By Patrick D. Joyce and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA announced a thirty day phase-in for enforcement of the Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction under 29 CFR 1926.1153.  The new rule will be fully effective by Monday, October 23, 2017.

OSHA’s new crystalline silica rule is wide-reaching and, for that reason, the rulemaking has been contentious. We have blogged about crystalline silica many times: OSHA Proposes Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule, OSHA Extends the Comment Deadline for Proposed Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule, New OSHA Hazard Safety Bulletin for the Hydraulic Fracturing Industries, and Senators Ask OSHA to Consider the Fracking Industry Economy and to More Fully Extend the Comment Deadline for Proposed Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule.

Crystalline silica is a staple of modern society. Crystalline silica is a common mineral found in many naturally occurring materials and used in many industrial products and at construction sites. Materials such as sand, concrete, stone, and mortar contain crystalline silica. Crystalline silica is also used to make products like glass, pottery, ceramics, bricks, concrete and artificial stone. Industrial sand containing crystalline silica is also used in certain foundry work and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations.

OSHA estimates that 2.3 million workers are potentially exposed to crystalline silica on the job, and that nearly 676,000 workplaces will be affected by the crystalline silica rule, including in construction and in general industry and maritime. The rule was expected to result in annual costs of $1,524 for the average workplace covered by the rule. The total cost of compliance with the rule was estimated at “just over $1 billion” (per year).

In an effort to remedy some of the difficulties that have arisen to come into compliance with the construction portion of the new rule, the Agency had previously decided to delay enforcement of the standard from June 23, 2017, until September 23, 2017.

Now that September 23 has passed, the Agency issued a standard interpretation letter for the Launch of Enforcement of the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard, 29 CFR § 1926.1153.  The new rule will be fully effective on Monday, October 23, 2017.  Specifically the interpretation states that:

During the first 30 days of enforcement, OSHA will carefully evaluate good faith efforts taken by employers in their attempts to meet the new construction silica standard. OSHA will render compliance assistance and outreach to assure that covered employers are fully and properly complying with its requirements. Given the novelty of the Table 1 approach, OSHA will pay particular attention to assisting employers in fully and properly implementing the controls in the table. OSHA will assist employers who are making good faith efforts to meet the new requirements to assure understanding and compliance.

If, upon inspection, it appears an employer is not making any efforts to comply, OSHA’s inspection will not only include collection of exposure air monitoring performed in accordance with Agency procedures, but those employers may also be considered for citation. Any proposed citations related to inspections conducted in this time period will require National Office review.

For employers in these industries, it is important to note that this phase in period provides little additional time to come into compliance with the new rule. Due to the complexity of the rule, we recommend you contact your occupational safety and health attorney as soon as possible to discuss a path to compliance.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Andrew H. Perellis and Mike Radcliffe

Seyfarth Synopsis:  This blog welcomes Mike Radcliffe, for our guest author’s thoughts on the up and coming deadline for organizations to come into compliance with the new ISO 14001:2015 environmental management system (EMS) standard.

The new ISO standard brings significant change that will require considerable time and thought to implement. Due to the timing, the strategy should focus on implementing the EMS to address the greatest “gaps” and developing the “hard proof” of its effectiveness within your organization.

While it’s not too late to start with an ISO 14001:2015 installation, there should be little delay.  The deadline for recertification of your ISO 14001 EMS is September 15, 2018. After that, certificates issued under the ISO 14001:2004 standard will no longer be valid.

Some companies have the time and expertise to implement needed changes internally.  However, many companies will need to rely on outside assistance. Knowledgeable consultants are busy and will increasingly be in tight supply.  Radcliffe , an independent consultant already assisting several companies with the recertification process, cautions that the project lifecycle for a well-crafted EMS can require up to a year from design to full implementation. Not all of this time is spent developing and writing procedures and work instructions.

In fact, a majority of the time will involve collaboration between the consultant and the company’s internal staff to implement the EMS, by testing the procedures, developing proof that the EMS is functioning, and confirming that the EMS will be able to fulfill its strategic purpose. In addition, under the new ISO 14001:2015 requirements, the organization needs to formulate an approach for including its interested parties and stakeholders (e.g., suppliers) in its contextual analysis (e.g., how, where and with whom does it operate) and in its life cycle thinking. Such strategic thinking will obviously be impaired by tight deadlines.

Other significant changes to the EMS also require advance planning and thoughtful implementation. According to Radcliffe, some of the thematic differences between the two standards are:

  1. EMS aligned with the organization’s strategic direction.
  2. Top management more engaged and subject to nine specific accountabilities.
  3. Consideration of strategic threats and opportunities.
  4. Focus on Life Cycle thinking.
  5. Integrating EMS functionality into business operations.

