continue to tighten and enforcement is stricter now more than ever. New landowners may potentially be held liable for property-related contamination, regardless of whether they played a role in causing the pollution. However, if the current property landowner or facility operator has had an appropriate site evaluation performed before purchase, and contamination was not identified, they may be able to avail themselves of the “innocent landowner” defense, provided pursuant to CERCLA and other analogous state liability regimes. Otherwise, they can face financial consequences that include substantial remediation liability and associated defense and administrative costs. These costs may be compounded by extensive and expensive environmental site investigation and remediation as well as the loss of redeveloped property income during remediation.

Redevelopment project owners and investors also need to consider changing environmental regulations and stricter enforcement that may require costly remediation work on property that had previously been deemed not to need remediation. This can include liability from regulation that develops after the property has transitioned to a new owner and was not included in the pre-sale evaluation. For example, the U.S. EPA is considering a new policy to include vapor intrusion threats among its priorities. This could impact sites where vapors from subsurface contaminants concentrate in new buildings and pose a health risk to residents or workers.

Savvy prospective Brownfield buyers often ask an environmental consultant to include in their assessments additional risks that may not normally be considered. Additional testing can include asbestos and lead-based paint, drinking water, and assessment of other regulated or potentially hazardous materials in building components, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and equipment containing mercury or chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Requesting an expanded scope of environmental testing usually increases the assessment price. However, understanding the costs to abate or mitigate regulated materials prior to demolition or full scale renovation is critical to understanding the overall cost of purchasing and restoring a site to a productive end use. It also is an important tool for determining a prudent level of environmental risk insurance.

Changing regulations and heightened enforcement are just two reasons for owners of Brownfield sites, commercial, mixed-use or industrial facilities, and other potentially contaminated properties, to purchase environmental pollution liability insurance. In addition to on-site pollution damage lawsuits, the coverage is a means to guard against third-party lawsuits for bodily injury and property damage, which are often overlooked.

Environmental premises liability insurance typically provides clean-up coverage for gradual as well as sudden and accidental pollution releases. Such coverage can be triggered through the insured’s discovery of a pollution release. Coverage can also be provided for third-party claims, including claims made by governmental entities.

In general, this policy requires the host employer (the company that owns or operates the facility or worksite) and the contractor to share responsibility for the safety of the contractor’s employees while working at the facility or worksite. If an incident occurs and a contractor employee is injured, OSHA will determine which employer (host employer or contractor) is the Controlling Employer and ultimately the responsible party. Because the host employer has overall responsibility for the facility or worksite, the host employer is usually determined to be the Controlling Employer. However, there are situations where the host employer may not be the Controlling Employer, such as on a construction site where there is a general contractor. In these cases, there is often a clause in the contract between the host employer and the general contractor giving the general contractor the authorities and responsibilities of the host employer.

OSHA is not the only concern. If an employee of the host employer is injured, the company receives some protection from lawsuits by way of worker’s compensation laws. Unless there is negligence, an employee cannot sue his company for injuries received on the job. In return, the company is responsible for satisfying all medical expenses and, if necessary, disability. This is not the case when a company hires a contractor. The injured contractor will most certainly sue both his/her employer (the contractor) and the host employer.

Case Study

A local manufacturer hired a contractor to clean a pit. The pit was considered a permit-required confined space. The manufacturer (host employer) informed the contractor that the pit was considered a permit-required confined space, and instructed the contractor that they must adhere to the host employer’s permit-required confined space program and use only properly trained personnel. The host employer did not supervise or oversee the project in any way. In fact, the host employer didn’t even verify that the contractors were trained or if they were following the confined space program. Because the host employer gave complete control of the project to the contractor, the host employer thought they were off the hook from being responsible…boy, were they wrong.

Without getting into too much detail, one of the two contractors working on the project became overwhelmed by fumes while working in the pit and fell unconscious. Because neither contractor was trained in confined space entry, no provisions were available. A permit was not completed, air monitoring was not conducted, an attendant was not assigned, rescue equipment was not provided, etc. After about 30 minutes the unconscious contractor was finally removed from the pit and rushed to the hospital. With great remorse, the contractor passed away a few hours after reaching the hospital.

