EHS Daily Advisor View RSS

NSC Applauds Michigan Naloxone Bill 27 Jan 11:11 AM (yesterday, 11:11 am)

On January 22, the National Safety Council (NSC) applauded the enactment of legislation in Michigan making opioid overdose-reversal medication like naloxone accessible in state workplaces when training on use and administration is available.

The group pointed out that overdoses account for nearly one in 10 worker deaths on the job nationally and have increased by more than 600% since 2011. The NSC called the new law “a step towards saving lives on the job,” as tens of thousands of people are employed by the state of Michigan.

The NSC has its own Respond Ready Workplace program focusing on three strategies for addressing workplace overdoses: opioid overdose and naloxone awareness, access to naloxone in workplace first-aid kits and other locations, and the adoption of programs to ensure workplaces and their employees are equipped to respond in case of an emergency. The program provides naloxone administration training to workers in an attempt to create safer communities and workplaces. Individuals trained through the program carry their training with them wherever they go.

California, Illinois, and Virginia also enacted workplace naloxone legislation in 2024, according to the NSC.

The NSC is a not-for-profit organization focused on preventing deaths in the home, in workplaces, and on roadways.

NSC, Massachusetts launch distracted driving webinar series

On January 21, the NSC announced a partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards to host a free, three-part webinar series to educate public sector professionals on reducing the risks of distracted driving. The series, developed in anticipation of Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April, will be held on February 12, March 12, and April 9.

The series aims to bring together safety advocates and employers for technical training and discussion focused on an urgent public safety issue, according to the NSC.

“Every day, lives are needlessly lost due to distracted driving,” Mark Chung, the NSC’s executive vice president of safety leadership and advocacy, said in a statement. “Through this series, we’re not only addressing the behavioral side of the issue but reinforcing a Safe System Approach—an inclusive framework that considers all factors to reduce and eventually eliminate crashes altogether.”

More than 3,000 people die in crashes involving distracted drivers each year, according to the NSC, while many others suffer life-altering injuries. Such incidents are preventable but continue to occur due to various distractions; mobile device use is a leading contributor to distracted driving, according to the NSC.

The webinar series, led by a live NSC instructor, is built around NSC driver and fleet online certification courses. Participants can complete each online course at their own pace and may receive certification upon course completion.

NSC welcomes OSHA to Road to Zero Coalition

The NSC applauded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) decision to join the safety council’s Road to Zero Coalition, an alliance dedicated to eliminating roadway fatalities.

“The most dangerous thing a person can do on the job is get in a vehicle,” NSC President and CEO Lorraine Martin, also chair of the Road to Zero Coalition, said in a statement. “That’s what makes this partnership so critical. By joining Road to Zero, OSHA strengthens our ability to protect workers both on and off the job. Together, we can create safer roads for everyone–whether they are driving for work or sharing the roads with those who do.”

The post NSC Applauds Michigan Naloxone Bill appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

EPA Report Highlights Need for Federal Water Affordability Program 27 Jan 1:00 AM (yesterday, 1:00 am)

On December 19, 2024, the EPA released “Water Affordability Needs Assessment,” a report to Congress detailing water affordability across the nation.  It summarizes decades of research by utilities, academics, and associations and includes recommendations in three areas:

1. Establishing a federal water assistance program
2. Increasing education, outreach, and knowledge around solutions to address affordability
3. Increasing ways to reduce water infrastructure capital and operating costs

The issue

The EPA “estimates that between 12.1 million and 19.2 million households throughout the U.S. lack access to affordable water services,” according to an Agency news release. “Nationally, the cost of unaffordable water service bills ranges from $5.1 billion to $8.8 billion.”

However, according to Stanford University’s Stanford Report, the number of people who struggle to pay water utilities is actually more than the EPA estimates because of what’s perceived as a flaw in the way water affordability is calculated.

“Water utilities, non-governmental organizations, and regulators generally assess water affordability by looking at total monthly water bills as a portion of household income, or what experts call the ‘affordability ratio,’” the Stanford Report article says. “The method has faced growing criticism because affordability ratios fail to capture a given household’s actual water needs, which depend on family size, appliance efficiency and other factors. Furthermore, the affordability ratio is usually obtained as an average or snapshot in time of a census block or city, meaning the metric is not specific to individual households or necessarily accurate over the longer term.

“The new Stanford research suggests metrics based on past payment behavior at the individual household level can provide a clearer view for water planners and regulators, policymakers and non-governmental organizations.”

Access to affordable, safe drinking water is a basic human need. The EPA report documents that there’s a growing inability to pay water bills across the United States.

“Many low-income households are struggling to pay their water bills, leading to economic stress and the potential to lose access to water services or even their homes in certain instances,” notes the Executive Summary of the EPA report. “When households are unable to pay their water bills, service disconnections can have impacts that include public health concerns, economic instability, social inequality, and psychological and psychosocial stress. Water utilities, meanwhile, are working to meet rising costs for operations and maintenance, upgrading aging infrastructure, and protecting public health and the environment, while facing difficult decisions about raising rates – often with the possible consequence of taking on substantial financial risk.”

Water assistance programs

At the local level, some utility companies have created Customer Assistance Programs (CAPs) to assist customers when they can’t pay their water bill. These programs restore service, prevent disconnections, and can lower rates in some cases. Elements of these programs can include:

• Bill discounts
• Special rate structures
• Reduced meter fees
• Emergency assistance
• Free plumbing services for residential customers to repair plumbing fixtures to decrease their water usage
• Reduced security deposits

The EPA report to Congress recommends the creation of a Federal Water Assistance Program that’s designed to serve all households facing challenges.

