News + Blog

Thursday, September 24, 2009

EPA Studies Greenhouse Gases at Businesses

Published from a recent release from EPA. The effects on your company will be based on what studies like this find.

EPA Finalizes the Nation’s First Greenhouse Gas Reporting System/Monitoring to begin in 2010

Release date: 09/22/2009

WASHINGTON – On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.

“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”

EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.

Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.

The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.

More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

Friday, February 27, 2009

President Proposes $10.5 Billion Budget for EPA

President’s Proposed EPA Budget Provides Strengthened Environmental Protection

Release date: 02/26/2009

Administrator Jackson: ‘With these proposed resources, and the president’s strong environmental agenda, it should be overwhelmingly clear that EPA is back on the job.’

(Washington, D.C. – Feb. 26, 2009) The Obama administration today proposed a budget of $10.5 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest in the agency’s 39-year history. The increase of $3 billion from 2008 funding levels will further ensure the protection of public health and the environment for all Americans.

“The president’s budget proposes critical resources to protect the American people and the places where they live, work and play,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We are no longer faced with the false choice of a strong economy or a clean environment. The president’s budget shows that making critical and responsible investments in protecting the health and environment of all Americans will also lead to a more vibrant and stable economy. With these proposed resources, and the president’s strong environmental agenda, it should be overwhelmingly clear that EPA is back on the job.”

Last week, President Obama announced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which includes $7.22 billion for EPA-administered projects and programs to protect human health and the environment.

Some key highlights of 2010 budget initiatives include:


$3.9 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants to support approximately 1,000 clean water projects and 700 drinking water projects - this year’s largest single investment. In addition to the funds recently invested through the ARRA, this funding is a critical step in addressing the water infrastructure needs in thousands of communities across the country. EPA will work with state and local partners to develop a sustainability policy, including management and pricing, conservation, security and a plan for adequate long-term state and municipal funding for future capital needs.
A new $475 million, multi-agency Great Lakes Initiative to protect the world’s largest fresh water resource. EPA will coordinate with federal partners, states, tribes, localities and other entities to protect, maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the lakes. EPA and its partners will address invasive species, non-point source pollution, habitat restoration, contaminated sediment and other critical issues.
A $19 million increase for the greenhouse gas emissions inventory and related activities that will provide data critical for implementing a comprehensive climate change bill. EPA’s funding for climate change investments is the foundation for working with key stakeholders and Congress to develop an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
Strengthening EPA’s core research, enforcement and regulatory capabilities. The budget request also proposes reinstating the Superfund excise taxes that expired. Reinstating the Superfund taxes would collect over $1 billion annually to fund the cleanup of the nation’s most contaminated sites.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

What OSHA Expects: Questions Asked During an Inspection

When it comes to electrical safety, OSHA standards can be technical and confusing. What requirements do safety managers need to know?


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, what they mean and how to be prepared and in compliance.

A good starting point is to understand OSHA’s approach to electrical safety. OSHA’s goal is for employers to identify all electrical hazards, both potential and actual. In the past, OSHA focused on process changes, encouraging companies to de-energize circuits before working on them, perform lockout/tagout procedures and develop ongoing safety programs that include worker training and retraining. A more recent area of emphasis is arc flash safety, which means electrical safety professionals must analyze the workplace for shock and arc flash hazards, establish safe protection boundaries and define what personal protective equipment (PPE) must be used within these boundaries.

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 follow.

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 worker must be provided with a description of the job task. OSHA publication 29 CFR 1910 lays out employer responsibilities for protecting their workers from electrical safety hazards. It states that the employer shall train workers 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?

Per OSHA 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. (Live parts that operate at less than 50 volts to ground need not be de-energized if there will be no increased exposure to electrical burns or to explosion due to electric arcs.)

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 workers use the excuse that they didn’t have the authority to shut off power.
When it is necessary to perform work on energized equipment, OSHA 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.

Other questions you can expect from an OSHA inspector include:


What about safe work procedures?
Has a detailed work procedure been established?
Are there detailed descriptions of work practices to be employed?
Was a job briefing checklist performed, and was the job briefing completed for those performing the work?
Was proper management approval secured?

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.

As an EHS professional, would you know the answers to these questions if an OSHA inspector came knocking on your door?


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 shall 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 overcurrent 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 arc flash-related deaths and injuries that occur each year, as well as ensuring a safe installation.

When the safety of any job task involves electricity or electrical equipment, ask yourself these questions:


Were proper tools and equipment used?
Was the necessary PPE determined?
Were the proper insulated tools used?
Were insulated blankets and/or sheeting used to properly cover all of the live parts?

OSHA 1910.132 requires employers to assess hazards, select PPE and make sure that employees are trained how to use it. Electrical PPE, safe work practices such as lockout/tagout and safety training are covered by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.301-.399, also known as Electrical Subpart S.

For example, OSHA 1910.333 (a)(1)(i) states: “Employees working in areas where there are potential electrical hazards shall be provided with and shall use, electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed.”

For electrical workers, this standard’s effect is multi-fold. First, employers must facilitate workers’ understanding of the PPE required for each task on each piece of equipment. This may be communicated via a work order, a descriptive label on the equipment or a one-line drawing. Second, employers must select the PPE, which includes insulated tools and protective clothing. Third, the employer is required to train workers in safe work practices – and in particular, how to match the PPE to the level of the electrical hazard. And finally, OSHA 1910.269(a)(2)(iii) requires employers to “determine, through regular supervision and through inspections conducted on at least an annual basis, that each employee is complying with the safety-related work practices ...”

Were the workers performing the tasks qualified to do so?

