Mark your calendar for May 7, 2012;  the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) is changing the way contaminated sites in New Jersey are being remediated.  Starting on this date, if you are a remediating party in New Jersey, you will be required to hire a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) to work on your site.  The LSRP is a new type of environmental consultant that speeds up the clean up process.  You will no longer need pre-approval from the NJDEP to proceed with a remediation project. However, use of an LSRP will be required to remediate any site, regardless of when the cleanup was initiated.

The LSRP’s role in the LSRP program is to oversee the remediation of contaminated sites according to NJDEP’s applicable standards and regulations for responsible parties. LSRPs are subject to a strict code of conduct established by statute and regulation and must ensure that remediation of contaminated sites are performed in a protective manner of human health, safety and the environment. The conduct of LSRPs is overseen by the Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board. http://www.nj.gov/lsrpboard/

The LSRP will oversee the daily management of the remediation site while the NJDEP will still have authority on the overall process ensuring that high standards are being kept.  Milestone documents submitted by the LSRP will be reviewed by the NJDEP, including the Response Action Outcome (RAO) which is filed when remediation is complete.  LSRPs will not be required in the remediation of unregulated heating oil tanks (a subsurface evaluator can be used) and may not be needed when someone is conducting due diligence at a site.

Other regulations will apply to site remediation projects, such as RCRA and OSHA.  All employees working on these site need to be properly trained.

I have seen no less than 20 emails inviting me to webinars that will help me get my house in order for all the changes coming with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard this year.  From the tone of these emails, it would seem like the sky is falling! You know what?  The sky is not falling … although there is work to be done to implement the changes.

OSHA has a reasonable timeline for compliance and with planning, we can get through this with ease!  Here’s our take on the issue …

On first glance, the changes seem monumental …

• 90,000 workplaces = the number of sites that produce hazardous chemicals in the US.  HazCom 2012 requires these manufacturers to.

-       Modify the hazard classification for chemicals they produce

-       Create new labels to highlight these hazards

-       Draft and distribute revised Material Safety Data Sheets (now referred to as Safety Data Sheets)

• 43 million US workers = the number of workers in the 5 million facilities that will be notified of the new physical and health hazard classifications for the chemicals in their workplaces by new labels and Safety Data Sheets communicating these hazards.
• $201 million a year = the cost OSHA estimates to roll out HazCom 2012 for the entire United States. OSHA lists yearly program element costs as follows:

-       $22.5 million for chemical hazards classification based on the GHS criteria and revising safety data sheets and labels to meet new format and content requirements

• $24.1 million for printing packaging and labels for hazardous chemicals in color

-       $95.4 million for employee training about the new warning symbols and the revised safety data sheet format under GHS

-       $59 million a year for management to become familiar with the new GHS system and to engage in other management-related activities as may be necessary for industry’s adoption of GHS

Let’s look at the actual tasks each organization has to accomplish for compliance:

With a plan … these tasks are quite doable!

• Chemical Users: Continue to update safety data sheets when new ones become available, provide training on the new label elements and SDS format and update hazard communication programs if new hazards are identified.

• Chemical Producers: Review hazard information for all chemicals produced or imported, classify chemicals according to the new classification criteria, and update labels and safety data sheets.

OSHA’s HazCom 2012 Compliance Timeline …

On April 25, Emilcott will be presenting a HazCom 2012 Webinar for anyone interested. Our approach—let’s not try to alarm everyone, but let’s provide a basic understanding of the changes made to the standard and a simple plan of action for employers to meet the regulatory requirements within the specified time frames.  Would you like to join us?

Register here: OSHA HazCom 2012: A Simple Plan for Compliance

]]> http://ehswire.com/2012/04/hazcom2012_plan/feed/ 0 http://ehswire.com/2012/03/sleep_deprivation/ http://ehswire.com/2012/03/sleep_deprivation/#comments Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:07:47 +0000 admin http://ehswire.com/?p=2359 Click here to read full article]]> March 5-11, 2012 marked National Sleep Awareness Week, and all over the Internet, employers, bloggers, researchers, and other scientists have marked the occasion by bringing up studies performed by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (or NIOSH) regarding sleep deprivation, sleep and work schedules, and sleep loss.