The report also recommends:

• Evaluating best practices and creative program structures to increase assistance to all socioeconomic groups
• Evaluating the need for a Federal Household Water Efficiency and Plumbing Repair Grant Program

Affordability solutions

A second area of focus in the report is the need to increase education, outreach, and knowledge around solutions to address affordability.

“Recommendation 4 is for EPA to work in partnership with interested parties and communities to promote water affordability tools and resources,” the report states.

Examples of potential tools, strategies, and resources include:

• Webinars on best practices to tackle water affordability at the local, state, and federal levels;
• Workshops establishing and funding assistance programs;
• Encouraging and supporting an evaluation of true cost pricing, rates, rate structures, and approaches to help low-income residents when possible, as well as how the best approach might vary across systems (large urban areas vs. smaller areas);
• Promoting success stories of cost-sharing partnerships among utilities;
• Promoting best practices on water efficiency measures to reduce costs;
• Encouraging states to support asset management practices and utilities to engage in intentional asset management planning;
• Supporting states that, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Section 1420(c)(2)(f), are undertaking initiatives that promote asset management through their capacity development strategy and the provision of technical assistance to develop and implement asset management plans; and
• Promoting partnerships, regionalization, and consolidation and encouraging states to exercise their mandatory assessment authority anticipated after the proposed Water System Restructuring Assessment Rule (WSRAR) is finalized to identify feasible and affordable long-term solutions for chronically noncompliant water systems.

Infrastructure and operating costs

The third area of focus in the EPA report is about increasing ways to reduce water infrastructure capital and operating costs.

Recommendation six in the report is to promote the use of low-cost federal funding and financing for water infrastructure and water technical assistance to address affordability issues.

Examples of federal funding available to address these issues are the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. This funding invests in the nation’s water infrastructure and is designed to generate significant and sustainable water quality and public health benefits across the country and improve affordability in U.S. communities facing challenges.

Another federal program to address these challenges is the federally capitalized State Revolving Fund (SRF). In this program, states provide below-market interest rate loans and other financing assistance for infrastructure improvements and other water quality projects.

“States manage their SRF programs and are required to establish specific eligibility criteria and special funding mechanisms, including loan forgiveness and other grant-like options, for economically disadvantaged communities and those that meet each state’s affordability criteria,” states the EPA report.

Another federal program is the EPA Water Technical Assistance (WaterTA), which connects communities to experts who help assess and implement solutions for their drinking water, sewage, and stormwater needs. This program gives underserved communities across the country access to low-cost federal funding, which reduces overall project costs.

More than $500 million has been invested into this program since 2021.

“Interested parties recommended a continued focus from the SRF programs and WaterTA on ways to expand assistance to economically disadvantaged communities,” the EPA report adds.

This recommendation includes:

• Strengthening the marketing of and communications about the SRF and other financial assistance programs to increase awareness of funding and financing options like the SRFs to communities facing affordability challenges.
• Providing substantial and effective technical assistance to the most underserved and economically stressed communities to prepare for, apply for, receive, and invest low-cost federal funding and financing to address their critical water infrastructure needs.
• Promoting technical assistance and SRF funding to help communities consider regionalization or consolidation options that could help to reduce financial burden on communities and customers.
• Promoting appropriate and cost-effective technology and capital projects that address local water service needs and are innately less burdensome on local ratepayers—for example, large-scale water use efficiency measures as an alternative to a more expensive new water supply and treatment project.
• Pursuing ways to implement the provision of the Clean Water SRF program that provides additional subsidization, through rate structures or other mechanisms, to directly benefit ratepayers who would experience a financial hardship because of an increase in rates necessary to fund capital infrastructure projects. This includes examination of the feasibility of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board’s (EFAB) expected recommendations on options to use this provision.

Recommendation seven of the report is to incorporate, where appropriate, recommendations from the EFAB on water affordability. The EPA recently charged this board with evaluating approaches to support communities facing water affordability challenges.

“This includes recommendations relevant to capital projects, CAP barriers, rate structure/design, and SRF subsidies,” states the EPA congressional report. “The charge tasks EFAB to develop new and innovative financing approaches, assess government strategies for implementing public-private partnerships and develop innovative investment models and market-based approaches that increase the long-term resiliency of infrastructure. Recommendations stemming from the EFAB Water Affordability workgroup will help establish a path of wholistically addressing water affordability and provide a roadmap of recommended approaches. It is recommended that EPA evaluate and, where appropriate, pursue these recommendations.”

The final recommendation in the report calls for continued research and understanding of water affordability.

“Continued research is crucial to better understand water affordability challenges across the U.S., identify disparities in affordable access to water services and guide the development of policies and programs to promote equitable access,” the report continues. “Ongoing research is also necessary to anticipate future challenges and innovate new solutions in the face of changing environmental and economic conditions. Household-level analysis on the impacts of high-water bills, rapid increases in rates (‘rate shock’), shutoffs, and [CAPs] are also areas for further analysis.”

Pesky PFAS

Last year, the EPA released new monitoring data for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) shortly after publishing the final rulemaking setting drinking water standards for six PFAS.

“More than 7,000 entry points will need capital improvement investments to install treatment of PFAS in drinking water, totaling $37.1 to $48.3 billion in the next five years. Combined with costs of operations and maintenance the annualized cost is estimated to be $2.7 to $3.5 billion, roughly twice the EPA’s estimate as part of the final rulemaking,” according to the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.

