Search results for: OSHA

Michael G. Murphy P.E. authored this update to a Jan. 31, 2020 Alert, which provided general information on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements and steps for employers to consider as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was just starting to appear in the United States, and before work shut down and shelter orders were in place. This Update provides additional information to be considered by employers of essential workers who are required to work. It will address the Federal OSHA standards that apply to workplace safety and recording requirements and the Cal-OSHA standard for Aerosol Transmissible Diseases, which is applicable to COVID-19.

Federal OSHA has three primary requirements that come into play for employers addressing the spread of the COVID-19 virus: (1) the general duty clause; (2) personal protective equipment; and (3) recording and reporting requirements.

Read the full GT Alert here.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced another increase in the maximum civil monetary penalties for violations of federal Occupational Safety and Health standards and regulations. The new monetary penalties will be nearly 2% higher than the current maximum penalty amounts.

Effective Jan. 15, 2020, the maximum penalty for “Willful” or “Repeated” violations is $134,937, a more than $2,000 increase from the 2019 maximum for the same kinds of violations. The maximum penalty for “Failure to Abate” violations is $13,494 per day after the abatement date. Finally, the maximum penalty allowed for “Serious,” “Other-Than-Serious,” and “Posting Requirements” violations is $13,494, an increase of over $200 from the 2019 maximum amounts. Importantly, states that operate their own Occupational Safety and Health plans are required to adopt maximum penalties levels that are at least as effective as federal OSHA’s.

Click here to read the full GT Alert.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced a final rule rescinding major amendments to the Clean Air Act §112(r) Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations that were promulgated at the end of the Obama Administration in 2017. The 2017 revisions were promulgated partially in response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer company in West Texas, which caused 15 fatalities and injured more than 260 people, and had yet to go fully into effect due to administrative and court challenges and because most of the compliance deadlines had not yet been triggered.

The provisions of the 2017 rule that have been rescinded include requirements:

  • To assess theoretically safer technology and alternative analysis of risk management measures targeting process hazards;
  • For third-party compliance audits after a reportable RMP accident; and
  • To perform root cause analyses after RMP accidents or near misses.

Click here for the full GT Alert, EPA’s Final Risk Management Program Reconsideration Rule More In-Step with OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standards.

On Oct. 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) launched a new Regional Emphasis Program (REP) to address hazards from exposure to fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) and agricultural anhydrous ammonia. The REP will be effective in the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is aimed at employers in the fertilizer storage, mixing/blending, and distribution industries whose workers can face hazards leading to serious illness, injury, and death from fire, explosions, and exposure to toxic gases and chemicals.

The REP was a result of a disaster at a facility several years ago in West, Texas, where at least forty tons of FGAN exploded and killed fifteen people, injured hundreds of others, destroyed the facility, and damaged other surrounding buildings.

Continue Reading.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to amend its existing exposure limits for occupational exposure in general industry to beryllium and beryllium compounds and to promulgate a substance-specific standard for general industry regulating occupational exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds. In a proposed rule published on Aug. 7, 2015, OSHA  proposes a new  permissible exposure limit (PEL). Comments must be submitted by Nov. 5, 2015.

The proposed rule would reduce exposure limits to one-tenth of the amount currently allowed. Currently, OSHA’s eight-hour permissible exposure limit for beryllium is 2.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air. OSHA’s proposed standard would reduce the eight-hour permissible exposure limit to 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter. The proposed rule contains several ancillary provisions, including requirements for exposure assessment, personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE), medical surveillance, medical removal, training, and regulated areas  or access control.

Continue Reading OSHA Significantly Reduces Exposure Limits to Beryllium and its Compounds

from Frank Citera of Greenberg Traurig Chicago 

OSHA is currently accepting comments on a proposed rule that would significantly tighten the exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica across all industry sectors to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air on a time-weighted average. If adopted, that change would reduce the exposure limit by roughly half for general industry and maritime, and by an even greater magnitude in various construction activities. OSHA also wants to issue regulations on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and recordkeeping among the mandates that it argues would greatly reduce silicosis and other risks

The proposed rule could have a significant impact on industry, particularly the construction industry.  On November 21, a group of Republican senators urged OSHA to extend the comment period for the  proposed rule and to convene a panel to assess the rule’s impact on small employers.

Additional detail concerning this proposal and its implications may be found in materials for a webinar in which I participated earlier this week.  Those who would like a copy are free to request one from me at citeraf@gtlaw.com.

Greenberg Traurig will host the first of a two-part Environmental, Health and Safety webinar series May 9, 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic, economic and logistical challenges, and a new administration have caused significant changes to the regulated community. Greenberg Traurig joins industry consultants, community advocates, and government regulators for two webinars to help those affected better understand and prepare for these challenges and changes.

Part One of the webinar series will feature the following presentations:

Proposed Amendments to EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) and OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) Rules: Identifying and managing worker safety and community risk – Where does the heartburn lie?

Panelists:

  • Mark Briggs, OSHA Area Director, Houston South Area Office
  • David Moore, President & CEO, AcuTech Consulting Group
  • Michael Taylor, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

Evaluating and addressing risks to EJ communities – Best practices for effective community engagement and risk management.

Panelists:

  • Martina Cartwright, Board Member, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services and Law Professor at Thurgood Marshall School of Law
  • Abre’ Conner, Director, Environmental and Climate Justice, NAACP
  • Bernadette M. Rappold, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

Click here to register.

URL

Continue Reading SiteLinksTest

As the novel coronavirus (Coronavirus) continues to spread in China and around the world, employers may want to consider steps to take in addressing the Coronavirus in the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently published a webpage that provides workers and employers with interim guidance and resources for preventing exposure to the Coronavirus. See the OSHA 2019 Novel Coronavirus webpage.

Because few cases have been reported in the United States, the first question employers should consider is whether they have a duty to take any measures to prevent or reduce the likelihood of employee exposure to the Coronavirus. That is, do their employees have any risk of exposure? Unfortunately for employers, the short answer is: It depends. (We recognize that non-lawyers despise this answer, but in this case, it’s true!) If an employer has no basis to believe that its employees are at risk of exposure to the Coronavirus, then the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act), does not impose any affirmative duties on an employer to engage in abatement or prevention efforts.

Read the full GT Alert.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to increase its enforcement role in industrial accidents, at times overshadowing the role traditionally played by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). EPA often takes tougher enforcement actions than OSHA and is more willing to bring criminal charges. This trend is reflected in a recent case affirming EPA’s authority to bring criminal charges for alleged violations of the General Duty Clause (GDC) of Section 112(r)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), U.S. v. Margiotta, No. CR 17-143-BLG-SPW-2, 2019 LEXIS 156994, 11 (D. MT. Sept. 13, 2019).

Click here to read the full GT Alert.