At the heart of this research lies an examination of several different types of workers, including nurses, police officers, truck drivers, manufacturing laborers, and white collar workers. Of particular importance to these sleep loss and sleep deprivation studies are those who perform shift work and have night-time work schedules.

Of high interest is the effect of occupational stress and health of police officers studied in Buffalo, New York. Statistically important health issues include tiredness due to lack of quality sleep, especially among those officers who work night shifts, and who report less than six hours of sleep a night. In addition, risk of injury is greater to the night shift workers, because of these “unnatural” sleep and work schedules

There are several research studies that are either ongoing or have been completed regarding sleep deprivation in truck drivers, manufacturing workers, and even white collar workers. Large amounts of data collected (from long-haul truck drivers especially) show a wide array of sleep disorders, including sleep apnea, fatigue and the overall lowered safety expectations from drivers who do not get enough quality sleep.

Another group being studied is American nurses, especially pregnant female nurses. In collaboration with the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, results are showing that an increased number of adverse reproductive outcomes and menstrual cycle abnormalities can be attributed to shift work; especially those studied who work a night shift.

In relation to the sleep deprivation and sleep loss health issues such as fatigue, depression, headaches, malaise, and reproductive issues, the studies point out that work hours that are too long for good health can actually attribute to the decline of healthy white blood cells, which are the first line of defense against such devastating diseases as cancer and autoimmune disorders.

In an effort to stem the adverse health effects and potential safety issues inherent in shift workers and those who work too many hours, NIOSH scientists are seeking development and training programs for managers and workers in several different fields of employ, including those mentioned above. They hope to raise awareness of the problems, encourage healthy sleep habits, and foster a healthier management style that would see more reasonable hours for workers. The dissemination of this information is being brought about through workplace posters, websites, webinars, online training courses, and public service announcements.

Secretary of Labor Solis and Assistant Secretary Dr. Michaels provided a press release conference call this morning where they indicated that the new standard will reduce injuries to employees, reduce costs for employers and allow US manufacturers to be more competitive in a global market.

There were a few questions regarding combustible dust and unclassified hazards, which are now labeled as Hazards NOC (not otherwise classified).  Combustible dust will be classified as such and will not be placed in the Hazards NOC category.  A number of compliance dates were specified including employee training to be completed by December 1, 2013 and full compliance by June 2016.

OSHA launched its new website on HazCom 2012 today.  It provides guidance on compliance and frequently asked questions regarding the new standard.

Now that the final rule is released, look for an Emilcott Free Webinar, HazCom 2012 made Simple

by: H. Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP

Stronger standards aimed at reducing the number of Legionellosis (Legionnaires’ disease) cases are being brought about through the proposed American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 188, “Prevention of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems.” Hospitals and other medical facilities are advised to prepare for these changes to get a better grasp of potential problems before the standard is finalized.

According to the CDC, between 8,000 and 18,000 people are hospitalized every year with Legionnaire’s disease, which is fatal in 5-30% of cases. It’s a serious infection that can affect those with chronic lung conditions, smokers, or individuals with chronic immune system disorders or weaknesses.  It is hoped that these changes to ASHRAE’s Legionella standard will prevent thousands of cases every year.

The changes are comprehensive, and include several steps. From the proposed Standard:

• The facility is surveyed to determine its risk characterization, which determines what preventive measures are required under the standard.
• A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) team is formed by the building owner, the owner’s building management team or both. The team must include at least one person who understands the principles of HACCP and at least one person who understands the building water systems. Members of the HACCP team can be employees, suppliers, consultants or any combination thereof.
• The team identifies the end point uses of potable and utility water systems within the facility.
• The team creates at least two process flow diagrams—one for potable water and another for utility water—to describe how the water is processed and used in their facilities.
• An on-site inspection confirms that the flow diagrams are accurate.
• Using the flow diagrams, the team identifies control points in the process. Control points are any steps at which biological, chemical or physical factors can be controlled.
• The team then determines which control points should be designated as critical control points, which are steps in the process where it is essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard or prevent harm to a person.
• The team establishes critical control limits for each critical control point. These are the specified values for hazard control, such as the amount of chlorine needed or the temperature range needed to control the hazard of Legionella.
• The team creates monitoring procedures for each critical limit as well as a monitoring frequency.
• The team establishes corrective actions to take when deviations from critical limits are found.
• The team validates its selection of critical control points, critical limits and corrective actions.
• The team establishes verification procedures and record-keeping procedures as required by the standard.