Although the cost of treating water for PFAS removal isn’t supposed to be passed on to consumers, average water bills across the United States have increased significantly since 2020.

Water utility challenges

Besides water treatment costs, water utility companies face costly challenges, which include:

• Aging water infrastructure replacement or rehabilitation,
• Adapting to growing or shrinking populations,
• Climate and environmental challenges,
• Cybersecurity measures, and
• Requirements to protect public health and the environment.

“Utilities face the balancing act of funding routine O&M (Operation and Maintenance) costs and longer-term capital expenditures to replace or upgrade infrastructure. O&M cost increases are often driven by labor and supply costs and the increased maintenance needs of aging plant and pipeline infrastructure,” the EPA report says. “The 2022 Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP) Survey showed that very large utilities, which serve populations of over 100,000 customers, had an average arrearage balance of approximately $15 million per utility. When too many customer accounts fall behind in paying their bills, some utilities find rates and fees inadequate to cover infrastructure needs and treatment costs. The LIHWAP Survey also found that utilities of all sizes faced challenges in setting rates that are affordable for customers while covering necessary costs needed to meet sound financial metrics.”

A national crisis

“As far back as 2018, experts warned of a US water crisis,” reports water purifier store Glacier Fresh. “The Guardian cites a leading utilities analyst, Roger Colton, as reporting that between 2010 and 2018, U.S. water bills rose by at least 27%. Colton’s report stated that in Austin, Texas, the average annual water bill of $566 in 2010 increased to $1,435 in 2018. That’s a shocking increase of 154%. Adding to the crisis, federal aid to public water utilities serving almost 90% of the US population was plummeting. The fact that this shrinking of aid happened during environmental and health threats and extreme climate events only worsened the crisis.

“Then came the pandemic in 2020, which resulted in shutdowns, supply chain problems, and a considerable cost increase and inflation. This has resulted in most water utility companies—public and private—battling to maintain a safe water supply and maintain crumbling infrastructure.  This combination is the primary reason behind high water bills in the U.S.”

For long-term sustainable change, the EPA report discusses the need for change in how water utilities are funded and rates established.

“Access to clean water is not a luxury—it’s a fundamental human right,” Rep. Blunt Rochester, D-Del., a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in the EPA news release. “The inclusion of the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Act in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law … marked a significant step toward ensuring equitable access to safe drinking water for all. Today’s report further advances this effort and highlights the nationwide need for assistance to low-income water customers.”

“We know people are struggling to afford critical water and wastewater services, and they need support now. This report makes it clear: the time has come for a permanent federal water affordability program. I want to thank the EPA for bringing national attention to this urgent issue. Water agencies across the country are ready to act to ensure every household has access to the services they depend on,” Tony Parrott, president of Water Agency Leaders Alliance (WALA) and CEO of the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, said in the Agency news release.

The post EPA Report Highlights Need for Federal Water Affordability Program appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

EHSDA Song of the Week: Winterlong 24 Jan 12:34 PM (4 days ago)

A cold snap enveloped much of the country this week, with large amounts of snow dropped on states that are unaccustomed to such precipitation like Louisiana, Texas and Florida. The Song of the Week, therefore, is a great 1973 deep cut from Neil Young called “Winterlong.”

The yearning country rock love song was first performed solo acoustic by Young in 1968 in a Michigan club and then recorded with his backing band Crazy Horse the next year, but it was never released. It was re-recorded in 1973 with Ben Keith’s pedal steel replacing the lead guitar work of Danny Whitten, who died the previous year. Young didn’t release that version until 1977, when his triple-album compilation Decade came out.

“I waited for you winterlong/You seemed to be where I belong/It’s all illusion anyway.”

The song became a fan favorite and was later covered by the Pixies as part of The Bridge, a 1989 tribute album to Young. Both versions are excellent and hopefully will help you warm up a bit.

The post EHSDA Song of the Week: Winterlong appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

GE Appliance Maker Facing $194K OSHA Fine 24 Jan 11:05 AM (4 days ago)

A Decatur, Alabama, manufacturer of GE appliances faces $193,585 in proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalties after a frontline supervisor’s death, the agency announced January 17.

The 58-year-old supervisor suffered fatal injuries while trying to service a door molding machine. Agency inspectors found the company allowed workers to bypass the machine’s safety doors and didn’t use required procedures to prevent employee injuries in the carousel-like machine.

OSHA cited Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc., which operates as GE Appliances, with one willful violation for failing to follow lockout/tagout procedures to de-energize a machine before allowing service or maintenance. The agency also cited Haier with two serious violations for permitting employees to bypass interlocking safety doors to gain access to the machine and for not maintaining annual inspections for lockout/tagout procedures.

OSHA’s general industry lockout/tagout standard (29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1910.147) is its fifth most-cited standard, OSHA announced last fall. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, the agency cited 2,443 lockout/tagout violations.

OSHA has conducted 40 safety inspections since 2016 at Haier’s manufacturing facilities in Decatur and Louisville, Kentucky. The inspections revealed machine safety violations, including two repeat and two serious violations of lockout/tagout requirements cited after a 55-year-old worker’s fatality in Louisville in February 2019.

“Haier US Appliance Solutions could have avoided this tragedy but put production schedules and profit ahead of employee safety,” Joel Batiz, OSHA’s Birmingham, Alabama, area office director, said in an agency statement. “This company’s troubling history of safety failures in its manufacturing process has posed a significant risk to the more than 1,500 workers at its Decatur location who rely on a safe and healthy workplace.”