The outcome for the host employer was not good. OSHA found the host employer to be the Controlling Employer and the responsible party. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that OSHA did not hold back on issuing violations and fines. In addition, not only is the family of the deceased contractor suing the host company, but the company that the deceased contractor was working for is also suing the host employee…for what I don’t know, but it all relates to costing more money for a tragedy that did not have to happen.

Conclusion

If done right, using contractors can be a cost effective way to enhance or supplement your operations.

Don’t assume you’re not responsible just because you’re not directly managing or controlling the project, work or contractor employees.

Ensure that contractor personnel are properly trained in OSHA requirements and best practices.

Ensure that contractor personnel are qualified to perform the task at hand. Examples, licensed electrician or plumber, certified forklift operator, approved to wear a respirator, etc.

Ensure that contractor personnel are provided with required personal protective equipment and safety equipment.

Ensure that contractor personnel are following your safety procedures.

I support an “EHS management systems approach” in the workplace, which recognizes that unsafe acts, unsafe conditions and accidents are symptoms of problems in the organizational management system. In this philosophy, senior management is ultimately responsible for building an ethical system that effectively analyzes and controls workplace conditions and hazards. This means that EHS is no longer a “sunk cost,” but an integral function of doing business, just like quality.

Perhaps the greatest economic reason to support an ethics-based approach to EHS management within a capitalistic system is that prosperity generates an environment where continuing improvement and reduced risk are affordable.

EHS professionals must promote a more ethical approach to managing their own profession. This strategy requires moral courage, conviction and professional unity, including a bottom-up approach at their facilities and through professional organizations, and understanding the need to look out for workers, the environment, and the public despite culture, pressure and misdirection from management and peers.

• Preserve and make use of green spaces, including courtyards, ponds, walking paths and decks that allow occupants to enjoy and interact with the outdoors. Design workspaces that provide unobstructed views of windows to help bring the outdoor environment inside.

• Avoid “sick building syndrome” by improving air quality in the workplace. Ensure an adequate supply of fresh air and monitor CO2 levels to keep it within a healthy range and to avoid fatigue, headaches and difficulty concentrating.

• Evaluate and control employee exposure to airborne contaminants. Consider banning smoking on your campus including outdoor areas, and install permanent “knock-off” grates at all entrances to control unwanted particles from entering the workplace on employees’ shoes.

• “Green” your cleaning, maintenance and pest management operations by using more environmentally friendly cleaning products and organic, synthetic filters for equipment. For pest control, use non-toxic or minimally toxic methods only in targeted locations and for targeted species.

• Promote recycling. Distribute recycling containers around your buildings or campus to encourage separation of waste and recyclable items. Think beyond cans, glass, and paper. Consider composting food waste, including coffee grounds, from your cafeteria to improve the environment and reduce the cost of the waste stream.

• Control your own environment to work in greater comfort. Ask for the flexibility to adjust temperature, lighting and airflow to maintain personal comfort levels.

• Create a team of employees to monitor, patrol and educate workers on environmentally friendly behaviors. Celebrate events such as Earth Day and World Water Day to raise awareness and promote involvement.

• Add amenities such as huddle areas and quiet rooms to provide an inviting alternative to meeting rooms. Acoustical spray on ceilings and sound masking through white noise can minimize distractions in open office environments.

• Consider adding a fitness center to promote exercise and general health and well-being.

Remember – if employees are happy, healthy and comfortable, they are more likely to be productive at work.

Depending on the specific workplace, some managers may face an uphill battle in achieving active employee participation in safety committees. Pressure to increase production, a temporary or short-term work force and overall lack of motivation can contribute to the difficulties of creating a productive safety committee at work.

In an attempt to evade these challenges, some managers might simply designate a worker as a safety committee member or co-chair to maintain the presence of a safety committee. Thrusting an unsuspecting employee into this position, however, is an ill-advised move. Even worse is when the site safety coordinator or member of management signs off as an employee committee representative, because this is a position a member of the work force should hold.

It is workers themselves who need to speak up about safety issues as part of the committee. The concept of workers possessing the ability to form committees to voice their concerns to upper management is ingrained in the ideology of a just and equal society. Taking that privilege away from the employees can create a culture of mistrust, which means management risks losing the respect of the work force. Furthermore, members of management must not compromise their professional principles by utilizing the committee body as a vehicle to advance personal mandates or impose their own version of health and safety on the work force or employer.