In sum, the new ISO standard is a significant change that will require time and thought to implement. Companies are urged to look at their EMS systems soon, and bring them into compliance.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Seyfarth Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting Team.  Information on Mike Radcliffe can be found on his LinkedIn page, and he can be contacted at michael.radcliffe@gmail.com.

By James L. Curtis and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A recent active shooter incident at an international airport illustrates both how quickly an incident may be over, yet how ancillary impacts take much longer to resolve. While the shooter was apprehended in less than two minutes, the international airport was shut down for most of a full day, impacting over 500 employees and 10,000 customers, and 20,000 personal items were lost.  The after-action report offers some lessons learned.

At the World Safety Organization International Environmental and Occupational Safety and Health Symposium this week, William G. Thompson, IV, the Occupational Safety & Health Manager and Safety Management System Administrator at Broward County Aviation Department, including the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (Airport), presented the findings from the January 6, 2017 active shooter incident at the Airport.  Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Active Shooter Incident and Post-Event Response January 6, 2017 After-Action Report (August 15, 2017) (Report or Findings).  Thompson was at the Airport that day, watched the events unfold, and cooperated in the resolution and the preparation of the Report.

The Report indicates that “on January 6, 2017, a lone gunman intentionally discharged a firearm at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport killing five and wounding six innocent bystanders.  Approximately 90 minutes after the initial incident, speculation of additional firearms discharged in other areas within [the Airport] caused panic and led to a chaotic self-evacuation of persons throughout the airport.”  The Report states that it was developed in accordance with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program.  Specifically, the Report analyzes the response, the emergency and operational coordination, and the facility recovery and post event activities.

Factually, the Report shows that the actual shooting event, in the Terminal 2 baggage area,  lasted less than 80 seconds and ended when the “perpetrator ran out of ammunition, laid down on the ground, and surrendered to law enforcement officers at the scene.”  Of the eleven people who were shot, six (6) were wounded, and five (5) were killed.  Approximately 40 others were injured in the panic during the initial shooting event (First Incident). Terminals 1, 3, and 4 remained operational at this time.

The Second Incident started at approximately an hour and a half later, when radio communications indicated unsubstantiated reports of additional shots fired in Terminal 1, and one of the parking garages. As a result, the “response among passengers, tenants, and airport employees triggered uncontrolled and unmanaged self-evacuation of personnel, many of whom ran into secured areas and onto active aprons. Some received minor injuries during the self-evacuation.”  Because of the breach of restricted areas on the airfield during the self-evacuation, and the ongoing investigation of the actual crime scene in Terminal 2, law enforcement began sweeping and clearing each of the four (4) terminals at the Airport to ensure that all areas were clear of any threats and to re-establish secure areas.

Because of the incurrence into secure zones, the FAA issued a ground stop notice closing the Airport to all but emergency flights.  Subsequently, airport operations were officially terminated and all airport roadways were closed to incoming traffic.  Law enforcement continued clearing the rest of the airport until approximately 8:30 PM, over seven hours later. The airport remained closed for the remainder of the day, but reopened to commercial flights early the following day.

This incident provides a good reference for business to consider in developing their own corporate active shooter programs.  For instance, in this case responding airport employees were initially denied access to areas to which access was required to support response operations.  In addition, while the actual shooting incident was over in ninety seconds, during the subsequent response approximately 500 airport employees were interrupted in their jobs, and 10,000 passengers were bused to a nearby facility for food and shelter, and to assist them in connecting to other means of transportation “As result of the chaos that ensued following the shooting, more than 20,000 personal items were left unclaimed at the airport.”  The active shooter incident response must be planned for as well as the incident itself.

The Report provides “Lessons Learned,” including several points to support preparedness within the aviation sector and among aviation stakeholders.  Many of their recommendations are well placed in any industry:

  • Ongoing periodic incident command system training and exercises, support capabilities-based planning, coordination with airport stakeholders, and development of competencies among airport personnel to support critical incident response.
  • Airport emergency plans should be updated and reviewed at least annually or when changes in resources, personnel, or threats occur.
  • Airport emergency plans and/or companion response plans should address a full range of hazards and threats, identify a concept of operations in an incident command system context, and address all areas of the airport including public areas and auxiliary properties, such as rental car facilities.
  • Building relationships with external response partners through advanced planning, training and exercises is vital to support a common understanding of roles, responsibilities, resources, facility design and layout, and communication procedures under single or unified command conditions.
  • Coordination between airports and jurisdictional (city/county/state) emergency management agencies supports emergency response operations through effective communications, resourcing and resource management.
  • Airports should consider developing a written description of airport operations and airport physical layout specifically for external emergency responders who may respond to airport emergencies. Periodic tours for external emergency responders are also recommended to support an effective understanding of resources, evacuation plans, and other potential response needs.
  • Exercises conducted at airports should include active shooter scenarios as well as other locally-relevant hazard and threat scenarios identified local emergency management agencies).