Pennsylvania tourist railroad ordered to reinstate employee

A Ronks, Pennsylvania, tourist railroad operator and former company official were ordered to reinstate an employee and pay back wages and damages after the employee was fired for refusing to issue locomotive and conductor licenses to an untrained and unqualified management official, OSHA announced January 17.

OSHA investigated a whistleblower complaint by the Strasburg Rail Road Co. employee, who alleged they were fired after refusing to issue the licenses due to safety and legal reasons. OSHA confirmed the management official lacked the required licensing credentials and determined the company retaliated by firing the worker—a violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA).

OSHA’s whistleblower protection authority was first established by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 to protect workers who lodge safety or health complaints or who cooperate with agency investigations of workplace safety and health violations. OSHA is now responsible for investigating whistleblower complaints under more than 20 federal statutes.

Strasburg Rail Road and the former company official were ordered to pay the employee $161,114 in back wages and interest; $10,000 in compensatory damages; and $50,000 in punitive damages. OSHA’s order also requires them to expunge the employee’s records of any references to exercising rights under the FRSA.

“The OSHA investigation found Strasburg Rail Road Co. wrongfully terminated the employee for exercising their protected right to raise safety concerns,” Michael Rivera, OSHA’s Philadelphia regional administrator, said in a statement. “This case underscores the critical importance of protecting workers who prioritize safety and comply with federal regulations. Retaliation against employees who stand up for safety will not be tolerated.”

OSHA extends heat NEP

On January 16, OSHA extended its 2022 indoor and outdoor heat-related hazards National Emphasis Program (NEP), which was due to expire on April 8.

Under the NEP, OSHA conducts inspections in high-risk industries’ indoor and outdoor work settings when the National Weather Service issues a heat warning or advisory for a local area.

The NEP authorizes the agency’s compliance safety and health officers (CSHO) to conduct self-referral inspections of outdoor work environments in plain view. It also authorizes the agency’s area offices to act on referrals from the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD).

The post GE Appliance Maker Facing $194K OSHA Fine appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

Florida Employer Facing OSHA Penalty in Worker’s Fatality 24 Jan 10:38 AM (4 days ago)

Southeast Services of the Treasure Coast Inc., a Vero Beach, Florida, drainpipe cleaning and maintenance company, is facing a $16,131 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fine following a 24-year-old worker’s death, the agency announced January 16.

According to OSHA, the employer could have prevented an explosion at a Port Saint Lucie worksite in June that claimed a 24-year-old worker’s life by implementing proper safety measures to address the hazards of inflatable pipe plugs.

Agency investigators determined that two employees of Southeast Services were cleaning a drainpipe at the intersection of Southwest Becker Road and Southwest Village Parkway. During the work, the pipe’s pressurized plug became over-inflated, leading to an explosion so powerful that it ejected one worker 15 feet from the storm drain, resulting in fatal injuries.

OSHA cited the Vero Beach-based employer with a serious General Duty Clause violation for failing to develop and implement procedures and train workers to install and remove pneumatic pipe plugs safely. This failure put workers at risk of being struck by dangerous equipment.

The agency informed the employer that it was feasible to correct the hazard by taking the following steps:

• Before using pneumatic plugs, ensure employees review the pneumatic plug safety and instruction manual.
• Train employees to recognize the hazards associated with placing the plugs and working near them after inflating them.
• Ensure the pressure gauge used to determine the required air pressure is calibrated before use.
• Ensure the plug is properly placed in the storm drainpipe.
• Use a properly designed blocking or bracing device to restrain any plug movement.
• Ensure employees don’t enter the danger zone in front of the storm drain opening while the plug is inflated.

“Pressurized equipment poses significant danger, and employers must put safeguards in place and take all necessary precautions to protect workers from these hazards,” Condell Eastmond, OSHA’s Fort Lauderdale, Florida, area office director, said in an agency statement. “If employers ignore critical safety measures, the consequences can be devastating, leaving an unfillable void in the lives of the families impacted by such tragedies.”

When no specific health or safety standard covers a known hazard identified during an inspection, OSHA cites employers using its authority under the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1)) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Southeast Services of the Treasure Coast Inc. is an underground utility contractor specializing in maintaining sanitary sewer and stormwater systems, according to OSHA. The company employs approximately 30 workers and serves the east coast of Florida, including Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties.

CSB releases chemical incident report

On January 14, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a report detailing serious chemical incidents reported to the CSB since 2020.

Volume One of the Incident Reports covers 26 accidental releases in 15 states: California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The incidents led to five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and approximately $700 million in property damage, according to the board.

 “Since the CSB’s reporting rule went into effect, the agency has received hundreds of reports on incidents involving releases of hazardous chemicals that have put communities, workers, and the environment at serious risk,” CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said in a board statement.

The CSB investigates incidents and hazards that result in, or may result in, the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The board has no enforcement authority but issues recommendations to companies, industry standard-setting groups, and federal agencies, including OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The post Florida Employer Facing OSHA Penalty in Worker’s Fatality appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

How Comprehensive Job Safety Analysis Can Improve Business Risk Management 24 Jan 1:00 AM (4 days ago)

Job Safety Analysis (JSA) is a cornerstone of effective workplace safety programs. By systematically identifying and addressing risks before they cause harm, JSA not only helps businesses protect employees but also improves organizational efficiency, reduces costs, and enhances overall safety culture. When implemented properly, JSA goes beyond merely meeting regulatory requirements—it plays a critical role in proactive risk management, employee engagement, and continuous safety improvement.