Safe, professionally minded workers result in safe and productive worksites – this has been proven time and time again. If management attempts to step in and silence the voice of the workers, they may only endanger the site, lose the respect of the work force and slide down a dangerous slope from which they may never fully return.

So give workers a voice. Create a working environment where employees feel free to speak up, communicate their concerns and suggest safety improvements. Help them understand the role they play in keeping not only themselves, but also their fellow coworkers, safe and productive.

Last year, there seemed to be growing momentum on this topic when both the TSCA of 2010 (H.R. 5820) and the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (S. 3209) were introduced. Both bills were immediately referred to congressional committees, where they remained for quite some time. Although one committee hearing was held on H.R. 5820, no further legislative activity was ordered, and because these bills were introduced in a previous session, no further action can occur. So are they dead? Not likely. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. Although last year’s expedited reform came to a halt, it is safe to say TSCA reform by Congress is not behind us. However, when it will return remains a question.

What issues should companies consider? For starters, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson delivered a bold and sweeping announcement in September 2009 outlining principles for legislative reform of TSCA while directing the agency to publicize administrative “enhancements” to the existing program. The administrator reiterated these principles, attempting to gain momentum, during her October 2010 testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health.

Non-Legislative Chemical Management Reform:

Following the 2009 announcement, the EPA has been hard at work modernizing TSCA through the existing limits of the law. To date, the agency has released eight Chemical Action Plans (CAPs) and is in the process of completing two more. This indicates the agency will be taking regulatory action through TSCA 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), and 6(a) to increase requirements and restrict or ban numerous chemicals.

Another area of significant change involves Confidential Business Information (CBI). As a part of its ongoing effort to fulfill a commitment to transparency and increased public access to information on chemicals, EPA may deny confidentiality claims for the identity of chemicals in health and safety studies. On Feb. 10, 2011, EPA notified five companies that the identities of chemicals in health and safety studies submitted as confidential are not eligible for confidential treatment.

Evaluating Business Impacts:

Almost every business involved in the chemical industry is impacted by TSCA regulations to some degree (with some exceptions among food, drug, cosmetic, nuclear, and pesticides companies). Raw materials, intermediates, and finished goods are all regulated by TSCA. Full lifecycle, or cradle to grave, compliance is an essential component of TSCA, and most manufacturing/importing, processing, and disposal activities are TSCA regulated.

Penalties for non-compliance can include civil litigation and monetary settlements, criminal prosecution, fines, damage to a company’s brand or reputation, and negative impact on a company’s ability to do business. Willful violators can face imprisonment.

Increased TSCA requirements resulting from EPA’s chemical management reform and increased enforcement will accelerate the burden on organizational EHS compliance activities. Additional data, resources, and expertise may not be readily and immediately available. With that in mind, here are four areas of concern for immediate consideration:

1. Willful Violations: “Willful” is no longer limited to those who purposefully and covertly intend to subvert applicable regulations, and EPA is far from the only watchdog. Knowing (or knowing better) that conditions exist for non-compliance has become the new baseline.

Consumer groups and eco/environmental activism have elevated awareness and increased the number of groups that monitor, scrutinize, and report on a broad base of industry-specific, chemical-related activities. As the focus shifts from compliance to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), this issue requires corporate governance, procedural review, and an enterprise-wide program that includes ongoing employee education and awareness training. The critical impact of willful violations should not be underestimated.

2. Confidential Business Information (CBI): This issue is likely to have a broader impact than expected. Organizations should be selective in the types of molecules that are deployed and should look for common alternatives. In preparation for current and future changes that may make it very difficult not to disclose formulation ingredients, manufacturers may want to consider avoiding the design of complex molecules for trade secret purposes. It is and will become even more difficult to protect.

The substantial investment of time, effort, and money in R&D to keep formulations confidential may have little to no return. Consider using existing chemicals that are already commonly known, and develop an action plan to prepare for competitive challenges now.

3. Inventory Update Rule (IUR): There are new challenges associated with the required filing this year. This list is detailed and includes mandatory electronic filing; the addition of previously exempted chemicals (when meeting/exceeding the 25,000-pound threshold); elimination of the 25,000-pound threshold for certain chemical substances as well as requiring manufacturers (including importers) of such chemicals to report under the IUR rule, regardless of the production volume; and increased data requirements because the form has expanded and calls for more information about chemicals in commerce.