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Mark A. Lies, II, Adam R. YoungJames L. Curtis, and Benjamin D. Briggs

Seyfarth Synopsis:  It is imperative that employers develop and implement organized and clearly communicated procedures for responding to a disaster. A well-planned and executed emergency response program will provide orderly procedures and prevent panic, thereby minimizing employee injuries and damage to property.

Please see the entire Alert, After the Rain: Disaster Recovery and Employee Safety Following Hurricane Harvey, for the full article and recommendations.

By Andrew H. Perellis and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) on “Restoring the Rule of Law… by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, the Agencies have scheduled ten teleconferences to collect stakeholder recommendations on the revision of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.

We had previously blogged on the WOTUS rulemaking. See EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Propose to Rescind Obama Era Rule Redefining “Waters of the United States”, EPA Publishes Final Rule Expanding Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act, Proposed Rule on Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act, and New Definition of “Waters of the United States”?

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers have now issued an Announcement of Public Meeting Dates, 82 Fed. Reg. 40742 (August 28, 2017).  In the Announcement, the Agencies note that they intend to propose a new definition for WOTUS that would replace the approach in the 2015 Clean Water Rule with one that is consistent with the approach outlined in the EO.  The Agencies recently completed consultation processes with tribes and state and local governments on the rulemaking.

Now the Agencies seek to provide other interested stakeholders an opportunity to provide pre-proposal “feedback” on the rule to revise the definition of the WOTUS.

The teleconferences will be held on a weekly basis beginning September 19, 2017, and will continue each Tuesday thereafter for ten weeks.  Each session will run from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., eastern time.  Information on how to register for the meetings is available on the EPA Web site.

Persons or organizations that wish to provide verbal recommendations during the teleconference will be selected on a first-come, first-serve basis. Individuals will be asked to limit their oral presentation to three minutes.

Note that each of the ten sessions will be geared to particular entities and organizations (such as small businesses and small government jurisdictions), and business segments (such as construction, transportation, and mining).  So it is importatant that you attend the session that most matches your particular interests in the rulemaking.

In addition, the Agencies are also planning an in-person meeting with small entities, to be held on Monday, October 23, 2017.  Check the Announcement for attendance information.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Seyfarth Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting Team.

By Jinouth Vasquez Santos

Seyfarth SynopsisMarijuana businesses must properly label their products if they contain chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive health problems.  Failure to do so will result in a civil penalty or civil lawsuit.

Entrepreneurial Plaintiff’s attorneys have now set their sites on marijuana businesses.  Since January 1, 2017, Plaintiff’s firms have issued approximately 800 violation notice letters to marijuana businesses alleging that producers of cannabis infused edibles and vape cartridge manufacturers failed to warn consumers about specific fungicides and pesticides associated with their products.

California’s Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires cannabis business owners to provide customers with warning of the chemicals contained in their products which can cause cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.  Among the substances “known to the state of California” to cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems are marijuana smoke itself, and the chemicals myclobutanil (also a fungicide), carbaryl, and malathion, commonly-used pesticides.

Failure to comply with the warning requirement can result in a civil penalty up to $2,500 per violation per day in addition to other penalties established by law. The Attorney General may bring an action in the name of the people or the Act allows individuals to bring a private action to obtain the civil penalty against marijuana businesses for failure to warn.

Before filing a lawsuit, the individual seeking a private action must provide a 60-day notice to the Attorney General and the district attorney, city attorney, or prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and to the alleged violator.  If, after 60 days, none of the referenced individuals/entities take action, then the individual may proceed with his or her private claim so long as he or she complies with the 60-day notice requirements.

In order for the 60-day notice to be compliant, the notice must include a copy of Prop 65, a description of the violation, the name of the individual seeking an action, the time period of the violation, the listed chemicals involved, the route of exposure (ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation), and a certificate of merit.  The individual bringing the action must certify that they have “consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical that is the subject of the action, and that, based on that information, the person executing the certificate believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action.”