In this article, we explore how a comprehensive, standardized JSA process can simplify, streamline, and strengthen a company’s safety and risk management framework.

Formalization of safe work procedures and risk criteria

One of the primary benefits of a well-executed JSA is the formalization of safety procedures. When organizations put a structured approach in place, employees receive clear, standardized instructions on how to safely perform tasks. This reduces ambiguity and enables consistency in safety practices, regardless of the team, shift, or location.

The JSA process breaks down a job into constituent job tasks so it’s easier to identify potential hazards and assess their severity. Clear definition and standardization of risk assessment criteria allows you and your team to evaluate safety risks in a uniform manner so you can control or mitigate hazards before work begins. This level of standardization across operations helps to reduce variability in safety protocols, which can otherwise lead to gaps in hazard control and increase the likelihood of incidents.

Clear accountability for hazard identification, assessment, and control

An effective JSA program assigns clear roles and responsibilities for hazard identification, assessment, and control. This helps every member of the team to understand their responsibility in maintaining workplace safety. It also allows management to actively monitor and verify that employees are following safety procedures, and prescribed controls are in place.

By assigning accountability, JSA encourages continuous monitoring of the work environment for new or emerging hazards. This proactive approach enables you to promptly address hazards and update the JSA documentation to reflect changing conditions. Managers and supervisors can thus ensure that safety protocols remain relevant and effective throughout the life of a project or task.

Improved employee participation and engagement

JSA is not a top-down safety program—it actively encourages employee participation. When employees are included in the hazard identification and assessment process, they become more invested in the overall safety culture of the organization. Employees who are involved in safety discussions often have valuable insights into the day-to-day risks that may not be immediately apparent to supervisors or management. This participation can help identify hazards that you might otherwise overlook, and provide a way to base your safety controls on practical, on-the-ground knowledge.

In addition to fostering a sense of ownership, JSA empowers employees by making them active contributors to the safety management process. This leads to improved morale, greater job satisfaction, and a reduction in employee turnover. Furthermore, by feeling valued and heard in safety matters, employees are more likely to take proactive steps in identifying and mitigating risks on the job.

More informed organizational learning

One of the advantages of a comprehensive JSA program is its capacity to drive organizational learning. By systematically collecting data on potential hazards, controls, and near-miss incidents, companies can identify patterns and root causes of safety issues. This data-driven approach helps organizations pinpoint areas for improvement, foster continuous safety improvements, and drive change where necessary.

Moreover, JSA helps preserve and promote institutional knowledge about best safety practices. By documenting past safety assessments and their outcomes, companies give themselves the chance to apply those valuable lessons in the future. This knowledge retention is crucial for both new employees and for refining training programs. Regularly updating JSA procedures with new learnings keeps all staff members, particularly new hires, up to date with the most current risk factors and safety strategies.

Better hazard identification and situational awareness

One of the most significant benefits of a comprehensive JSA is its ability to improve hazard identification. JSA encourages workers and managers to identify risks before those risks lead to incidents, rather than just retroactively investigating incidents that have already happened. This proactive approach reduces the likelihood of accidents and helps create a safer working environment.

JSA also enhances situational awareness by encouraging workers to remain vigilant and aware of their surroundings. Workers familiar with a JSA are more likely to think critically about changing conditions in the work environment, and to stay alert to evolving hazards that may require immediate attention. This heightened awareness is particularly valuable in high-risk environments where conditions can change rapidly.

Reduced loss through better injury and illness prevention

The primary goal of any JSA program is to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. By identifying hazards in advance and establishing controls to mitigate risks, JSA significantly reduces the number of incidents that occur. In doing so, businesses avoid the direct and indirect costs associated with accidents, such as medical expenses, compensation claims, and lost productivity.

Beyond reducing incidents, JSA helps companies remain compliant with health and safety regulations. Many safety standards and regulations require companies to identify and mitigate hazards before they lead to harm. A robust JSA process simplifies compliance with these regulations, reducing the risk of penalties or fines while providing a safer workplace.

Financial and organizational benefits

The financial savings associated with a well-implemented JSA process can be substantial. By preventing accidents and minimizing the costs of injuries and illnesses, companies can reduce insurance premiums, avoid legal penalties, and preserve productivity. In addition, companies benefit from a safer, more efficient work environment, which can lead to improved overall performance and employee satisfaction.

A comprehensive JSA program also helps to streamline the risk management process. With modern tools such as automated JSA software, organizations can capture and analyze data more effectively, identify emerging risks, and implement targeted safety interventions. These systems not only simplify the process of completing and updating JSA but also enable businesses to manage risks more proactively and efficiently.

Conclusion

A standardized JSA process is one of the most effective tools for managing workplace safety and risk. By formalizing hazard identification, improving employee engagement, and driving continuous safety improvements, JSA fosters a culture of safety that benefits employees, employers, and the organization as a whole. Whether through improved hazard identification, enhanced situational awareness, or reduced costs from fewer incidents, JSA has a tangible and lasting impact on a company’s safety performance. With modern tools and automated systems available to streamline the process, companies can take advantage of these benefits with less effort and greater impact, ensuring a safer and more compliant workplace for all.

Greg Duncan, CSP, Senior EHS Expert, at VelocityEHS, and Marc Juaire, CSP, Principal Solution Expert, at VelocityEHS.