Now is the time to digest the full complement of new rules, evaluate the impact to organizational reporting, determine whether gaps exist in expertise or capabilities, and understand what options exist to fill those gaps. The next reporting period is scheduled for June 1 to Sept. 10, 2011, for information on 2010 production.

4. Greener and Safer Alternatives (CAPs): CAPs have been (and will continue to be) developed that will further restrict the manufacture and use of substances and compounds. Though there is no accepted rating system in place to uniformly evaluate substances, mixtures, and finished goods, there is a wealth of hazard data, global regulatory content that identifies environmental impact, and other informational resources that can assist with decision making.

EPA has emphatically put its weight behind Green Chemistry initiatives. Organizations that plan to thrive in the marketplace in this decade and beyond will have comprehensive CSR programs that identify green initiatives and self-report on progression toward safer, greener product formulations in manufactured goods, as well as use chemicals.

Developing TSCA Compliance Plans:

Compliance preparation should include a combination of tools, data, and expertise. A comprehensive and detailed TSCA compliance plan should include a chemical inventory cross-reference review in which all ingredients (pure chemicals, mixtures, and finished products) — imported or manufactured — are clearly identified and referenced against the current list of TSCA-regulated substances.

Also, because an increasing number of states are enacting legislation to ban or restrict chemical substances, state regulations should be reviewed. In addition, companies should strive to accurately identify all ingredients subject to these requirements in the states where they operate. Regulatory tracking is also important on the federal level; companies should regularly access, monitor, track, and evaluate regulatory changes likely to affect the manufacture, import, or export of chemicals.

In addition, companies would be well advised to establish a comprehensive, documented process to evaluate potential R&D exemptions. Be advised, however, that this can involve complexities and exhaustive documentation.

Import certifications and export notifications also should be considered. The former entails determining the imported substances that are TSCA regulated and obtaining the necessary certifications, while the latter involves the establishment of processes for tracking 12(b) exports and assisting with required export notifications.

Finally, don’t minimize the importance of accurate recordkeeping. Maintain required records and audit against written recordkeeping standards to ensure compliance. Companies also may want to consider developing and maintaining a comprehensive process to comply with the recordkeeping requirement concerning alleged adverse health or environmental effects.

Adapting to the Cycle of Change:

One thing is abundantly clear: When it comes to the manufacture, import, and export of chemicals, change is here now, and more substantial change is on the horizon.

First things first: By focusing on and complying with the current challenges of change, an organization is better positioned to adjust to the increased requirements that sweeping legislative reform may bring.

Companies should act now without delay. Compliance with non-legislative chemical reform is neither simple nor easy. Procrastination will only bring more costs, delays, and problems in the future.

Engaging a consultant, who is knowledgeable and who can swiftly and efficiently navigate through the many rules, regulations, laws and mandated compliance at the federal, state and local levels, will help your company stay on track and keep you moving in the right direction with little or no interruption to your operations or business. The flip side could be unfavorable, including excessive costs, fines, negative public relations, and worse yet an injury, death, or negative impact to the environment.

Choosing a Consultant:

Finding an EHS consultant whether they be retirees returning to the work force (which there seem to be a lot of these days) or an established individual or firm claiming to be an expert in the field is the easy part. Finding a consultant to lead your EHS regulatory compliance efforts who is right for the project at hand is much more difficult and requires more than just a resume review. It requires a higher-level review to find out if the consultant possess the right expertise, knowledge, work ethic, business sense, and personality. It’s essential that you spend the time and effort to ask the more difficult questions and get to know the consultant on an individual basis.

Probe Real Experience – Go beyond a simple listing of past projects. Instead, request a list of most-successful projects that are related to the needs of your company and operations. Take the time to study not just the final assessment, but the entire process of the project and results.

Experience and Knowledge – In today’s highly competitive business world, getting quick answers, actions and results is crucial to a company’s success, which is why hiring an EHS consultant with not only regulatory knowledge, but, also industry experience is your best bet. It’s important to understand if your expectations of obtaining answers, getting results and reaching goals is shared by the consultant.