Marijuana businesses may avoid such 60-day notices and potential litigation by becoming familiar with the various chemicals that require warning labels, placing warning labels on their products, and ensuring that the pesticide levels in the products are compliant with California regulations. A comprehensive list of the 800 chemicals identified by the State can be found here.

California’s ever changing cannabis regulations can be difficult to maneuver. If you would like to review your policies for compliance, you may contact one of Seyfarth Shaw’s attorneys for assistance.

By James L. Curtis, Brent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: As expected, OSHA has appealed an ALJ ruling that severely limits OSHA’s “controlling employer” enforcement policy. Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., No. 17-60543 (5th Cir. 8/4/17).

This case involves an unprotected excavation at a construction site that both parties agreed was in in violation of OSHA’s trenching standards.  The Respondent was the general contractor on the construction project with overall control and responsibility for the worksite.  The Respondent also had management employees on site who were present at the excavation who “could have easily” prevented the subcontractor’s employees from working in the unprotected excavation but did not do so.  However, the Respondent did not have any of its own employees who were exposed to the hazardous excavation.

OSHA cited Respondent as a “controlling employer” under OSHA’s multi-employer policy and longstanding Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission precedent that has held that “an employer who either creates or controls the cited hazard has a duty under § 5(a)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2), to protect not only its own employees, but those of other employers ‘engaged in the common undertaking’.” McDevitt Street Bovis, Docket No. 97-1918 (Sept. 28, 2000).  “An employer may be held responsible for the violations of other employers ‘where it could reasonably be expected to prevent or detect and abate the violations due to its supervisory authority and control over the worksite.”’ Summit Contractors, Inc., Docket No. 05-0839 (Aug. 19, 2010).

Nonetheless, while the Commission has upheld “controlling employer” citations based on exposure to another employer’s employees, this violation occurred at a jobsite in Austin, Texas, which was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.  In 1981, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the OSH Act, its legislative history, and implemented regulations, serve to protect “an employer’s own employees from workplace hazards.”  ALJ’s emphasis.  Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981).  Accordingly, rather than follow Commission precedent and uphold the citation, the ALJ found that “where it is highly probable that a Commission decision would be appealed to a particular circuit, the Commission has generally applied the precedent of that circuit in deciding the case – even though it may differ from the Commission’s precedent.” Kerns Bros. Tree Service, Docket No. 96-1719 (Mar. 16, 2000).  Therefore, the ALJ ruled that “applying 5th Circuit precedent, Respondent cannot be liable for a violation of the Act based solely upon a subcontractor’s employees’ exposure to the condition,”  and vacated the citation.

OSHA is appealing the ALJ’s decision to the 5th Circuit hoping that the 5th Circuit will reverse its 1981 holding in Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.   This case represents a serious threat to OSHA’s multi-employer policy.  If upheld by the 5th Circuit, OSHA’s “controlling employer” policy may be in jeopardy. We will keep our readers apprised as this case develops.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Andrew H. PerellisPatrick D. Joyce, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Businesses and industries across the country which own or have interests in facilities and properties that may come under the broad scope of these new Superfund “Recommendations” will need to stay attuned and involved with what the Agency is doing relating to your interests. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released its Superfund Task Force Recommendations Report (Report). The report, ambitiously, provides “42 specific and detailed recommendations to streamline and improve the Superfund program.” Along with the Report, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also released a directive to EPA leaders and offices across the Agency of eleven “specific actions that should be implemented right away, with renewed focus,” including the identification, within 60 days, of the “sites where the risk of human exposure is not fully controlled.”

The Agency claims in its news release on the Report that “the recommendations of the Superfund Task Force, when implemented, will improve and expedite the process of site remediation and promote reuse.” The 42 Superfund Task Force recommendations are organized into five goals:

  1. Expediting Cleanup and Remediation;
  2. Re-invigorating Responsible Party Cleanup and Reuse;
  3. Encouraging Private Investment;
  4. Promoting Redevelopment and Community Revitalization; and
  5. Engaging Partners and Stakeholders.

In addition, the goals in the Task Force Report are accompanied by a set of strategies that include actions which are to commence in as little as 30 days from the Report’s approval.