The post How Comprehensive Job Safety Analysis Can Improve Business Risk Management appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

EPA Seeks Comments on Draft Recommendations for PFAS in Water Bodies 23 Jan 1:05 AM (5 days ago)

On December 19, 2024, the EPA announced draft national recommendations for health-based levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water bodies. The recommendations cover three PFAS:

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
• Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)
• Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)

PFAS are a large class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have been in use in the United States and around the world since the 1940s. PFAS’ ability to withstand heat and repel water and stains makes them useful in a wide variety of consumer, commercial, and industrial products, as well as in the manufacturing of other products and chemicals. This longevity is why PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals.”

“Current scientific research and available evidence have shown the potential for harmful human health effects after being exposed to some PFAS, even at very low levels,” states the draft recommendation. “PFAS’ persistence and resistance to hydrolysis, photolysis, metabolism and microbial degradation raise additional concerns about human exposure and health effects.”

The draft national recommended Human Health Criteria (HHC) for the three PFAS are summarized as follows:

Table 1—Draft Human Health Criteria (HHC) for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS
PFAS	Water + Organism HHC (ng/L)	Organism-Only HHC (ng/L)
PFOA	0.0009	0.00036
PFOS	0.06	0.07
PFBS	400	500

“Once final, these recommended criteria can be used by states and authorized Tribes to set water quality standards that help protect people from exposure through consuming water, fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waterbodies that may be polluted by these PFAS. … Human health criteria are not regulatory requirements and do not, on their own, compel any action,” according to an EPA news release. “Rather they are information for entities, including state and Tribal regulators, to consider when making policy decisions that protect water quality.

“Human health criteria are developed under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 304(a) and are based solely on the available data and scientific judgments about the impacts of pollutant levels in the water body (in this case PFAS) on people’s health. Human health criteria are based on the latest scientific knowledge and do not consider economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting the chemical concentrations in ambient water, though [CWA] tools that use human health criteria may incorporate such factors.”

The EPA seeks comments on these draft recommendations, which will be accepted on the Federal e-Rulemaking platform until February 24, 2025, under Docket # EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0454.

Once the comment period ends, the Agency will revise the criteria documents based on its consideration of the comments received and prepare final national recommended HHC for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS.

The post EPA Seeks Comments on Draft Recommendations for PFAS in Water Bodies appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

CSB Releases Video of Louisiana Fire, Toxic Gas Release Investigation 22 Jan 1:05 AM (6 days ago)

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a new safety video on its investigation into the August 2020 fire and toxic gas release at the Bio-Lab Lake Charles chemical facility in Westlake, Louisiana, the board announced January 7.

The incident occurred when the facility was severely damaged by Hurricane Laura.

The safety video, “Fire From the Storm: Chemical Release at Bio-Lab,” includes an animation of events leading up to the incident and commentary from CSB Board Member Catherine Sandoval and Investigator-in-Charge Vonzella Vincent.

In the board’s April 2023 final report on the Westlake chemical fire and toxic gas release, the CSB found five key safety issues related to the incident:

• Extreme weather preparation,
• Process hazard analyses implementation,
• Emergency preparedness and response,
• Adherence to applicable hazardous materials code, and
• Regulatory coverage of reactive chemical hazards.

The CSB suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) revise their regulations for reactive chemical hazards. Later that year, the board sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) urging it to address hurricanes and other high-wind extreme weather events in updates to its Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements for the nation’s bulk-power system. The board cited the Westlake incident and fires at the Arkema Inc. chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, during Hurricane Harvey.

The video highlights safety recommendations made by the CSB to the state of Louisiana, the EPA, and OSHA. The CSB is an independent federal agency that investigates accidents at refineries and chemical facilities without enforcement or rulemaking authority. The board issues recommendations for employers, industry groups, and other government agencies in its investigation reports.

CSB urges chemical facilities to prepare for extreme cold

The CSB recently reemphasized the importance of preparing chemical facilities for extreme cold winter weather, including identifying and implementing best safety practices for cold weather operations, to avoid serious chemical accidents this winter.

CSB data on chemical releases has shown a notable increase in incidents at chemical facilities during the cold weather months, according to the board. The CSB has identified numerous incidents illustrating the importance of effective winterization programs at refineries, chemical plants, and other facilities that contain hazardous materials.

“Chemical facilities are especially susceptible to incidents during the winter months when they can be affected by extreme cold weather,” CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said in a board statement. “Every chemical facility must take steps now to winterize its processes in order prevent a major chemical incident from occurring and putting communities, workers, and the environment in serious risk.”

Guidance offered by the CSB includes a safety digest entitled “Preparing Equipment and Instrumentation for Cold Weather Operations.” The digest stresses the need for surveying “dead legs” (piping that rarely or intermittently sees process flow) and, ideally, removing or permanently and effectively isolating them from hazardous process streams. Equipment that’s susceptible to ice or hydrate formation in cold weather should be identified and properly winterized, according to the board.

The CSB also referred companies to Recommended Practices ((RP) 2001) from the American Petroleum Institute (API), which addresses potential issues encountered in freezing weather.

The post CSB Releases Video of Louisiana Fire, Toxic Gas Release Investigation appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

Faces of EHS: Josh Reed on the Ski Industry’s Emerging Safety Culture 22 Jan 1:00 AM (6 days ago)

Skiing is fun and exciting, but it can also be dangerous for both resort visitors and workers. Furthermore, operating ski resorts comes with some unique risks that might not have been traditionally addressed. Josh Reed, director of technical safety and programs at Vail Resorts, is helping lead the way on safety culture in the ski industry.

