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 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 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 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.

By Brent I. Clark, Adam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Photo from CSB YouTube page video capture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCEErm18T2k
Photo from CSB YouTube page video capture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCEErm18T2k

Seyfarth Synopsis: The CSB found deficiencies in the facility’s design and labeling of the chemical loading stations, and failure to follow the company’s written chemical unloading procedures.

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board recently released preliminary findings from its ongoing investigation of the toxic chemical release that occurred at a processing plant in Atchison, Kansas.  The investigation has identified several deficiencies in the design and labeling of the loading stations, and failure to follow the company’s written chemical unloading procedures.

In the Atchison case, a chemical tanker truck arrived at the facility to deliver sulfuric acid.  A facility operator escorted the driver to a locked loading area.  The operator unlocked the gate to the fill lines and also unlocked the sulfuric acid fill line.  The Board findings indicate that the facility operator likely did not notice that the sodium hypochlorite fill line was also already unlocked before returning to his work station.  The driver accordingly connected the sulfuric acid discharge hose from the truck into the sodium hypochlorite fill line.  The line used to transfer sulfuric acid looked similar to the sodium hypochlorite line, and the two lines were located in close proximity.

As a result of the incorrect connection, allegedly thousands of gallons of sulfuric acid from the tanker truck entered the facility’s sodium hypochlorite tank.  The resulting mixture created a dense cloud of poisonous gas, which traveled northeast of the facility until the wind shifted the cloud northwest towards a more densely populated area of town.  The Board’s investigation preliminary findings have concluded that “emergency shutdown mechanisms were not in place or were not actuated from either a remote location at the facility or in the truck.”

The Board indicated that a number of design deficiencies increased the likelihood of an incorrect connection.  These included “the close proximity of the fill lines, and unclear and poorly placed chemical labels.”  In addition, neither the facility operator of the tanker truck driver followed internal procedures for unloading operations.

This incident illustrates the necessity of maintaining both safety procedures, and regular training on those safety procedures.  Process safety management reviews and periodic reviews of operating procedures can also assist employers to find process areas that have potential weaknesses or issues that can be corrected, before incidents occur.

Human factors such as the chance of operator confusion appears to have played a role in this incident. Employer’s should continue to evaluate human factors as part of their hazard assessments.

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 Brent I. Clark and Craig B. Simonsen

iStock_000062437178MediumSeyfarth Synopsis: OSHA has just announced a three month delay of enforcement of the Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction under 29 CFR 1926.1153.

Crystalline silica is a staple of our modern society.  OSHA notes that it’s a common mineral that is 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 is also used in certain foundry work and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations.  OSHA estimates that 2.3 million workers are exposed to crystalline silica on the job.

Because crystalline silica is so important to modern society, the OSHA silica standards rulemaking has been contentious.  We have blogged previously how 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.

OSHA estimates that nearly 676,000 workplaces will be affected, including in construction and in general industry and maritime.  In addition, the rule is expected to result in annual costs of about $1,524 for the average workplace covered by the rule.  The total cost is estimated by OSHA at “just over $1 billion” (per year).

In an effort to remedy some of the issues and problems in compliance with the new rule, to provide OSHA with the opportunity to conduct additional outreach to the regulated community, and to provide additional time to train compliance officers, the Agency has decided to delay enforcement of the standard from June 23, 2017, until September 23, 2017.

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 Patrick D. Joyce, Jeryl L. Olson, and Craig B. Simonsen

iStock_000011623330_MediumSeyfarth Synopsis: In a significant proposal, EPA moves to ban the use of TCE in aerosol degreasing and spot cleaning at dry cleaning facilities, as part of a larger effort to ban TCE in other industrial uses.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to ban certain uses of Trichloroethylene (TCE) – one of the most commonly used solvents – because of alleged health risks from its use as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. 91 Fed. Reg. 91592 (Dec. 16, 2016). The proposed rule was issued under the recently-amended Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

This is a significant and controversial step. Not only is this EPA’s first use of Section 6(a) in 25 years, it is EPA’s first use of the “new” Section 6(a), which was revised in June 2016. In addition to the current proposed ban, EPA has indicated it intends to issue a proposal to ban TCE in vapor degreasing, and will publish one final rule banning TCE use in aerosol degreasing, spot cleaning at dry cleaning facilities, and vapor degreasing.

TCE is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is both produced and imported into the United States, with use estimated to be around 250 million pounds per year. TCE is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet odor and it evaporates quickly. TCE is used industrially as a solvent, a refrigerant, and in dry cleaning fluid. The majority of TCE is used (about 84 percent) in a closed system as an intermediate chemical for manufacturing refrigerant chemicals. Much of the remainder (about 15 percent) is used as a solvent for metals degreasing. Only a small percentage accounts for other uses, including use as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in consumer products.

While the use of TCE in aerosol degreasing and spot dry cleaning constitute the least common use of the solvent in the United States, under this current proposal, EPA will prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of TCE for use these limited uses. However, EPA has indicated it is also developing a proposal to ban the use of TCE in other industries and in other operations with higher volume uses of the chemical (i.e., vapor degreasing). EPA’s final rule will includes the current proposed ban on aerosol use and spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities, as well as the upcoming proposed ban on vapor degreasing.

The proposed ban on aerosol and dry cleaning uses includes requirements that manufacturers, processors, and distributors of TCE notify retailers and others in their supply chains of the prohibitions on use in aerosol degreasing and spot dry cleaning, and it is presumed the ban on vapor degreasing will have similar notification requirements.

Comments will be received on the proposed rule, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0163, until February 14, 2017.