Reputation and Standing – If the EHS consultant you choose is needed to develop an internal regulatory compliance strategic plan, or complete tasks such as permitting or employee training then who he knows and what committees and associations he/she is involved with may not be important. However, if your needs require communicating, negotiating or obtaining approvals from federal, state or local agencies, then who your consultant knows may be just as important as what he/she knows.

Compatibility – Personality can make a difference. Charming but annoying? Smart but withdrawn? Generous but slow paced? How can you be sure that the EHS consultant with the great credentials has the right mind-set, attitude, and personality that matches your company culture? You need to look behind their assertions of “client sensitivity and user-friendliness” and disclose your company and team peculiarities or characteristics. Tell them about such facility quirks such as extreme committee decision-making, extensive weekend conference calls to prepare for Monday meetings, a strong tendency toward group credit rather than individual recognition, etc., and then ask them how they would deal with or overcome these situations.

Conflict Resolution – Determine the EHS consultant’s ability to confront and deal with conflict. Ask the consultant to describe a confrontational situation and how he/she was able to lead or create a consensus to optimize performance and results or perhaps even change the direction of the project. You need to know how they take control of or manipulate situations. A strong personality who knows when to walk away may be right for your company while another company may prefer someone who leads by accepting compromise.

More so then ever, companies are looking for third party consultants to assist with or manage their EHS requirements and programs and, therefore, the need for EHS consultant engagements is growing. Save time, money and frustration by hiring the right consultant.

About Total Environmental & Safety, LLC

Total offers a comprehensive range of professional services necessary to meet our clients EHS regulatory compliance needs. Our commitment to customer service ensures that we exceed expectations and add maximum value to our clients businesses.

Total’s associates include licensed and certified professionals, including Certified Industrial Hygienists, Certified Safety Professionals, Licensed Site Remediation Professionals, Registered Environmental Managers, Certified Hazardous Materials Managers, Geologists, hydrogeologists, Ecologists, Wildlife Biologists, Marine Biologists, and Professional Engineers. These professionals allow us the ability to provide turn-key projects in a cost effective and timely manner.

If you work in a facility that uses or stores chemicals, you should be somewhat familiar with
OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR1910.1200. It is of my opinion that the purpose, design and requirements of this standard are exceptional and certainly needed. The main objective of this standard is to ensure that all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated to identify hazards, and for the hazards to be communicated to the facilities and individuals who use the chemicals.

As a result of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, most facilities have built binders of MSDSs that now are a familiar site in the workplace. Some facilities have advanced with technology and now maintain MSDSs electronically and make them available to employees online, but the principle remains the same.

Most facility safety professionals will agree, that from day one, they were told that a MSDS must be maintain for every chemical used and/or stored in the facility. As a basic rule this mind-set was okay. It certainly ensures that the facility will maintain a MSDSs for the chemicals they need to maintain a MSDS for. However, this practice will surely cost the facility addition money to manage the MSDA system, including additional time to perform chemical inventories and audits, updating MSDS binders or computer systems, and training employees.

OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR1910.1200 is actually very specific about what types of chemicals are excluded from the MSDS requirement. Below are some sections of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard that should be considered before making the decision to maintain an MSDS.

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(4) – facilities where employees handle chemicals in sealed containers and do not open them under normal conditions (e.g., warehouses, retail stores, etc.) do not have to obtain or maintain a MSDS, excluding the following:

• If an MSDS is received with the delivery of the chemical
• If an employee request a copy of an MSDS

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(i) – pesticides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides do not require a MSDS. These chemicals are regulated by EPA, not OSHA.

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(ii) – chemicals and chemical mixtures defined in the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601 et seq.) do not require a MSDS. These chemicals are regulated under EPA, not OSHA.

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(iii) – foods, food additives, color additives, drugs, cosmetics, medical and veterinary devices and their ingredients do not require a MSDS. These chemicals are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not OSHA.

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(iv) – beverage alcohols including wine and malt beverages do not require a MSDS. These chemicals are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, not OSHA.

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(v) – consumer product or hazardous consumer substance do not require a MSDS. These chemicals are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not OSHA.

29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(vi) – agricultural and vegetable seeds do not require a MSDS. These are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not OSHA.