Based in Colorado, Vail Resorts is the largest publicly traded ski resort company in the world. It owns and operates 42 locations across the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. The company has about 7,000 year-round employees and 50,000 seasonal employees. In his role, Reed is responsible for leading Vail Resorts’ health and safety programs team to develop, implement, and manage all programs that support the company’s locations globally. He also works to evaluate and understand the ski industry’s historic approach to safety and utilize learnings to implement solutions that are scalable and sustainable for the organization.

Overall, Reed has a decade of EHS experience working in a range of industries from oil and gas to food and beverage. He has earned several certifications and academic degrees in safety and currently serves as a member of the ASSP Foundation Next Generation Board.

To learn more about Reed and his take on industry issues, please read the Faces of EHS interview below:

Q: How did you get your start in the field?

My father was a coal miner his entire life. While working in the mines, he noticed the growing field of environmental, health, and safety. He realized this would be a great career to encourage his sons to pursue.

After my brother Jeremy completed his occupational safety and health degree at Murray State University, one of the top OSH programs in the country, I observed the amazing opportunities that were available to him in the field. I transferred to Murray State from another university to follow suit. I experienced so many great opportunities during this time, including three internships, studying abroad in Paris and London, and participating in a research project for the U.S. Navy. I truly fell in love with the field. I completed both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in OSH and have never looked back.

Q: Who has been your biggest influence in the EHS industry, and why?

John F. Kennedy once said, “We must find the time to stop and thank those people who make a difference in our lives.” I myself have several people that I need to thank for the positive influence in my life.

Dr. Gary Morris at Murray State, who pushed me out of my comfort zone and opened my eyes to a world I never knew existed. Drew Nelson at Consolidated Grain and Barge, who was my first manager out of school. Drew helped me develop a strong foundation in the EHS field and supported me personally through some hard times. Jaime Sherry and Paul Robbertz at Danone North America both showed me what true servant leadership is. Jon Maloney at Vail Resorts for taking a chance on a leader from outside the ski industry and helping me understand what positive accountability is.

In addition to mentors and positive influences in the EHS Industry, I have too-many-to-count lifelong friends in the field, including Tanner Neese, Austin Blakley, Maegan Procasky, Dawson Montfort, Kim May, and Justin Lopez.

Q: What’s your best mistake, and what did you learn from it?

During my senior year at Murray State University, I accepted a summer internship as an industrial hygiene intern knowing little about the field. I quickly realized I was in over my head. I failed significantly at multiple projects and tasks that were required of the job. However, under great leadership, I was able to slowly make progress and pick up little wins over time. At the completion of the internship, I was by no means an expert in the field, but I was confident I had participated in one of the best growth opportunities of my life.  

Q: What are some of the biggest EHS issues at your organization? Are there any unique challenges (or benefits) compared to some other organizations?

EHS programs and culture in the ski industry are still a very new concept. We have a risk profile that does not exist in most traditional organizations. Some challenges include the demanding physical footprint of a ski resort, which could contain multiple mountains, hotels, retail shops, transportation hubs, and maintenance shops all separated by miles. At Vail Resorts, this challenging footprint is multiplied by 42 locations across the globe.

Another unique challenge and benefit in our organization is requiring a large majority of our employees to ski or snowboard for their job. Although this is one of the most enjoyable parts of the organization, it is also a very high-risk activity when you factor in the ever-changing environment, individual ability, snow conditions, and guest interactions.

Q: What’s your favorite and least favorite part about working in the industry? Would you change anything? 

My favorite part about working in the EHS industry for a ski resort company is I am able to combine my personal passion for skiing, outdoors, and the mountains with my professional work. The quote by Mark Twain, “Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never have to work a day in your life,” rings true for me every day.

My least favorite part is that due to the EHS field being so new in the ski resort industry, I unfortunately see multiple incidents and injuries that could have been prevented with foundational health and safety programs that have been around for years in other industries. Although this is motivating to help the ski industry advance in the EHS field, it is still saddening to see my team members get hurt.

Q: What are your thoughts on safety culture? How can company leaders make safety a value within their organization?

The most foundational truth about culture is that it requires people. Safety culture, good or bad, will be built on relationships and leadership. I love the idea of building a safety culture in an organization, but it has also been the hardest task and a never-ending one in my career.

One of the most impactful actions a company leader can do to make safety a value in the organization is doing the small things right. Vincent van Gogh once said, “Great things are done by a series of small things brought together.” Leaders holding themselves and others accountable in a positive manner to the small safety culture ways of working, overtime, builds a thriving new norm of safety in the workplace.  

Q: What safety concerns or issues do you think need more prioritization in EHS programs?

Building sustainable EHS programs in an organization is a concern for me. In my career, I have seen EHS programs can get so dependent on one team member or one group, that when that person or group leaves the organization, it can take step backwards in the EHS field. This step back can put people’s lives at stake. Therefore, when building or managing EHS programs, having a long-term sustainable approach is critical to accomplish the goal of protecting team members and the organization.

Q: What will be the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles on the EHS industry?

If the definition and the goal of ESG principles remains all levels of the organization striving to do the right thing, from investors to frontline employees, I believe it can have a positive impact. Whether it’s a new ESG performance indicator or a program growing in the organization, the EHS field will just need to be aware of resources needed to support the company’s goal in a constructive manner.

Q: How will new safety technologies influence the work being done by EHS professionals?

EHS programs and almost all aspects of work are becoming more digitized. However, I see a growing issue of flooding the EHS field with too much technology. The ability for leaders to prioritize what technology actually makes the job more efficient in principle vs. in reality will always remain significant. 