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 Patrick D. Joyce, Jeryl L. Olson, and Craig B. Simonsen

Blog - Fracking WaterSeyfarth Synopsis: With significant objection from Industry, EPA has issued its Final Report on whether hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under certain circumstances.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published its controversial final report on “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States.” In the report, which has already been subject to great objection from Industry, EPA issued its finding that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) activities in the U.S. may have impacts on the water lifecycle, affecting drinking water resources. The Agency had put out a draft of the report for public comment in June 2015, which we blogged on at that time. 80 Fed. Reg. 32111.

The report was prepared at the request of Congress. Its purpose was to follow water resources used for fracking through the entire water cycle from water acquisition, to chemical mixing at the well pad site, to well injection of fracking fluids, to the collection of fracking wastewater (including flowback and produced water), and finally, to wastewater treatment and disposal. EPA claimed that the study “identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe.” The report also identified “data gaps [that] limited EPA’s ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally.” The final conclusions were based on review of over 1,200 cited sources.

In response to EPA’s report, the American Petroleum Institute (API) blasted the EPA’s “abandonment of science in revising the conclusions to the Assessment Report….” API and the fracking industry requested changes to EPA’s Draft Report that EPA did not incorporate in the Final Report. As a result, API Upstream Director Erik Milito said, “the agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process.”

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 Benjamin D. Briggs, Adam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

bottleSeyfarth Synopsis: In a challenge brought by trade associations for the farm supply and fertilizer industries, the D.C. Circuit vacates OSHA memorandum narrowing the retail exemption from the PSM standard.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled against OSHA on a Petition for Review of an OSHA interpretative memorandum in Agricultural Retailers Ass’n & Fertilizer Inst. v. United States Department of Labor, No. 15-1326 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016).

In this case, the Agricultural Retailers Association and the Fertilizer Institute sought review of a July 22, 2015 OSHA memorandum and interim policy interpretation that had significantly narrowed the Retail Facilities Exemption to the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.   The challenged interpretation had a dramatic effect on agricultural retailers that provide fertilizers to end users in the agricultural industry.  In that regard, the interpretation swept in many previously-exempt fertilizer and farm supply retailers into coverage under the onerous PSM standard.

OSHA issued the interpretation after a 2013 explosion at a West, Texas fertilizer supplier left 15 people dead and many others injured. Under the interpretation, OSHA retreated from the so-called “50 percent test” for determining whether a seller of highly hazardous chemicals qualified for the retail exemption.  Under that test, an establishment was exempt from PSM coverage if it “derived more than 50 percent of its income from direct sales of highly hazardous chemicals to the end user.”  Application of this test meant that fertilizer suppliers typically fell within the exemption despite having large quantities of highly hazardous chemicals at their establishments.  The challenged interpretation applied a different, much narrower, test to determine applicability of the exemption.  Under that test, retail facilities included only those “organized to sell merchandize in small quantities to the general public” as set forth sectors 44 and 45 of the NAICS Manual.  This definition precluded employers that sold or distributed large, bulk quantities of highly hazardous chemicals (i.e., farm and fertilizer supply businesses) from relying upon the retail exemption.

The thrust of the petitioners’ challenge to OSHA’s memorandum was that it was actually an OSHA standard, not an interpretation, and that, in turn, OSHA was required to follow rulemaking procedures, including notice-and-comment requirements. OSHA admittedly did not follow these procedures.  OSHA contended that rulemaking procedures did not apply because its action was a mere interpretation of a standard, and that its memorandum did not issue or modify a “standard.”  The D.C. Circuit rejected OSHA’s argument and agreed with petitioners.  In so doing, the court held that the memorandum amounted to a “standard within the meaning of the OSH Act” because its purpose was to correct “a particular significant risk,” rather than guide general enforcement.  Given that determination and OSHA’s admitted failure to follow rulemaking procedures, the court granted the petition and “vacated” OSHA’s memorandum.

For the time being, this means that employers (including agricultural retailers) may once again rely on the “50 percent rule” for determining applicability of the retail exemption to the PSM standard. How long that reprieve lasts remains to be seen given OSHA’s apparent commitment to this issue, but one thing is clear — any future change to the retail exemption will afford stakeholders the opportunity to be heard through notice-and-comment procedures.

In the meantime, we will continue to monitor and keep you updated on this issue as it develops.

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

By James L. Curtis, Adam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

iStock_000011623330_MediumSeyfarth Synopsis: U.S. Chemical Safety Board offers recommendations and best practices for chemical facilities regarding emergency planning and response programs.

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (the “Board”) is an independent federal agency charged with investigating significant chemical accidents. According to the Board, inadequate or poor emergency planning or response is a recurring finding in the Board’s investigations of chemical accidents.  To date, 14 Board investigations have found deficiencies in a community’s, facility’s or emergency responder’s response to an incident at a chemical facility

The Board recently announced that emergency planning and response will be added to the Board’s existing “Most Wanted Safety Improvement” Program.  The Board’s also provided 46 recommendations aimed to address the deficiencies the Board found during its investigations.  The Board’s recommendations concentrate on the following areas:

  • Training for emergency responders, including hazardous materials training;
  • Local emergency planning, and community response plans and teams;
  • Use of community notification systems;
  • Use of an incident command system and the National Incident Management System;
  • Conducting emergency response exercises; and
  • Information sharing between facilities, emergency responders and the community.

Employers who operate chemical plants may wish to review and evaluate company emergency planning and response programs, policies, and training initiatives to assess for compliance with the Board’s recommendations. OSHA frequently looks to the Chemical Safety Board for guidance on appropriate areas for enforcement efforts.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.