The changes incorporate concepts found in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans, well-established to be effective in the food industry to prevent food-borne illnesses. The HACCP model was also chosen because of the inexpensive (and sometimes free) availability of the plans and the ease of implementation. While some have stated that the changes seem complex, the HACCP model is being incorporated to streamline the processes and standards.

The US EPA issued a draft guidance document on the subject in 2002 and 2003. ASTM International released the “Standard Practice for the Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions,” (ASTM E 2600-08).  NJ initially issued its Vapor Intrusion Guidance in October 2005.  This initial guidance document provided some direction but left many decisions of how to investigate, measure and monitor the impact of vapor intrusion to the investigator. Now, with the increased push for the rehabilitation of former industrial sites we now have more specific guidance.

The January 12, 2012 NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance Document is the first update since DEP’s initial document in 2005.  It is well overdue and hopefully worth the wait. Below is a summary of what the guidance document is intended to do.  How well that works will come to bare and may be addressed in future postings.

The document is designed to be a much more in-depth protocol to those professionals who evaluate and respond to evidence of volatile organic compounds migrating from subsurface soils into overlying buildings.  Its changes and intentions include:

• Necessary changes prompted by the NJ DEP Site Remediation Reform Act (SPRA)
• Specific guidelines on how to comply with the NJDEPs requirements for assessing a vapor intrusion pathway
• Recommended protocols for investigating a vapor intrusion pathway
• Recommendation on sampling, both subsoil and air quality
• A phased strategy for the process in general
• NJDEP regulatory timeframes triggered by specific concerns as they are identified
• Specific information on landfills and methane
• More in-depth information  and procedures for design, mitigation, post-mitigation and environmental monitoring

For more information, you may access the Guidance Document Here

The news is good!  With the submission period starting on February 1, 2012 – the eCDR tool is up and running … allow time for the CDX registration (you’ll need an authorized official and a primary support person set up for your company).   You can set up your sites NOW, and you’ll be all ready to start entering data whenever you desire!

At Emilcott, we’ve set up a couple of nifty (well, we think they are) spreadsheets to allow us to gather industrial processing/use and consumer and commercial use for Section 3 of the 2012 Form U.  These Excel spreadsheets can stand alone (don’t need to be accessed online).  We’ve designed the spreadsheets to match the terminology and options coded into eCDR – so that it is a snap to transfer the information directly to the eCDR.  We’ve got a demo set up – just click on the image below:

The EPA has posted quite a bit of new information about CDR reporting and the eCDR submission system – some the information is new with some clarification of issues responding to the multitude of questions coming in from potential Form U submitters. Even with all this information, it is a complex path – if you have any questions, please give me call at 973-538-1100 or drop me at note at pkaufmann@emilcott.com – at Emilcott we are fielding many questions from our clients, and just may have the information you need!  Here’s the new information up on the EPA’s website -

There is an entire section of the EPA’s “Pollution Prevention and Toxics Frequent Question Knowledge Base” dedicated to the CDR.  This information is presented in a couple of different formats … check it out by clicking below or at this link  “Answers to your questions about Chemical Data Reporting”

The “Instructions for the 2012 TSCA Chemical Data Reporting” (January 2012) has been revised.  Be sure to review this new guide as there have been some major changes in the document including an entirely new chapter on the CDX and eCDRweb.  The revision provides more detailed information about Joint Submissions … and with additional information about several more subtle issues.

The EPA has provided some additional byproducts and recycling scenarios which give us additional information on the 2012 CDR in the January 20, 2012 document  “2012 Chemical Data Reporting: Byproduct and Recycling Scenarios”. In addition, in the updated “Instructions” the EPA adds new example of based on spent solvents.  There is more information on recycling and when reporting is required as well.