In addition, 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(6) – the following chemical categories do not require a MSDS:

• Hazardous waste (regulated by EPA)
• Hazardous substance (EPA again)
• Tobacco or tobacco products
• Wood or wood products
• Articles not of a fluid or particle nature
• Food or alcoholic beverages intended for personal consumption
• Drugs
• Cosmetics packaged for sale to consumers or intended for personal use
• Any consumer product
• Nuisance particles that do not pose physical or health hazards
• Ionizing and non ionizing radiation
• Biological hazards

While OSHA’s Hazardous Communication Standard is widespread in its application, it does not include every chemical and, therefore, you do not have to obtain and maintain MSDS’s for every chemical used or stored at your facility.

So, the next time someone in your facility comes to you in a panic because the big yellow book (MSDS binder) does not contain an MSDS for toilet bowl cleaner, Suzy’s lip gloss, Joe’s energy drink, the antibiotic cream in the first aid kit, or the window cleaner in the janitor’s cart, don’t panic, just calmly explain that it’s not required as detailed in 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5) and (6). And, if your maintaining MSDSs for these unregulated chemicals, consider lightning your load.

Note: while some chemicals may not require MSDSs, they might have separate labeling, storage and use requirements.

These are some questions I’ve recently been asked – Don’t be this guy:

• A can of diet soda contain citric acid, sodium benzoate and brominated vegetable oil, right?

• What is brominated vegetable oil? Can you get me a MSDS?

• How much brominated vegetable oil is in a can of diet soda? Is there a cutoff or a minimum threshold level?

• If I only have one case am I okay?

• How many cans are there in a soda machine?

For assistance with you environmental, safety and waste needs, Contact Us

Wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly what OSHA is training its inspectors to look for during an inspection that includes electrical safety, including surprising new areas of emphasis based on national OSHA directives? This article covers some of the typical electrical safety questions that OSHA inspectors will ask during a field investigation.

For electrical safety in the workplace, OSHA relies on expert consensus bodies such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and its standards published in NFPA 70E. To ensure that employers are following NFPA and OSHA guidelines, OSHA trains its inspectors and compliance officers to ask specific questions in the event of an electrical safety incident. Some typical questions are as follows:

Is there a description of the circuit or equipment at the job location?
OSHA expects employers to know their workplaces. If an employer cannot provide a written description or drawing of the circuit or equipment, then the compliance officer may assume that the employer has not assessed the facility for electrical hazards.

Is there a detailed job description of planned work?
In order to know which safety procedures to use, the employee must be provided with a description of the job task. OSHA publication 29 CFR 1910 lays out employer responsibilities for protecting their employees from electrical safety hazards. It states that the employer must train employees to use safe work practices that are designed to avoid injury.

Can you justify why equipment cannot be de-energized or the job deferred until the next scheduled outage?
As stated in 29 CFR 1910.333(a)(1), live parts to which an employee may be exposed must be de-energized before the employee works on or near them, unless the employer can demonstrate that de-energizing introduces additional or increased hazards or is not feasible due to equipment design or operational limitations.

The message is clear: never work on live circuits unless it is absolutely necessary. OSHA allows work on live circuits in some cases, but the reason cannot be simply that turning off the power is inconvenient or will interrupt production. Nor can employees use the excuse that they didn’t have the authority to shut off power.

When it is necessary to perform work on energized equipment, 29 CFR 1910.333(a)(2) requires safety-related work practices to be used and NFPA 70E Article 110.8(B)(1) requires an Electrical Hazard Analysis before work is performed on live equipment operating at 50 volts and higher.

OSHA wants employers to make electrical safety procedures and practices part of regular work processes. Several annexes to NFPA 70E offer guidelines for lockout/tagout procedures, checklists and approvals. For example, Annex E covers Electrical Safety Programs, Annex F covers Hazard Risk Evaluation Procedures, Annex I covers Job Briefing Checklists and Annex J covers Energized Work Permits.

NFPA 70E annexes are not strictly “enforced” by OSHA, as they are appendices to the NFPA standard. However, OSHA inspectors and investigators will ask if the content and information contained in these annexes was followed and adhered to.

If an OSHA inspector came knocking on your door, would you know the answers to the following questions?
• Were required electrical safety analyses performed?
• Was an arc flash hazard analysis performed?
• Were flash protection boundaries established?
• Were all other potential electrical hazards identified?