OSHA defines qualified workers as those specially trained to work on live electrical equipment. Qualified workers must protect themselves against all electrical hazards including shock, arc flash, burns and explosions. Training is key. Even an experienced electrician is not “qualified” in OSHA’s eyes unless the employer can show proof of the appropriate training and certifications.

OSHA 1910.332(b)(2) also requires unqualified workers to be trained in the electrical safe work practices that are necessary for their safety. Unqualified workers, such as painters or cleaners, occasionally come into contact with energized equipment, and therefore they must be trained to recognize and avoid electrical hazards.


By Kenneth Cybart printed in http://www.ehstoday.com

Friday, December 19, 2008

ASSE Warns of Safety Cutbacks

For Immediate Release
Reducing Or Ignoring Workplace Safety During Business Downturns Costly, ASSE Notes
Des Plaines, IL (December 18, 2008) — “Workplace safety processes must be in place at all times,” American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHMM, of Fairborn, Ohio, said today. “They are even more critical during business downturns.”

Brown is referring to recent reports of some companies cutting safety processes hoping to reduce costs.

“If companies believe they will save money by reducing or ignoring safety for their workers, customers and communities they do business in, they are mistaken,” Brown said. “The ongoing positive results are in and have been for companies that have a strong safety culture and continually invest in and implement effective safety processes. Not only does their bottom line benefit positively, but their company reputation stays intact, employees stay safe and healthy reducing health care, workers comp, training and turnover costs not to mention keeping customers, the communities they do business in, vendors and employees happy. Safety is good business.”

Members of the 97-year-old ASSE -- occupational safety, health and environmental professionals located worldwide -- caution employers against cutting back on workplace safety in time of economic difficulty.

President-Elect of the ASSE South Carolina Chapter Laura Comstock said, “Some safety related purchases and testing can be deferred, but other purchases, such as those for employee personal protective equipment (PPE) like hardhats, safety glasses and respirators, are critical to operations.”

It is especially important for companies to show support for their employee safety during challenging economic times, she notes. “Employee morale may be low and employees may be carrying additional workloads, such as working additional hours or doing unfamiliar tasks due to cutbacks,” she notes.
Comstock added, “In order to remain viable long-term, a company must maintain a solid safety process even through difficult times. The most successful companies in the long term also have the strongest safety performance.”

“We realize these are tough times, but during economic down-turns, employers seeking to cut expenses may target variable operating costs such as travel, training and safety,” Brown said. “Money cut from safety processes now could have an enormous cost later; this can be from injury and health care costs, fines, lost production time, employee morale, or worst of all, employee injury or even death. There are better and smarter ways to protect the bottom line.”

The South Carolina ASSE chapter suggests employees can also take measures to help companies save money such as by: following safe working procedures and practices to prevent injuries, related downtime and expenses such as costly fines; by properly using, cleaning and caring for protective equipment such as hardhats and respirators; reusing gloves whenever possible for as long as possible; and by keeping track of safety glasses and reusable hearing protection.

Investing in safety pays and contributes positively to a company’s bottom line. Businesses spend about $170 billion a year on costs associated with workplace injuries and illnesses and pay almost $1 billion every week to injured employees and their medical providers. In addition, a recent investment firm study in Australia showed valuation links between workplace safety and health factors and investment performance. It found that companies who did not adequately manage workplace safety issues underperformed those that did.

Comstock also reminds employers, “When considering training reductions, some safety related training is driven by regulation, is time sensitive and cannot be delayed. Safety training related savings can be generated by streamlining and implementing simple solutions including using online or electronic safety training services, rather than face-to-face classroom safety training.”

“We need to work together during these difficult times, but reducing or ignoring workplace safety should not be a strategic or budget option,” Brown said. “The costs – both tangible and intangible – are far too high and hard to recoup.”

Founded in 1911, the Des Plaines, IL-based ASSE is the largest and oldest professional safety organization and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment. Its more than 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental professional members lead, manage, supervise, research and consult on safety, health, transportation and environmental issues in all industries, government, labor, health care and education. For more information please go to http://www.asse.org.

(http://www.asse.org/newsroom/release.php?pressRelease=1162)

Friday, October 24, 2008

OSHA Doubles Efforts

After reading the following news release from OSHA, you need to ask yourself two questions. "Is the injury rate at my company going down like other companies" and "Is my facility ready for OSHA to double its efforts?"

National News Release: 08-1532-NAT
October 23, 2008

Statement by U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao on 2007 workplace injury and illness rates
Rate continues to decline significantly and continues at recorded low

WASHINGTON -- The rate of workplace injuries and illnesses in private industry declined in 2007 for the sixth consecutive year, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today. Nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses reported by private industry employers declined from 4.4 cases per 100 workers in 2006 to 4.2 cases in 2007.

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. said, "Today's injury and illness results demonstrate that OSHA's balanced approach to workplace safety encompassing education, training, information sharing, inspection, regulation and aggressive enforcement is achieving significant reductions in workplace injury and illness throughout the country. This report shows that employees are now safer in the workplace than ever before. This success validates our efforts, and we are redoubling this commitment to make workplaces even safer." (emphasis added)

OSHA operates a vigorous enforcement program, having conducted more than 39,000 inspections in fiscal year 2007 and exceeding its inspection goals in each of the last eight years. In fiscal year 2007, OSHA found nearly 89,000 violations of its standards and regulations.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

New “COOL” Labeling Law Went Into Effect 9-30-08

Via the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills all muscle cuts and ground beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; perishable commodities (fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables); macadamia nuts, pecans, ginseng and peanuts must be labeled with the country of origin effective September 30, 2008. Products already in commerce prior to Sept. 30 are exempt.

USDA implemented "COOL" for fish and shellfish in October 2004.

For more details take a look at http://www.usda.gov or http://www.ams.usda.gov

Thanks for stopping by!

Layne