Q: What are you most proud of?

I am most proud of my diverse career path. I have worked in a variety of industries, including construction, oil and gas, agriculture, food and beverage manufacturing, military operations, industrial hygiene, academia, and currently the ski and resort industry. This diverse background provides a foundation of confidence to tackle any challenge that comes my way or my team’s way.

Q: Do you have any advice for people entering the EHS profession?

Get up early, work hard, stay positive, be confident, and don’t make excuses.

Are you or a colleague an EHS professional interested in being profiled for the Faces of EHS series? Please contact Joe Bebon at JBebon@BLR.com.

The post Faces of EHS: Josh Reed on the Ski Industry’s Emerging Safety Culture appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.

EPA Announces Final Rules to Ban TCE and PCE 21 Jan 1:10 AM (7 days ago)

On December 9, 2024, the EPA announced it finalized the latest risk management rules for trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) amendments.

TCE is an extremely toxic chemical known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It also causes damage to the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, immune system, and reproductive organs, even in miniscule amounts, and can cause fetal heart defects.

PCE is known to cause liver, kidney, brain, and testicular cancer, as well as damage to the kidney, liver, and immune system; neurotoxicity; and reproductive toxicity.

“It’s simply unacceptable to continue to allow cancer-causing chemicals to be used for things like glue, dry cleaning or stain removers when safer alternatives exist,” said Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, in an Agency news release. “These rules are grounded in the best-available science that demonstrates the harmful impacts of PCE and TCE.”

TCE

TCE is used as a solvent in consumer and commercial products like cleaning and furniture care products, degreasers, brake cleaners, sealants, lubricants, adhesives, paints and coatings, and arts and crafts spray coatings and is used in the manufacture of some refrigerants. According to the EPA, safer alternatives are readily available for most of these uses.

Under this rule, all uses of TCE will be banned over time (with most identified risks eliminated within one year).

“All TCE uses with longer phaseout timeframes will have worker safety requirements, such as a Workplace Chemical Protection Plan that includes an inhalation exposure limit,” the EPA release continues. “The final rule sets a different inhalation exposure limit for airborne TCE than was proposed. This change was made in response to public comments to ensure the limit is feasible to implement and monitor while still reducing risk. EPA estimates that the new inhalation exposure limit would reduce long-term workplace exposure by 97%.

“Many of the TCE uses that are continuing for longer than one year occur in highly industrialized settings that can adopt EPA’s new stringent worker protections, such as uses of TCE to clean parts used in aircraft and medical devices, to manufacture battery separators, to manufacture refrigerants, as well as in other transportation, security and defense systems.

“For the use of TCE in manufacturing refrigerants, the longer timeframe supports fighting climate change by complementing efforts to phase down climate-damaging hydrofluorocarbons under the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act.

“All of these uses ultimately will be prohibited, but some of the exemptions associated with longer timeframes are necessary to avoid impacts to national security or critical infrastructure. In addition, some of the timeframes have been adjusted from the proposed rule based on public comment to allow reasonable time for transitioning to alternatives,” the EPA news release adds. “Further, to support cleanup activities at sites of past TCE contamination (such as Superfund sites), EPA is allowing essential laboratory use and proper disposal of TCE wastewater to continue for 50 years provided worker protections are in place, including the inhalation exposure limit set by today’s rule.”

Learn more about the TCE rule.

PCE

PCE is a solvent used in brake cleaners and adhesives and for commercial applications like dry cleaning. Safer alternatives are readily available for most of these uses, according to the EPA.

“EPA is finalizing a 10-year phaseout for the use of PCE in dry cleaning to eliminate the risk to people who work or spend considerable time at dry cleaning facilities,” the Agency’s release notes. “Use of PCE in newly acquired dry-cleaning machines will be prohibited after six months. Compliance dates for machines that are already owned will vary depending on the type of dry-cleaning machine used, with older types of machines being phased out sooner than newer ones. Many dry cleaners have already begun this transition. This timeline is unchanged from the proposed rule.

“EPA’s final risk management rule requires companies to rapidly phase down manufacturing, processing and distribution of PCE for all consumer use and many uses at industrial and commercial workplaces, most of which will be fully phased out in less than three years. For most of the uses of PCE that EPA is prohibiting, EPA’s analysis found that alternative products with similar costs and efficacy to PCE are reasonably available.”

Today’s final rule will better protect people from these risks by banning the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCE for all consumer uses and many commercial uses while allowing some workplace uses to continue only where robust workplace controls can be implemented.

“PCE and TCE are both nonflammable chlorinated solvents that are volatile organic compounds,” the release continues. “PCE can biodegrade into TCE, and PCE may contain trace amounts of TCE as an impurity or a contaminant. The chemicals can often serve as alternatives for each other. For several uses of TCE that will be totally prohibited, there is an analogous use of PCE that can continue safely in perpetuity under workplace controls.”

The uses that will continue under the PCE rule include:

• Energized electrical cleaning
• Laboratory use for asphalt testing and recovery
• Making refrigerants and other chemicals
• Vapor degreasing
• Petrochemical manufacturing
• Agricultural chemical manufacturing
• Cold cleaning of tanker vessels
• Maskant for chemical milling
• Adhesives and sealants
• Processing into formulation, mixture, or reaction products
• Importing, recycling, disposing of, and processing by repackaging and domestic manufacturing of PCE

Learn more about the PCE rule.

The post EPA Announces Final Rules to Ban TCE and PCE appeared first on EHS Daily Advisor.