Since the electronic submission system does require multiple steps and, a few leaps, the EPA has posted several documents to “guide the way”.  I still needed to call the eCDR hotline to get a few issues cleared up … and it can take 2-3 weeks for the EPA to process a “mailed in” signature of the Authorized Official.  Consider getting set up NOW on the CDX registration and the eCDR link (which is the CSPP registration) even if you are not prepared to begin to complete the Form U.

CSPP CDX Registration Guide– How to register for CDX and access the e-CDRweb reporting tool

E-CDRweb User Guides – How to use the CDR electronic reporting tool

• eCDRweb User Roles – Help to identify which user guide to read
• Primary Authorized Official
• Primary Support
• Secondary Support

All the EPA CDR training modules have been posted.  There are 7 modules with topics covering an overview of the IUR modifications and Chemical Data Reporting Final Rule; 2012 CDR reporting requirements with modules focused on joint submission and byproducts; and, of course, Form U completion and electronic reporting.

Have you been able to get through the CDX registration process, set up your reporting facilities, and accessed the eCDR for your sites?  Please let us know your take aways and lessons learned … let’s share your wisdom!

Compared with the air quality monitoring methods of even a few years ago, today’s air monitor system offers its users a quicker, more effective, and comprehensive way to assess potential environmental hazards.

2nd Ave Subway Construction Muck House – What emissions from here are impacting the Local Air Quality?

The recently published article, “MTA: 2nd Avenue Subway Construction Not a Danger to Your Health,” responds to a rise in complaints about possible environmental health hazards from the construction. In the article, MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu suggested the public faced no danger from the construction based on results from a fall 2011 Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) air monitoring study.

The PB study highlights important facts and issues about the project and makes useful points about air quality monitoring in general; however, PB used the same traditional dust and vapor monitors and methods that were used at the World Trade Center recovery site in 2001.

In the last decade and especially over the last few years, superior air monitoring technologies have been developed and used to help ensure that emission rates from major hazardous waste remediation operations in the New York metropolitan area are kept as low as possible. The use of innovative, more effective, and more cost-saving air monitoring equipment and methods would have provided data for the PB study that would better support MTA’s assertions.

Greenlight Map View of Integrated Air Monitoring Data

• Differentiate the sources of air contaminants so that those associated with the construction can be distinguished from those of other background sources

• Determine when emission levels from the construction/remediation activity begin rising

• Deliver immediate information to construction management so that they can make timely decisions to protect workers and the public

• Measure the efficacy of engineering controls and work practices in reducing emission rates, even when concentrations are below project or regulatory safe levels

Given the options, PB and the MTA would have found these and other meaningful enhancements in air monitoring equipment and techniques valuable to the 2nd Avenue Subway construction project.

I encourage you to learn more about state-of-the-art air monitoring equipment, including integrated systems that allow users to make evidence-based decisions to protect workers and the public.

Second Avenue Subway (SAS) Project – Air Quality Monitoring Study of Construction Activities between 69th and 87th Street on Second Avenue

You can view the rule at HERE

One of the changes is the inclusion of an “Unclassified Hazards” category; a definition is provided below.  The U.S. Chemical Safety Board recently released a statement supporting the Unclassified Hazard category to allow for inclusion of combustible dust hazards on safety data sheets and labeling.

“Unclassified hazard” means a chemical for which there is scientific evidence identified during the classification process that it may pose an adverse physical or health effect when present in a workplace under normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency, but the evidence does not currently meet the specified criteria for physical or health hazard classification in this section. This does not include adverse physical and health effects for which there is a hazard class addressed in this section.

It should also be noted that EPA began to make amendments in November of last year to regulations for the “Protection in the Workplace” (40 CFR 721.63) and “Hazard Communication Program” (40 CFR 721.72) components of the Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances regulations at 40 CFR 721 to align them with the GHS changes in the OSHA Hazard Communications Standard.

Want to stay informed? Emilcott publishes a timely email reminder, “EHS Regulatory Submissions”, 3x/year to keep our clients informed about upcoming deadlines. If you’d like to subscribe to that newsletter, just go to http://www.emilcott.com/subscribe.asp. If you need help with your Regulatory Submissions, contact Emilcott and ask for either an EHS or Hazardous Materials/Waste consultant.