OSHA regulations state that every employer must furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm, and that the employer must assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present and select PPE to protect employees.

When it comes to electrical safety, OSHA refers to NFPA 70E, which requires employers to conduct an electrical hazard assessment consisting of a shock hazard analysis and an arc flash hazard analysis before work is performed on live equipment operating at 50 volts and higher. These requirements may be fairly complex, as they involve calculating the potential fault current at each piece of equipment, understanding the characteristics of the over current protective devices and how they are coordinated for each circuit, and creating or updating one-line electrical drawings. Complex or not, OSHA inspectors are trained to ask if these analyses were performed, because they are essential to reducing the number of electrical shock and arc flash-related deaths and injuries.

When the safety of any job task involves electricity or electrical equipment, ask yourself these questions:
• Could the equipment be locked out and de-energized?
• Was a hazard analysis performed?
• Were proper tools and equipment used, including insulated tools?
• Was the necessary PPE determined?
• Were insulated blankets and/or sheeting used to properly cover live parts?
• Were the employees performing the tasks qualified to do so?

For more information, call 908-442-8599, email at contact@TotalEnviron.com, or visit our website at www.TotalEnviron.com

In addition to the environmental risks, idling vehicles unnecessarily consume fuel and increase engine wear, which relates to higher operating costs.

Because of the above-mentioned, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regulation N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 has always prohibited diesel-powered vehicles from idling for more than three consecutive minutes if the vehicle is not in motion, with limited exemptions. However, Prior to May 1, 2011 N.J.A.C. 7:27-14.3(b)6 allowed drivers to idle their diesel vehicles while resting or sleeping, so that heating, air conditioning, and other electrical equipment can remain powered. This is not the case anymore.

As of May 1, 2011, idling of older trucks with sleeper berths is no longer permitted in New Jersey. Only trucks that are 2007 or newer, or trucks that are equipped with a functioning diesel particulate filter (DPF), are allowed to idle while the driver is resting or sleeping in a parking space or area that’s not equipped with truck stop electrification (TSE) technology. Idling of any truck in a parking space or area equipped with TSE is prohibited.

According to the NJDEP, inspectors have begun to and will continue to inspect truck stops, rest areas, warehouse distribution centers, and facilities to ensure that diesel-powered vehicles are complying with the new regulations. They have also pledged to respond aggressively to complaints.

Failure to comply with the idling standards will result in enforcement actions and civil administrative penalty assessments for the property owner, trucking company, and driver, starting at $250 per day.

NJDEP initially proposed the phase-out sleeper berth idling rule in 2007, but delayed implementation for approximately four years to allow for the development of alternatives to idling. TSE sites are currently being built at the New Jersey Turnpike Vince Lombardi Rest Area and at a location in Carneys Point. Both locations are scheduled to open by the Summer of 2011. Several other TSE sites are available in surrounding states.

Another alternative to idling is the use of auxiliary power units (APUs) or systems, including generator sets and bunk heaters. With the main engine of the truck shut off, you are permitted to run APUs to power the sleeper berth (N.J.A.C. 7:27-14.3(b)8). More than half of all long-haul trucks in the U.S. are currently equipped with auxiliary power systems. NJDEP and its partners have funded $1.3 million toward the purchase and installation of auxiliary power systems. Truck owners can obtain information on the availability of loans and grants to purchase APUs through a U.S. EPA program called Smartway at http://www.epa.gov/smartway/transport/what-smartway/financing.htm.

It is recommended that truck owners carefully review the following general guidelines to ensure compliance. For a more comprehensive list of regulatory requirements visit http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqm/rules.html.

• Explore alternatives to idling, such as the use of auxiliary power units (APUs), truck stop electrification (TSE) and the purchase of 2007 compliant engines with diesel particulate filters (DPUs).

• Ensure that diesel-powered vehicles do not idle for more than three consecutive minutes if the vehicle is not in motion.

• Adopt a no-idling policy for your fleet drivers and encourage them to do their part. It will save you money and everyone’s health.

• Facilities should post “No Idling” signs, and enforce a no idling policy.

• Call the DEP 24-hour hotline (1-877-WARN-DEP) to register idling complaints.