A few of the notable recommendations include:

  • Providing “reduced-oversight incentives” to cooperative, “high-performing PRPs,” and use of enforcement tools as disincentives for protracted negotiations, or slow performance under cleanup agreements, including”
    • actively using enforcement authorities, including more prevalent issuance of unilateral orders to recalcitrant parties to discourage protracted negotiations
    • prohibiting PRPs from multiple chances to revise the same document when initial submittal is subpar
  • Focusing on sites which have “taken far too long to remediate” including:
    • establishing an “Administrator’s Top Ten” list which will get Administrator Pruitt’s weekly attention and
    • directing additional resources to sites that have been on the National Priorities List (NPL) for five years or longer;
  • Identifying third parties to invest in NPL sites and other “innovative tools” to “accelerate cleanups and promote reuse” such as:
    • utilizing alternative approaches to financing site cleanups, including environmental liability transfer and protections for third party investors and
    • working with PRPs to better integrate reuse needs into cleanup activities;
  • Prioritizing NPL sites where remedies have already been selected;
  • Encouraging the use of new technologies and clean up approaches by PRPs; and
  • Incentivizing PRPs who perform “timely, high quality cleanup” such as:
    • reducing oversight costs for PRPs that perform timely, high quality work and
    • increasing PRP and Agency adherence to project deadlines.

For businesses and industries across the country which own or have interests in facilities and properties that may come under the broad scope of these new Recommendations, diligence and attention are the key words. Stay tuned and involved with what the Agency is doing relating to your interests.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Seyfarth Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting Team.

By Craig B. Simonsen and  Jeryl L. Olson

Seyfarth Synopsis: Businesses and industries that had been impacted by the EPA’s HFCs rule may wish to monitor EPA’s response to this opinion carefully.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals this week, by a split three-judge panel, vacated part of a 2015 EPA rule intended to target greenhouse gas emissions, saying that while Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) does require manufacturers to replace ozone-depleting substances with safe substitutes, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) do not deplete ozone, so the agency never had the power to enforce the replacement provision of the rule.  “The fundamental problem for EPA is that HFCs are not ozone-depleting substances, as all parties agree.”  Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, No. 15-1328, — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 3389376 (DC Cir. Aug 8, 2017).

This case was filed because in 2013, President Obama announced that EPA would work to reduce emissions of HFCs because HFCs contribute to carbon emissions. “Plan to Cut Carbon Pollution and Address Climate Change” (June 25, 2013). The Climate Action Plan indicated that “… the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program” of Section 612 to reduce HFC emissions. Consistent with the Climate Action Plan, EPA promulgated its Final Rule in 2015 that moved certain HFCs from the list of safe substitutes to the list of prohibited substitutes (Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 80 Fed. Reg. 42870, July 20, 2015).

Th DC Circuit Court concluded this week that “EPA’s novel reading of Section 612 is inconsistent with the statute as written.  Section 612 does not require (or give EPA authority to require) manufacturers to replace non-ozonedepleting substances such as HFCs.  We therefore vacate the 2015 Rule to the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs, and we remand to EPA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

For businesses and industries that had been impacted by the EPA’s HFCs rule, it is time to watch for what the Agency does in response to the Court’s opinion.  Whether it appeals to the Supreme Court, or begins rulemaking to revise the current rules, you may wish to monitor this carefully.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Seyfarth Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting Team.

By Brent I. Clark and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: New OSHA guidance documents may provide employers in these industries with another tool for carefully measuring compliance with the PSM standards.

OSHA recently released guidance documents on Process Safety Management for Explosives and Pyrotechnics Manufacturing (PSM Explosive Pyrotechnics Guidance) (OSHA 3912-03 2017), and the Process Safety Management for Storage Facilities (PSM Storage Guidance) (OSHA 3909-03 2017).

The PSM Explosive Pyrotechnics Guidance focuses on aspects of the standard particularly relevant to explosives and pyrotechnic manufacturers, found in OSHA’s standard on Explosives and Blasting Agents, 29 CFR 1910.109.  The PSM Storage Guidance focuses on aspects of the PSM standard particularly relevant to storage facilities generally.

OSHA notes that while all elements of the PSM standard apply to all PSM-covered pyrotechnics manufacturing or storage facilities, the following elements are most relevant to hazards associated with these facilities:

  • Employee Participation
  • Process Safety Information (PSI)
  • Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
  • Operating Procedures
  • Training
  • Mechanical Integrity (MI)
  • Emergency Planning and Response

OSHA emphasizes that as to explosives, these PSM elements complement the “cardinal principle for explosive safety: expose the minimum number of people to the smallest quantity of explosives for the shortest period consistent with the operation being conducted.”

These Guidance documents provide employers with an outline to compliance with the applicable PSM standards that provide another review tool to achieve compliance.  Employers in these industries are encouraged to review these Guidance documents carefully to measure compliance with the standard, as you may be sure that OSHA’s inspector’s, if or when they visit, will do so.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.